Omaha Article

[Uncle Rico]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100108/BLUEJAYS/701099883/-1/bluejays

[WuDrWu]

Interesting.

I went to factcheckdouchebag.org and came up with this:

Adding to Saturday’s drama is that the outcome of the teams’ last meeting should add a few degrees of passion to an already intense rivalry.

Wrong. It is not a rivalry. We've been told that for years.

Many folks in Shocker Nation came away feeling their team was robbed. They blame a slow clock operator for giving Woodfox a tick or two more than the 1.9 seconds he should have had to catch an inbounds pass and get off the winning shot.

Television replays proved otherwise.......

Lol.....keep on living the dream Steven. Television replays proved exactly that. Creighton lost.

Harriman said. “Any team would. If that had happened to us, you know how we’d be.

“Coach would be so gung-ho about this game.

Factcheckdouchebag.org says false on this one. Post-pornstache, Diana has not achieved Gung-ho status, ever.

His players, though, are aware that the Shockers won’t hesitate to pour it on if they can get things going their way.

This statement is yet to be determined. Fcd.org had a hard time seeing into the mind of the team. The fans however............know its not a rivalry. Its just another game in the Valley. An important game to hold serve at home, and that's it.

:wsu_posters: :goshocks: :posterwu: :posterwsu:

[wsu789]

Interesting that the Omaha writer chose not to use Harriman's quote about stealing it from WSU in this article. Sullentrop used that quote in his story. Omaha only used part of the quote. Typical media bias.

[Steeleshocker]

It's not "media bias". The guy is the Omaha beat writer, for crying out loud. He's not going to start writing that WSU should have won the game. He's writing for his audience, Paul is writing for his. If I were the Omaha beat writer, I'd be doing the exact same article. It's impossible to ignore the extra motivation we will have in this game, so he has to address it, but he's going to side with the CU fanbase, not us.

[ShockCity]

It's not "media bias". The guy is the Omaha beat writer, for crying out loud. He's not going to start writing that WSU should have won the game. He's writing for his audience, Paul is writing for his. If I were the Omaha beat writer, I'd be doing the exact same article. It's impossible to ignore the extra motivation we will have in this game, so he has to address it, but he's going to side with the CU fanbase, not us.

The beatwriters job is to cover the team and report the facts about games and the happenings around the team, not to "side" with any team.

[wsu789]

Steele: No doubt you are correct and no doubt what you described IS media bias.

[ShockerFever]

Interesting that the Omaha writer chose not to use Harriman's quote about stealing it from WSU in this article. Sullentrop used that quote in his story. Omaha only used part of the quote. Typical media bias.

Don't wanna piss off the sCUmmies!

[shockball]

Shockers quickly unplug bluejays.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100109/BLUEJAYS/701099823

Shockers defense handles cu.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100109/BLUEJAYS/701099789

I really like the Omaha World Herald. :yahoo:

[ShockTalk]

Omaha World-Herald:

"What the Bluejays didn't anticipate was that the Shockers would land the knockout punch in the first 3½ minutes.

That's how long it took Wichita State to build its first 10-point lead. Creighton closed its deficit to single digits just four times in the remaining 36½ minutes of a 70-58 loss that was even more one-sided than the final margin. "

Actually, five times. However, four of those times were in the following 4 1/2 minutes after the first 3 1/2. The other at the beginning of the second half.

We didn't play our best (under statement), but we never allowed sCUm to put a run on us.

:wsu_posters:

[Veritas]

Pretty objective viewpoints from OMA's Steven Pivovar on their Bluejay Talk Live (Replay).

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100109/BLUEJAYS/100109693/0/bluejays

[Steeleshocker]

You guys are idealists if you think Paul doesn't "side" with us. On something controversial, there's room to pick a side without being burned. No "facts" were ever brought to light in an official manner. We had some guys on this board do excellent work at analyzing the situation, but none of that is in an official capacity.

But I digress, great win yesterday, it was very enjoyable for our group of four. :goshocks:

[wsu789]

I'm certain that most beat writers, including Paul S, can fall victim to the same sort of thing. And it probably is idealistic to think anything otherwise will occur. My point was simply that the Omaha beat writer ignored a quote that Paul used. I thought that was interesting.

Agreed on the win!