I don’t read Forde as being a USC hater. I am also one of the few board commenters who doesn’t go into a lather every time I read something that says that USC’s s4!t stinks. Sometimes it does.

After all, nothing Forde wrote isn’t true.

No, Forde doesn’t have an agenda? Because he is critical of Floyd and the program? Yes, Bix, everyone who is critical of Floyd has an agenda. I mean, why would anyone criticize Tim Floyd?

Let’s see, the team, with one week off, heads to UCLA and gets absolutely whipped and plays with no passion (kind of like Karl Dorrell teams visiting the Coliseum) loses on the road to Arizona, plays ASU tough but a bad call at the end causes Floyd to flip, and puts points on the board for ASU, making sure that USC cannot, in any way come back. Team then almost blows it against WSU, then news comes out that USC and Floyd will be featured in a show on package deal recruiting, which, of course, only proves ESPN’s agenda against USC because everyone knows that Floyd’s recruiting is above reproach (cough — Percy Miller — cough). Yep, ESPN has an agenda, even thought ESPN regularly pumps up USC football (2005: The Greatest Team of All Time; Herbie and Corso after the Rose Bowls regularly proclaiming USC the best team in the country). Quite an agenda.

Next game vs. Washington, the team does not play together, Hackett and Lewis fight, Lewis and Washington throw obscene gestures to each other, SC loses, the locker room is closed. A few days later, after massive negative press, the team comes out with a Kumbaya moment. Plays tough, but is not able to shake Cal, a team, that, by the way, lost two starters to the NBA, returned only two starters, had no five star recruits coming in, but is winning because they hired a coach who can adjust his offense to the talent. Hmmmm, adjusting the offense to the talent. How interesting!

Yeah, now that I think of it, can’t see why Forde would write anything negative about Floyd unless he has an agenda!

1.) I will give you that Forde, and many sports writers, are not OJ Mayo fans. That’s been true for years. Floyd took OJ, and has to live with the good and the bad. The “zero NCAA tounrament wins” is more of a crack at Floyd than Mayo.

I never thought Mayo was a good college player (and I’ve said he’ll be a better pro than college player because of the different nature of the pro and college game) but I’ve never ragged on Floyd for the Mayo investigation. With BBall elite players and the NBA one-year-out-of-high-school-rule, the Rodney Guillory’s tolerated every so often. The test is whether the Rodney Guillorys become regular features in the program, or an occasional irritation.

Forde has also gone easy in that he rarely mentions Davon Jefferson or Percy Miller. IMHO, those are two of Floyd’s bigger sins.

2.) No of what Forde rights does not mean that that Forde necessarily has an agenda against Floyd. If you can point me to an article Forde wrote about Floyd when he was hired, and during his first two years, that is overwhelming negative, please do. But the facts have not been pretty the past two years.

3.) Where do I say that the BBall program should be like the football program? However, there is no reason why the BBall program, with the brand new Galen Cneter and being in the middle of one of the top five recruting grounds in the country, can’t be a consistent Top 25 team. It is not.

4.) I did not say that Forde’s article is the “Truth”. I said that nothing he wrote about that can be determined as fact (as in an event that happened) is not true. There is a distinction between what is true and the “Truth”. If you are still confused, then I suggest you read Plato’s Gorgias.

What Sidney does is speculation, but Forde seems only to be channeling the conventional wisdom that Sidney, if he even qualifies, is a one-and-done.

The comment about Rudy Hackett having a prominent seat in the USC bench: just about every coach in the Pac-10 has mentioned this (off the record, of course) at one time or another. Even Wolf did (during Daniel’s first year). It does raise eyebrows.

Sensationalism is in the eye of the beholder. I ask the same question of you as I do of Paragon (see my recent reply to his comment “Not at all …”).

5.) You really do not want to threaten me.

1.) "the Rodney Guillory’s tolerated every so often: should be "the Rodney Guillory’s have to be tolerated every so often.

2,) “No of what Forde rights” should be “None of what Forde writes”

3.) “recruiting”, not “recruting”

4.) “on” the USC bench, not “in”