Mike Griffith's Agendas Are Still Boring

I remember when I once thought that Mike Griffith was just an agenda-oriented blowhard who was more interested in pushing his own limited opinions than he was of doing any kind of reporting.

I still think that way, only now it has become even more evident that I am right.

On the News-Sentinels paid advertisement/radio show, Griffith has been in the past a brutal critic of coach Phil Fulmer. I've listened to many shows where Griffith has spent hours talking about how far Tennessee football has fallen.

Until now. Now, as Tennessee is in the midst of possibly its worst season ever, he is starting to play the role of "who are we going to get", by defending Fulmer every chance he gets. This is just weeks after Fulmer called him out during a press conference with the comment, "I don't see you at practice, Mike." Instead of taking Fulmer to task for his comments, Griffin has turned into a lap-dog for Fulmer, and it seems like he's done a 180 degree turn.

Maybe Coach Pearl told Mikey-boy that if he didn't start easing up on Mr. Fulmer, that basketball practice might be a little harder for him to cover in the future?

Is it because the Sentinel's competition at that hour, Tony Basilio is calling for Fulmer's job, and Griffith wants to be different?

More than likely though it's just little Griff trying to get cheap heat in the Knoxville market. He doesn't really have a belief or an opinion, he just picks the opposite side of what public sentiment is and plays it for all it's worth. At least writer John Adams had the balls to call for Fulmer's head, before the season ever started. One has to wonder, if the season was going different, if the team were 8-0 instead of 3-5, if he would be on the radio talking about how UT's season was just a fluke and that the program was still on the decline.

I think so.

Doc, Jeff, and Heather Discuss Hi-Fives

Three days before the Tennessee/Alabama game and the local yokels of Doc, Jeff, and Heather in the morning spent nearly an hour discussing where the hi-five originated.

Truly riveting.

Almost as riveting as their discussion the previous day about whether Eric Berry should play some offense for the Vols. The obvious answer to this question is yes, which is probably why none of the three thought so. Old man Deerstone/Dearstone/Dear Idiot, gave the argument that since UT already had Gerald Jones running the shotgun package that there was no real reason to use Berry.

Ignoring the fact that Jones is going to be out for two weeks, plus the fact that although Jones is a good player, Berry is a great one and could contend for the big trophy if he was given the chance to shine like Charles Woodson did for Michigan on both sides of the ball. Ignore those two little details and here's the big one: what are we risking? The team is 3-4 and the season has become the Nightmare before Christmas (about the time we'll be looking for a new coach). What have we got to lose at this point?

The three did not know that Woodson played on offense when he won the Heisman.

Why am I not surprised.