Another Chapter in Weber Saga - Unconfirmed Report that an OSU Beat Writer Sat on the Info - UPDATE: Cass Tech Pissed
According to @TonyPaul1984:
"Unconfirmed rumblings that an Ohio State BEAT WRITER knew the RB coach was leaving, but held off on reporting it so not to lose Mike Weber."
I hope Harbaugh is able to beat Urban over the head with this fiasco. The more I learn, the more I am legitimately angry. This is so completely unethical.
EDIT: Caveat - I do not know ANYTHING about Tony Paul's credibility. He's a Detroit News writer who graduated from MSU.
Also, a friend of mine pointed out re: Michigan's "lie" to Weber that, assuming Michigan DID tell him that he would be the only RB taken (a huge IF), they accepted Higdon's commitment in time for Weber to change his mind. OSU may have purposely chosen to wait until the next day to withhold important information from the kid. That's a huge difference.
EDIT2: Weber's high school coach is really angry.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 12:26 PM ^
I hope this means he already has an attorney contacting the NCAA asking them to let him out of his LOI to OSU.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^
I don't know much about that part of journalistic ethics - i.e., is a reporter obligated to break news when he knows that news may have a ripple effect?
I do know that the beat writer may have saved his or her own life by being complicit in (alleged) cover-up the RB Coach's exit. Think of some of the crap Herbstreit went through simply for doing his job.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^
I suspect it is unethical for a writer to withhold information to benefit the source at the detriment to an innocent party. Let's look at it from the writer's perspective though. JUB gets Boliviaed (SP?) here for less and what you said about Herbie.
We like our beat writers more like Angelique and Wojo and a hell of a lot less like Snyder and Rosenberg. I'm sure OSU does as well.
February 6th, 2015 at 4:09 PM ^
wish Herb had kept his mouth shut back in 07.
I don't blame the journalist for holding back the story. In his shoes I would have done the same.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:08 PM ^
there are very few independent journalistic entities out there. All of them have to consider who their audience is, and what their audience wants. Most outlets are megaphones for large institutions (schools, businesses, political parties). But, citizens are complicit in this. We allow it to happen by supporting these publishers and validating their methods.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:08 PM ^
Its one thing for the beat reporter to hear that Drayton might be going to the Bears and something completely different to know for sure that he's going to the Bears. If you're going to report something like that just before signing day, you'd better be 100% sure that's its happening. Because if its not, you've just torpedoed your access to the program and in turn your job.
Good reporters sit on information all the time until it can be properly verified and released at an appropriate time.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:19 PM ^
Is your suggestion that this buckeye beat writer is the only one left in the media who doesn't do that? Cold hard facts or nothing for him?
Hmmm....unlikely
February 6th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^
1) I work in the media and so I know how long big stories are sat on until they are properly reported. And even when all of that is complete, they still can sit on them for a bit to release it at a time when it'll make a big impact news wise. I also know that there are stories that don't ever see the light of day becasue they can't be sourced or backed up. And since they are just a rumor at that point, they don't get reported because the fallout would be severe if they are wrong (just look at what's happening to Brian Williams now as an example of what happens when someone calls BS on you).
2) My suggestion is still the same. That unless this guy knew that Drayton was 100% leaving then there's no way he'd put a rumor like that out there. Brian himself said he sat on lots of rumors during the coaching season, but only reported on the ones that seemed legit and had the least amount of consequences. He went into detail about sticking with Harbaugh 99% and not 100% to Michigan, because that 1% held a ton of credibility and fallout with it if it turned out he was wrong.
So no, I'm not suggesting that this OSU reporter is the only true journalist left in the world. I'm saying he's like a lot of other journalists who like their jobs and factor that in when it comes to a decision on wether or not they're going to report something.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:33 PM ^
I'm not a journalist, but it appears that rampant speculation is just fine on Twitter -- hey, look no further than the tweet quoted in the OP, which is based on "unconfirmed rumblings." Apparently, when you're writing a "real story" -- whatever that might be in the Internet age -- you need actual sources, but rumors and idle speculation are enough to fire up the Twitter feed. You certainly are quite right to question whether this distinction is justified when more people are getting their "news" from Twitter than from published news reports.
