CC: Adam Schefter on Countdown: Harbaugh to Michigan
December 27th, 2010 at 1:08 AM ^
December 29th, 2010 at 8:34 PM ^
RISING!
I liked the monkey avatar better.
December 27th, 2010 at 1:17 AM ^
December 27th, 2010 at 2:28 AM ^
We can't judge it; because we don't know who his source(s) were, or what they might have said.
And, let's be honest. This isn't just a Journalism 401 final exam on the use of anonymous sources. This is real life. What we're talking about is a process that has been corrosive for Michigan football and for Rich Rodriguez. The press' general treatment of Coach Rodriguez has been an outrage and an abomination. The first reporter who comes along and acknowledges that fact straight up is the one that I might treat as something other than an adverse witness.
December 27th, 2010 at 1:41 AM ^
so, if there's a press conference in 3 weeks announcing Harbaugh as our coach you're going to apologize for going batshit, yes?
December 27th, 2010 at 2:26 AM ^
And I didn't claim that he's usually wrong, or that he's going to be wrong this time. So no, I have nothing to apologize for. I'm not the guy claiming to have inside knowledge, from anonymous sources. I'm not predicting any particular future course of events.
But Schefter is, and he's now done it in precisely the same way (via anonymous sources) that some others have, and have been shown to be disastrously wrong.
If Schefter has indeed "heard" wrong, I'll, uh, remind him and everybody else. If that press conference in three weeks is a happy vote of confidence for Coach Rodriguez, and the welcoming of a Top-20 or Top-10 recruiting class, then I hope very much that there'll be a shitstorm for all of the Schefters (not to mention the Rosenbergs) of the sports world.
My position is the easiest and the least controversial. I'm not claiming anything. All I'm doing is asking how it is that Schefter knows anything about the immediate future of the Michigan football program. Do you have that answer?
December 27th, 2010 at 3:02 AM ^
I was just kidding guys! If you say one more word about a process I'll get YOU fired! lol!
December 27th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^
December 27th, 2010 at 3:21 PM ^
Good thing Schefter doesn't work for the New York Times, huh?
December 27th, 2010 at 3:21 AM ^
but they seem to be wrong 99% of the time. i plan to get a paper-pushing job in the AD at tOSU just so I can become a "reliable source" and spread hilarious rumors all the time that will end up being regurgitated by a dozen talking heads on espn
"adam schefter with fascintating news out of columbus today"
"word out of columbus today is that jim tressel wipes terrelle pryors ass for him. very reliable sources gave me this information, we'll report back as this story develops. back to you in studio"
December 27th, 2010 at 8:54 AM ^
"Oops, my bad you guys. Meant to say 'sources have JH going to San Francisco'. Will use spell check next time."
Should mention that I didn't "actually" get this tweet myself, saw it from a friends IPhone, and he wishes to remain any anonymous source...
December 27th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
As important as this issue is to the folks on this board, I'm surprised at the comparisons being made here. The Pentagon papers? Deep Throat? The New York Times? Is a CC at the University of Michigan really comparable to a war where 60,000 US troops lost their lives, or felonious conduct by the sitting President of the United States?
Wow.
"Process matters" - but "context matters" also. If Schefter was the byline author of a published article in the New York Times where he quotes anonymous sources in writing, then yes, he should follow the New York Times guidelines for using anonymous sources.
If Schefter makes an offhand remark during an NFL entertainment television show about the various possibilities of NFL coaching changes, then no, it's ridiculous to say those guidelines are applicable to every unscripted comment he makes.
By the way, it's also ridiculous to take those comments as approaching the verifiable veracity of a published story in the New York Times.
December 27th, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^
We should indeed remember the off-handed nature of Schefter's comment. It only takes on greater importance in the hair-trigger world of the Michigan football blogosphere, where we have been conditioned to respond, thanks to about two years' worth of malicious reporting on Rich Rodriguez from people not named Adam Schefter. So yes, there is that. And you are right about that.
Schefter's comment was off-handed. It therefore probably shouldn't be criticized in the same way as one might analyze a 10,000-word essay by Sy Hersh in The New Yorker.
