Deion Sanders is entering his second season as the Colorado Buffaloes’ football head coach, and his run there so far has led to a lot of media criticism. Some of that’s been about Sanders acting in ways not typically seen in high-level college football, from massive year-to-year cuts of players and replacements from the transfer portal to social media fights with athletes. Some of it’s been about the Buffaloes’ record, with them collapsing after a 3-1 start last season to finish 4-8. And lately, Sanders has been under fire for his dealings with one particular media member.
That would be Denver Post columnist Sean Keeler. Keeler has had quite the run of columns blasting Sanders in strong terms, with one particular one in February leading with “Deion Sanders is a false prophet, the Bruce Lee of B.S., Harold Hill in designer shades.” He’s also taken some fire from Sanders and from other media members for press conference interactions, with Sanders particularly questioning Keeler’s motives in a “ You don’t like us, man ” discussion earlier this month.
On Friday, the Post relayed that the Colorado athletics department had informed them Sanders and anyone else from the football program would no longer take questions from Keeler, citing “ a series of sustained, personal attacks ,” with particular references to the aforementioned lines but also “Deposition Deion,” “Planet Prime,” the “Deion Kool-Aid,” and “circus.” (However, the Buffaloes didn’t revoke Keeler’s credentials to attend games or practices, a notable change from some of how this has played out before at other schools .)
This sparked a furor of critical media pieces blasting Sanders. Those included Jim Trotter of The Athletic calling Sanders’ move “ bully tactics ,” Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk writing that Sanders has tried to build “ a personality cult, not a football program ,” and many more. And Sanders then sort of addressed the furor in a press conference Saturday when Mark Kiszla of The Denver Gazette asked a few questions about criticism:
Here are some of Sanders’ key quotes there, via Kiszla’s column on this :
“I’ve never read an article or comment that … I’m going to go hard because of it,” coach Sanders said Saturday. “It doesn’t propel me. Where I come from propels me. How I grew up propels me. Being an African-American, one of the few that’s a head coach in college football, that kind of stuff propels me.”
…“You’re taking the approach I’m going to be negative. I’m not negative to anybody (in the media). I will challenge you and ask why or where this is coming from,” said Sanders, dismissing any suggestion he might hold a grudge. “I’m not built like that. I’m not built to hate. I’m not a hateful guy. I come with love … I don’t come with the bull junk. I come with the peace and the joy.”
Kiszla discussed this a little further on Twitter/X Sunday, saying he appreciated Sanders taking his questions, but offering criticism for both Sanders and Keeler around the ban:
The “two weeks ago” there is a good point, referring to the aforementioned “ You don’t like us, man ” discussion between Sanders and Keeler. And it’s context many are missing in coverage of this as a straight media ban. Here’s video of that exchange:
That included Sanders asking “Why do you do this? Like, you know you don’t. Like, why do you do this? It would be hard for me to really engage in someone I don’t like or someone I don’t like. I’m just asking why? Like why? What did I do?” and not really getting an answer. And Kiszla has a point that a different approach from Keeler there and an attempt to explain the comments he’s made on Sanders might have avoided the eventual decision to revoke his question permissions.
However, as Trotter noted , there is past context to lashing out at media from Sanders’ side too. That includes him dumping ice buckets on Tim McCarver in the Braves’ clubhouse back when he was a player to his walking out of a Jackson State press conference after a reporter didn’t call him “Coach” to his ban of a Jackson Clarion-Ledger reporter from covering the team at SWAC Media Day after the reporter wrote about a player’s domestic violence charges to his refusal to take questions from a reporter for the local CBS affiliate this month over some still-not-fully-explained thing someone at CBS did at some point. (Sanders did patch things up with that reporter later.)
There are plenty of possible perspectives on the whole Sanders-Keeler drama. Those start with thoughts on if lines like “false prophet” and “the Bruce Lee of B.S.” are acceptable professional journalism coverage or not. The Post and Keeler clearly think so, with the paper printing that column and his other columns with such strongly-worded criticisms of Sanders, and they have supporters for that position. But others would disagree and see some of what Keeler has done as crossing professional lines.
Beyond that, there’s discussion of if access to a program (and specifically question access in this case, as that’s all that’s been revoked, unlike some other bans) should ever be revoked based solely on questions and coverage. Some would argue that access should be a right and that removing access based on coverage could leave only sycophantic coverage. But others would argue for access as a privilege that can be lost through a lack of professionalism. And others still would say a coach can choose to talk or not to anyone he wants to (which makes the whole reported “mutually-agreed media” provision in Sanders’ contract interesting).
That last part in particular is notable, and brings up a related debate around athletes who choose not to speak to media . Not showing up at all is generally met with a fine, but Marshawn Lynch-style non-answers have sometimes been seen as acceptable ; you can’t really mandate athletes opening up to media, only that media should have the chance to talk with them. But should coaches be held to a higher standard of media engagement given their leadership role? The answer there has often been “ Yes ” from leagues , but Sanders isn’t the first coach to single out a particular reporter, and that hasn’t always been punished.
When it comes to this exchange Sanders had with Kiszla Saturday, too, there are plenty of ways to see it. Some are certainly going to view this as a reasonable explanation from Sanders of his point of view, and as a distinction that he isn’t against all critical coverage, just what he saw as over-the-top personal criticism. Others are going to see Sanders’ “I’m not negative to anybody” and “I’m not built to hate” lines as hypocritical given his ban of questions from Keeler, and are going to continue to view that as soft behavior from a head coach.
At any rate, it will be interesting to watch where things go with Colorado media coverage in the weeks ahead. Regardless of where one stands on the Sanders-Keeler fight and the many dimensions around it, this has focused yet a further spotlight on the Buffaloes and their head coach. And we’ll see what that leads to. But it’s certainly notable to get further commentary from Sanders here in response to Kiszla’s questions, and further discussion from him of why he banned Keeler’s questions.
[ The Denver Gazette ]
The post Amidst refusal to talk to columnist who dubbed him ‘the Bruce Lee of B.S.’, Deion Sanders says ‘I’m not built to hate’ appeared first on Awful Announcing .
Local News
