Apparently I have to say this: treat recruits with respect

Submitted by Brian on

Brandon posted an article about 2016 recruit Teryn Savage, and this is his takeaway from his experience at MGoBlog:

https://twitter.com/TerynSavage/status/382644691738451968

So congratulations, leftrare, MGoBrewMom, JuggernautRides, and chitownblue2, and the other people in that thread who insulted the kid for no reason. Guess what: people are interested to see what people say about them on the internet, and now a potential recruit doesn't want to talk to Brandon. 

If you think that 2016 is a magic land from which news cannot come, don't read it. We're going to report on kids that are being recruited. 

Going forward, anything that could be interpreted as an insult to a blameless high school kid will result in a no-warning ban. Even if that interpretation is crazy. Any "pedo" references will also result in a ban. 

In conclusion, guh.

turd ferguson

September 24th, 2013 at 8:18 PM ^

Happy to hear that you live in such a black and white world.

You don't think there are any potentially negative consequences to having a bunch of schools' versions of MGoBlog, along with national media like ESPN, 247, Scout, and Rivals, along with anyone who wants to make a name for himself by starting a blog and breaking recruiting news, pestering 14/15-year-old kids for (frequent) interviews and then conducting those interviews with kids who most likely have no idea how to handle them?

I'm guilty here, too, because I like reading recruiting news, but there's no way in hell that I'd want my own kids (if I had them) subjected to that.

EDIT: I should add that one of the things I like best about Ace is that he seems a little reluctant, in a totally healthy and grown up way, to dive into these kids' lives like some other recruiting types do.  I also like that he seems to give kids the benefit of the doubt with everything he writes.  Whenever I see an adult on Twitter pestering 14/15-year-olds for interviews I'm taken aback a bit.

Voltron Blue

September 24th, 2013 at 8:20 PM ^

Then don't let your kids do it?

I'm sure there could be negative consequences, but I'm sure Brian will hold himself and his staff to high standards in the conduct with and presentation of these kids.  In light of that, he's made a rule for himself (that is an important part of the business he runs).  I'm surprised that's surprising to you.  I mean, there are "potential negative consequences" to driving a car, or drinking beer, but you probably don't have moral qualms about those things.  Brian can't control what everyone else does on the subject.

 

turd ferguson

September 24th, 2013 at 8:58 PM ^

I love this comment.  I'm not sure whether my favorite part is what you wrote or the link.  My comments definitely suggest infertility and/or having fat, unathletic kids, and I'm sure that every parent's dream is to have Roger Goodell invite his kid to the Super Bowl.

jdon

September 24th, 2013 at 8:44 PM ^

Is it not obvious?  ok, I'll play:

Brian has been critical of the NCAA exploitation of student athletes and, at least some small portion, of the money he personally makes comes from the interviewing of high school students who are not compensated for their fodder that makes up a small portion of this blog,  THEN there is at least some close minded lack of introspection or a blatant double standard.

I mean, hell this site basically exists to follow michigan athletics right?  How much is Brian, or anyone else, chopping off the top to get cash back to the people (the athletes) who's lives are being bought and sold, in the form of blogposts, here each and every day...

 

I am sure that my argument isn't perfectly sound and you can probably poke logic holes in it but deep down inside doesn't it just seem a little irreverant that HTVV content revolves around a group of people who can't reap financial benefit with Mgoblog and others pay the bills throught the exchange of information covering said athletes.

Am I the only one?

I can't be.

jdon

 

Mmmm Hmmm

September 24th, 2013 at 8:51 PM ^

One difference of note: As far as I know, media outlets don't pay players from professionals to middle schoolers to speak.  The NCAA refuses to let college students to get paid for exactly what professional athletes get paid for (playing), or for anything outside of playing.  In other words, the NCAA assumes that any money given to a player taints his/her (mostly his) amateur status--you cannot be a NCAA player and receive money for your talents with some very minor exceptions.

As an aside, I do not think that paying players during their time in college is either feasible or advisable, but I guess I can see the argument.

cbuswolverine

September 24th, 2013 at 9:06 PM ^

Do you think it's standard to be paid for agreeing to be interviewed?  It sounds like that's what you're saying.  And you also seem to believe that the media should give money to the people who are part of the stories which they cover.  Interesting.

jdon

September 24th, 2013 at 9:29 PM ^

I don't know.