February 6th, 2015 at 1:23 PM ^
that's a story that you simply have to have down complete with sources before you run with it at that time.
OTOH, I can't believe that this wasn't being talked about in some of those nether regions of the Edge of the Internet. Of course, those would probably be places that Weber doesn't know about.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^
"i.e., is a reporter obligated to break news when he knows that news may have a ripple effect?"
I mean, I guess Watergate could have been disclosed.
February 6th, 2015 at 1:16 PM ^
Nah. If a reporter is given insider news with the caveat -- "I won't tell you this unless you PROMISE you won't release it until X time," then I would think you are within your journalistic ethics to abide by the promise.
If you release the info "early," then you've lost the source and burned the bridge. So sure, he COULD have release it early. But at what cost to his hooks into the program? If he learns something early and sits on it, that's fine. If he wants to burn the source/bridge and release it, fine too.
I can think of a context that's outside of football. Reporters at the Pentagon are told an invasion will occur Feb. 24 -- but, they have to sit on the info. So they sit on it. Invasion occurs. Reports say afterwards, "yeah I knew about it but I wasn't allowed to tell anyone." Is that a breach of journalism ethics? I can't imagine it would be -- in fact that was the exact situation with Desert Storm, when I think at least a few Pentagon reporters knew the date well in advance. (Releasing the news early arguably might have been a breach of national security -- although not likely b/c reporters don't have to sign national security contracts and aren't 'cleared' through a normal process to be reporters at the Pentagon -- but in any event, reporters sometimes value their ethics OVER national security laws -- they are different sets of morals/rules.)
February 6th, 2015 at 1:34 PM ^
Journalism and sports writing don't have a whole lot in common.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:53 AM ^
Rumblings are nice, but proof/facts better. Any credible tweets or reports?
February 6th, 2015 at 11:54 AM ^
I'm unfamiliar with this guy, how reliable is he? I know he is stating that there are "rumblings", but is Tony Paul credible? I only ask because my buddy at OSU continues to deny that anything wrong happened regarding Weber, so I'm interested in any info I can share with him.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:57 AM ^
Who is @TonyPaul1984? This wouldn't shock me at all. I do feel bad for Weber though.
Also, the most shocking thing to me about the Roquan Smith story is that LA beat writers supposedly sat on the story about their DC leaving for 3 weeks! How much did the "bag men" have to pay those reporters to keep their yaps shut?
February 6th, 2015 at 12:00 PM ^
Tony Paul is a Detroit sports blogger. He follows the Tigers.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:54 AM ^
I don't think this should surprise anybody.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:57 AM ^
Who are the top RBs for 2016?
February 6th, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^
Kereem Walker. Committed to OH.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 12:18 PM ^
Its the Alabama model and it works pretty well. Take a bunch of RBs and let them sort it out on the field. Plus, running backs have a short shelf life as it is, so if you can get through college and into the NFL with only 1-2 seasons of wear on tear on your body instead of 3-4, that prolongs your career and money making opportunities.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^
Also, George Hill. Also committed to OSU. So...
February 6th, 2015 at 12:05 PM ^
Also, also, Demario McCall. Who is from Ohio and seems to want to play for OSU. Ranked 1, 4, and 3 respectively in 247. Something something rich getting richer.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:19 PM ^
I really like the McCall kid. That kid has wheels. I'm hoping Michigan extends an offer.
February 6th, 2015 at 6:37 PM ^
And Weber didn't want to come to U of M because they signed a 3 star RB from Iowa? The young man seems uninformed. Michigan needed him more than OSU. He might not even play at OSU.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:05 PM ^
There are some goods ones right here in Michigan - Falcon and Pettaway are both 4*.
February 6th, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^
To be fair, even the best journalists will hold a story depending on the requests of the source. If somebody in Ohio State or UCLA's sports department, said, "hey, off the record, coach X is leaving in two weeks" and said journalist reported that fact then they wouldn't be a journalist for very long.
