Patrick White’s comments were, unfortunately, the big West Virginia news emanating from Big East Media Day yesterday, but other things were written about the Mountaineers, who again were picked to be No. 1 in the conference. Let’s look at the best of them and then have a final word about Patrick.

– Pete Thamel, of the New York Times, says Bil Stewart is more Ned Flanders than Woody Hayes.
– Brendan Prunty, of the Newark Star-Ledger, says all is well in WVU’s football program.

That’s the type of stuff we should be talking about. Obviously, we’re not.

No one will deny White is entitled to his opinion and the right to voice it. The media is, if nothing else, too hard on athletes for being boring and without opinions. On Tuesday, White was asked about playing baseball for WVU and he spoke his mind.

It’s one thing to say the baseball program hasn’t been successful, which White also said. In many ways that’s true, although it would have to be regarded as friendly fire from someone who has projected the persona of a team player for so long.

But to say a coach is “not too high” on black players is entirely different. It’s too bad someone present didn’t follow up and ask what White meant, although it’s safe to assume White didn’t spontaneously slam Van Zant. He has been led to reach that conclusion or had it on his mind for some time. Or both.

I’ve been reading comments on the blog and on that story — I encourage you to do the same because it’s pretty good discourse — and I can only get on one side of the fence. White shouldn’t have said it.

I know he can say what he wants and he obviously has incentive to believe in what he said. In a way, I’m actually happy to see him express himself. I’m also aware of the possibility there may be something to what he said, too, and that a lot of people have heard about such a problem in the baseball program.

I just happen to think it’s another blemish for WVU, which was already hassled with Calvin Magee’s allegation, a point I regret was edited out of my column.

I don’t have a problem with White critiquing Van Zant and the team’s success. I’m even OK with him saying he’s talked to players and none of them like Van Zant, even if it is an awkward position to put Van Zant in. It’s the racial element that bothers me. He says Van Zant is “not too high” on black players, but that they never met. He says Van Zant wasn’t interested in White playing baseball, but that was a mutual thing in that White was focused on football and the baseball season overlaps with spring football.

And are we really to believe Greg Van Zant didn’t want an talent, an attraction, as addition like Patrick White on his baseball team merely because of a racial bias? Better question: Is that what we’re meant to believe?

The racial element just overlooks a lot of logic and one would expect White should know about it considering how sharp and bright he is. It instead makes it look like the face of the athletic department believes the school promoting him for the Heisman Trophy also employs a baseball coach who doesn’t like black players and allegedly wouldn’t hire a football coach because he’s black.

Let’s hope this is resolved soon between White and Van Zant. Not an apology, necessarily, but just a discussion between the two to settle the matter. Remember, White could play in the spring…