Bacon on WTKA
side note: I saw a youtube video a while ago that showed putting duct tape over someone's mouth does not do anything and can be easily removed by moving your mouth around
I'm not allowed to comment towards Section 1. He's supposed to do the same.
Your promise not to comment towards me (you're hardly complying, if it is in fact the case) may be a term of your probation with the MGoMods. But don't drag me into your disciplinary issues. I'm not living under any special MGoRules.
So, you thought he might not stand by his soon to be published book? What about economics do you not understand? This guy now makes a living writing controversial books. He knows what he is doing.
No, I didn't expect him to retract anything. So the rest of your trashtalking is largely moot.
Ok, then I'm not sure what your point is then, other than to carry on with your crusade and get more use out of your knee guards.
I think the OP is just shedding a little more light, directly from the authors mouth, on a he said/he said aspect of the book. I don't think anyone thinks that Bacon was going to say, " USC is right, I was wrong....Redd flew commercial"
when it is only truth/facts being said or written
haha what? in none of his books has ever provided proof of most of the truly contreversial things. He has notes from anonymous people within penn state, who probably are not big fans of redd and no legitimate proof. No flight log, no pictures of snoop dog/lion, nothing that proves anything. You can choose to believe him, I don't after some things he reported about Michigan got proven false, but to say they are facts with no doubt is absurd.
Bacon was fairly honest in his reporting on UofM with regards to RR...just because it was our home team under the microscope doesn't make his interviews false...you cannot accuse the guy of lying/twisting stories to sell more books without proof, because that makes you look just as accusational as anyone else who doesn't like the outcome of a certain story/investigation based on interviews...if the interviewee lied to Bacon that isn't on him, but Redd going to USC where there is already a trail of cheating leads me and most people to believe his reports are accurate
I didn't dislike Bacon's take on Michigan because it was my team, I disliked it because I thought it was shoddy reporting and intentionally misleading. There were discussions on here when the book came out and I remember there being things that were proven wrong, not just speculated against. But regardless of my feelings my comment was in reply to the poster proclaiming the facts reported by Bacon as truth when the reality of the situation is that there is no proof on either side. Honestly I believe that USC and Kiffin would cheat, that doesn't make Bacon right in this particular instance but there is no proof he was wrong either, its a matter of judgement at this point, not fact. I didn't accuse Bacon of lying, but if you get an interview from a potentially bias source you should provide other evidence beyond the interview to back it up. Penn State had a reason to dislike redd and USC, so without furhter proof I'm not going to just believe interviews from the PSU side either.
I lost respect for Bacon when he not only did a 180 about the coaching change but lied about it afterwards. It's one thing to be skeptical initially and then come around in favor (as Brian was here) - that's understandable. But Bacon publicly criticized the firing and then, a few months later, flat-out denied saying the things he'd been quoted in the papers. He even attacked fans who pointed out his inconsistencies. He came off to me as a guy who doesn't have the courage to admit he was wrong.
It's controversial to assert that Southern Cal football gives illegal benefits to recruits?? I think you could throw a dart at a USC roster ten times and hit a guy who received illegal benefits with every throw.
You're missing the point. The point is a real journalist doesn't rely on hearsay to prove allegations, he goes to the source to get their position on the matter. You don't rely on "well why would the guys who stayed at Penn State and were ticked off Silas Redd transferred make up this plausibly believable story?" You engage in journalism to attempt to find out the truth. All this makes me wonder what crap Bacon has written about Michigan this time around.
If it's true that multiple sources indepenently volunteered the information then I have no problem with him including it in his book. "Real journalists" also don't believe everything that the person accused of a misdeed says. Is he supposed to have gone to USC, have them deny the allegations, and take that as stone cold fact?
Regarding your last question: no. Of course not, but he's obligated as a non-partial provider of the facts to ask them for their position on the matter. Unless he's concerned their position will harm his book, at which point he ceases being unbiased.
First, I think I do hope that JUB went to USC and asked them about the story. And sure, they may have denied it, and sure you weigh that denial and you go on with your writing.
I have to say, "I think" that I would hope John did that, because I don't know what he actually wrote, yet. I'll find out on September 3 or thereabouts. There's not much controversy if John wrote, "Several of Redd's PSU teammates told me that he flew to Los Angeles on a private jet arranged by Snoop..." That seems to be a lock.
