New recruiting territories for the coaches

[TheCusian]

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.

So break NCAA rules. Or be vague. Either of which this team of journos would have spun. There is little trust between the two for a reason.

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?

Shafer. After a grueling stretch of recruiting. After he said he wanted to talk about the kids they signed. After he said that it was great to finally be able to talk about these kids he and his staff have been recruiting for 14 months or more.

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?

Well for one - he didn't ask about any of the players that did sign. I'd love for him to dog Shafer on why he thinks Dungey is the answer at QB. But instead we get a 6 month year old story that is largely not that crazy in the world of recruiting. Where's Bailey indictment of Doyle Grimes for not signing with us after he committed?

We move on: It's horrible and lets write scathing articles (Bud - we're looking at you).
They move on: Staff unable to hold onto recruits.

 

[timkay99]

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.

I couldn't disagree more and its that type of journalism that creates a lot of problems.

Let me give you a real world example.

I worked for the Nationals and an article came out from a certain ESPN personality about the Nationals backing out on a trade. That trade never existed.

Doesn't stop the personality, who went with his source and published it (thus painting the organization and the individual in a bad light). Needless to say, a high ranking Nats official gave a phone call to this journo and ripped into him. And the personality said, well, you didn't call me back. Because apparently the # 1 responsibility for all of sports executives is to return calls from the media.

Moral of the story is you can print whatever you want. Accuracy doesn't matter anymore. Only the story and the clicks.

Jim Schwartz is a big fan of your type of journalism.

 

[OR!ON31]

I know it may be a bit OT but considering this kid doesn't have a school to call home, and knowing we have Strickland/Perkins/Fredericks should the staff entertain the possibility of reaching out to this kid. His tape is pretty decent,...kindda reminds me a bit of George Morris though smaller and more compact.

http://hssouthcarolina.At their req... this site./player/186487-matt-colburn/videos

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

I couldn't disagree more and its that type of journalism that creates a lot of problems.

Let me give you a real world example.

I worked for the Nationals and an article came out from a certain ESPN personality about the Nationals backing out on a trade. That trade never existed.

Doesn't stop the personality, who went with his source and published it (thus painting the organization and the individual in a bad light). Needless to say, a high ranking Nats official gave a phone call to this journo and ripped into him. And the personality said, well, you didn't call me back. Because apparently the # 1 responsibility for all of sports executives is to return calls from the media.

Moral of the story is you can print whatever you want. Accuracy doesn't matter anymore. Only the story and the clicks.

Jim Schwartz is a big fan of your type of journalism.

Because something happened once while you were working in the Nationals organization, it therefore it happens all of the time and all journalists are disrespectful, distrusting, money-grubbing hacks?

 

[tep624]

He was asking Shafer a perfectly legitimate question in the only setting that was afforded to him.

And you know this how?

 

[timkay99]

Because something happened once while you were working in the Nationals organization, it therefore it happens all of the time and all journalists are disrespectful, distrusting, money-grubbing hacks?

Never said that. Said that that type of journalism is a problem.

Jim Schwartz used it, the person in my story used it and you are pro Stephen Bailey using it.

 

[tep624]

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.

You're really going to take that position on whether a coach called a recruit back or not? Is this the type of important, groundbreaking information that we need to hold "institutions" accountable for? Jeez louise.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

And you know this how?

It's an educated guess. I do know that media opportunities with Shafer are extremely limited and very controlled.

 

[supp]

Well it was literally the first question he asked Shafer during the signing day press conference and Shafer was visibly upset that he was trying to take the PC in that direction.

It's the second time in as many days that he's brought up this "kids decommitted because we didn't keep in contact with them" stuff. It was one kid who said that and it was only his side of the story that was given at the time. Shafer is not going to address it directly, ever, so he more or less keeps bringing up a one story to create controversy.

I don't think some of you understand what journalism is supposed to be. Coaches bashing kids for not honoring their commitments and then turning around and not honoring the commitments they made was the big national college football story last week. It's entirely appropriate to ask Shafer about this since we have a situation or two that on the surface looks like what's happened elsewhere. And the idea of waiting for a better moment as Shafer suggested is silly. The news cycle is the news cycle. You ask when it's relevant.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

You're really going to take that position on whether a coach called a recruit back or not? Is this the type of important, groundbreaking information that we need to hold "institutions" accountable for? Jeez louise.

Yes. Yes, I am.

 

[tep624]

I don't think some of you understand what journalism is supposed to be. Coaches bashing kids for not honoring their commitments and then turning around and not honoring the commitments they made was the big national college football story last week. It's entirely appropriate to ask Shafer about this since we have a situation or two that on the surface looks like what's happened elsewhere. And the idea of waiting for a better moment as Shafer suggested is silly. The news cycle is the news cycle. You ask when it's relevant.

Well if journalism is supposed to be one-sided, then you're right. Because doing stuff like this is going to result in us only getting one-sided journalism from the PS.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Well if journalism is supposed to be one-sided, then you're right. Because doing stuff like this is going to result in us only getting one-sided journalism from the PS.

How is asking Shafer to explain himself one-sided? You're making the assumption that any story will be unfair and paint Syracuse poorly.

