Finebaum Fan Guestbook


Paul Finebaum ShowCan’t get through to Paul?

Leave your thoughts, comments, links, and pictures here!
Maybe Paul will get around to reading them.
Then, again, maybe he won’t.
Either way, we’ll enjoy them!

Oh yeah, TRY to keep it clean. This guestbook is moderated.

Click Below

Add Your Comments

Fields marked with * are required.
Your E-mail address won't be published.
For security reasons we save the IP address
It's possible that your entry will only be visible in the guestbook after we reviewed it.
We reserve the right to edit, delete, or not publish entries.
641 entries.
Tony Tony from Sebring, FL wrote on 2017/11/30 at 2:54 PM:
You and you're callers attacking Tennessee over their insistence of a better coach and wanting the AD fired is offbase. I realize you are an Alabama homer but just keep you're idiotic statements to yourself along with those imbeciles at OSU
Lou Mahaffey Lou Mahaffey from Fayetteville wrote on 2017/11/30 at 1:59 PM:
Schiano v. McQeary: Please do not "Paterno" Schiano

Paul and Laura, please see my notes regarding the below section on the Sandusky case and what this means concerning McQueary's hearsay evidence against Schiano:


Paul,and Laura, please know that without the testimony of Mike McQueary, without his stepping forward, there is NO Sandusky case. See the following from the Attorney General Report:

"D. Phase Four: McQueary Tip (November 2010) through the Filing of Charges (November 2011)
On November 3, 2010, Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller received the following email: Ms Miller, I am contacting you regarding the Jerry Sandusky investigation. If you have not yet done so, you need to contact and interview Penn State football assistant coach Mike McQueary. He may have witnessed something involving Jerry Sandusky and a child that would be pertinent to the investigation. Signed, A Concerned Citizen
The document continues,

"After Miller forwarded the email to Tpr. Rossman the next day, Rossman and Agent Sassano reached out to McQueary, meeting with him on November 10 and interviewing him on November 22 at the office of his attorney.

Paul and Laura, these same documents also state, explicitly, that the Sandusky investigation was completely stalled at this point before the "McQeary Tip". Here is what is important about Schiano vs McQueary- The Sandusky prosecutors filed subpoenas for Penn State officials based on McQueary's testimony. This is critical. The prosecutors went after the Penn State officials based on their belief in McQueary's testimony, and McQueary's testimony was proven to be extremely reliable. Further, concerning hearsay as evidence, the Sandusky hearings allowed hearsay evidence as seen in the janitor who witnessed Sandusky raping a child. This janitor, "Jim" could not testify. Another person whom Jim spoke to was allowed to testify since "excitable hearsay evidence" was allowed under Pennsylvania law. Thus, under Pennsylvania law, McCreary's hearsay testimony against Schiano would seem to be accepted since Bradley's testimony to McCreary about Schiano would certainly seem to fall into "excitable third party hearsay evidence"
For anyone to completely discount McQueary's hearsay evidence about Bradley's testimony concerning Schiano demonstrates, in my opinion, a lack of knowledge in the context of this case. Again, the Sandusky prosecutors filed subpoenas on the Penn State officials based ONLY on the credibility of McQueary.

How do the media gatekeepers who seem hell bent on defending Schiano do so without condemning McQueary? It cannot be done, thus McQueary is actually the one who is being defamed, not Schiano.

Concerning Schiano, McQueary is only testifying to what he heard Bradley say. Therefore, based on McQueary being proven as having extremely credible testimony, a rational person should not question what McQueary said he was told by Bradley about Schiano. The question is whether Bradley told the truth about what he said about Schiano. Neither Bradley nor Schiano will say anything. And here's the deal- they can't say anything, obviously, because litigation is ongoing.
Paul, you have a background in legal matters. Do Schiano's comments about the Sandusky case not smell like "lawyer speak" to you? Schiano cannot say anything in his defense, and who put him in this position? No one but Greg Schiano. So we should give Schiano the benefit of the doubt? Fine.

