Presented as an aside to discussion about drafting Andrew Luck, "sources say" Harbaugh to Ann Arbor. He usually has good information.
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
has a bowl game in less than a week. No bowl games in the last two years. And a talking head says he is hearing Jimmy Hairball is comming to Michigan. What has DB said to anyone in the media to indicate that he has made a decision. Seniors worked hard to get to this bowl and other underclassmen that are experiencing their first bowl. Michigan fans get to travel. And some guy essentially passes some, in my estimation a well worn rumor on air about CC. Really what is the revelation here? DEAD HORSE unless DB says something significant.
Adam Schefter is a respected NFL contributor on a widely viewed pregame show. Literally millions of people heard what he said this morning. Of course, nothing is in stone until DB makes the announcement next week but this was a worthy post.
Also, you might want to consider dropping the "Hairball". It makes you look like a 7th grader (unless, of course, you are one).
NFL. Not college.
He's an NFL analyst. His job is to look at NFL issues. Harbaugh is a potential candidate for NFL jobs. Schefter was saying that JH is most likely coming to Michigan so he won't be filling those NFL (potential) vacancies. It's pretty easy to make the correlation.
He's also, you know, a Michigan alum. So maybe dismissing him outright isn't the best idea?
Charley Casserly on the CBS pregame echoed the same sentiment about JH coming here but said the panthers would probably pursue him as well
No fan of JH, but let's not get into that. I agree with the other things you wrote.
Unless you're counting high school or some other level of football, he only won one Big Ten championship. Just being a statistical jerk because (a) I am sick of all this CC talk and (b) people read some of this stuff and take it as gospel. I love how he has represented the school over 25+ years, but just wanted to update that stat for you.
the refresher. JH had a stellar UM career and got Bo as close to an MNC as he was going to get. Go hate elsewhere. Go read his wikipedia entry and weep for what was....
I gave respect for what he's done, but just noted that he only won one Big Ten championship, not multiple. If you took a look at his Wikipedia page, you would see how many BT championships he led them to. And if you want to think he got Bo as close to an NC as he was going to get, you must have forgotten that Bo had a shot at the NC his last year, but a phantom clipping call in the Rose Bowl did them in. And look at all the close calls in the 70s against OSU or in the Rose Bowl.
Are you too young to remember these things and have to live through Wikipedia to remember those bygone years?
Actually had the pleasure of watching JH play while I was at UM. Hope he goes Blue again so that he can win another B10 championship.
"The 1985 team posted a 10–1–1 record, defeated Nebraska in the 1986 Fiesta Bowl, and finished with a #2 ranking in the final polls, the highest finish for Michigan during Schembechler's tenure as head coach." Wikipedia
Just like some of those teams, the 1985 team finished second in the conference to OSU, but were unable to go to a bowl game due to Big Ten policy only sending the conference champ to a bowl. If we would have been allowed to play in those bowl games, then we could have finished #2 as well.
And just because you finish #2, that does not mean you had a shot at the MNC. We did not have that chance before the OSU game that year OR the bowl game. In Bo's last season, we had a shot at the national title going into the bowl game. And look at our ranking going into the OSU game in the 70s. We entered those games with a legit shot at the MNC.
If you go just based on how a team finishes in the rankings, you would think that the 1985 team was closer to a national title than the 2006 team. And we know that's not the case.
I'm out before that damn horse getting beat graphic is thrown up in response!
Um... The Big 10 rule of only sending one representative to bowl games ended in 1974. And the 1985 team played in a bowl game, so not sure what you're talking about here.
But nice to know I was right :)
DB isn't saying anything to the media but that doesn't mean anything. IF (and that's a pretty big if, I'll give you that) Brandon has agreed to a deal with JH, the leak doesn't have to come from DB. Let's remember there are two sides in a deal like this.
I think we need TomVH for this one
I love TomVH and everything he contributes to Mgoblog as much as everyone else, but can we please stop hugging his ballsack?
(idk how to delete a repeat)
Those are some big brass balls you're carrying there...
TOMVH would be a great person to contact...... if we were recruiting Harbaugh fro QB again.
Doesn't he only cover recruiting?? I think we need Dave Brandon for this one...
Why? So we can find out what some 17 year old had for dinner?
Also Schefter's Michigan alumn, may have strong inside sources.
That was my thinking as well. Not going to bother with the speculation until something's announced but Schefter saying this lends some credence to the idea that RR's out after the Gator Bowl.
Or strong feelings/hopes/desires.
Are his "sources" named? Or just more unnamed sources, like the one(s) who said Jim Tressel would be leaving OSU? Or the unnamed source, a former Michigan player we were told, who slapped his wallet down on the table in front of Michael Wilbon and said that Coach Rodirguez was out, last year?
Who pays for "ESPN Insider"? If I paid for a subscription to something, and all that they gave were unnamed sources, I'd feel ripped off. And I'd be pissed.
My respect for these rumor mongers at places like "ESPN Insider" is less than zero. I'll respect the first reporter, any reporter, who gives us news with named, on-the-record, sources.
if you follow the NFL, his sources are pretty good. He kicked Mortenson to second string bc he is so good at what he does. Does this mean it is happening? No necessarily, but gives strong credence to the rumor, especially if NFL sources don't think he is going to the NFL
Translated, the answer is, "Well, right; Schefter doesn't say who his sources are, or why they require anonymity. But, he's, like, such a credible guy, in such a credible and visible reporting position."
When you are saying stuff like "strong credence to the rumor," you need to step back, take a deep breath and think about the word "rumor."
And no, I don't follow the NFL.
Can I just ask, what were the consequences for somebody like Michael Wilbon, for reporting with a straight face that he had an impeccable source who informed him of Rich Rodriugez's imminent departure, a year ago? Was Wilbon fired? Disciplined? Was he even seriously criticized, outside of certain corners of the blogosphere?
Where does the respect for these guys come from? Are they actually following any professional guidelines?
Adam Schefter is the best beat reporter in sports journalism today and had to be hired by ESPN because he kept scooping their stories working for the NFL network. He's not an outlandish talking head (like you sans microphone), but is just a really great reporter/journalist. That doesn't mean Harbaugh's coming, but it's a newsworthy item to mention.
If you are willing to listen to them "report" stuff that they "heard," without any of the other work that reporters are supposed to do.
This whole notion reduces sports reporting to the level of Entertainment News and the gossip tabloids. And to be sure, that is the actual, working notion of some people. I confronted Mike Valenti on-air one time about his program's slippery "reporting," and he just went off. "I'm not a journalist!", he yelled. "I'm an entertainer! I don't want to do journalism." And on that one point, it is impossible to argue with Mike Valenti.
You lost it when you related Schefter to Wilbon. The cherry on top: AND NO I DON'T FOLLOW THE NFL....DERP ESPN DERP. That is such a great level of perspective/commentary my head exploded. If you don't know what your commenting on, please do not feel free to vomit your uninformed viewpoint.
