Not too familar with his opinions but seems about as well-liked by Coug fans as a Colfax speed trap.
What's the deal?
What's the deal?
What is the story with John Blanchet?
- Thread starter PeteTheChop
- Start date
Not too familar with his opinions but seems about as well-liked by Coug fans as a Colfax speed trap.
What's the deal?
Pete, Pete, Pete. Blanchette almost never has anything good to say about the Cougs, and when he does there is always some veiled insult involved. When bad things or controversial things happen he ALWAYS sides against WSU, often to an extreme. His columns are typically smartass BS meant to get a laugh at our expense. He should be banned from campus and all sports events. And he is from our "hometown" paper.
Too be blunt... he is a dick.Not too familar with his opinions but seems about as well-liked by Coug fans as a Colfax speed trap.
What's the deal?
Like Colin Cowherd, I'm guessing he lost a girlfriend in college to a WSU football player...
He seemingly revels at the Cougs' misery. He loved sh!tting all over CMP when he was struggling and taking pot shots when he was successful. Just a sh!t stirrer like Colin Cowherd but much less charismatic while doing it. Gets readers via the Howard Stern method - "I wonder how he'll crap on the Cougs today?"Not too familar with his opinions but seems about as well-liked by Coug fans as a Colfax speed trap.
What's the deal?
Never took the time to find out if he's sports opinion writer or supposedly a beat writer, but he never has any insight into what the Cougs are actually doing as far as roster, coaching, etc. Just "they suck! See, I called it and now I'm right!"
He’s more trash, and another that needs to go.
Slowly but surely we are getting decent people to cover the cougs in a decent way.
I liked Thorpe I like Stefanie Loh I like the Thro guy now at the spokesman.
Didn’t care for bud withers
Hate Blanchette hate Jim Moore
Hate Wulff and Walden.
Blanchette is t r a s h as a “journalist” he doesn't contribute anything. Nothing insightful. Just some random jackass opinion that is consistently always against the program.
I was glad to see Withers retire opening the door for Stefanie Loh to come in and write great stories covering the cougs.
Hopefully one day soon Blanchette will go and we can get someone less of a bitter old has been.
Slowly but surely we are getting decent people to cover the cougs in a decent way.
I liked Thorpe I like Stefanie Loh I like the Thro guy now at the spokesman.
Didn’t care for bud withers
Hate Blanchette hate Jim Moore
Hate Wulff and Walden.
Blanchette is t r a s h as a “journalist” he doesn't contribute anything. Nothing insightful. Just some random jackass opinion that is consistently always against the program.
I was glad to see Withers retire opening the door for Stefanie Loh to come in and write great stories covering the cougs.
Hopefully one day soon Blanchette will go and we can get someone less of a bitter old has been.
Blanchette can churn out good stuff.
He simply chooses not to because he likes the attention associated with being that guy. That guy nobody likes but you can’t do anything about.
He simply chooses not to because he likes the attention associated with being that guy. That guy nobody likes but you can’t do anything about.
The beat writers are very good. It is true that the columnists at the major papers are awful. There are good columnists that are online at different websites.
I'm assuming you've read Blanchettes tripe, 90? Stupid question, you're one of the more intelligent posters here. NINE times sportswriter of the year???? Seriously?
Just because you went to WSU doesn't mean you are working to make WSU better.
Now the once a coug always a coug is perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean you can go and trash the program and hold it back.
Just because they are a coug doesn't mean they are devoid of criticism/ nor does that make it acceptable in ANY way to try and sabotage/undermine the progress of the program as a whole.
One of the biggest mistakes we've made is allowing negative voices to dictate what we are doing or have a platform when they have proven time and time again to not being positive and contributing.
Once a coug always a coug.
The other rule should be..
Always be building up the program. If not shut the f.uck up and get out of the way of the people who do and are doing so.
Either build up or shut up. If you want to know why the SEC and other conferences are dominating is because they have that attitude. They don't let 0-11 coaches tell them who to hire, or let 9-40 coaches talk about "losing innocence" or let past alumni write every damn day about how bad the school/program is. They just don't put up with it. We are the only University that is stupid enough to do it.
Doesn't mean he knows how to tell a story with actual facts.
He is to newspapers as Stephen A. Smith is to ESPN.
I believe that there are some WSU graduates that have inferiority complexes. That describes the three individuals.
Nice job turning a completely unrelated topic into a Walden wulff rant.
And yes we need to purge anyone with a different opinion from wsu. In fact, lets apply that to society. You don't agree or have a criticism? Off to Siberia with you! Better yet, a firing squad!