I have been diagnosed through deep brain neurological imaging with Developmental Trauma. If you do not know what that is you may look it up or ask your wife, whom I understand specializes in internal medicine. My guess is she can explain it after a quick read. Let me say that I can relate easily to the victims of Sandusky. I have tried hard to give Schiano the benefit of the doubt. Was he so focused on football while at Penn State he noticed nothing about Sandusky, heard nothing, not even a rumour? Nothing? Nothing at all?

It would seem after Schiano's failed attempt to coach at Tampa Bay that he underwent some kind of "come to Jesus" meeting with himself and tried to become less of an authority-driven coach. Good for him. Seriously, good for him. I do not wish to condemn, but to persuade. Schiano himself said he knew he had to change. So the guy can feel regret. He is not a sociopath. Then I would expect Schiano to say that if he did not know anything at Penn State, that at a bare minimum he should say that he should have known at least something, and to have regret for some kind of obsessive compulsive focus that caused him to put his coaching duties at Penn State, in my opinion, above God, Country and reality. And yet, to repeat, Schiano can say nothing about the case. He put himself in this situation.

Urban Meyer gave Schiano a chance. Kudos to Coach Meyer. However, Schiano has had years to get ahead of this story, even before the lawsuit between Penn State and their liability insurance company. My belief is Schiano chose to hope the story would go away.

If our society has learned nothing else, based on the explosion of recent allegations of sexual misconduct and the massive number of firings, it is that the past can haunt. This blowup concerning Tennessee fans rests on Schiano for failing to get ahead of his own story.

What is disturbing to me is how so many media gatekeepers have taken up the cause to condemn social media and defend Schiano and to do so with what appears to be gross ignorance on their part concerning the context of Schiano and the Sandusky case. One person on your show said the actions of Tennessee fans were "immoral". Immoral! Booger McFarland, whom I respect and admire, showed venom against the Tennessee fans and their response about Schiano. You yourself Paul, seem to be disgusted at the evils of "social media".

Let me be clear, if we had "social media" back when Sandusky was hunting children who were easy prey, Sandusky would have been stopped much sooner because the path to spreading information would have been much more transparent.

Paul, what allowed Sandusky to prey on children so many years? The gatekeepers who refused to seriously consider that a Penn State icon could be guilty of such a heinous crime. The official gatekeepers at Penn State, and the media gatekeepers covering Penn State, are the ones who protected Sandusky. And what are media gatekeepers doing today? Who is it that is, in effect, refusing to consider whether Schiano should have at least known something, heard something, guessed anything, in a case that in the end has had to monetize the rape and molestation of children with Penn State making payments to victims?

Paul, do you know the timeline of the first time Paterno received testimony from a mother that Sandusky was molesting her child? 1978! In the ensuing years, we all now know, the testimony only grew. Penn State Football had a culture, an embedded culture, we also now know, of "see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil" against Penn State Football. How do we know this? Because McQueary did the right thing and stepped up. And Schiano had "no reason" to suspect? He had "no idea" anything was going on? No idea, right? No freaking idea at all? So I suppose he heard the stories and dismissed the stories as rumors. And we know this is what he did because of the massive evidence we have today of Schiano being a bright beacon of humility and truth? We have abundant evidence of the credibility of McCreary, none concerning Schiano, and yet Schiano is defended carte blanche, defended freely with zeal when there is no evidence to support those who so defend him. This is not a question of "defaming" a person who deserves to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. This is a question of why a person has put themselves into a position where they are creating an atmosphere where no evidence can be discovered that might harm that person. The question of Schiano is that he refuses to allow evidence to come out. Schiano has to right to not incriminate himself? Now we are talking! And this is a rational basis of media gatekeepers defending Schiano. But this is not what is happening.

I am amazed at how freely media gatekeepers are willing to defend Schiano's innocence and condemn McQueary, when there is abundant evidence on the credibility of McQueary. Indeed, the pattern is such that to even question Schiano to some media gatekeepers seems to be verbotten. How to "Paterno" as a media gatekeeper: Course Number 101.

Is there no evidence that Schiano perhaps suffered from hero worship, for example, of the Patriot's head coach? And if this testimony is true that it is reasonable to believe Schiano also had hero worship for Joe Paterno? Or are today's media gatekeepers willing to argue that Greg Schiano never, ever, heard a single creepy rumour about Sandusky? But that is not the real problem.