And at the same time, we probably shouldn't give Schefter's comment that much credence, either, since it isn't deserving of much of the scrutiny that we'd never bother to apply to fluffy, gossipy, offhanded verbal exchanges. Fair is fair, right?
btw; don't blame me for the allusions to "Deep Throat," Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, etc. Those were the examples brought out by others attempting to undermine my arguments.
December 27th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^
And at the same time, we probably shouldn't give Schefter's comment that much credence, either, since it isn't deserving of much of the scrutiny that we'd never bother to apply to fluffy, gossipy, offhanded verbal exchanges. Fair is fair, right?
That is precisely my take on it as well. Schefter was speaking in an offhand way, and it doesn't make sense to take his analysis as approaching the kind of verifiable veracity that a published news account would have.
And I'm certainly not blaming you for the unfortunate allusions of others. It reminds me of someone comparing themselves to Nazis - I understand the passion about sports, but the analogy is very inappropriate - even if it were made with respect to the opponent.
"Hair-trigger" is probably a very good description of everyone's emotional state regarding this situation right now. Sigh...
December 27th, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^
I'm gonna be the coach! Dave and Lloyd and Mary Sue says so! And they promised free cheeseburgers!!!!!!! Ronnie and Mikey De-bored are coming back to support me and we can get back to traditional michigan footballs values.
December 27th, 2010 at 3:16 PM ^
I hope he's right, this would be the best thing that could happen for Michigan football, RR is a clown.
I haven't read this whole thread, but anyone notice the UM football helmet on Adam's bookcase while reporting on Mike Singletary?
December 27th, 2010 at 3:16 PM ^
Schefter on ESPN @ 3:00 pm re: 49ers coaching search.
"I think their first two targets would likely be Jon Gruden and Jim Harbaugh of Stanford. If they can convince one of those men to take that 49ers job, I think they'd be very happy with that."
Why would he report he "think's their top targets" include Jim Harbaugh if JH is likely going to be at M in less than a week?
December 27th, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^
Because I think JH is a target for any team until he sign's with Michigan or anywhere else.
December 27th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
I've already seen speculation that the 49ers made the move now -- rather than waiting til after the season finale -- to get a head start on contacting coaches whom they think might not be available after the first week of January. For example, if they really want Jon Gruden but think the Cowboys might take a run at him after the season, might as well be first in line. Harbaugh might also fit into that category.
December 28th, 2010 at 7:54 PM ^
How the fuck is is thread still going!? Die thread die!
I would like to request the mgoproletariat to neg the piss out of anyone who posts after THIS VERY COMMENT.
December 28th, 2010 at 9:18 PM ^
December 28th, 2010 at 9:24 PM ^
Scott Schaefer is no slouch, which he has made obvious at Syracuse and previously Stanford. Greg Robinson is no slouch, he has rings on both levels. The problem is recruiting, which brings us back to the head coaches desk.
December 28th, 2010 at 9:32 PM ^
December 28th, 2010 at 9:44 PM ^
You didn't pay much attention to that team then. Disregarding their body of work over the course of the season, they bottled up an offense with two Heisman trophy winners on it. No one has won the Super Bowl without playing good defense.
December 29th, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^
USC threw for 365 yards and ran for another 209. Meaning they totaled 574 yards of offense. And with 38 points scored, I'm not sure how you can say the Texas defense bottled them up.
December 29th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
I watched the game, I'm aware of this. They made huge plays the whole day. What'd you want them to do? Shut out USC? That doesn't happen. Defense isn't about shutting people out, it's about making big plays and big stops that gets you a win.
December 29th, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^
bottling a team up. Bottling them up means shutting them down all game long. Texas didn't do that. They won a shootout. Vastly different things. Saying Texas bottled USC up in that game is like saying Ohio State bottled Michigan up in the 06 game. Didn't happen.
December 28th, 2010 at 10:25 PM ^
@RyanAutullo: Peter King on MNF: Niners are interested in Jim Harbaugh. He believes feeling is mutual.
(Just passing this tweet along in an effort to prolong the torture.)
December 29th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
January 7th, 2011 at 4:27 PM ^
...for this. For all the "Harbaugh or bust" people, where are you at now (in terms of your opinion on how this has all been handled)?