 

Honestly, I don't think what Brian does is necessarily exploitation and I'm sure many high school athletes benefit from the exposure.  I am not even defined on how I feel about the blog's 'exploitation' of the student athletes, but I do know that NCAA football is little more than indentured servitude.   I do believe that Brian and mgoblog are not money grubbing whores by any means but I do think the fact that they make money from content they sell (when the content concerns high school players who don't even have the facade of training table and scholarships) exposes a juxtaposition that is worth exploring.

jdon

 

Farstate

September 24th, 2013 at 10:03 PM ^

My unsolicited advice is for you to take a minute and do some research (how interviews work whether entertainment or not) and then take another minute and flesh out what discussion you are actually trying to have. If you want to have a real discussion you might also want to leave out statements such as "...I do know that NCAA football is little more than indentured servitude." Those comments lead down different paths than what you appear to want to discuss. Also, I am not trying to be a jerk.

grumbler

September 24th, 2013 at 10:03 PM ^

" I do know that NCAA football is little more than indentured servitude."

Dear Flying Spagetti Monster, are we reduced to this?  That people get to make up what they "know" out of whole cloth?

Any NCAA football player can declare himself a pro and play for money with any team that will take him.  This will generally be semi-pro ball, because the NFL Players' Association won't take them as members, but the option is there.  No indentured servants had such an option.

Get.Your.Head.Outta.Your.Ass

Or go straight to the Hitler comparisons.  At least they are funny.

edventure008

September 24th, 2013 at 9:58 PM ^

For the most part, professional athletes/entertainers are paid to do interviews but not are paid directly by the interviewer.  They are paid either through salary to meet obligations (professional athletes) or they are fined by the league or organization if they do not meet it.  Actors and Musicians are often on talk shows or doing interviews to promote their new release.  They are marketing their product. 

It goes both ways for the interviewer and interviewee.  The interviewer gets what they want and ultimately get paid through page clicks, tv/radio advertising...etc.  The interviewee is able to market.

I suggest looking up the Matt Harvey interview with Dan Patrick to hear DP's rant.

 

Colin M

September 25th, 2013 at 9:24 AM ^

I think one big difference is that Brian hasn't gotten together with all the other blog owners and created a regulatory organization that prohibits the kids from earning a living, selling their likeness, etc.

Brown Bear

September 24th, 2013 at 8:35 PM ^

How does getting the kid more exposure on a large blog affect him negatively? If anything it makes the kid a hotter commodity and helps him. Brian isn't selling t-shirts with the kids name on it and the traffic to this site for strictly recruiting news pales in comparison to the recruiting sites out there.

M-Wolverine

September 24th, 2013 at 8:44 PM ^

Getting on tv, a free education, and a road to the pros affect one negatively? It's the same thing, making a profit off the back of other's ability, and in this case, literally THEIR words. And the Store has sold "Shoelace" shirts as well as Martin Hulk shirts and various other player specific ones.

trueblueintexas

September 24th, 2013 at 11:32 PM ^

M-Wolverine you are typically fairly on point with your posts, but this one seems to have struck a nerve. What you have described above I believe is the definition of capitalism. The company I work for is making more profit off of the back of my ability than what they are paying me. If they paid me equal value for what I do they wouldn't make a profit, I would be the only one making a profit.

trueblueintexas

September 24th, 2013 at 11:51 PM ^

There are two pieces to this question, the first is about the NCAA model. I am not going to get into that because it would be a multi-page thesis. The second point is the seemingly contradictory stance between Brian's thoughts on the NCAA and the role of this blog. I see a very big difference between the two based on the nature of how, where, and why the funding is generated. Again, this would be a very long response to give it fair treatment. Would love to have a forum to discuss in length sometime.

DGDestroys

September 24th, 2013 at 9:24 PM ^

The whole 'exposure' thing is a narrative a lot of recruiting sites want to pass along to improve their public image; when the truth is that a player's tape will do a lot more than a blog interview to get the player noticed..I mean, people do realize that scouting and recruiting existed before the internet, right? Even in such a dreaded time, the better players generally went to the better schools.

Even if you wanted to extend the argument and mention how some coaches openly discuss star ratings, well...those are from recruiting sites. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a coach who reads MGoBlog for future prospects. 

This isn't meant to take a side on this debate, let's just have the argument without this benevolent facade of exposure. 

Erik_in_Dayton

September 24th, 2013 at 9:45 PM ^

If you help make a 15 year old famous - famous as in "I've seen you interviewed and know semi- personal things about you," not just famous as in "I've seen your highlights" - you might be lucky if the worst thing that happens is that a kid is called young-looking.