The real problem is that many media gatekeepers have created a self-protecting narrative to protect themselves as the holy police of sport's narratives, thus ensuring that they "Paterno" Schiano. No negative evidence against Schiano is allowed, because to do so will apparently open the floodgates of social media hell.

Riddle me this, Finebaum, are we allowed to question Schiano? I assume you will answer yes. Praytell, have I missed your questioning of Schiano? Or has your narrative been that only the hellish demons of social media should be placed in the dock? No self-interest going on there, right? I am being harsh, but I know, sir, you can handle it, and indeed, I believe you welcome it.

Notice, please, Schiano has placed himself into a position where he has to argue he heard nothing that caused him to have "reason", logical reason, to suspect Sandusky (lawyer speak) and yet Schiano also heard nothing that gave him any "idea" of any misconduct. Paul, why do you allow Schiano to have his cake and eat it too, all the while you condemn McQueary in your refusal to seriously question Schiano? You should not "Paterno" Schiano.

Can "social media" be wrong, badly wrong? Absolutely! But, Paul, what about the media gatekeepers? No onus on the media gatekeepers to open up a few legal documents that are readily available in order to at least not be grossly ignorant of the context of this case? I only wish Schiano would say, at the very least, he should have known something. Is that fair enough?

For him to have placed himself in a position where he refused to get ahead of his own story is no one's fault but Schiano's. For media gatekeepers to a priori assume that "social media" is wrong is proving that this is not their finest hour.

Paul, I have long been a fan of persons such as yourself, Booger McFarland, and others whom I believe you have personally mentored, and tomorrow I will still be a fan, but today, I am sorry, but I am not a fan. In any case involving child molestation and child rape, it behooves the rational individual to tread softly. Instead, I hear venom from the media gatekeepers on your show. Venom! Paul, let them speak, but stand up and stop the venom, please. Stop them from only embarrassing themselves because as the case between Penn State and their insurance liability company demonstrates this case is ongoing. Meaning, the past can haunt, and this includes the venom being expressed by gatekeepers on your show and you allowing them to get away with their venom. Not good, sir. Speaking from experience, these waters run deep.

I am writing to you because I believe you have integrity and I am proud of the way ESPN has advocated the rights of minorities. You, Paul, are a media gatekeeper and your gate is wide. Do not shut it against McQueary whose courage makes him truly heroic to me and others like me.

In my firm opinion, YOU CANNOT DEFEND SCHIANO WITHOUT CONDEMNING McCREARY. Do not "Paterno" Schiano. Get this please, McCreary stopped Sandusky! What has Schiano stopped? He has only stopped his being questioned in any way.

You should be fair to Schiano? Yes. But be fair to McQueary as well and be clear that McQueary's testimony has been proven. Please say, Paul, if I am wrong and have missed something. What testimony have I missed about Schiano? And that's the issue! We have incredibly strong evidence about McQueary, but no evidence concerning Schiano.

Schiano has said he regrets the way he was in the past as an authoritarian coach. No regrets concerning his time at Penn State? No regret he should have at least known something? Instead, media gatekeepers are defending a man and his desire to only lawyer up. This issue belongs squarely with Greg Schiano. And yet we have media gatekeepers who exhibit venom. Venom! Are you freaking kidding me! In a case associated with massive child rape and molestation you are allowing media gatekeepers to howl unabated with venom! Does the past haunt, sir? As a mentor, Paul, those who are willing to listen to you perhaps need reminding that the past haunts. Expressing venom in a case involving child rape and molestation? Paul Finebaum, do you have a moral obligation to at least try and stop the venom?

Have you seen the documents showing the monetization by Penn State for the various rape and molestation actions of Sandusky in determining the payments to victims? Such and such fee to be paid for gential touching, such and such fee for oral sex, such and such for anal sex, and on it goes. Is Schiano guilty based on the banality of the monetization of child rape and molestation? No. Because he had no idea, none whatsoever, that anything was going on. He had no reason to make such a conclusion with his "reason", though the official timeline demonstrates it happened while he was there, yet he heard nothing that would give him any "idea" that anything was going on. This is Schiano's complete testimony on his behalf. Fine.