Beyond that, if John wrote as a matter of fact that Redd did the private jet-flight, basing it on his interviews with the PSU players, then that assertion of fact -- and a likely NCAA violation -- might merit some more discussion. (Would it be another major violation for USC football while on probation? A death penalty offense? I gotta believe that people aren't going to let this die easily.)
Interesting to me at this time is how and why USC got their jockstrap in a twist at this particular time. Did a jounalist get look at a galley proof of Fourth and Long, and call Lane Kiffin? Or did USC know this was coming, because they knew that they had been approached by Bacon on this very subject? Or -- let's be open to all possibilities -- something else?
It will be very interesting.
Two other things I am hoping at this time: (1) this controversy over USC "recruiting" helps to draw attention to the book and helps drive sales, and (2) a USC recruiting scandal (another?!?) doesn't overshadow what I expect will be some very interesting discussion on the larger state of D-1 college football.
All the mods at The Wolverine got advance copies, and I understand that advance copies have been sent around to media members (Dan Wetzel commented on the book a month ago on Twitter). Also, excerpts have been appearing in, I believe, the Wall Street Journal. But maybe it's the NYT.
My guess is that independently volunteered means less than you think it does. Why would multiple players randomly bring up redd without being prompted? I'm guessing he asked specifically about it and the situation and they responded in the affirmative. Obviously this is pure speculation, I just think independently volunteered is a rather vague term.
When I first read about it a few days ago, I just suspected that it was a BS rumor that rampantly made its way through the locker room. After a couple of weeks, all of the players have heard it a number of times, from many fellow players, and it is accepted as fact.
What I actually haven't been able to under is why Bacon would actually accept the story from several (or all for that matter) at face value.
How the hell do the Penn State players know this, anyway? Does anyone actually think that any of them were at LAX and witnessed when Snoop Dog picked Redd up.
The players could have been completely truthful, but the source of the information they got had to be at least second-hand, and likely much even more far removed.
First of all you clearly don't understand the definition of hearsay.
Second, do you really think Redd or Kiffin are going to admit this on the record? Of course not, so Baccon went with other sources that he deemed credible (ie. people who talked to Redd at the time, etc.) This happens in almost every news story in the history of journalism and it makes me wonder what crap you have going on in your head.
My guess its not as bad as he wrote it, but there is enough shady stuff that happend, that there is no way USC will push the issue, since they have more to loose.
What bacon has written for me?
like the sun rising everyday, section 1 is on his high horse
which stories were fabricated? sorry to break it to you, but the Michigan mafia did their best to torpedo Rich Rod. however, also had every opportunity to rise above the BS thrown at him, but failed to do so.
that can't be traced back to 97.1. If that is where you are collecting information, I feel bad for you.
I love how you both are arguing without any specifics. You criticize 97.1, but your conversation sounds just like something those yahoos would say.
you two sound like Michael Rothstein when confronted about taking quotes out of context from a number of Michigan football players.
nope I am pointing towards members of the Michigan football team from interviews with Angelique Chengalis at the Detroit news. Go ahead keep believing the old guard are angels.
I'd like to know so when I get up will to continue reading the book of the dark years, I can pick it out.
(Being a Fierce Pragmatist, I can only read a chapter or less at a time because it relives traumatic memories, and even then only after a couple glasses of single malt.)
There was one story about how upset a player was for getting benched at halftime of a game. (I want to say it was Threet). However, said player started and played the majority of the second half of the game and was not in fact benched.
2008, at Penn State.
Threet, teary-eyed in the locker room, is approached by coaches, trying to figure out if he is injured. They confirm that he is not injured. Bacon reports that coaches said to Sheridan in the halftime locker room, "You're in."
Sheridan did not play the first series in the second half; Threet started. But (perhaps as soon as he was warmed up, I don't know) Sheridan then took over in the net series.
You should stick to posting your pointless and juvenile .gif images, and not play with big-boy ideas, chief.
Wow. This is like someone with a PPO taunting the subject of said PPO so you can have them arrested. (Last line only)
Bullshit. Threet was held out of the next 2 games due to injury, per the coaches.
Bacon fabricated this story, or confused games.
Furthermore, Threet's 1st half in Happy Valley was the best half of football we got at QB all year. You mean to say he was pulled?
As we say in research science, got proof?
Yes, my proof that he was not pulled at the half is the fact that he started the 2nd half.
Pretty easy to check without even leaving the site. Check out the offense UFR for the game: http://mgoblog.com/content/upon-further-review-offense-vs-penn-state-1
Threet started the 2nd half and led a decent drive into Penn State territory, but RR decided to punt on 4th and 8 inside PSU's 40.
