New recruiting territories for the coaches

[timkay99]

I like shafer…I really do. I thought overall, his Presser was really good….and he came across as a really sincere.guy……all the way up until he was asked the question about assistants not communicating with recruits….his answer to that question was really bad, he is not a good poker player, and it was obvious he was hiding something. I do not understand why many people, especially people in Leadership, are afraid to say I made a mistake….and I am sorry. Had he said that, then everything else that he said…would have been more believable…"Mea Culpa" works in our society…..Shafer really needs to own up to this mess and be honest. The Lindor kid was accepted at Brown, don't try to smear him in that…"If recruits don't live up to the bar we set….Blah …blah …Blah…I don't know all the particulars in his case…but it clearly was not a case of a kid not meeting Academic requirements! If you decide to move on…tell the Kid early…so he can maximize his options as well….

If Shafer comes out publically and says, you know, things changed with us and we went in a different direction and decided to move on from him, that sound byte would be used to negatively recruit against this staff for as long as they are here.

It is one thing to point at decommits when negatively recruiting against a school. Something else entirely when you can have a kid listen to a sound byte saying the coach owns up to making a mistake on the recruiting trail in regards to taking a verbal from someone.

 

[PhatOrange]

Also we may still be recruiting South Florida, but I'm not expecting good results. Of all places in the country to recruit South Florida is a place where you can't just send down any coach and expect to pull kids. You have to have connections there or you will just be wasting time.

Keep in mind that's where Shafer himself recruited for Marrone so we're not flying blind down there.

 

[PhatOrange]

I wonder if Louisville reporters are hammering Petrino for dumping a kid 48 hours before signing day or if their first questions are about the new class. I have no idea but I wonder.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...uth-carolina-rb-to-grayshirt-at-a-tough-time/

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20150202/PSPORTS02/150209935/-1/PSPORTS

http://www.syracuse.com/axeman/inde...rom_recruiting_at_his_schoo.html#incart_river

I think our rookie reporters like to stir the pot. they think it's good journalism but it's not. We ARE the football audience, does anybody care about us dumping a couple of low level prospects MONTHS ago?

Here are a couple of questions I'd like to know. What schools made a run at Fredricks? Whats the feeling about NJ and the work down there paying off. Did the staff make a late run at Daquin Kelly? I could come up with 15 questions before I begin to care about us cutting bait with Lindor.

 

[Full_Rebar]

If Shafer comes out publically and says, you know, things changed with us and we went in a different direction and decided to move on from him, that sound byte would be used to negatively recruit against this staff for as long as they are here.

It is one thing to point at decommits when negatively recruiting against a school. Something else entirely when you can have a kid listen to a sound byte saying the coach owns up to making a mistake on the recruiting trail in regards to taking a verbal from someone.

He doesn't need to say it in a presser. Obviously the fall stories are tough because Bailey can only get one side as the coaches can't talk, but SU could have someone say to him "that's not exactly what happened" and fill in the blanks after the NSD.

We all know the syracuse.com folks are getting paid by clicks so they need to generate stories in whatever manner that's available, and if SU is shutting them out, this is what you're going to get. I mean now would be the perfect time of year to invite them to the facility to talk with coaches about moving forward after last year, or to profile some of the guys rising the depth charts. If you don't give Bailey something to work with, he's going to dig through other avenues and this is what you sometimes get- one-sided stories because that's the only side willing to talk.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

I wonder if Louisville reporters are hammering Petrino for dumping a kid a48 hours before signing day or if their first questions are about the new class. I have no idea but I wonder.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...uth-carolina-rb-to-grayshirt-at-a-tough-time/

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20150202/PSPORTS02/150209935/-1/PSPORTS

http://www.syracuse.com/axeman/inde...rom_recruiting_at_his_schoo.html#incart_river

I think our rookie reporters like to stir the pot. they think it's good journalism but it's not. We ARE the football audience, does anybody care about us dumping a couple of low level prospects MONTHS ago?

Here are a couple of questions I'd like to know. What schools made a run at Fredricks? Whats the feeling about NJ and the work down there paying off. Did the staff make a late run at Daquin Kelly? I could come up with 15 questions before I begin to care about us cutting bait with Lindor.

So something that could be potentially damaging to the program is "stirring the pot" and people who ask questions about the program that aren't pretty PR are hacks and troublemakers. Got it.

 

[ImperialOrange]

People here, and it seems Bailey as well, seem to assume that the reason for not contacting Lindor is football related since it's not academic related. It might be or it it might be behavioral issues or something else that Shafer isn't willing to throw the kid under the bus about. Seems as though folks assume we scum bagged the kid when we could just as easily be taking the high road and not airing his dirty laundry. If Bailey really wanted to know the story he'd research it and report it but what he finds may or may not be what the common assumption is here.