As for the coaches recruiting these kids, that's a different story.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:30 PM ^
In fact, if a reporter reports news that irritates and/or implicates the entity they cover, THEN they are a journalist. Then they are a "reporter"...
I don't believe it's this osu beat writer's (or a ucla reporter that knew about Ulbrich) true goal to be a journalist - their goal is to maintain access, and remain employed!
February 6th, 2015 at 1:32 PM ^
You're misconstruing what I said. If a source (let's say the SID for a school) says that they are telling you something off the record, you don't report it because then you won't have sources for very long and you can't do your job.
It's not about whether it's beneficial to the organization you're covering, it's about not burning peope who could potentially tell you things on the record at some point.
It's not a black and white situation, either. Maybe a coach says something like, "yea, can't believe this guy might be leaving" and you go with "sources say coach x is going to the NFL" and then the deal falls through, then half of this board rips said reporter apart for the dreaded "sources say" tag.
I don't know the back story so I can't say whether this was common knowledge and this guy is a huge Ohio State fan and wanted Weber to commit and so he didn't report it or it was just unconfirmed rumblings.
What I do know is that unless you are 100% certain about something, don't say anything.
February 6th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^
to benefit a coach's request to not report something he knows could alter the recruitment of a certain player makes no sense under most journalistic conditions. Reporters don't normally do this, because it ruins their reputation once word leaks that they withheld a story to protect a propietary interest instead of the public interest which ordinarily is more important.
It's not the same as a national security issue or even release of information that relates to a governmental action or the choice of a public figure. But it happens all the time because reporting like coaching is based on relationships and choices made to get stories and report them accurately.
There ought to be no question under the circumstances now known that Ohio 's intent in landing Weber was to prevent Michigan in recruiting him, and if a beat writer was aware of Weber's recruitment to the extent that he chose to sit on a story about Drayton's hire by the Chicago Bears in order to protect his source's interests over public interest, then he is as guilty as Drayton in betraying Weber's trust.
Recruiting and signing rules are clearly on the side of academic institutions because they wrote the rules and then oblibgate themselves to follow them under a third party agency engaged to them in the NCAA, which is hardly a neutral player in the process.
What's more, if the reporter knew Drayton was already hired by the Bears and waiting for signing day to end brefore reporting the news, then he was complicit with the lie that is now being spread by Buckeye backers about when Meyer and company became aware of this,
Any communication that Drayton had with Weber suggesting he would be coaching him following his signing would signal this betrayal. And if the reporter disavows this as well in order to protect himself from the taint of that disclosre, it would further besmirch his character and journalistic reputation.
You may get pissed about the Freep and what it did to Michigan in Stretchgate, but obviously they went ahead with information they learned from an inside source at Michigan, no matter what the motivation to publish the story.
And clearly Michigan has many grads in the Detroit media who have sat on stories about the program over the years to protect sources, the program and their access to it. You have to make a judgment about this if you are covering a team and how it might impact your work as a journalist.
The damage here is the pressure applied to a young man making a tough choice about his future and the emotional stake outsiders have in that choice and the judgment rendered, regardless of the ethical and legal impacts.
Weber is damaged if his choice was wrongly influenced by incomplegte information not made available because such disclosure would have resulted in another choice.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:00 PM ^
It's not being homery to be a little skeptical re: Michigan's "lie..." UM offered 3-4 RBs the weeks leading up to NLOI day, all while recruiting Weber. Higdon visited the same weekend Weber apparently did. And as the OP points out, Michigan accepted Higdon's LOI first thing in the morning, hours before Weber's decision. Hardly seems like a program trying to swindle a kid.
But -- even if you accept it was a lie... and man, as I said, that's the worst executed lie ever ("you'll be our only RB" "what about the RB who just committed, Higdon?" "NEVER HEARD OF HIM NOW TURN OFF YOUR INTERNET"), talk about false equivalency.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:03 PM ^
Exactly - the whole premise was based on Weber committing, which he did not. Therefore, a lie is not even possible in this scenario.
February 6th, 2015 at 3:36 PM ^
At the bargaining table, there's nothing unscrupulous from walking away from an unconsumated deal.
