The swirl of speculation about the possible successor to Notre Dame football coach Charlie Weis is building a case for Cincinnati Bearcats coach Brian Kelly, whose team was undefeated during the regular season. But there's reportedly resistance to the idea in some quarters because Kelly and his wife Paqui are "pro-choice". If so, does it mean that the same litmus test would apply to the players? You'd have to think it would only be fair.
UPDATE: Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Hayes writes that the Kelly controversy is "lighting up the message boards of what might be the most plugged-in fan base in the nation." Observes Hayes, who says the issue could be a "deal breaker":
"When you talk about a football coach being pro-choice, it usually means he reserves the right to punt or go for it on fourth down. In Notre Dame's case, it takes on a different meaning, which tells you how impossible athletic director Jack Swarbrick's mission has become."
The flap recalls the time a former great ND coach, Frank Leahy, was advised by a priest about a coaching decision. Leahy calmly reminded the priest that the latter deals with spiritual matters, but it's the coach's sole mission to run the football team.
Moral: Re the pro-choice issue over Kelly, as ye sow so shall ye reap.
When you
Posts
2 comments:
If this is true than ND should be sentenced to a life of 4th and long in hell.
It is easier for a sinner to pass through into the Kingdom of Heaven than it is for Notre Dame to pass into the Navy end zone.
Hmmm. I wonder if he was pro slavery if it would have any impact. Doesn't seem like that should matter either. Although racist comments result in firings in professional sports, what does that matter either?
Post a Comment