What we know is Lindor didn't have academic issues, the coaches liked him enough to offer, then for some reason they changed course. What we don't know is why and all we apperently have is a lazy journo that interviewed the kid, won't get an answer from our coach and now continously rehashes the story.

At what point in Shafer's career has he seemed like a guy that doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to dealing with kids?

 

[PhatOrange]

So something that could be potentially damaging to the program is "stirring the pot" and people who ask questions about the program that aren't pretty PR are hacks and troublemakers. Got it.

No. They're just not questions the die hard football fans care about (and only die hard fans give a sht about recruiting). Anybody who knows the business of recruiting knows this happens with dozens of programs across the country every year. It's not news man. It's national enquirer news. Salacious headline to draw in clicks from average viewers who want to see how 'awful and mean' our staff is.

There are two sides to every story, Shafer tried to say that without saying too much, my feeling is that Shafer is taking the high road. Its time for Bailey to maybe ask a new question, and I'd recommend one that is meaningful and positive.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

No. They're just not questions the die hard football fans care about (and only die hard fans give a sht about recruiting). Anybody who knows the business of recruiting knows this happens with dozens of programs across the country every year. It's not news man. It's national enquirer news. Salacious headline to draw in clicks from average viewers who want to see how 'awful and mean' our staff is.

There are two sides to every story, Shafer tried to say that without saying too much, my feeling is that Shafer is taking the high road. Its time for Bailey to maybe ask a new question, and I'd recommend one that is meaningful and positive.

I completely disagree. If journalists don't ask these questions, who will? I understand what you're saying, and I'm obviously an idealist. But some of the biggest news stories come from hardworking journalists who don't stop because "No one cares."

 

[PhatOrange]

I completely disagree. If journalists don't ask these questions, who will? I understand what you're saying, and I'm obviously an idealist. But some of the biggest news stories come from hardworking journalists who don't stop because "No one cares."

I don't see it as being a news worthy question at the signing day press conference. Maybe I'm in the minority on that, but I just listed off a few questions I'd rather have answered then one asking about cutting bait with a kid in freaking October; where a story was already written. If it were 48 hours before signing day and we left the kid high and dry then It would be news. October not so much.

there are better salacious questions, like how did Rutgers feel about our presence in their backyard this year. We got 3 from them AND I want to know how hard they were pitching Strickland last week. The behind the scenes battles won and lost are far more interesting. Shoot, I'd ask him about recruiting sites manipulation of rankings to benefit their schools.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

I don't see it as being a news worthy question at the signing day press conference. Maybe I'm in the minority on that, but I just listed off a few questions I'd rather have answered then one asking about cutting bait with a kid in freaking October; where a story was already written. If it were 48 hours before signing day and we left the kid high and dry then It would be news. October not so much.

there are better salacious questions, like how did Rutgers feel about our presence in their backyard this year. We got 3 from them AND I want to know how hard they were pitching Strickland last week. The behind the scenes battles won and lost are far more interesting. Shoot, I'd ask him about recruiting sites manipulation of rankings to benefit their schools.

That goes back to my original point. To me, Bailey asking these questions shows this is the only opportunity he gets to talk to the coaches. It's trying to take advantage of any opening he can get as opposed to making a splash or looking good.

 

[anomander]

To me, Bailey asking Shafer about decommits at the press conference shows how little access the media are given to the football staff. You say Bailey's reporting was one sided and inaccurate? Maybe it was. But you don't think Bailey tried to contact the coaching staff about the story, tried to get someone to speak anonymously to explain what happened, tried to get some sort of official explanation? He's a competent reporter. I guarantee you he did. And I'd bet he didn't get any kind of statement. From a journalist's perspective, Bailey is just trying to gain clarity on a really fuzzy situation. There's something that isn't being said in this story, and it's the journalist's job to hunt it down. Bailey wasn't grandstanding or trying to make a scene. He was asking Shafer a perfectly legitimate question in the only setting that was afforded to him. If Shafer wants to clear the air, he can always break down his incredibly limited and controlled access and actually talk to the beat reporters candidly. Don't give me this "Bailey was wrong" crap. This is what happens when you barricade yourself from everyone.

And when you don't get those answers you go ahead and write a one sides article anyway? Ya ok.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

And when you don't get those answers you go ahead and write a one sides article anyway? Ya ok.

There's only so much a journalist can do. If one side is refusing to talk, you can't just kill a story. That would be giving everyone else all of the power.

 

[PhatOrange]

That goes back to my original point. To me, Bailey asking these questions shows this is the only opportunity he gets to talk to the coaches. It's trying to take advantage of any opening he can get as opposed to making a splash or looking good.

to me he's now beating a dead horse. coaches dont like that and he's not building an 'cred' with them now.