Even if Weber's alleged arrangement had been raised--that Harbaugh would take only Weber in exchange for his commitment--obviously, it was just a proposed agreement.
There's nothing morally binding to an unaccepted agreement, and even Weber admits he was 50/50 when he woke up on signing day.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:00 PM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 1:19 PM ^
To be fair, what the kid wanted was to play for Hoke at UM. Then you fired Hoke. Then he wanted to play at OSU. Then Michigan tried to flip him (that's another ethical and moral debate we can spend 400 comments on, for the record, I don't have a problem with flipping, but I can see why people would) last minute. Michigan tried to barge back in on his life and was the root cause of his pre-signing day stress. Both sides are selfish here. Michigan is the side chick trying to break up a family. Ohio State is the new boyfriend desperately trying to convince his new girlfriend she's over her ex. Both sides are selfish.
Unfortunately, Mike Weber got dicked around.
February 6th, 2015 at 1:44 PM ^
While I agree with some of your points, if you are trying to equate the two behaviors (flipping him vs withholding information) there is a huge difference. Trying to re-recruit a player (after a new coach is put in place) that seemed very clearly to favor Michigan hardly seems unethical. If you think so then you might want to check if Meyer recruits committed players. No one is criticizing Meyer for that.
February 6th, 2015 at 5:59 PM ^
He very clearly favored OSU. Everyone else in his life favored Michigan. Big difference.
February 6th, 2015 at 1:45 PM ^
Yes there was a recruiting battle over Weber, Weber was conflicted and it stressed him out. If that's the definition of getting dicked around then every 2 star with a couple D II offers gets dicked around. The "unfortunate" part is strictly related to Drayton taking another position a day after LOI day. I'd come up with a clever analogy for this like you did, but mine would be far more relevant to what actually happened.
February 6th, 2015 at 2:46 PM ^
To expand your analogy, yeah, M is the chick trying to convince her ex to go back to her and OSU is the new GF trying to convince him to get through this M chick. What OSU did wrong was not telling Weber that she was in fact married until after Weber had no more the ability to choose between the two of them....
February 6th, 2015 at 4:15 PM ^
So Michigan is the one trying to break up a family. Got it.
Thanks.
February 6th, 2015 at 5:56 PM ^
Yes. He verbally committed to OSU, Michigan tried to get him to de-commit. That's exactly what happened.
February 6th, 2015 at 9:49 PM ^
February 6th, 2015 at 5:29 PM ^
Did you just kind half admit (while giving an obligitory insult toward Michigan) that Ohi State dicked over a 17 year old kid?
February 6th, 2015 at 5:55 PM ^
I've fully admitted this entire time that OSU has been in the wrong. I also have fully defended the fact that their wrong is not some disaster of a situation that everyone on this board thinks it is. If the absolute worst thing that comes from this is Mike Weber gets to play for a better football program that uses its top RBs better and get a top public education at the same time, then I think we all should step back and realize what we're arguing about.
I'd be 100x more pissed if OSU did what Texas just did, which is tell a kid no one was leaving after they explicitly asked. There's nothing out there that Mike Weber asked Drayton "are you going to be here forever?" and Drayton said "Yes." That's outright indefensible lying. Failing to tell a kid you're interviewing is omission (he may not have even got the job remember) and while bad, isn't that bad.
tl;dr
OSU doesn't come out of this good, but quite frankly this got blown up so bad because you were also recruiting him. If the school that lost out on Weber was Tennessee or something, ten of you would have cared. I haven't seen one person talk about the poor Texas recruits Du'Vonta Lampkin or Charles Omenihu.
February 6th, 2015 at 8:52 PM ^
February 7th, 2015 at 6:19 AM ^
the absolute worst thing that comes from this is Mike Weber gets to play for a better football program that uses its top RBs better and get a top public education at the same time...
Weber to Wisconsin is not the worst possible outcome here.
February 6th, 2015 at 3:40 PM ^
he would have to sit for two years.
If that is the case, then he'd be better off going outside of the B1G and just sitting for a defacto redshirt year.
February 6th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^
And Michigan has two douchebags like Rosenberg and Sharp.