Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't hate Herbie. I would say that I don't really hate anyone, but that's not really true (e.g., ISIS).
What I've long said about Herbie is that he has a thin skin, is a diva, and is only okay as a pre-game, in-game, and/or past-game analyst. I could be wrong about these three points, which are a matter of opinion, but they're valid criticisms of him as a professional:if he's a thin-skinned diva that effects how he does his job and, obviously, if he's not a great analyst, that directly relates to how he does his job.
Keep in mind that every college football analyst in the media must deal with unpleasant and/or unhinged people who disagree with them. Most of them deal with this challenge without having such thin skins.
Another example of a media guy who might be categorized as a college football analyst who has somewhat of a thin-skin is Mark Packer on Serius. The difference is that, instead of getting petty, Mark Packer usually proceeds to brutally undress the flaws in his opponents' arguments. At times, I want to call into his show and ask, "why don't you argue with someone who can punch back?'"But I also have to admire his skill. Besides, Mark Packer is pretty much the best at what he does, period.
In contrast, a can think of 5 or 6 college football analysts off the top of my head who are better than Herbie. And I've never thought to myself, after Herbie got embroiled in an argument with an idiot, "wow, that was a brutal takedown by Herbie." Heck, when Herbie argues with the idiots on Twitter, it's pretty much a stalemate. What does that tell you?