College basketball recruiting isn't getting any cleaner

[LoudHouse44]

CBS Sports Candid Coaches: College basketball recruiting isn't getting any cleaner

Thought this was very interesting.

 

[omniorange]

Yes, very interesting. Confirms what most have been saying for years. Thanks for linking the article.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Deano]

We all know that UK and PaypalCal lead the way.

 

[721Comstock]

We all know that UK and PaypalCal lead the way.

And K does an amazing job recruiting at Duke. Just Amazing!
God Bless America!!

 

[realorange]

Does a report like this make you wonder why White is taking so long to make up his mind?

 

[creatorsgam]

Does a report like this make you wonder why White is taking so long to make up his mind?

No. A crybaby article with zero legit proof of anything.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Anonymous sources complain about things.

 

[Cusefan0307]

When and why did "anonymous sources" become acceptable in reporting?

To me, that mean's you legit have no proof.

I guess coaches are afraid of backlash? What backlash?

 

[RandygoCuse]

I did like the Blue Chips reference.

 

[Col. Bleep]

When and why did "anonymous sources" become acceptable in reporting?

To me, that mean's you legit have no proof.

I guess coaches are afraid of backlash? What backlash?

Every political poll we see is comprised of anonymous sources.

But these "sources" aren't anonymous.
They're unnamed. The reporters know who they are.
Would any coaches talk honestly about this on the record for attribution?

Everyone prefers identifiable sources.
Sometimes you have to protect them and it should always be for a good reason.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Every political poll we see is comprised of anonymous sources.

But these "sources" aren't anonymous.
They're unnamed. The reporters know who they are.
Would any coaches talk honestly about this on the record for attribution?

Everyone prefers identifiable sources.
Sometimes you have to protect them and it should always be for a good reason.

Thanks, Just wondering from a journalistic point of view what was acceptable and what is not.

As a reader I don't put as much weight into anonymous sources.

 

[JoeySimz]

Thanks, Just wondering from a journalistic point of view what was acceptable and what is not.

As a reader I don't put as much weight into anonymous sources.

I see what you're saying. Cusefan0307 said it well.

I think it's more scary when a news release says "officials say", "top officials warn",

 

[Scotch]

Anonymous sources complain about things.

But without anonymous sources, sometimes the truth never sees the light of day. I'm not a huge fan in all circumstances, but I absolutely believe the article and appreciate the look behind the curtain.

 

[JoeySimz]

Does a report like this make you wonder why White is taking so long to make up his mind?

Possibly. It's not unreasonable. The shoe companies have a lot of power. We are talking billion dollar contracts now. Not just with colleges but with the club teams and pro teams. So of course they want the stars to stay with the company for their entire career. Nebraska and Kansas are adidas. And Miami for that matter.

 

[HOFCeluck]

But without anonymous sources, sometimes the truth never sees the light of day. I'm not a huge fan in all circumstances, but I absolutely believe the article and appreciate the look behind the curtain.

It just reinforces things people choose to believe without any credible evidence.

Anonymous sources once said Gerry McNamara was overrated.

 

[Scotch]

It just reinforces things people choose to believe without any credible evidence.

Anonymous sources once said Gerry McNamara was overrated.

Anonymous sources also said that Richard Nixon was involved in Watergate.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Thanks, Just wondering from a journalistic point of view what was acceptable and what is not.

As a reader I don't put as much weight into anonymous sources.

That's understandable.
If there are serious accusations people want to know who is making them so we can assess their credibility.

But sometimes without concealing identities you just won't get the information.
They can't go public...sometimes out of physical fear...sometimes out of fear of losing a job...there are a number of good reasons.

Political sources sometimes do it to spread info about a person or decision they don't like.
That's a risk...but it also provides the basis for many valuable stories.

(I suppose it's a little easier on television because sometimes we can blur someone's face and distort the voice so at least you get to see something).

 

[O-pulse]

To believe that there is not corruption in college hoops recruiting is being quite naive. The folks involved in the current system will not speak the truth publicly as the system would punish them while denying that the corruption exists, outside of a few outliers.
Corruption of sport and other institutions is a global problem; denying this is like denying science.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I believe it is time for a rule change. And no, not simply because the rule isn't being (or can't be, depending on your perspective) enforced. It's the fact that football and mens basketball are major league sports. I've had a hard time finding any other league on their level, where paying the players against the rules.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Anonymous sources complain about things.

At the end of the day, who's going to come out and say something under their own name?

An assistant? He'd never work in basketball again. And even if Asst Coach so and so said, hey there's a heck of a lot of cheating going on, there'll be 350 D1 coaches saying, "I don't know what they do in their program, but we don't do anything like that."

A headcoach would have to be retiring and trot out his proof of how they did things, but unless he has proof of other programs, all he can do is show how he cheated. No other coach in basketball will corroborate.

A shoe company guy? No chance, they make waaay too much money to burn anyone and they're not going to have any proof because they're funneling money through 2-3 other people before it even gets to a recruit.

A player? And kill whatever money they do get for themselves? And they won't have any information other than what they themselves did.

 

[HOFCeluck]

At the end of the day, who's going to come out and say something under their own name?

An assistant? He'd never work in basketball again. And even if Asst Coach so and so said, hey there's a heck of a lot of cheating going on, there'll be 350 D1 coaches saying, "I don't know what they do in their program, but we don't do anything like that."

A headcoach would have to be retiring and trot out his proof of how they did things, but unless he has proof of other programs, all he can do is show how he cheated. No other coach in basketball will corroborate.

A shoe company guy? No chance, they make waaay too much money to burn anyone and they're not going to have any proof because they're funneling money through 2-3 other people before it even gets to a recruit.

A player? And kill whatever money they do get for themselves? And they won't have any information other than what they themselves did.

That's fine. But so what then? I don't see any point to an article like this. What's the point of a bunch of unamed sources telling fans, let's be honest, what they want to hear?

I mean it's nothing even earth shattering. Coaches are getting recruits via intermediaries like agents and shoe companies and "friends of the program." That was literally the plot of Blue Chips.

All it does is prime fanbases like ours when we get bad news about a kid like Quade Green. Because no way a kid like that picks Kentucky without getting paid right?