No regret from Schiano, Paul? No regret in any form? And you are good with this? I do not think you are good with this, nor do I think Laura is good with this. I respect Laura and she encourages me because she takes out her troll club and bashes the male chauvinists in the head like a Chucky Cheese mole basher. I think the chauvinists hurt her emotionally at times, and I find this hurtful to me, and yet she fights! She is willing to take a stand. Paul, you and ESPN, have taken a stand to give Laura a platform to defend the right of females to bash the chauvinist mole trolls.

Please rethink Schiano, and please do not let your gatekeeper zeal against the hellish horrors of social media cause you to defend Schiano, yet condemn the greatest mole troll basher in my life- Mike McQueary. Someone in Bristol, Paul, please let me suggest, needs to revisit the Sandusky files that are publicly available. Please.

Sincerly, Lou Mahaffey

P.S. To the Finebaum Guest Register Gatekeeper: I am learning to speak openly in the hopes of encouraging others who might be like me. I believe there is merit in what I am saying about Schiano vs McCreary. That said, if you agree there is merit to what I am saying then it is enough for me that either Paul or Laura see my note, or someone who cares. Publish, or forward only, either way I am fine. I trust you will not "Paterno" me.

If Paul disagrees with what I am saying I am hopeful Laura can mole whack him into a proper cognizant state of mind concerning Sandusky, social media, and gatekeeping. I hope my thinking in this regard is not presumptuous. Bottom line, Paul knows how to be circumspect. My belief is he needs to circumspectly correct the venom of some. I suppose if others wish to hang themselves that is their business. The past haunts. It always haunts. Thank you. Lou
24and7 24and7 from Alexander city wrote on 2017/11/30 at 1:06 PM:
A lot of these coaches that are up-and-comers are former High School coaches..Tennessee should look at Bill Clark at UAB... Or Craig Bohl who built a Powerhouse at North Dakota State or the current North Dakota State head coach Chris Kleinman and staff in place now.. they need excellent quality coaching not a figure head
rt rt from hell wrote on 2017/11/30 at 9:37 AM:
Paul, if you love the University of Tennessee at all, you need to look into this. This is what the uproar in Knoxville is about...possible subversion of the will of the lifelong fans supporting the program and many HUGE donors in the coaching search..not the name of the coach himself. Many are talking of this but she writes it best. Thank you.
Pat Gordon Pat Gordon from Birmingham wrote on 2017/11/29 at 7:31 PM:
I would appreciate it if you could pass on to Gary Danielson to reframe from disclosing practice information to teams during the boardcast of football games. He did so during the Auburn Alabama game. Right before Auburn was about to run a jump pass for a TD he said that he saw Auburn practicing that play while he was a guess at an Auburn practice. What if Auburn had chose to run it later in the game? I hope Auburn does not let him come to anymore practices, He can not be trussed. I would gladly tell him myself but I do not know how to contact him. He owns Auburn and Coach Malzohn an apology. Thanks so much Paul. Pat
David F David F from Columbus, Ohio wrote on 2017/11/29 at 7:14 PM:
Paul, I truly respect and value your commentary. I have an idea for upgraded approach to college football's national championship. What is the best channel to float such an idea? Thank you. And thanks for your passion for football!
Jeff T Jeff T from Denver wrote on 2017/11/29 at 6:21 PM:
Has anyone considered this scenario? Auburn beats Georgia in a close game. Miami beats Clemson in a close game. Oklahoma and Wisconsin win their conference championship games. Numerous analysts have commented that Clemson could get into the playoffs even with a loss in a close game Saturday. Would that mean that Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Miami and Clemson would be in 'The Four'. Clemson with two losses would have the head to head tie breaker against Auburn with Auburn having a coference title. Could the SEC be left out entirely?
JC JC from austin wrote on 2017/11/29 at 4:57 PM:
The correct term is AthleticS Director - with an "S". An Athletic Director (without a "s") would be a Director that is actually athletic.

Leaned this on the Athletics Committee at West Point during the NCAA recertification process.

Pauly can avoid the faux pas by using "AD" or "Director of AthleticS".

