Huggs v. Zim

Maybe the best thing about the blog is it gives me the chance to explain why I write what I write. The more you know about what I do, the better we get along. Which explains this post.

I wrote for Monday's paper an explanation of how Bob Huggins and UC parted ways. It included legal back and forth between Bob's attorney and UC's attorney. It made the point that while the situation was handled clumsily, it wasn't all UC's doing.

You could argue the horse is dead, so stop the flogging. Great point. Truth is, I really don't like writing about this stuff. But part of my job is to write what people are talking about. Given the way the Bearcats played Saturday, lots of people were talking, again, about how Zimpher ruined the program when she "fired'' Huggins, and that the fact his "firing'' took so long killed recruiting for a year.

Not exactly true. For the details, read the column.

I have no dog in this fight. I get paid no matter what. And obviously, the way the school handled Huggins and AK showed a heavy-handedness that is discomforting. But perpetuating a falsehood does no one any good.

People will believe what they want, but one thing I have prided myself on in this job is not having agendas. What you get from me is what I feel, period. It doesn't make it right or wrong. It's just an opinion. As for UC hoops: Huggins landed softly and successfully. Mick Cronin in two years or three will have the program back in the NCAA tournament regularly. AK got what I suspect he wanted all along, a chance to go home and coach in the SEC. Things have a way of working out.