 

[PhatOrange]

There's only so much a journalist can do. If one side is refusing to talk, you can't just kill a story. That would be giving everyone else all of the power.

what is exactly is the story he's trying to write ?

 

[javadoc]

I completely disagree. If journalists don't ask these questions, who will? I understand what you're saying, and I'm obviously an idealist. But some of the biggest news stories come from hardworking journalists who don't stop because "No one cares."

You are taking a position that suggests Bailey was trying to "damage the program" by digging for a "GOTCHA! SCANDAL!" moment. He sees that as more important than talking about what is actually happening that day. He might as well have started off with, "New signees, yeah yeah, blah blah blah, but I'm really here to nail you for something that happened months ago, so forget about all this irrelevant stuff and let's get to my agenda." If he wants to ask "tough questions", save it for things actually in the program, like personnel choices, game day decisions, strategy, etc.

Is Shafer even allowed to talk about a guy who technically hasn't signed an LOI for us? He can't talk about our commits until they sign an LOI. How can he talk about a guy we recruited, but who didn't sign with us?

If Bailey wants to get into "journalism" covering things that really matter, more power to him, and have at it. But a sports program? IMO muckraking journalism has mathematically zero value when applied to a sports program, unless laws (not NCAA rules) are being violated.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

You are taking a position that suggests Bailey was trying to "damage the program" by digging for a "GOTCHA! SCANDAL!" moment. He sees that as more important than talking about what is actually happening that day. He might as well have started off with, "New signees, yeah yeah, blah blah blah, but I'm really here to nail you for something that happened months ago, so forget about all this irrelevant stuff and let's get to my agenda." If he wants to ask "tough questions", save it for things actually in the program, like personnel choices, game day decisions, strategy, etc.

Is Shafer even allowed to talk about a guy who technically hasn't signed an LOI for us? He can't talk about our commits until they sign an LOI. How can he talk about a guy we recruited, but who didn't sign with us?

If Bailey wants to get into "journalism" covering things that really matter, more power to him, and have at it. But a sports program? IMO muckraking journalism has mathematically zero value when applied to a sports program, unless laws (not NCAA rules) are being violated.

I'm not taking the muckracking position at all. I'm taking the position that the media is the "Fourth Estate" and has a responsibility to hold institutions, public and private, accountable.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

what is exactly is the story he's trying to write ?

He's trying to write a story about the shady underbelly of recruiting.

 

[PhatOrange]

Is this the story Bailey is looking for?

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2015/2/5/7986281/mike-zimmer-is-still-right-about-bobby-petrino

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Is this the story Bailey is looking for?

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2015/2/5/7986281/mike-zimmer-is-still-right-about-bobby-petrino

What do you mean?

 

[PhatOrange]

What do you mean?

that's the shady underbelly of recruiting and 1000X worse than anything our staff may or may not have done.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

that's the shady underbelly of recruiting and 1000X worse than anything our staff may or may not have done.

That's probably true. But I don't see what the big deal is to get try to get college football coaches to explain themselves. These guys don't live in glass houses.

 

[TheCusian]

There's only so much a journalist can do. If one side is refusing to talk, you can't just kill a story. That would be giving everyone else all of the power.

1. He couldn't talk about it until that day. They ran the story from the kids perspective knowing that the school couldn't say a word about it until NSD. Refusing and couldn't are worlds apart.

2. He does have a right to follow up - but his 1st question?! I don't blame Shafer for being upset.

3. He explained rather well: They looked at who they were recruiting when the OC changes took place AND they drop kids who don't fulfill their end of the bargain.

 

[TheCusian]

That's probably true. But I don't see what the big deal is to get try to get college football coaches to explain themselves. These guys don't live in glass houses.

Journalists think they are entitled to every bit of information though. And they are not. They are at the mercy of those that they cover. If he's far and balanced, Shafer would give him more time. Starting that way makes it seem like he is digging for dirt.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

1. He couldn't talk about it until that day. They ran the story from the kids perspective knowing that the school couldn't say a word about it until NSD. Refusing and couldn't are worlds apart. There are a thousand ways around this and it's done all of the time. You can go off the record, speak in generalities, etc.

2. He does have a right to follow up - but his 1st question?! I don't blame Shafer for being upset. Who cares when the question pops up?

3. He explained rather well: They looked at who they were recruiting when the OC changes took place AND they drop kids who don't fulfill their end of the bargain. So he may or may not have answered the question anyway. Why is Bailey the bad guy?

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Journalists think they are entitled to every bit of information though. And they are not. They are at the mercy of those that they cover. If he's far and balanced, Shafer would give him more time. Starting that way makes it seem like he is digging for dirt.

Speaking as a former journalist, you don't take any scrap of information for granted. Information is incredibly hard to get.