Sincerely, Josef Stalin
Eh..he got a tasty quote and wrote it down. That's what journalists do. I get if you want to hate Walden, but Moore's just a goofy old Coug that rambles on incoherently. Seems pretty harmless to me. Don't get the hate there.
That's a false comparison. They have every right to hold that opinion, but they also should expect to be treated like shit if that opinion is hurting WSU and not helping it. No more kindness to detractors. They shit on the program and I will shit on them.
Not to disagree because CougZone seems to be place where all opinions are welcome.
But I'll guess the new AD prefers significant financial contributions from people — like Jim Walden — with an occasional bone to pick over "100% positive" folks who do nothing for the CAF.
CJW, CPW and Jim Moore love WSU Football as much as anybody when you look at their bodies of work as opposed to latching on to a little criticism here and there.
I’ve seen no indication from CPW of any love for WSU since at least 2011.
While there’s only been one coach in the last 30 years who left in a decent manner (Doba), CPW was the low water mark, with his whiny press conference, rumored dumpstering of all things WSU, and post-dismissal grandstanding by his enablers. Based on their behavior through the CPW/CML transition, I don’t really care if CPW or JW ever show their faces in Pullman again.
Zag fans love him. Blanchette even found a way to turn the Heytvelt deal into a WCC witch hunt. Of course Thompson proved all the evil that is WSU.
Blanchette is just a miserable turd. I am sure even his parents regret having conceived him.
Last edited:
I’ve always liked Blanchette, but I’m originally from the East coast where cynicism and piling on the local sports team is the norm with columnists.
Seattle sports fans are uniquely soft. Sports writers and talk radio hosts never talk badly or second guess the teams and players. Even the Mariners, the awful freaking Seattle Mariners, are treated like a women’s softball team.
Blanchette is obviously butt hurt about WSU for whatever reason, but for me, when WSU does something that pisses me off, like choking away the Colorado State Bowl game, getting boat raced in the Apple Cup, or when coaches act like turds, I like to read someone who calls them on it.
Seattle sports fans are uniquely soft. Sports writers and talk radio hosts never talk badly or second guess the teams and players. Even the Mariners, the awful freaking Seattle Mariners, are treated like a women’s softball team.
Blanchette is obviously butt hurt about WSU for whatever reason, but for me, when WSU does something that pisses me off, like choking away the Colorado State Bowl game, getting boat raced in the Apple Cup, or when coaches act like turds, I like to read someone who calls them on it.
Blanchette tries to have it both ways: "Call them on it" when he can be judge and jury, ignore the rest in the name of being "objective." A lot of games he doesn't even write about, which, after all these years of booger journalism, is just fine with me.
There is something wrong with you. Drop the "coug" from your handle and come back with some handle that reflects your anti-coug sentiments. Blanchette is a complete a-hole towards the Cougs. He has no redeeming qualities. There is no gray here. Just black and white.
So you only read Blanchette when you're looking for someone to call out the team/coaches when they screw up, right?
Do you read him when the cougs do a great job and he still find something wrong?. And tell me, who do you read when you're looking for someone who has positive things about the cougs?
I think he's a talented writer and good at his craft. As others have noted, though, he always finds a way to be cynical and negative toward WSU. I don't have a big problem with him doing that when it is deserved, such as in the case of choking away a lead in a bowl game or getting boat raced in a rivalry game. My problem is that he'll find something negative to write even about some of the better moments for WSU sports. If the team beats a top-5 USC team, for example, you can count on him to find some negative points to make about some bad behavior in the crowd, WSU's prior struggles in early-season games, some starters being out for the other team, low attendance, the budget situation, or whatever.
I don't dislike him as much as some others, since I think he's a pretty good writer and I can appreciate some aspects of his approach, but it's unfortunate that the primary sportswriter in the Cougs' "hometown" paper has that style, especially when you compare it to the treatment UW gets in Seattle (ranging from softball questions and tiptoeing around negatives to outright advocacy and cover-ups). I could understand jabs at WSU from some guy in Seattle, it just sucks when it's not only a guy in Spokane doing it, but "the" guy. Just constant negativity no matter what.
I don't dislike him as much as some others, since I think he's a pretty good writer and I can appreciate some aspects of his approach, but it's unfortunate that the primary sportswriter in the Cougs' "hometown" paper has that style, especially when you compare it to the treatment UW gets in Seattle (ranging from softball questions and tiptoeing around negatives to outright advocacy and cover-ups). I could understand jabs at WSU from some guy in Seattle, it just sucks when it's not only a guy in Spokane doing it, but "the" guy. Just constant negativity no matter what.
I'd rather have financial contributions from people who promote a positive message than a negative one. You hear all the time about programs that have big boosters dictating the football program and the mess it can create. WSU can't afford that, we are already at a disadvantage as it is.