Sheridan the next two "drives" (the first he is sacked for a safety). Threet in for the 4th, then Sheridan the rest of the way.
Steven Threet started the game well for the University of Michigan football team, leading the Wolverines to 17 first-half points against No. 3 Penn State.
But in the third quarter, the Michigan quarterback re-injured his throwing elbow, and gave way to backup Nick Sheridan. For the second game in a row as an injury replacement, Sheridan was ineffective...
...Threet's right throwing elbow appeared fine Saturday until the quarterback took a shot from defensive tackle Abe Koroma. After that third-down play, Threet walked over to the sideline, his arm hanging by his side.
"He lost complete feeling in it, couldn't throw," Michigan quarterback coach Rod Smith said. "Sat him out a series, tried to rehab it over there, got the feeling back, then he got hit on it again."
Bacon's account is 100% bullshit. According to the fucking COACHES Threet was pulled in the 3rd quarter because he got injured.
Again, for emphasis: BACON'S ACCOUNT IS EITHER CONFUSED (IE, what game it was) OR A LIE.
Yeah, I'm guessing that Threet got hurt on one of the last couple of plays of the first drive of the 3rd quarter. When he came back in for the 4th drive of the 2nd half he didn't throw (2 hand offs and a sack).
I remember that if the defense could have held and not given up that TD drive to end the first half to cut the score to 17-7, things might have been a little different... maybe?
Well, we would have lost by 7 fewer points anyway.
Basically, in order for Bacon's account to be true, you need to ignore that Threet started the third quarter, that he visibly faked an injury, the coaches then went back on their decision to pull him (because Threet came out for another series), and then Rod Smith lied to the press.
I've been agreeing with you.
Just like with the Purdue game you referred to elsewhere, if Bacon looked at the DVR of that game and the PSU game, he would know that his account doesn't line up with events as they played out. I suspect that he did not do this.
Was Bacon actually at the PSU game and in the locker room at half time, or was his account derived from later interviews of players, coaches, etc, and collated 2 or 3 years later? I do not recall from the book, but I think the latter.
I doubt that this has been fabrication as some have asserted, but rather poor vetting and sourcing, some of which may have occurred more than a year after the games.
Which I also think is the case of the Penn State/Redd/Snoop Dogg/USC stuff. Why would anyone take the word of a couple of players reporting on events (regarding an ex-teamate who abandoned them) that took place 4,000 miles away?
Yes. And act as if the warrantless statement of jilted team-mates need no corroboration, then looking moon-eyed at people questioning this and going "why would they lie?".
I think he's utterly disingenuous. He is either an outright liar, or, as you suggest, mindlessly passing along 2nd-hand testimony without bothering to verify it.
I haven't followed the discrepancies of the book Three and Out as closely as you have, and certainly some of the errors can be attributed to poor fact-checking (in the case of scores), trying to resolve differing accounts into one readable one, etc.
Regarding the Penn State half time situation discussed above, I highly doubt he witnessed this first hand, so he very well may be just reporting RR's or some other coach's version without checking to see if it is consistent with the game tape.
But this Penn State/Redd/USC/Snoop Dogg thing raised a red flag for me when it was reported and became a much bigger thing when he said that he had no reason to doubt the players truthfulness. Regardless of how truthful these players are, they could not have first-hand knowledge of the events in LA.
In short, when Bacon said today on radio that he had no reason to doubt the players, he displayed all the concern for the veracity of the facts of a Hollywood gossip columnist.
And that is quite an interesting approach for an author promoting a book with the subtitle "The Fight for the Soul of College Football."
As we say in research science.
That looks like some pretty good data.
got wrong not fabricate. you are like people calling Obama a liar for getting the details wrong for climate science.
How did he "get it wrong"?
He says Threet cried in his locker because he got benched. Threet demonstrably never got benched.
How does he get that wrong? Did he confuse games?
If he did confuse games, is that supposed to bolster my confidence in his reporting?
You're acting like people who claim climate change isn't true despite the mountain of evidence staring them in the goddam face.
3rd Q, Threet passing, the announcers talking about taking another shot at his elbow
And remember - Bacon explicitly states that Threet's tears and his ouster (which didn't happen then) were not due to injury.
... Can you share details on what he fabricated? First time I've heard that.
"Got things wrong" is more accurate.
Man, if you really want to sludge through all that again here's a start-
And that was just one search. Last season's MGoBlog edition of HTTV is another good one. But while I'd do a quick search, I don't know that I'd recommend going back and reading all that.
