(02-11-2019 01:10 PM)HarborPointe Wrote: So if we can believe everything in that statement, SB Nation completely whiffed with “Bennett didn’t know.” I know the media moves a lot faster than higher education and sitting down with Hopson was a good move, but Bennett should’ve cleared that up sooner after that story broke instead of waiting until now. I still have no issue in principle with Bennett telling Hopson he could go ahead and talk to Briles but ultimately pulling the plug on it, HOWEVER, Bennett should’ve know it would be found out & make news in the meantime and either gotten in front of it with some kind of preemptive statement or had Hopson just delay bringing in Briles to campus until a decision was made.
Most likely, Bennett was completely on board until the heat cranked up and he did a 180, as has been the story on the street. That sucks, but it’s his prerogative. In the end, Bennett shouldn’t have been surprised by the reaction and Hopson shouldn’t have been surprised that it all went to hell. This was just a big, unnecessary mess because people in important positions of leadership/control lacked foresight.
Just another day in paradise.
Wouldn't necessarily say SBNation whiffed but their "multiple" sources whiffed. If you've got multiple, credible sources saying something, any news outlet is going to roll with that story.
I'm not inclined to believe that the sources lacked credibility or were "lying." They were just wrong. Big difference. The inherent problem with claiming that someone didn't know something is just that--there's not much evidence for a negative. The only credible way of knowing that would be a personal conversation with Bennett, who explicitly stated, "I did not know." Maybe that's what they claimed? Who knows?
Even if Hopson had, in fact, gone behind Bennett and Mitchell's backs, there's no way Bennett would have acknowledged that publicly. The thing here is that Bennett explicitly states that Hopson did talk to him. If Hopson had gone behind his back, there was no reason to lie there. He didn't have to say anything.
Unless a major piece of evidence came out (and I don't know how that would happen), that part of it seems to be settled.
That does not absolve Hopson (and his wife) of the nonsense on Twitter that occurred after. The tweet after the announcement that Briles was no longer a candidate threw gasoline on the fire.
Maybe the biggest question I have (and as you said): If they cared so much about public opinion, why bring him in for an interview to begin wtih? Did they really not see this coming? That's a serious lack of awareness from everyone involved.