Colonel, US Army (ret)
Go Army, Beat Navy
Paul Schofield Paul Schofield from Pine Mountain Ga. wrote on 2017/11/29 at 4:52 PM:
I totally agree with the Sports reporter from Kentucky about how terrible it was for the fans of Tennessee to go on media to destroy the coach from Ohio St.
Tennessee first show their lack of class when they allowed Phil Fuller to stab Johnny Majors in the back all those years ago . They lost me as a fan then and deserve what you are getting . Call Butch Jones he might take the job back . Heck ! He's at least a brick layer !
Brannon Plemons Brannon Plemons from Decatur wrote on 2017/11/29 at 4:43 PM:
A Wisconsin LOSS or an Oklahoma LOSS and Bama is in PERIOD!!
Bill Minnich Bill Minnich from Scottsdale wrote on 2017/11/29 at 4:40 PM:
I am a 1979 Tennessee Graduate. Does it make sense for Tennessee to install Philip Fulmer as Head Coach in order to right the ship?
David David from Tuscaloosa wrote on 2017/11/29 at 3:01 PM:
Yes,I am wondering on the coaching carousel why now since Tennessee and Arkansas are reaching in the bottom of the bucket....why has nobody mentioned possibly contacting Mac Brown for the Tennessee job. He would be a big splash with a proven record and Les Miles for Arkansas since he knows the area and has done a good job of coaching.
Dabo Dabo from Newnan wrote on 2017/11/29 at 2:51 PM:
Has Mike Bobo been mentioned for any of the sec job openings? He is a good offensive coach and he is an excellent recruiter who I think would do very well in the south east.
Michael J Flood Michael J Flood from Rockingham wrote on 2017/11/29 at 2:23 PM:
From an OSU fan - if the Bucks beat WIS, and the chalk holds with the rest, BAMA will slide into the 4th spot. Heads will explode in Columbus!!!!!
James D. Reese James D. Reese from Fort Smith, AR wrote on 2017/11/28 at 10:49 PM:
Just a note about Auburn's record & season thus far. Yes, they've knocked off two CFP #1 ranked teams. Just wanted to note that these 2 wins were in the friendly confines of Jordan-Hare Stadium. Auburn's 2 losses were on the road. So the jury will be out for their remaining games as to how well they play away from home for all the marbles.
Brian S Brian S from Athens, GA wrote on 2017/11/28 at 5:57 PM:
Georgia lost their starting QB in the first qtr of game 1 but no one mentions that. Only Clemson gets a pass on QB down for a game.
darryl farmer darryl farmer from columbia, SC wrote on 2017/11/28 at 5:08 PM:
AD/ MBA's hiring football coaches?

Paul, I'm convinced that AD's with MBA's that never coached or played sports in college are unqualified to hire a big time coach. They don't recognize the skill set necessary. That's the whole problem Tennessee has had in the last few hires. I'm convinced a good hire would come from former coaches searching. Isn't it ironic that Phil wasn't consulted in the first attempt by Tennessee. Poor management!!!!!!!
Steve Steve from Birmingham wrote on 2017/11/28 at 5:08 PM:
Hi Paul
I think Bama should be given a lot of credit for hanging onto #1 for 11 consecutive weeks! Amazing to do so because of the bullseye on their back EVERY week. No other team has had that burden. It also makes them the most consistent by far to have achieved that.
I think it was Booger that said, and most I think would agree, that Bama would probably be favored over ANY of the other teams in contention if all were playing each other on a neutral field. I would be curious to see how Las Vegas would have them ranked. After all, we are looking for the BEST 4 teams in the playoffs.
Brian Brian from Fairhope wrote on 2017/11/28 at 4:57 PM:
N111UT tail number.

Tennessee plane B350 is landing in Stillwater now.
John Barnes John Barnes from Alabaster, Al wrote on 2017/11/28 at 4:49 PM:
Long time Vol fan living in Alabama. Graduated Kingsbury HS in Memphis (1964) and then lived in Knoxville 13 years.

I think Fitzgerald at Northwestern is heck of a coach ( daughter graduated there 98). Why is no one talking about him. NWU is tough place to win , much like Vandy, but Fitzgerald has done a great job there.