I didn't see the same level of journalistic rabble rabbling when reporters were expounding on the Ohio State tattoogate, but when it's beating the dead horse of our Coaching Change we need to play the Bob Woodward card? If you don't like ESPN having a respected reporter dropping a simple rumor, then don't watch ESPN. His rumor drop apparently has enough weight judging on the replies of this thread. If you knew who he is you may understand! However, if you don't have any perspective on the reporter's credentials - feel free to defecate on the 2009 Freep Jihad thread in the hopes that no one has to skip over your drivel.
because he reported anonymous garbage that turned out to be untrue. Wilbon works (happily, apparently) for ESPN.
Now we have Mr. Schefter, who is again reporting anonymous stuff, with no more basis in sound journalism than did Wilbon. Also for ESPN. We simply don't yet have the benefit of hindisght to say it is garbage, as we do with Wilbon. Trouble with Wilbon and ESPN was, by the time we knew that Wilbon and his "source," the guy who used to play for Michigan (who's never had the guts to step forward, and who Wilbon has never had the guts to name) were full of shit, nobody seemed to care anymore.
This is why I say elsewhwhere in this thread, process matters. There's a right way to go about the daily task of journalism and using sources. Anonymous sources should never be the standard in journalism. They should be the rare exception.
Adam Schefter isn't following any good journalism standards that I'm aware of.
I think that standards in sports reporting have become so lax because, well, it's just sports, right? A form of entertainment. Just more blather, like who's dating whom and who has dumped whom.
Except I doubt very much that David Brandon, or Rich Rodriguez have so little respect for the positions they hold.
Anonymous sources are a cornerstone of journalism. Always have been, always will be.
Deep Throat was an anonymous source. You're telling us Woodward and Bernstein should have sat on the story? I mean, you can get as overly idealistic about journalism as you want and give us novel-length posts taking journalists to task for the way they do their job, but the fact remains that in the real world, anonymous source material is neither wrong nor unheard of in a journalistic context.
There are right, and wrong, ways to handle anonymous sources.
Mark Felt, a/k/a Deep Throat, was a serving FBI officer who would have lost his job, and might have been criminally prosecuted, for talking to Woodward and Bernstein. And even then, before the Washington Post used much of what they had from Deep Throat, they went to their Managing Editor and Publisher for approval before using information that still needed to be double-checked.
And since it is you who has decided to give me a hard time about this, let's remember that the Rich Rodriguez story wouldn't be what it is without our litle friends at the Detroit Free Press, who broke their own paper's rules for the use of anonymous sources.
I'm going to ask it again:
Why do you care so much?
...the treatment of Rich Rodriguez offends me.
As an alum, as a fan, as a fair-minded person, and as a discerning and critical reader of the news; it all offends me.
The great tradition of our University, as one of football-team excellence on and off the field, has been injured. Not because Rich Rodriguez did anything terribly wrong, but rather because one reporter, Michael Rosenberg, had a personal vendetta.
And it further offends me that while Rodriguez, who was substantially and personally cleared of the worst of what Rosenberg alleged, continues to suffer attacks and subversion in the press, Rosenberg, who was shown to have been wrong, has drawn almost no criticism from his colleagues in the press. Not that it is difficult to find reasons and ways to criticize Rosenberg. Just look at what Jon Chait, a real hero to Michigan football now, has done.
Michigan football is a very big enterprise, and the Michigan alumni base is a big, diverse crowd. There are lots of niche areas for people to be interested in, and you see it on this Board: How does a 2-deep zone really work? What does zone blocking look like in practice? What's the history of Yost Fieldhouse? Who is on the recruiting list? Who are all of our Assistant and Associate Athletic Directors? What will next year's basketball uniforms look like? Who was the composer of the music that the MMB played at halftime?
One of those sub-categories is, "What is the nature of the reporting that led to the NCAA football investigation? And was it fair? Is current reporting fair to the program, and to Rich Rodriguez?" Among a lot of other niche topics, some of which might interest you, and some of which might not, it is a perfectly valid, and, I'd submit, important topic.
performance while at Michigan.It is beyond me why you and others feel obliges to defend his record. If you are a Michigan alum the you should be embarrassed on what has transpired while he has been the head coach. We are awful on the field, our reputation tarnish with the NCAA (three year probation... we admitted to his violations the same ones pending at WV) and made a laughing stock on the internet and sport talk radio shows with his raise me up stunt to protect his job.
If you knew in advance what would transpire during his three years while at Michigan would you have hired him? Don't forget this guy left WV six months after signing an extension and then try to lie his way out of having to pay for breaking the contract.
Nick. Have nice day.
Five paragraph response.
I can't expect anything less.
I will give you my viewpoint on Section 1. Take it what it is worth. You ask why he cares so much. Imagine your profession, people saying things about it from a public perception view that may not be correct. And you are a passionate person who wants to make sure people know the truth from being in the field for a long time. That's how section 1 comes across to me. Maybe I am totally off base, but this is my view.
Section 1 has contributed alot to this board. I know that when I first came on here and asked questions about the Freep and the MSM bias, he was kind enough to take the time and explain it. There were others that were helpful as well, but Section 1 always took the time to respond and his response was very well thought out and not a one word answer. I was a person that thought RR was close to the worse human being around because I was misinformed. I thank the people on this board as well as Section 1 for always having the time.
If you don't agree with him, please feel free to refute him. But if you think he is going overboard, then skip it. Don't respond. Simple enough.
Yes, Schefter specializes in NFL. Yes this is important news to the NFL. The hottest topic in the NFL is Coaching Vacancies. JH was being strongly considered for many teams.
Does this make Schefter "qualified" to report this topic? Absolutely! Moreover, he usually is right and very current with his information.
I'll be the first to say (my opinion) I would like to see RR have two more years (assuming next year he is at minimum consistent or one game better, preferably a big game). I think this is important for the further development of our current team; and the Alabama game in Dallas is a HUGE game for our program. It will be a recruiting dream if we can go there and win that game. Lord knows Alabama will be coming in prime, consistent, and experienced.
However, having said all that, I'm very ready to have some closure either way. The bottom line is, regardless of what happens...We're Michigan and we will rise again!
He scooped who on this one? and ESPN.
This is a shit comparison.
Wilbon is not an insider, just a talking head. Schefter has a long history of accurate reporting. Wilbon just gives his opinion. Never has he broke a story. He relies on others to break it first.
on top of all this-if you don't want the info or don't agree with how AS reported it or gathered information, then don't read it. How hard is this. You gave your opinion and now leave it alone
The fact that people in here are diminishing this rumor because Schefter primarily covers the NFL is ridiculous.
The guy knows his stuff. This probably means there has at least been conversation behind the scenes.
The idea that Schefter shouldn't be taken seriously because he uses anonymous sources is moronic. I guess Woodward and Bernstein aren't "real reporters" either?
Reporters like Schefter are able to get confidential information because their sources trust them to maintain their anonymity. If he discloses his source to satisfy people such as you, he'll never get another scoop again.
So why do we trust people like Schefter, who refuse to reveal their sources? Because, time after time, Schefter has been proven to be right. He has credibility because he is typically correct. You can't lump him in with other jackasses who are repeatedly proven wrong, just because he maintains his sources' anonymity.
what rules journalists are supposed to apply in granting anonymity.
