Bob Condotta and the Seattle Times' Angle
Ever since the infamous "Victory and Ruins" series that the Seattle Times published back in 2008, I have wholeheartedly shared the belief with many of my fellow loyal Husky fans that the newspaper has an alternate agenda. After a series like that, how could you not? I believe that their agenda is to diminish/destroy UW's past football successes, accentuate our relatively recent mediocre to bad seasons, and undermine current improvements/achievements to the UW football program. And I believe @ the heart of this agenda lies one Mr. Bob Condotta.
First off, let me say that I do feel Bob is fairly good @ what he does. There is always a steady stream of information about all things UW football and he does a solid job of keeping us informed. But c'mon, the guy is a Wazzu graduate! Could you imagine The Tuscaloosa News hiring an Auburn graduate to cover Alabama football?! No, me neither, because it would absolutely never happen. Bob is a master of being the Devil's Advocate and underscoring any/every UW achievement. What ever happened to guys like Blaine Newham, who gave it to us straight, without any angles? I have called Condotta on this in the past and he categorically denies that he is biased in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, he has implied that it is rather idiotic that myself, or anyone for that matter, would think he would be biased because of being a Cougar. Hmm. I don't believe him, primarily due to his comments, articles and overall tone: When a UW player receives an award, he is usually the last to report it on the blog; when UW has a big win, it's because the other team didn't perform well... he once argued with me on a chat that Beaver fans travel as well as Husky fans! Sure, Pal. Whatever you say.
For awhile, I could handle Condotta's smarmy, condescending tone. But lately, I just can't deal with reading his articles, chats, etc. He is so obviously biased to me, it's nauseating. It really came to a head after the AC disaster when he interviewed Sark. If you go back and watch the clip, Condotta was audibly so obviously excited that his Cougs had just pulled off the upset, that he was a blabbering moron, and could barely intelligibly ask the questions he was posing to Sark. And in the aftermath, Condotta has repeatedly brought up the AC with UW coaches, players, on the Husky Football Blog, etc., essentially rubbing it in our noses. I'm fucking over it.
But I have some questions for y'all that I hope will glean some information on this topic for me:
1) What is your opinion of my theory? Am I paranoid, delusional, all of the above?
2) Did something happen between the UW and Seattle Times that created bad blood?
3) Do you feel this agenda is negatively affecting the UW Football Program as a whole and making it more difficult for us to returning to the elite?
4) Do you think Bob realizes/recognizes his biases and just denies it because he knows the Seattle Times has his back or is it more of a subconscious deal?
5) Why couldn't ESPN have made our lives easier and hired Condotta instead of Ted Miller?