Here's part of Streeter's second comment, after his first blog caused such a brouhaha:

"It needs to be noted that Dorrell is not one to use racism and our society's issues with it as a crutch. Far from it. Some of the posts have been pointing angry fingers at him, claiming that in the column he used the fact that he is a minority as some sort of scapegoat. To come away from the column with this is to misread the piece. The issue arose because I asked him about it and regarding this he gave what I thought was a very cogent and fair minded response. He's aware that there are racial issues out there and that they have an effect on him, but he didn't sit in his office moaning and moping about it. He said race is an issue that affects him--now, as always--and then he moved on. Not a big deal."

But Streeter also said "I'm convinced that race plays a role in what some of you critics are saying."

And even though Streeter is trying to soft-peddle his racism, his rant shows otherwise.  (I have put that rant at the bottom because (a) it was so long, and (b) I don't personally know that it came from Streeter, although I believe it came from him.

Here's what CTS says now:  "In college football, six out of 119 Division IA head coaches are African American. This was the context in which the subject was addressed during the interview."

Here's what CTS said again, and pardon the pedantry:  "'Let me put it this way,' he said.  'In every opportunity that I've had in my coaching career, it was never in my mind that I was dealing with a level playing field. I've had to do more to accomplish what I've accomplished.'"

Can someone please show me in CTS's original statement how he was talking about 6 out of 119 D1 coaches being black?  I don't see that subject in his words.  He said quite clearly (remarkably clearly, given that it was coming from him) that he was talking about every opportunity he had and that he wasn't dealing with a level playing field.

Neither CTS nor Streeter have ever said that CTS did not say the words attributed to him.  Now CTS and Streeter (and apparently CTS's agent) are trying to say that if you're sitting on a leather couch when you accuse people of racism, then what you're really saying is that only 6 out of 119 D1 coaches are Black.  

I just don't see it.  CTS needs to go to his buddy Cheatie Petie and see if he can consult some of the justsc spinmeisters.  They do a much better job (but then they've had much more practice.)

Bottom line for me:  CTS said what he said, hoped for a reaction he didn't get, and now is trying to weasel out of what he said.  But his spin on Wednesday doesn't jibe with what took place on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.

(Here's Streeter's race rant:  "Oh yeah, race. You're right, race has no part in this. None. Matter of fact, race is not a problem in the United States and never has been. And after all, race was the entire point of the column. I mean, it was all about race, from the very first line. Race, race, race. The whole thing -- all of it was an excuse for Dorrell because Dorrell is black. I mean, just look at the what that nasty Kurt Streeter wrote: I'm convinced that race plays a role in what some of you critics are saying. To think otherwise would be plain foolish. Some of you just don't know what to make of a coach who does not fit into your convenient stereotypes. Unbelievable. He thinks some of the critics just might have a hard time accepting Dorrell. Some of them just don't know what to make of him. Oh, that just hurts so bad I can't stomach it. I mean, he wrote that all of this is is about race, didn't he? He said all of us are racist, right? Streeter should be ashamed. I need a good cliché for what he did...lemme see...uh, how about this? "He played the race card." Yes, that is highly original and I think I will write to tell him that. Oh, that mean Kurt Streeter, he should be so embarrassed. I mean, doesn't he know what a football powerhouse UCLA has always been? They won their last national title just yesterday, in 1954, and since then it's been nothing but 10 win seasons until that Karl Dorrell got his hands on the program. Any coach with a lesser record should be tossed straight off the Santa Monica Pier. Fed to the sharks! Now look at the Bruins. 7 wins. 6 wins...yeah, I know, there's one 10 win season there but that was all luck. Just pure luck. It had nothing to do with coaching. Those comebacks were a sign of terrible coaching because the Bruins should never be behind in the first place. But those losses, those losses had everything to do with coaching. EVERYTHING. And then there's that injury thing. What a weak excuse. I mean, good God, any coach worth his salt can figure out how to win with third stringers and walk-ons. Oh, you want proof? Just look at SC and how they whupped up on Stanford this year...oh...wait, maybe not. Ok, didn't you see what Oregon did against Arizona? The second best team in all of the land marches into Tucson, loses their starting quarterback and voila...uh, oh, wait, they got pummeled? Oh, never mind. But I still think injuries play no part in this. Why that Karl Dorrell is the worst coach in history and Kurt Streeter is defending him. He should be embarrassed.