Norm writes RE Tiki Barber and Mike Francesa:
I missed the interview but from what it sounds like, Mike was just being classic Mike— a bully who delights in ‘asking the tough questions’ from weak people on the downside…you won’t see Mike interrogating someone who just won something or who have their lives in order…then Mike reverts to obsequious, fawning Mike.
You can hear the interview here.
Francesa was being very hard on Tiki. I’m not sure why.
A large amount of the Francesa-vitriol seems jealousy-related; part of it is agenda-driven; the rest comes from people like you and me who don’t tolerate the hypocrisy of savaging people until they’re on the show when he’s nothing but complimentary.
In a different category are the people he’s truly going after like Tiki Barber. If you remember the interviews with Rich Kotite, they were in fact worse than what he did to Tiki.
On the opposite end were the love-fests with Bill Parcells.
Because Parcells was a Francesa friend and ally.
One thing that I have to ask of Tiki is why he’s going on this public relations blitz in the first place. It’s as if Tiki’s ego is such that he can’t take the negative press about his personal life, departure from the Today Show and questionable decision to try to return to the NFL.
He doesn’t have to defend himself for coming back to football for whatever reason—financial or the difficult to believe “he still loves football” bit put forth by his agent.
What’s the point of turning himself into a media circus?
Tiki didn’t deserve to be browbeaten that way, but in a way it was his own fault for being so forthright with his story.
Totally agree. What was he thinking? Goes to show that it’s not just young and dumb NBA superstars (*ahem, LeBron*) making completely stupid choices regarding their careers. Who would’ve said, “Yeah, that’s a good idea, Jim.”? Seriously.
Much like Tiki, I have to see how Riggleman’s spinning the details to save his reputation. Apparently Riggleman’s trying to frame it as a matter of “principle” that he wanted the contract settled.
But what about the “principle” of living up to the contract he signed? Isn’t there a “principle” involved in that? Or is it a matter of convenience as he threw a tantrum after not getting his way?
He signed the contract to manage the Nationals because no one else was going to hire him.
The circumstances are similar now except now no one is going to hire him—period.