More details on what Bacon wrote and the Redd issue can be found in this recent thread: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/redd-or-bacon-someone-seriously-mistaken
JUB of course knows the legal standard for defamation, so his declaration for people to "bring it on" is the equivalent of Boubacar Cissoko waving the incomplete sign after Golden Tate lit him up all day in 2009. The fact remains that Bacon's explanation for not even contacting USC, Redd or his family to examine the quote is one of the crappiest explanations for non-journalism I've ever read. It's very hard to take him seriously after reading that, and it definitely sheds light on the blatant homerism for one side in his 3 and Out book. It's very likely he just didn't bother trying to interview the people who he criticized in that book either.
when he said he contacted people who refused to comment or be interviewed?
Bacon cannot make people talk, he can simply reach out to them...and he obviously felt that by people not responding was an indicator that the research he gathered thru interviews has a better chance than not of being true
"he obviously felt that by people not responding was an indicator that the research he gathered thru interviews has a better chance than not of being true"
If this is was Bacon's approach, it is deplorable. It is, my friend, is why you should keep in mind that you are reading a subjective, biased reporting of events, not an objective, peer-reviewed accounting.
That last sentence is ironic given that you're the one accusing HIM of malfeasance — Bacon takes questions anywhere and everywhere about his work and his methods, and you're an anonymous guy on the internet who's declaring that it's "very likely" he didn't do something you have no idea if he did or not.
Or do you want to put your real name and e-mail address on that accusation, like Bacon puts his name and reputation on the things he writes?
Also — and this is a pet peeve as a fellow writer — it wasn't _Bacon_ that "criticized" Lloyd. It was the people who were involved in the situation who told Bacon what happened from their point of view. Just as there were people who told him about RR's botched handling of Lloyd's assistants, and the many other dumb things RR is shown doing in the book.
Here's the John U. Bacon segment, as it is pertinent to the thread - HERE
Bacon does come out swinging, it seems, on this one, immediately referencing his notes and how they contain supporting information for his stance in a couple interviews. He claims that the USC stuff came into light unprompted (i.e., he didn't ask about "Snoop") in those interviews.
I was editing it into the OP just as you were posting. For those who may be inclined to listen to the podcast, LSA2000 is right; they wasted no time getting into USC. You won't have to listen to a 50-minute podcast.
And by the way, listeners will note that John is coordinating a couple of big appearances with the release of his book. New York, Chicago, etc. Where he will no doubt field tough questions. Just as he did with the tour(s) surrounding Three and Out.
Fielding tough questions; what a concept. Something that a number of Bacon's critics and subjects never seem to do.
"Fielding tough questions; what a concept. Something that a number of Bacon's critics and subjects never seem to do."
You just dont get it. Perhaps you are blinded by your own fealty, or you are just drunk, but anybody can field tough questions about a monograph. For the most part, because it is a non-peer reviewed monograph, we have to take his word about his methods, the extent of commonalities across interviews, how data from interviews fit together, how events fit together, and so on. Being able to give his impressions and his take on such things does not mean that his telling of events is not biased to an uncomfortable degree for many of us.
You guys are talking like the guy is on the stand, under oath or something. He's a writer, a psuedo-journalist, whatever that means these days. He interviews people, they tell him things, he maybe follows up on things and if he gets independent corroboration he writes them in his book. None of what he does constitutes an investigation, or would be admissible in a lawsuit. On the other hand, he's covered himself enough to show he didn't just pull stuff from thin air so no one's going to be able to come after him for defamation or slander or whatever..... pretty much the same thing with thousands of articles and reports that get written every day. I'm not sure why Bacon gets the microscope treatment just because he wrote some behind the scenes stuff about our program in his previous book, as if whether the new accusations are true or not would validate/invalidate his previous work or something.
that when the AD was trying to persuade the team to play in the TicketCity Bowl in 2011, he told the captains that they could use the money to pay off the $60 million sanctions - sanctions that wouldn't be mentioned, much less imposed, until July 2012? Because that's how the latest excerpt has it playing out.
I think Bacon's assertion in that podcast that Henson started over Brady is way worse of an offense than quoting those PSU players about Redd. It might be time to stop considering him some sort of definitive historian of UM sports.
Is this the same radio appearance in which he claims Henson started over Brady in 1999, explaining why it's hard to get Brady back to campus today?
You know, which is 100% bullshit?