Missing the Point
Reading the recap of the Kentucky-Notre Dame game on ESPN, I came upon the following:
Asked about how he feels about all the judgment he's facing after posing a 40-27 record in two seasons at Kentucky, [Kentucky coach Billy] Gillispie said: "There's only one judgment I'll ever be concerned about, and I hope I pass that judgment. That's the only one I'll ever be concerned about, and I'm really proud that that's the only judgment that will ever have a real effect on me, and I hope I pass that one with flying colors."
Gillispie declined to answer when asked whose judgment he was referring to, saying it was obvious, apparently referring to Kentucky athletic director Mitch Barnhart.
Really? A basketball coach, in Kentucky, in the already heavily evangelical Christian sports world, says there's only one Judgment (I'll capitalize for clarity) he will ever be concerned about, and the unnamed author of this piece thinks he's talking about the athletic director? I'm all for increased secularism, but I'm also for having a clue.
(As an aside, really, that last phrase is utterly superfluous and out of place in this piece, whether the author had made the correct inference or not, but that's an entirely separate issue.)
Asked about how he feels about all the judgment he's facing after posing a 40-27 record in two seasons at Kentucky, [Kentucky coach Billy] Gillispie said: "There's only one judgment I'll ever be concerned about, and I hope I pass that judgment. That's the only one I'll ever be concerned about, and I'm really proud that that's the only judgment that will ever have a real effect on me, and I hope I pass that one with flying colors."
Gillispie declined to answer when asked whose judgment he was referring to, saying it was obvious, apparently referring to Kentucky athletic director Mitch Barnhart.
Really? A basketball coach, in Kentucky, in the already heavily evangelical Christian sports world, says there's only one Judgment (I'll capitalize for clarity) he will ever be concerned about, and the unnamed author of this piece thinks he's talking about the athletic director? I'm all for increased secularism, but I'm also for having a clue.
(As an aside, really, that last phrase is utterly superfluous and out of place in this piece, whether the author had made the correct inference or not, but that's an entirely separate issue.)