Sources don't get anonymity becuase they ask for it. They only get it when they can prove that they are vulnerable and may be subject to firing, prosection, danger, et cetera. Writers only grant it when they have consulted with editors, and they have backed up assertions with other sources. And then, it is never, ever, enough to say that "an anonymous source said..." What is required is to say, "a person who is in the position of ____, spoke on condition of anonymity, because ______."
Even that carries with it some unfortunate dubiousness. We don't know who the source is. We don't know why the source might be motivated to say certain things. We don't know who to ask, when we have questions about the veracity of the assertions.
Process matters, and in this case, there is little "process" distinction between Adam Schefter's rumor-peddling, which may or may not be true, and Michael Wilbon's rumor-peddling, which was a pure lie.
There are no hard and fast rules for granting anonymity... generally, if the source doesn't want to be identified they aren't. Telling people "NO, I WON'T TAKE YOUR INFO IF YOU WON'T GET ON RECORD" is a shitty decision if you want to advance your career.
And how do you know that the guy who informed Schefter of this wouldn't lose his job for leaking it to an ESPN reporter? If we've been negotiating with Harbaugh behind the scenes all along, it would be a major hassle if that came out.
I posted just above yours, before more people like you decided to harass me over my understanding of the general uses of anonymous sources. When I started getting gang-negged, I posted the New York Times Staff Guidelines on the use of anonymous sources as an exemplar statement of rules on how real journalists might properly use anonymous sources.
I was pretty much exactly right. And you were pretty much comprehensively wrong.
What I suggest, is that you print the Times' guidelines, on heavy bond paper. Read them. Then roll the paper up in a tight cylinder. And shove it up your ass.
Easy, killer. If you really think the quaint little rules govern whether or not a source is given anonimity, then you have your head where you told Brodie to shove it. Any "real journalist" will refuse to report the name of a source if it is best for his career. It is as simple as that. You're telling someone to shove it up their ass based on the New York Times staff guidelines? That has to be a joke. That is the equivalent of basing an opinion solely on a Dantonio press conference. In both cases, they will only follow through if it benefits themselves at the time. Your whole rant is based on nothing.
The Times' guidelines just happen to be one of the more complete, exacting and comprehensive statements of what the rules are. I posted them, as I say, as an exemplar. The Free Press has its own version. (Violated, of course, by Rosenberg, Snyder, Editor Gene Myers and Publisher Paul Anger.) The Washington Post has a version. Even ESPN purports to have some guidelines. Witness the comments of Don Ohlmeyer linked, by me, elsewhere in this thread.
If all that it takes is a source saying, "I don't want to be named," then journalism as we know it is dead. No serious news organization governs itself that way.
Now, in sports, because it is quasi-enterainment, and a kind of gossip sector for the male gender, many of the real rules are ignored. I get that part. It is becoming less and less customary for sportstalk guys to follow real journalism rules. Don Ohlmeyer is apparently quite uncomfortable with that. But Don Ohlmeyer is unusual. He's from a serious reporting and production background. Most sportstalk guys care about nothing so much as good ratings and some saucy talk for the next segment of whatever show they are doing. I get it. I just don't respect it. I certainly don't like it. I don't know why anybody would.
No, you are wrong. There is a reason they are called "guidelines" and not "Laws" or "rules". If you think for a second that any newspaper or journalist on the planet will sit on a huge story because their legitimate sources wish to remain anonymous, you are kidding yourself. I'm sure you are correct that ESPN has some facade of "journalism guidelines", but they arent worth the toilet paper it took to wipe them up.
That ESPN has only a "facade" of "journalism guidelines." Screw the rules. Got a source with some hot "news"? Run with it! Ratings, baby! To hell with those ethical prudes who might think that there might just be some problems with anonymous sources.
Melaine Collins still has her job, after Tweeting that anonymous sources indicated that Tate Forcier would be transferring. Ditto Katrina Hancock. Lynn Henning's Monday press conference to announce the firing of Rich Rodriguez never happened, but so what? Lynn Henning still has an office at the News. He'll probably get some kind of award next year, or the year after. People forget.
This is sports, baby! Yesterday's news is colder, and stinkier, than yesteday's fish. We've got air-time to fill!
Well, if you are declaring a jihad on the decaying respectability of journalism, then I can at least understand where you are coming from. I still don't agree that there are hardfast rules to decide when an anonymous source is acceptable, but if your trying to take down the journalists that are never held to their word, then your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Do you mind one little story? I'll do my own "anonymous sourcing."
I was talking, last month, with a former President of the M Letterwinners Club. A Bo-era football player, drafted into the NFL, where he played only briefly. And very, very close to the last coaching search, per the direction of Bill Martin. He had met Rich Rodriguez on only a couple of occasions. He did not know him well. Rodriguez, he said, seemed like a perfectly okay guy. He knew of no skeletons in the Rodriguez closet. Nothing that would disqualify him as a coach. There had been a few Rodriguez stories in the course of the coaching search; and none of them were true as far as he knew.
He said something totally normal and perfectly understandable; that a couple of losing seasons at Michigan, with a change in coaching staffs and some holes at key positions, was difficult for the M Letterwinners but not the worst thing in his mind. What he hated above all, was the notion of Michigan's getting dragged through the mud of allegations about NCAA violations and "cheating."
So we talked, for several hours. I laid out what I thought had been wrong and deeply flawed in the Free Press reporting, and how it led to the NCAA investigation, and what a careful reading of the Notice of Allegations and the University and Rodriguez Responses showed. We talked about Justin Boren's departure, and Ryan Mallett's departure. He was somewhat amazed. He was going to re-think all of his attitudes about the situation with Rodriguez.
But what's your point?
Points; several of them:
And I agree with all of that. Somehow I misread the comment preceding yours, and by association the exchange you had above. Move along, nothing to see here...
FWIW, I think in this regard you're fighting the good fight, even if it annoys some posters here.
For some reason I thought your comment was tangent to the Harbaugh discussion.
I think we all can agree with all of that, too. I think people on this thread were all arguing different points, which led to them all falling on deaf ears. We are all on the same side, especially when it comes to baseless anti-UM bashing. That being said, I still think Schefter's anonymous source is worth an mgoboard post.
I like Schefter and Section 1. I think Adam makes alot of good comments but I can understand where Section 1 is coming from. It's tough for Section 1. It's always harder to continue the good fight of informing people. I was one of them, and I try to spread the news to as many grads and CF fans as I can on RR. It takes alot of effort and I am sure the bashing bothers many if not all, but most will move on. I give Section 1 a lot of credit.
Also, I wanted to see how skinny my response would be.
...there is an understandable (here, at least) prejudice in favor of Adam Schefter. He's a Michigan guy, who proudly displays his Michigan association. He's been a big success in his profession. Don Ohlmeyer thinks highly of him.
He's done nothing outlandish. He's demonstrated none of the determined animus that, say, the Freep guys have.
So let's give credit where credit is due. The argument here is much more academic than it is about Adam Schefter. The sore point -- the open wound, if you will -- is that the misuse of anonymous sourcing was so central to what Rosenberg and Snyder did, that led directly to the NCAA investigation.