 

[timkay99]

I don't think some of you understand what journalism is supposed to be. Coaches bashing kids for not honoring their commitments and then turning around and not honoring the commitments they made was the big national college football story last week. It's entirely appropriate to ask Shafer about this since we have a situation or two that on the surface looks like what's happened elsewhere. And the idea of waiting for a better moment as Shafer suggested is silly. The news cycle is the news cycle. You ask when it's relevant.

Except that wasn't the big story. The big story was kids signing to attend college to play college football. All that decommit stuff was side news.

I don't have a question with Bailey asking it. It just shouldn't be the very first question out of your mouth. That should have been a question at about the 20 minute mark of the interview.

And I am not a fan of publishing one-sided stories with sources only on one side.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Except that wasn't the big story. The big story was kids signing to attend college to play college football. All that decommit stuff was side news.

I don't have a question with Bailey asking it. It just shouldn't be the very first question out of your mouth. That should have been a question at about the 20 minute mark of the interview.

And I am not a fan of publishing one-sided stories with sources only on one side.

I looked up the Lindor West article. Bailey did make a mistake- if he reached out to the coaching staff and got no response, he should have said so.

 

[NKR1978]

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.

There's a reason why your profession is dying.

A take on a story just to make the football program look bad can't be good for his career covering SU football. If Shafer can't trust a reporter, why the hell should he bend over backwards for him?

 

[javadoc]

Except that wasn't the big story. The big story was kids signing to attend college to play college football. All that decommit stuff was side news.

I don't have a question with Bailey asking it. It just shouldn't be the very first question out of your mouth. That should have been a question at about the 20 minute mark of the interview.

And I am not a fan of publishing one-sided stories with sources only on one side.

Agree completely with that, and a ly response was warranted. Bailey can ask the question, he can ask it whenever he wants, and he can still be regarded as a pecker for the way he does it.

I think Shafer's substantive remark should simply have been, "We do not comment about players who are not part of the program," or something to that effect. Didn't Marrone have that policy?

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

There's a reason why your profession is dying.

A take on a story just to make the football program look bad can't be good for his career covering SU football. If Shafer can't trust a reporter, why the hell should he bend over backwards for him?

First of all, I work in market research.

Secondly, journalism is dying because it won't do PR work on behalf of institutions?

And who says Bailey is trying to make the program look bad? He's just trying to tell a story.

 

[tep624]

How is asking Shafer to explain himself one-sided? You're making the assumption that any story will be unfair and paint Syracuse poorly.

Well...when the article was originally published four months ago, Shafer couldn't comment on it directly because coaches can't comment on specific players that are unsigned during the recruiting cycle. So yes, it was one-sided when it was published, and it was a one-sided story that painted the program and the staff in a bad light, because Bailey ran with the recruit's side of things and no one on the staff could go on record to confirm or deny it. Again he can ask whatever the hell he wants when he wants to, but it's going to affect his ability to cover the team. And personally I'd rather be able to read articles that give us some insider insight than just regurgitations of stuff that is public domain on scout and rivals, assumptions on what the staff is doing during the recruiting cycle based on what recruits are saying, and interviews with recruits that the recruiting sites already do.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Well...when the article was originally published four months ago, Shafer couldn't comment on it directly because coaches can't comment on specific players that are unsigned during the recruiting cycle. So yes, it was one-sided when it was published, and it was a one-sided story that painted the program and the staff in a bad light, because Bailey ran with the recruit's side of things and no one on the staff could go on record to confirm or deny it. Again he can ask whatever the hell he wants when he wants to, but it's going to affect his ability to cover the team. And personally I'd rather be able to read articles that give us some insider insight than just regurgitations of stuff that is public domain on scout and rivals, assumptions on what the staff is doing during the recruiting cycle based on what recruits are saying, and interviews with recruits that the recruiting sites already do.

Which I'm sure Bailey would love to provide if he was provided any access what-so-ever.

 

[TheCusian]

First of all, I work in market research. Secondly, journalism is dying because it won't do PR work on behalf of institutions? And who says Bailey is trying to make the program look bad? He's just trying to tell a story.

A story that is minor that no one cares about.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

A story that is minor that no one cares about.

Yeah, that's the kind of story everyone would read.

 

[NKR1978]

First of all, I work in market research.

Secondly, journalism is dying because it won't do PR work on behalf of institutions?

And who says Bailey is trying to make the program look bad? He's just trying to tell a story.

No, being dickbags and asking questions about 4 month old non-stories when there are actually interesting questions and pieces of information that could have been explored.

He has no duty to be a cheerleader for the program, but if he upsets the wrong people he really shouldn't be surprised if he's locked out.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

No, being dickbags and asking questions about 4 month old non-stories when there are actually interesting questions and pieces of information that could have been explored.

He has no duty to be a cheerleader for the program, but if he upsets the wrong people he really shouldn't be surprised if he's locked out.

What makes something a "non-story"?

 

[NKR1978]

What makes something a "non-story"?

Something that happened in October that has already been reported on and that is entirely inconsequential in the grand scheme of Syracuse football.

I'm not a journo, so I guess I'm not capable of understanding why that kid isn't an idiot.

 

[TheCusian]

What makes something a "non-story"?

When it's a fairly normal occurrence in recruiting. When it's old.