If I look at the bodies of work of Walden, Wulff and Moore I do not see these "great bodies of work".
From a journalist perspective, Keith Jackson is the role model. An outstanding and pleasant man who represented the University with class. That's a far cry from Jim Moore.
Walden and Wulff were not good coaches.
Jim Walden is a .386 lifetime coach
Paul Wulff is a .184 lifetime coach
So take the coug factor away. Remove that from the equation to eliminate any bias.
Should a program let a .386 lifetime coach and a .184 lifetime coach vocally criticise a program or have them tell the program what to do? No. That's ridiculous. That's just common sense.
If I want to be good at something. I seek out the counsel of people who are successful/better than me for mentorship and guidance.
If you have perennial losers mentor you then you more than likely are going to end up a perennial loser.
The only reason that they are allowed to hover around is because they are cougs. Which basically means we are putting being a coug above performance / progress and that is absolutely a dumb thing to do. Especially in the competitive realm of sports. Remember this is an athletic competition. This is not an alumni mixer function. This is about competing against other programs.
I will not accept anyone who is trying to undermine the progress of the program. I don't care if they are a coug. They can hold whatever opinion they want, but know that if they are negative against the program. They will draw harsh condemnation for it. I don't take my cues from losers, and neither should WSU as a program.
Here's Bear Bryant talking to players about the expectations at Alabama. Wait and watch the last line, and you'll see exactly the difference between a program with an attitude towards excellence, and how very different it is from what we have had around WSU.
To quote Coach Leach.
"We had too much of a country club atmosphere,” Leach said. “I care more about whether people are trying hard, and they’re working hard. When that became contagious and developed into an expectation, and then people fed off the energy, that’s when we became a better team.”
Source
I want WSU to be as successful as it can be and it never will be as long as we put Wulffs, Waldens, Moores and Blanchettes, on pedastals. If that's who you look up to then you will always be down in the dumps.
And to add one final note. I love WSU. I love my cougs, but I love WSU so much that I will defend its growth and progress even against other cougs because I want something better for future generations of cougs. I want them to know what it is like to win most of the time, to be successful, to grow and build better than ever, and to keep building long after I and other are gone.
The whole point of a fan is to be cheer and support the school and team you love. Not tear it down and attack it when it is trying to build itself up. I honestly gave Wulff an honest shot for the first 3 years, but by the thrid season with a high of 2 wins it was mission critical to expel the damage being done. Our gap and situation was extremely dire.
Moos came in and got us decent facilities, he got us a good coach, and now we had 3 winning seasons in a row. People know early on in Leach's tenure I was defending the build process...even through 2 3 win seasons because we had a six win season, I knew how far behind we were, and I could see the pieces coming together. Offensive line size, quality skill and QB players coming, defensive progress (we forced 30 turnovers in 2013 a lot of people forget that and a defensive win in the Coliseum against Kiffin and USC)
I looked at the Mike Price roadmap and saw a similar pattern for success, although Leach's has less down time. Price had a down down build success down down build success strategy. Both are fine, but the key is patience and look for the pieces coming together.
That's what made me and still makes me angry regarding the Wulff's, Walden's, Moore's, Blanchettes, CougEds etc. They are exactly the problem that hold WSU back. They value their own self-importance OVER the success of the program. That's selfish and contrary to success. I didn't pay my tuition and loans to listen to their crap. I paid it to get an education and support WSU and build WSU up.
I won't accept or put up with those who want to hold the program back. I love the school too much to allow that to happen any longer. It's happened for far too long.
The whole point of a fan is to be cheer and support the school and team you love. Not tear it down and attack it when it is trying to build itself up. I honestly gave Wulff an honest shot for the first 3 years, but by the thrid season with a high of 2 wins it was mission critical to expel the damage being done. Our gap and situation was extremely dire.
Moos came in and got us decent facilities, he got us a good coach, and now we had 3 winning seasons in a row. People know early on in Leach's tenure I was defending the build process...even through 2 3 win seasons because we had a six win season, I knew how far behind we were, and I could see the pieces coming together. Offensive line size, quality skill and QB players coming, defensive progress (we forced 30 turnovers in 2013 a lot of people forget that and a defensive win in the Coliseum against Kiffin and USC)
I looked at the Mike Price roadmap and saw a similar pattern for success, although Leach's has less down time. Price had a down down build success down down build success strategy. Both are fine, but the key is patience and look for the pieces coming together.
That's what made me and still makes me angry regarding the Wulff's, Walden's, Moore's, Blanchettes, CougEds etc. They are exactly the problem that hold WSU back. They value their own self-importance OVER the success of the program. That's selfish and contrary to success. I didn't pay my tuition and loans to listen to their crap. I paid it to get an education and support WSU and build WSU up.