And very true.
Anyone feel like Kumbaya?
So when are you starting your thread calling Brian out for his lack of journalistic integrity?
This is sort of half-right, but it's far more situational at most publications than it is cut-and-dried, and certainly very different on the sports side of the house than on the hard news side. Typically, it begins with a request for anonymity by the source or an offer of anonymity in exchange for information by a reporter. The NYT and the WaPo have both tried to make the ground rules for granting anonymity more robust, but we're talking about, essentially, entertainment here, so interpreting use of anon sources as something governed by codes approachign the status of law would be waaaaaay off base.
Ultimately, the onus rests on the reader to determine how much credibility to grant the messenger/reporter and his use of anonymous sources. Schefter has built a reputation for being well-connected, at any rate.
Urban Meyer will replace Brian Kelly who will hang it up as soon as the seasons over only to replace Dantonio who will be replacing the vest. I heard this all from one of the seven guys who have the exact same voice on 97.1.
And RRod to Stanford!
This is one of the stupidest arguments I see on sports sites. Show me a journalist of any kind who actually names their sources, please.
CAN'T TRUST THOSE WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN CHAPS, THEY DIDN'T NAME THEIR SOURCE!
This reads like it is written by a complete moron who knows nothing about media sources. Insiders, typically, don't like to be outed or named. That is why they are insiders. And there are plenty of "insiders say" reports that are completely true.
I love watching his reports from his "office set" and the mini-Michigan helmet just chilling in the background.
I think he would make a great defensive coordinator.
BS.. ill believe it when i hear it from the man who knows all.
and i hate comments like this when, what about JH's brother who says he thinks JH/his brother, will stay at stanford.Theres just too much uncertainty about this. Maybe Schefter's right but you can't believe anyone at this point because everyones sources are different out comes. We wont know until only the man who knows all speaks..
isn't it worth posting when a prominent expert mentions his sources say Michigan will have a new head coach? laveranues didn't say it's a done deal, he's just mentioning that it was said, which i think is worth posting.
If a prominent expert, a person of authority and influence, went ON THE RECORD and said something.
But Adam Schefter is your "prominent expert"? Huh? How did he get to be an "expert"? He's apparently referring to people who refuse to be named. They don't sound much like real experts to me.
i don't think there's any doubt Schefter could be considered a prominent football expert. maybe not an expert on michigan football's current coaching conundrum, but who is? (DB, i know, and he's not talking)
Schefter did go on the record saying he has "heard" JH is headed to AA. That's all. No one, not Schefter, not Laveranues, not me, is saying it's a done deal or even close to it. No one is sure.
All I'm saying is if Adam Schefter says on ESPN that he hears JH is headed to AA, it is WORTH POSTING. not worth believing as gospel, nor even worth taking as a crucial bit of info, but it is WORTH POSTING and i don't blame Mr. Laveraneus for doing so
To use a prominent platform in the blogosphere to challenge the reporting. To ask, in a community of particularly well-informed followers of Michigan football, whether the reporting is valid.
And what IS the reporting? That Adam Schefter, whoever he is, heard something? If he's a reporter, he is supposed to ask. And then he is supposed to report what the answer is, and who gave the answer. Along with some background on whoever was doing the talking, so that we can appraise it for ourselves.
This is supposed to be journalism, not the junior prom.
There is a distinction, it's ok for him to relate what he's "heard" in my opinion.
Jesus Christ, do you even realize that prominent, well-respected reporters do use anonymous sources, because typically those in possession of confidential info will not speak without the protection of anonymity?
I guess Woodward and Bernstein were just a bunch of jagoffs? You are embarassing yourself.
You keep coming off as a clown. If you don't know how reporting works, quit commenting on it. My guess is, if Schefter reported that RR was staying, you wouldn't be questioning his sources.
You keep coming off as a clown. If you don't know how reporting works, quit commenting on it. My guess is, if Schefter reported that RR was staying, you wouldn't be questioning his sources.
You're getting a little idealistic, aren't you? Clearly ESPN does not uphold the same journalistic integrity as the New Yourk Times, but the New York Times has printed a lot of BS over the years, too. My personal opinion is that if the report was Raback Obama citing unnamed sources telling you Demar Dorsey had chosen UofM, or someone else reporting RR had signed a contract extension, you would not be nearly as upset about the lack of journalistic integrity.
You're starting to sound like Sarah Palin dude. No one is an expert because you haven't seen it with your own eyes...
Those unnamed sources who told Brian Lloyd was retiring can't be trusted. Nor can the ones who told Sporting News that RR was meeting with Martin and Coleman in Toledo. THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE OF AUTHORITY ON THE RECORD, IT CAN'T BE TRUE!
uhmm no, stop getting your panties all caught up in a bunch. i said DB is the ultamate guy. with JH's brother, being his BROTHER, i think it pretty much counters Adam Shefter's stance, since you know he's in no way JH's relative, although a good hire for espn.. Im just saying, who really knows whats going on, theres so many of these "sources" that say every which way the head coaching position could possibly go, that you can't get all caught up in it all and just have to wait and ride it out and see what the man says who actually knows whats going on, DB.
I have no idea what he’s going to do," John Harbaugh, coach of the Baltimore Ravens, told nationalfootballpost.com. "We do talk about it all the time. He’s having a baby ... in four or five days, and they’ve got the bowl game, so he’s just swimming right now. So he’s not even thinking about it right now.
"I think he wants to stay at Stanford, I think he’d love to stay there, but then again, you just have to see what happens. He’s not the kind of guy that’s going to make any kind of commitment until he’s ready to make a commitment. I think his commitment right now is having a baby and winningthe Orange Bowl. So we’ll see what happens.”
I certainly don't think John Harbaugh's words suggest anything one way or the other.
EDIT: my apologies- didn't read the posts below that have already made this point.
I could be wrong here, but I recall reading a quote from NFL Harbaugh saying he didn't know what College Harbaugh was gonig to do. So...yeah. He doesn't know what Jim is gonig to do, and there's probably a reason why Jimmy hasn't inked his extension with Stanford.
He did not know what Jim would do only that he liked it at Stanford and that there weren't any jobs open anyway (as Michigan currently has a coach).
Must be a great source considering the topic being discussed was Andrew Luck. Something tells me if he had anything concrete this might have led Sports Center and not been "Oh, yeah and Harbaugh to Michigan."
Please CC this post. Or provide a link and an urgent e-mail to Brian/Tim showing this has truly happened.
Yeah, in a STUPID contest!
I think we need to have a running list of all the things "sources" have claimed this offseason, and compare that to a list of things that have actually happened this offseason. Would any of the "sources" list actually make it to the "happened" list?
Before someone goes Tab Chicago on you a$$!
He said it live on NFL Countdown.
Looks like 60's and sunny most of the week, 73 and sunny on game day
Apparently there are tickets left - pick up some and road trip with a few friends
What the hell are you going to do around here all week?
Coach who might end up with 8 wins for us Vs. a coach that can get 8 wins that will bolt for the NFL in 3-5 years.
