If you caught our interview with former Clemson coach Tommy Bowden on WMBF News at 6 (and 11), you saw he avoided answering all questions regarding his past at Clemson or his future career. (If you missed it, you can see it and read about it here: Web Story)
I believe this reflects some still sore feelings over his departure. The reason I say that is that Bowden is a skilled, media-savvy (former) coach. If he wanted to, he could've Bill Belichick-ed away all the answers...i.e.
Q: Where is your career heading?
A: I'm enjoying the time with my family now and I'm in no rush to make a decision.
That's a good example of "saying something but saying nothing." Athletes and coaches do this all the time. It's annoying.
Instead, Coach Bowden elected to...simply...not answer the question. If he wanted to just throw out some coach-speak, that would be one thing and just tell me he wasn't interested in talking (understandable, who likes getting interviewed right after a flight?)...but flat-out refusal to answer? Sounds to me like there are still some hurt feelings...even if it doesn't sound like much.
"Exclusive interview?" "Avoided answering all questions?"
Gimme a break! This was an FCA event, for crying out loud! Apparently Bowden had been invited to speak at this event, WMBF got wind of it, and showed up to "interview" Bowden in what looked more like an ambush. How much prior contact, if any, was made before this "interview?" I am from the upstate (in fact, my former residence is 18 miles from Clemson.
As a Clemson fan and a lifelong Bobby Bowden fan, I have followed Coach Bowden's career with interest since he came to Clemson. Yes, he does have a fair amount of media savvy, which only made the "deer in the headlights" look he had in that interview stand out all the more clearly. My take on it was, he made it clear from the outset that if there were questions about FCA or his being there for that purpose, he would be glad to answer them. Clearly he had no wish to detract from the event or his purposes in being there, because even though it was, technically, "related" to the questions being asked (Fellowship of Christian ATHLETES), still it was not a sporting event, and he had every right to choose to limit questions to the event at hand.
Besides, since when is a choice not to answer questions, some kind of automatic indication one has something to hide? It could as easily be a respectful way of protecting one's personal space without doing the rude thing I might have done in similar circumstances, which would have been to tell them to get out of my face.
Do yourselves a favor and leave non-stories like this one alone, and stick to reporting the news.
Posted by: Wayne Major | February 11, 2009 at 07:19 AM