I won't accept or put up with those who want to hold the program back. I love the school too much to allow that to happen any longer. It's happened for far too long.
I read all the media stuff about the Cougs. It’s a digital world now. I read the WSU AD perspective, our fans perspective, the opposing fans perspective, coaches pressers, local writers, National writers, social media.
Blanchette is a mere data point. I think he’s funny at times. His line about Leach playing footsies with Tennessee made me chuckle. He also annoys me.
Pete, since you asked, I'll provide the 40 year perspective on John. When I came to WSU in '76, the beat writer for the SR was Harry Missildine. Harry had done that job for decades. He tended to come to a game or other athletic events/conferences/etc., drink a lot, then spend the night on the couch of the coach whose event he was covering. Then drive back to Spokane the next morning. He was an unabashed homer, and actually a very entertaining writer. Having grown up in Spokane county, I had been reading him literally all of my reading life, and as a young Coug Fan, I enjoyed his extreme homerism (which by the way, he made no effort to mask). Everybody knew that a negative Coug word would never pass his typewriter.
When Harry retired (1977/78? about then), the SR took two young sports writers and split the beat with them. I don't remember the other guy; he tried to be the anti-Harry, and his anti-homerism was so extreme, he got dumped after a few years. Blanchette initially kind of coasted along in his shadow, sort of a "me, too" version of the "anti-Missildine, I'm no homer, see...I report bad things!!". At some point it appeared that John figured out that negative, polarizing figures get noticed. We all have needs, and my amateur psychologist viewpoint is that John needs...more than any other thing...to have attention. Slamming the Cougs 80% of the time while writing something positive maybe 20% (to "prove" his objectivity) has been his pattern for the past 35-plus years. It is his schtick. Many have discussed the way that he uses GU to bludgeon WSU. I think that if GU had not developed a successful hoops program, John would have found something else to use to whoop up on the Cougs. It is a need that he has in order to follow his plan to garner attention. GU was a very handy lever for him to use, and GU fulfills a second need: to be a sycophant. To someone other than WSU, who is his target.
The guy has managed to make a living and collect a paycheck for decades, spewing mostly venom toward Pullman while sucking up to Gonzaga. It has worked for him. It was a conscious decision, and he has made it work. Unfortunately, the piece of himself that he had to leave at the door was respect. I think everybody who is familiar with his career recognizes his business model, and he has to be the least respected person in E WA who calls him/herself a journalist. But respect was never his objective...attention was his objective, and he has succeeded in that effort. This message thread is just one of a long list of examples.
When Harry retired (1977/78? about then), the SR took two young sports writers and split the beat with them. I don't remember the other guy; he tried to be the anti-Harry, and his anti-homerism was so extreme, he got dumped after a few years. Blanchette initially kind of coasted along in his shadow, sort of a "me, too" version of the "anti-Missildine, I'm no homer, see...I report bad things!!". At some point it appeared that John figured out that negative, polarizing figures get noticed. We all have needs, and my amateur psychologist viewpoint is that John needs...more than any other thing...to have attention. Slamming the Cougs 80% of the time while writing something positive maybe 20% (to "prove" his objectivity) has been his pattern for the past 35-plus years. It is his schtick. Many have discussed the way that he uses GU to bludgeon WSU. I think that if GU had not developed a successful hoops program, John would have found something else to use to whoop up on the Cougs. It is a need that he has in order to follow his plan to garner attention. GU was a very handy lever for him to use, and GU fulfills a second need: to be a sycophant. To someone other than WSU, who is his target.
The guy has managed to make a living and collect a paycheck for decades, spewing mostly venom toward Pullman while sucking up to Gonzaga. It has worked for him. It was a conscious decision, and he has made it work. Unfortunately, the piece of himself that he had to leave at the door was respect. I think everybody who is familiar with his career recognizes his business model, and he has to be the least respected person in E WA who calls him/herself a journalist. But respect was never his objective...attention was his objective, and he has succeeded in that effort. This message thread is just one of a long list of examples.
Speaking of Blanchette, this is a decent piece about a local kid making it to the big time with the odds stacked against him with no gu or WSU angle. Now I’m sure if he hadn’t flunked out of Uof I he would have taken a shot at WSU for not offering him.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/jan/28/its-been-a-long-road-for-former-shadle-park-highla/#/0
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/jan/28/its-been-a-long-road-for-former-shadle-park-highla/#/0
Last edited:
In Blanchette's defense, he's better than Paul Turner or Doug Clark.
The Three Stooges of the Spokesman-Review.
The Three Stooges of the Spokesman-Review.