I vote no change in head coach [ X ]
i vote be no better off in 3 years [ ]
There is no reason to believe he would bolt for the NFL at any point. If he was going to do it, now would be the time, while his stock is still high. Plus, what makes you think that RR wouldn't bolt for the NFL after he gets us up and running again and a team offers him the opportunity to put together the first true spread team in the NFL?
The spread can't even work in the Big 10, let alone the NFL!!!!!
what I'm hearing is that Andrew Luck will be our next head coach with Harbaugh quaterbacking?? Oh Dave Brandon you sly dog, your toping yourself again...
wow, i never knew Jim Harbaugh was even under consideration. I will have to google him to learn something about him. What incredible insight from Shefter. I wonder if he has any brett favre scoops as well
I think the safe money is on him staying in Mississipi next year. The only reason he might start a rumor is to get the press worked up so they'll camp out in his home town and give the local economy a boost.
It's a win win for Michigan. Both great coaches.
This is hardly win win.
Harbaugh almost guarantees RRod type offensive turmover and 1-2 years w/o bowls. Yeah, the defense stays in tact, but we lose Denard, D Hart, Devin, ninja slot receivers, etc.
Wait, you're telling me football players won't be able to play football anymore if Rodriguez leaves?
So when RRod was hired by Mich, Mallett was gone because he doesn't fit his system.
Denard and Devin are true spread QBs. They will not play in a pro style offense.
How do I know? I don't, but judging by recent history, it's more likely to happen than not.
Devin is not close to a Rodriguez spread QB (Which is the only type of QB affected in a coaching change), the fact that he's black and is pretty fast suggests it, but he's a pocket passer at heart. All reports point to that Mallet was gone anyways. Denard was a top 5 rusher this year, I'm pretty positive we'll have a spot for him, considering we have no other runners.
We lose Denard? How do you know? Exactly...
Devin and Denard called to tell you they're out? Sweet. I personally think that they all stay, and Denard evolves into more of a Percy Harvin type all-purpose offensive weapon (kick return, WR in certain packages, QB in others) while Devin is the full-time, traditional QB. We lose Dee Hart, but who's to say we don't scoop up a bunch more recruits with Harbaugh, who many say is one of the best recruiters in the country.
Either way, Michigan gets a great coach, with RR or with JH.
Take your reason and logic somewhere else. Did you not see the "CC"?
I can almost guarantee Devin doesn't leave. He can fit into either the spread or pro style offenses. And I just don't see Denard leaving either.
Devin fits in so much better with a pro-style offense. His mentality is to be a pocket passer, and with how well he places the deep ball, he can be a pretty good one.
Accurate, good feel for passing game.., if Harbaugh comes he does have at least one QB who has the skills to run a west coast offense scheme.
yeah, tate loves staying in the pocket
In a thread that everyone is questioning them, what are your sources for all this transfer information?
Because no one in the NFL runs Rich Rod's offense.
Harbaugh ran the spread at San Diego. He also runs the read option with Luck. Finally, he's an NFL type guy and NFL type guys aren't rigidly tied to a system the way guys like Rich Rod are. Harbaugh's record during his coaching career shows a guy who works with what he has while trying to get in recruiting what he wants.
Everyone talking about RichRod before he came to Michigan.
appears to be a giant douchebag.
(Not Rich Rod)
Is Michigan winning. Don't care if it's someone people love or not at the helm. Just a man who brings titles home to us. Then everyone will love him. For winning. Not for being a "nice guy".
I would rather never make a bowl game again than win a national championship with Urban Meyer. And I'm not sure Harbaugh is that different from Urban Meyer.
That's ridiculous, you act like he robs little old ladies.
just goes for 2 up 48-21 in the 4th quarter.
God forbid we lay it on someone in a football game, because it's so meaningful if we hurt someone's feelings in a sporting event. I'll tell you what, if Rich Rod ever gets in a position to do that against a real football team, he can stay here forever as far as I'm concerned.
is that many people think RR is a douchebag. So in terms of perception RR comes off as bad as Harbaugh. Whether such a belief is true does not matter.
Some people thought Lloyd Carr was a jerk too. They were stupid and wrong. It still meant I got to root for a team coached by a guy like Lloyd Carr, which is what I care about.
He has been here three years, not for three decades like Carr. We do not know him as well as WVU folks do-- many of whom loath him.We probably chalk much of that to jilted lover syndrome, but how
much God only knows.
Are you are RR all the time? What is the basis of your assertion that he is a good guy?
It appears to me that he is a decent guy, but I only see what media relations and RR wants me to see.
For Christ's sake, it's not like it's impossible to find here and on Scout or Rivals the statements by new recruits and old recruits, and their parents, about how much they like RR. Do you really think that he would be getting any commitments right now if everybody who met him disliked him?
that you can find similar comments about Harbaugh? Or for that matter ANY coach?
You'd have to be a horrible recruiter to have the families hate you. The issue here is not the relationships made, it's how they've conducted themselves. Some would point to RR coming in and ransacking Schembechler Hall as evidence of him being a jerk, while others would point to things like Brock Mealer and say he's a great guy. I really doubt there are many devils out there who rose to the position of head football coach at a major university. They're just football coaches, I mean what evil can they really do?
There is no doubting that. But you are correct in pointing out that most families like the coaches who recruit their sons. That is not a confidence. Coaches are salesmen. They are very knowledgeable of how to ingratiate themselves to recruits and families.
Read my mind. I have no doubt that RR would make a fine neighbor. He seems like good company. It's nice that he visits patients at the hospital -- just like all the other coaches did.
Forced to pay back WVU. Sanctioned by the NCAA. Sued for defaulting on a loan. RR may be a nice guy. But he's no saint.
And more generally, RR sure seems to have a way of making enemies. The press, many alumni, some opposing coaches, some opposing players (three of 10 opposing player reps at this year's Big Ten meetings called him the coach they'd least like to play for), some of our own former players . . . at some point, you have to stop and wonder, "What is he doing to make so many people hate him?" Many here have tried to portray him as an almost saintly figure; many outside the program portray him as a rogue. The truth probably lies in between.
Interesting point. I did not know about the other players at the B1G meetings. You are right, it probably lies in the middle somewhere. It could also be his style. Bo had a really rough side, that if he wasn't successful probably would turn off some people.
I would say he has become quite a polarizing figure.
Such a stinking, fetid pile of rotten bullshit. You're not even worth arguing with.
Come on Section 1, you are better than that. You can argue and present you facts and opinions. Not all of us hear everything.
These are demonstrable facts. Nobody disputes them. Except you.
Go away and die slowly please. You're an old sack of useless shit that complains non stop about the FreePress and is a general asshole. Bring on Harbaugh and hopefully you choke on your morning coffee so we don't have to put up with your existence anymore.
Section1 contributes more here than you ever have, or probably ever will. I disagree with him on this, but WTF, man?
Edit: threading f'd up, but this wasn't in response to AAA
Against USC who rubbed the other teams in its league's noses in the dirt for years.
A coach that knows how to crush a team that's dominated his conference for a decade and create an attitude of dominance that helps with recruiting. See Wisconsin, the team playing for the Rose Bowl because of a three way tiebreaker.