M-Wolverine

September 24th, 2013 at 8:41 PM ^

Those kids (and that's truly what they are) aren't even getting a scholarship. I wouldn't mind how the site reconciles Ace's reluctance to post about kids too far into the future, but has no problem with this Brown guy doing it. (Which is probably part of the problem...he's the first addition recruiting of otherwise that didn't have a perfect reputation coming into the job to be given the benefit of the doubt). The wording makes it sound like the blog is more mad the recruit won't talk to Brown than that he was insulted. (Is saying someone looks young insulting?)

In reply to by M-Wolverine

trueblueintexas

September 24th, 2013 at 11:35 PM ^

In response to your last sentence, it's however the person the comment was said about interprets it. My wife was 6'1", she definitely was insulted when people made comments about her height.

Shop Smart Sho…

September 24th, 2013 at 9:59 PM ^

You aren't bothered by a grown man tweeting at kids begging for a follow?  I know that all of the school corporations I've worked with while becoming a teacher have strict policies forbidding interaction between teachers and students on social media.  If schools don't think their own employees should be involved with kids on twitter or facebook, then don't you think you guys should reconsider your own policy on how to at least initiate contact with recruits?  I know as a coach I would have a huge problem with a reporter contacting one of my athletes without first talking to their parents, me, or the school.

Shop Smart Sho…

September 24th, 2013 at 11:46 PM ^

They have.  The reporter asks me, and I point them on to the parent if they are there.  If the parent isn't there, I'll make the judgement call based on previous decisions by the parent.  There is one reporter in the area that one parent really doesn't like, and her daughter is my best player.  That reporter doesn't talk to that player.  I don't know why those two don't get along, but I'm going to follow the rules the parent has put in place.

trueblueintexas

September 24th, 2013 at 11:58 PM ^

I had the opposite experience growing up, multiple times. Some of it was related to sports, a couple other times it wasn't including having my picture be the spread on the front page of the newspaper. Not once was parental, teacher, or coach permission requested. Consider yourself fortunate for having at least one respectful local media reporter.

LSAClassOf2000

September 24th, 2013 at 7:53 PM ^

Of general note to the blog - to aid enforcement, please feel free to tweet or DM myself or any other mods with links to questionable replies in future threads regarding recruits. I think that I speak for all the mods when I say that we'll do our best to fish these out ASAP upon reporting. 

LSAClassOf2000

September 24th, 2013 at 8:16 PM ^

There isn't a formal list of mods and contact information, although if we're having to make showing basic respect for people a formal policy, that might be a good idea. JustinGoBlue is also on Twitter (@JustinSieges - hopefully he doesn't mind if I post that in light of this development). Not sure about Zone Left or others with mod powers. 

justingoblue

September 24th, 2013 at 8:36 PM ^

Myself and LSAClassOf2000 are the guys tasked with handling the day to day of the board and comments on the front page. BryanMac and profitgoblue are both former moderators who retain their status despite moving on from the day to day, and ZoneLeft is a busy guy who helps out when he can lend a hand. All of the staff (Brian, Seth, Ace, Heiko, Brandon Brown and the aforementioned BryanMac) obviously have mod powers, and it's Brian and Seth that supervise the mods work.

As for Twitter, I'm not up in arms about you posting my handle or anything but my account is protected and aside from our DM chats and a lot of following (including a lot of the verboten subject here) I really don't use it much. For those following me/I follow now or anyone with my personal email I'm fine with you using that, if not the best way to get in touch with me is my username here at gmail.com.

clarkiefromcanada

September 24th, 2013 at 9:06 PM ^

Not all of the "old school" and lengthy tenured commenters turned up in that thread. I also didn't notice the invective coming from those individuals.

If Brian returned the 'neg' then this sort of crap would get self policed; so a measure of responsibility is on Brian paying some coders or developers and operationalizing that.

End of the day, Brian needs to enable the community to police itself or you get anarchy at an MLive level.

M-Wolverine

September 24th, 2013 at 10:58 PM ^

But a number of the ones bringing up the issue, and that Brian called out, were. Does anyone relly think CRex is insulting kids by bringing up the concerns? A lot of posters didn't even read it. It wasn't a big post. I didn't. Mainly because since he was unaffliated "Coach" Brown has seemed to have a self-promotional way of going about things that doesn't really seem to have the class of Ace, or even a TomVH. He was the first hire that I thought was shakey after a long line of exceptional post-Tim hires. But that's not my call to make, and lots of people like it. So I just don't read it. Easy. But when there are threats you'd kinda like to know what kind of stuff elicits them. And in a world where self-policing wouldn't do much for (documented) this player/coach sucks, is obviously not smart, and worse posts, saying wow, do we want to be interviewing guys this young seems to be missing the forest for the trees.