I respect the consistency of your stance. But the item you seem to bring up the most is going for two. Are there other things that bother you? Like the comments about Michigan? Because that bothers me far more, but I could get past it with an apology/clarification. Or other evidence of poor character. Drunk Driving? I mean, I can see lots of reasons to have questions about Harbaugh. But going for 2 seems the silliest of them. Especially when 90% of us seem to want Rich to stick around so we have an offense that runs up 70 on everybody Oregon style.
the DUI is a very big deal to me.
Because one is far worse than the other.
But then probably be ready to refute any Moeller questions too.
Although getting a DUI is a major F-up, it doesn't render someone a d-bag. I have friends and relatives who have gotten DUI's. A vast majority of them regret that mistake in their lives and have gone on to be the same decent people they were before tehy made that mistake. To hang a man for one mistake is VERY pompous. His comments about Michigan were unfortunate, but he has said many more good things about Michigan thatn he ever has bad things. Also, what he said really isn't that far from the truth, whether we want to admit it or not.
OK cool. And I'm sure Bo would love you winning attitude dude. While we're at it, let's hire my high school football coach. He couldn't see too well or know anything about football, but the dude was so nice and sweet. Let's have him come. So what if we lose. Sigh.
and if we could have one coaching discussion that doesn't bring up Bo, that'd be really great.
And I like winning. And all I care about is M winning. Apparently, not a sentiment you share. We should just have nice folks who don't win lead us.
who win without being giant dicks. Lloyd wasn't a jerk, Rich Rod doesn't oversign by 90 people, Mack Brown seems like a cool dude, Joe Pa, Beamer, etc. etc.
I want a coach who wins as well. It's just not the only thing that matters to me, and I'll accept a lower level of success if it means not having to cringe while rooting for a team.
JH coaches with the same attitude and swagger that he played with. If that's what's necessary to get his team to believe they can go out and compete with teams like USC when they were still crushing everyone, maybe Michigan could use a little of that swagger. It's been a while since we've had it.
about his attitude and swagger. Bret Bielema coaches with attitude and swagger. Bret Bielema is winning a ton of football games. If you would be okay having Bret Beilema as your football coach, then there's no way we're going to reach any agreement whatsoever.
so please refrain from equating him to Bret Bielema.
It took Bo 12 years to win a bowl game and he never won a national title. He only beat Ohio State twice in his first 7 seasons. If he were coaching today, I bet people would want to replace him with Harbaugh.
A little bit of patience and loyalty would be nice.
I couldn't have said it better. Though some fail to realize this about Bo. Great coach, won games, and conference championships.
People were patient with him and let him do his thing. I find it unfortunate, that we are so impatient and arrogant these days. Bo wasn't a "Michigan Man" when he came to us from Ohio State and Woody Hayes.
He became such after he was given the time and patience to develop a winning program. I just wish the younger fan base of Michigan would do their due diligence and learn this.
After one of the fastest banhammers in history. Even though this post made sense. It's insane to compare someone who was winning 10+ games a year with signature wins to the last 3 years.
" One of the biggest myths of that "69 team is that we took a bunch of no-talent guys and turned them into champions. Thats just not true. From that team eleven players became All-American-----eleven! And while i like to think our coaching staff helped them get there, brother, you can't get blood from a stone.And let's be clear: I didn't recruit ANY of those guys. OL' Bump had not left the cupboard bare"
It took Bo 12 years to win a bowl game and he never won a national title. He only beat Ohio State twice in his first 7 seasons. If he were coaching today, I bet people would want to replace him with Harbaugh.
You cannot be seriously comparing RR's and Bo's programs. In the 1970s, our program had the best aggregate record in the country. Three years in, RR has the worst record in school history, and the worst Big Ten record of any team other than Indiana. Bit of a difference there.
When he didn't win the Big Ten until the 75 season.
You might want to check your history there, because Bo won the Big 10 in year one
Read his or her comment again.
Yeah that's my bad, didn't read very closely
Though awkwardly phrased, he was saying that Bo (or anyone else) couldn't go to a bowl unless they won the Big Ten, until they changed the rule.
You can't possibly compare Bo's situation to Rich's. Bo coached in an era where national titles were after thoughts, bowl games were generally meaningless and ties were a common occurrence. College football is so fundamentally different in 2010 than it was in 1975, any comparison is invalid.
Also, Bo was winning all but one or two games a season every single year. I would gladly take that at this point. There is no comparison.
As others have said below, Bo did have a better record than RR his first three years, but he had a lot more to work with and he wasn't changing systems so radically.
So, to reiterate, a little bit of patience and loyalty would be nice.
then? Or how about Les Miles. Tommy Tuberville will be a hell of a winner at Michigan.
Why don't we just find the biggest dick in college football who wins games and get him?
Who cares if he's not a Michigan Man at all.
I can't image another person on this blog who I disagree with more than you.
At least those who want JH have some positive things to say other than JH winning games.
No one suggested they want to lose. It is possible to have a winning attitude without it being necessary to win at all costs. There is a tremendous difference. I know more than one person like that. They are fans of Michigan Football, not Michigan fans.
The day we have a program that just cares about winning and not about ANYTHING else, that will be the day I will stop being a Michigan fan.
Wow. There is so much more to the program than just winning.
Certainly - but that's not necessarily an argument in our current coach's favor. Our graduation rate is taking a beating because of all the transfers, and we're about to go on NCAA probation for the first time ever. The probation thing is a sore point for a lot of people. The "snake oil" business (recruiting players who have pledged to other schools) makes some people uncomfortable as well. And the fact that Justin Boren transferred to play for Jim Tressel (a man who, on a personal level, is generally thought to have integrity) and has flourished there raises questions about what exactly went on between him and RR. If we are honest with ourselves and look at how this program has functioned under RR, it's definitely a mixed bag.
The fact that you used Justin Boren as your example doesn't help your point at all. The snake oil thing makes people who are extremely uneducated about college football uncomfortable. Our graduation rates are taking a beating, but when we get in trouble for punishing kids who aren't going to summer school, the point can be made that RichRod has the student's best interest in mind (combined with a great GPA for the team). If we are really being honest with ourselves on how this program has functioned under RR, it is definitely a mixed bag. See how I just took the counterpoint to every one of your arguments and still was able to use your final sentence as my point? It is easy to slant a post without really even looking at the other side.
Yet I still want to give the man at least another year to prove himself, it's only fair to all involved.
Tressel is stepping down after Sugar Bowl...
Isn't it obvious? He's going to go to Carolina and draft Pryor number 1.
What exactly did he say? Was it just a quick one-liner?
schefter was asked if Harbaugh/Luck to Carolina was a package deal and he just said "the word i hear is that Harbaugh is headed to AA".
He didn't say a deal was in the works or anything; it was more just saying Carolina probably won't be landing JH and Luck....wasn't intended as CFB news by any means i would think
That makes it sound much less credible. If he really had a good source, this would be a front page ESPN story, not just something mentioned in passing on one of the 3,000 NFL pre-game shows.
You make a strong point. Why would ESPN bury a huge NCAA scoop in an NFL program? Drives me nuts when they just throw shit around.
I might get "lucky" tonight, but so far, those same sources have been wrong each night for the past week. Welp, I guess I'll just keep trying.
This is for all you JH gotta havers.......Be careful what you wish for, you might get......
What should we post in rebuttal? A picture of John L. Smith?
go by without someone weighing in?
there will be no more pre-game "circle of terror"?
YES! I like RR but can't stand the apologists. Suck it!!!
Schefter heard it from that chick that predicted Tate to transfer.....or Bleacher Report...
There's no way Denard or Gardner would leave. I'm sure they'd be the first players JH would get in touch with, and I'm sure he'd find a way to adapt to their skills. He's adapted everywhere he's gone. He won't pull a Richrod and scrap everything in order to fit his own scheme.
So what did he scrap that was worth keeping?
Hope he's wrong...
A random media dude proclaiming to know what is going to happen at Michigan. I feel like I've seen this sometime in the last several weeks but I could be mistaken.
He's a UM alum with a ton of connections in the football world. Just sayin.
he above all of the other reporters, such as Sam Webb, Balas, Chait, and other alums. Adam don't know shit!
Isn't Denard going to want to move to wide receiver his senior year anyway? He's not leaving no matter who the coach is.
So he could certainly have as much of an idea as anyone.
As are a lot of people here. What's your point?
Is that a guy who is as connected to the football world as him would have a pretty easy time, or at least a considerably easier time than the average alum, finding out any scoop that there is to be found. I don't understand why that had to be explained.
Unlike the alums on this board, Schefter is an alum with a top-notch reputation for breaking scoops in the football world. So, a little more credibility than the average poster.
I think it is assumption based on what has been talked about for the past month. Nothing of substance in my opinion.
I think Schefter is a snappy dresser. Handsome guy
stories like this.
Are you telling me, Brandon, who is supposed to be smart, has told his decision to anyone? That would be idiotic, since he has purposefully avoided answering the question.
Second, how bad would Michigan look, if say, Michigan blew out Miss State, and Stanford got crushed in their bowl? Would we really hire Harbaugh, if he got blown out by three touchdowns? And what if the Pac 10 doesn't show in the bowls? That would make Harbaugh's season look even weaker.
That doesn't mean Harbaugh won't be our next coach...I just don't think anyone, especiall Brandon, really knows, assuming the question is really up for debate.
Seriously? You think DB, at this point, doesn't have an opinion?
If you're right about that, DB is an incompetent boob. I don't think he's an incompetent boob.
DB would not be throwing out his opinion to people. That would make him a boob as you call it. DB is smart, he wouldn't allow anyone a chance to hear which way he is leaning until after the season ends. He hasn't decided one way or another, that's what he continues to tell people. This means that any source that hears rumors, of which way DB is leaning, hears just what they say, rumors. Nothing more, nothing less.
I like boobs.
Brandon might not leak it, but you don't think its possible it wouldnt leak on the Stanford end? Like when Harbaugh refuses to sign the contract extension. For all we know the source could be John Harbaugh or something (who I assume Schefter has some relation with).
Maybe he is just coming to Michigan, as in the State? Perhaps for dinner?
"Sources say"? I can find a "source" to say the world is flat
Nope. As long as he stays master of recruiting info, i'll continue like a good pair of whitey tighties.
Most of the hand-wringing has been over recruits, not retaining our current players (maybe Denard excepted).
lol.. good post OP, searching for this in google only produces this thread from Mgoblog.. bout as bad as the Tressel rumor
Schefter is almost never wrong, which is why he's so credible. He wouldn't break anything unless the contract is on the table and he knows it's going to be signed. Even a tentative statement suggests to me that it may well be true, but he doesn't have enough hard facts to present a full blown story. The tentative nature of his statement suggests to me that it's probably hearsay, like Luck telling him Harbaugh was in talks with Michigan when asked about Harbaugh following Luck to the NFL. If he's wrong, that tentative statement will still tarnish his reputation.
The fact that he's legit, and a UM alum, and the recent abrupt denial by Harbaugh about signing a contract extension with Stanford, suggests to me that there's probably going to be a change. I just hope Harbaugh doesn't run out Denard and we have to start over again. Also, hopefully we can land a legit DC who can recruit like Randy Shannon.
Edit: original post was deleted.
If he were legit, he'd name his sources. Process matters.
Events over the next several weeks may prove him right, or wrong. But he's not acting as a legit journalist in this. A legit journalist would name the source(s). Or, alternatively, say, "A person in the Michigan Athleitc Department, who required anonymity on the basis that his speaking on this subject would be grounds for his termination, said..."
I'm tired, really tired, of all of these random assholes "who went to Michigan" somehow being given credit for that fact, rather than doing their jobs in a competent fashion. That naturally includes M grads Rosenberg, Snyder and Sharp. But just as clearly the laughable screwups by Melanie Collins, Katrina Hancock and Lynn Henning, just off the top of my head. I've actually lost count of all of the jerkoffs who have given us false information based on "sources."
... "process matters?" You act like this is the NY Times reporting on the Pentagon Papers. It was an aside on an NFL pregame show.
I think this screengrab from a few weeks back shows something about Schefter's bona fides:
might also have little plastic helmets too. Braylon might have a big plastic helmet. It doesn't matter.
And I agree; this most certainly is not like the New York Times reporting on the Pentagon Papers. (Although I'm not so sure that's the best example of anything.) This is just cheesy rumor-mongering on a fluffy sportstalk program. Not real news.
Bottom left by the NFL football, it's "Bo".
Which is an amazing book but ZOMG JIHAD
I wonder how many people who spend all their free time trashing Rosenberg have actually read the book they so willingly trash simply because of who wrote it.
It's a great book, well researched and well written.
Now ready for my neg-bang.
For the New York Times Book Review. And he praised it. But that didn't slow down Chait in the least, from ripping into Rosenberg's disgraceful reporting on Stretchgate, or the Free Press' abdication of its editorial responsibility in the fiasco.
Maybe his sources told him not to name them, ya dig?
Never thought of that. Then, uh, doesn't the reporter ask this question: Why do I need to give you anonymity? Because unless there is a good reason that my editors and publishers can accept, I cannot use your quote without attribution.
That's the way they do it in the real world of reporting. Sports might be different.
The definition of that has expanded. We now see anonymous sources used more then ever as the competition for hits increases.
"That's the way they do it in the real world of reporting. Sports might be different."
That's pretty relevant you know since, like, that's what you are talking about and stuff.
Note the sarcasm. "Sports reporting" < "the real world of reporting." At least not as it is practiced by some of the sports blabbers who get the attention of the MGoBlog crowd, apparently. Sports reporting could be real reporting, and it is real reporting as practiced by some, but it might be less entertaining, with fewer rapidly-occurring spicy rumors if they really, like, followed the usual rules.
I wouldn't really say Schefter is a "random asshole." The guy has obvious Michigan pride (always has a Michigan helmet behind him during his segments on ESPN) and I've never seen him take an unwarranted shot at the program. Nor do I think it's clear that he has an agenda towards or against one coach from an offhanded remark. Maybe he's just reporting general sentiments from the guys in the NFL he knows. Maybe he knows something more concrete. But he didn't say it was a done deal and he didn't claim it was happening without a doubt.
No reason to take a shot at him.
is precisely why somebody needs to take a shot at him.
If you guys like him so much, and respect him so much, then let's get him to come to MGoBlog and answer questions about who his sources were and why he won't name them.
God damn, the tolerance for rumor and innuendo is amazing.
Yes, I'm sure the paid ESPN analyst will come to this blog to shoot down an offhanded remark he made. It's a comment. No one said he is absolutely coming and no one said he absolutely is not. The tolerance for rumor and innuendo is amazing?
This is a message board. On the internet.
No offense but if someone comes to him (say for argument sake it's David Brandon or someone in the know) and tells him that Jim Harbaugh will be the next coach at the University of Michigan, but you cannot quote me on that and you can't even say the nature of your source. What's he supposed to do not report it? And the thing that makes it believable is that Schefter has a track record of not making things up. And that's the key point-track records matter. Just because he's reporting news that you may not like, doesn't mean he's wrong.
Hey Section One
When are you going to start your thread calling Brian out for not naming his sources? HE'S NOT LEGIT UNTIL HE TELLS US WHO TOLD HIM MICHIGAN WAS PLAYING ALABAMA IN 2012!
You are breathtakingly unsophisticated in your understanding of journalism.
This just in -- Woodward and Bernstein not legitimate journalists. Nor are any of the other myriad journalists who have won Pulitzer Prizes by breaking stories through the use of anonymous sources. Section 1, that renowned expert on journalistic ethics, has spoken.
Is that journalists can get use them to get at stories that they can't get on the record. Many sources can't realistically give out their names. However, anonymous sources often have their own agenda and their anonymity makes it easier to manipulate the journalist and the coverage.
Anybody remember Kirk Herbstreit using an anonymous source to report that Les Miles was the new coach at Michigan? Herby's source may well have been trying to influence the proceedings. The source could have been someone in the Michigan athletic department trying to get the deal killed (which it was), or it could have been Miles' agent trying to get a little more money out of LSU.
In this case, we don't know who Schefter's source is, so we can't evaluate whether they're in a position to actually know what's going on or what their motivation is. Suppose Schefter's source is Harbaugh's agent. He would certainly be in a position to know, but he wouldn't necessarily be telling the truth. If Harbaugh's name is associated with the Michigan job, Harbaugh or his agent can negotiate a bigger salary regardless of whether he signs an extension at Stanford, he goes to the 49ers or another NFL team, or he does end up at Michigan.
In this case, we don't know who Schefter's source is, so we can't evaluate whether they're in a position to actually know what's going on or what their motivation is.
Which is where the reporter's reputation comes into play. Good reporters know when they're being fed a line of shit, and don't report it because their credibility was on the line. Herby got played. There is a reason he doesn't have a reputation for breaking stories.
Reporters like Schefter, who do have a reputation for breaking stories, don't breathlessly regurgitate every piece of shit rumor they're fed. They are the gatekeeper; they determine whether a source is in a position to know the information they are feeding us, and whether they have reason to lie. Their credibility is their currency -- because the Schefters of the world are right so much more often than the Herbstreits and Wilbons, we trust that they have done the legwork to ensure the accuracy of the info they're presenting.
Hopefully less often, but of course Schefter can be played. Or his source may be wrong, or the negotiations may fall apart, or Harbaugh may end up at the 49ers. It's not a done deal until Harbaugh has signed a contract.
I'm absolutely not going to Alabama.
Yeah Urban Meyer is a real sack of shit. Can you believe he quit a multmillion dollar job where he's beloved to be a better father? The audacity of that motherfucker.
I really think I lose more braincells reading the comments on this site than I've lost in years of smoking weed and drinking heavily. Yeah, let's keep trying to win with this whole bullshit notion of "class". We'll be the next Notre Dame in notime!
... "brain cells" is two words.
But I give you +1 for posting while blazing.
I wish. Sadly I'm on the couch next to my mom while she's reading and I'm watching the Lions' game.
thing about this whole CC, timeline thing. Nobody even knows if DB has even started his evaluation yet. Let alone what his decision is.
Ohlmeyer seems to like Adam Schefter, per this ESPN-Ombudsman column:
At the same time, Ohlmeyer decried the rampant use of anonymous sources.
So how about this:
Dear Mr. Ohlmeyer,
In May of this year, you cautioned ESPN readers/viewers and, presumably, the ESPN staff about anonymous sources. You seemingly went out of your way to laud the work of Adam Schefter.
Now, Schefter has relied on anonymous sources to report that Jim Harbaugh may be headed to Michigan to replace Ridh Rodriguez. Schefter didn't identify the sources by any other description, such as the general position of the individual. Schefter didn't say why his sources might need anonymity. Those are the two hallmarks -- along with approval by a higher-ranking editor -- of normal journalistic rules for anonymous sources.
So did Schefter follow any of those guidelines?
Dear Section 1,
Attached is the email we received on December 26th, 2010. I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid emails.
Very Truly Yours,
What the real Don Ohlmeyer says.
Dear Section 1,
You spelled "Rich" incorrectly.
You realize that the Harbaugh remark was tangent to what he was reporting right? He wouldn't have even said anything if someone didn't drag Harbaugh into the discussion.
Ridh is a very unique first name.
to this thread
Make it stop.
-Most of us.
What someone says, I am an AS fan but at this point I just want the bowl game to get here, go down and enjoy a Michigan victory and then sit back and watch what happens with our coaching staff. With or without speculation from sources I think we are still a good 10 days away from "knowing" anything.
are as bad as the shots directed at Rodriguez. Will we ever mature as a fan base ?
Earlier in this thread, you posted that you thought that Schefter was just making an assumption based on previous news reports and rumors.
That's a personal shot at Schefter.
Schefter reported that he got his information from "sources," not reading the newspaper or from his own speculation So you must think that he's: (1) lying; and (2) being a crappy reporter by repackaging assumptions as fact.
Either way you slice it.
can we all remember that whatever our view on the coaching situation, or for that matter the defense, or Tate's future, the vast majority of posters here, love Michigan. Just because you disagree with a view posted, it doesn't help to post an ad hominem response.
Isn't it funy though how the AD from Stanford says JH getting ready to sign an extension any time and now Harbaugh says he must have gotten his facts wrong? That should say something right there.
Jebus, I'm getting negged bomb for asking for a source. WTF is going on today. We've had a great month with recruits. Just say'in! Things aren't that bad, are they?
Again: Adam Schefter is not some clown talking-head. He's a respected reporter with a reputation for accuracy and great sourcing. That's why what he says is relevant. Stop broad-brushing everyone in the media.
Liking Schefter on this one.
When we all fight...and the day after Christmas, no less. Also, nobody has pinned me yet, so it's still Festivus. Wait, is this the airing of grievances? If so, I got a lot of problems with you people!
Jim Harbaugh may or may not be coming to michigan, and Rich Rodriguez may or may not be fired?
I don't think anyone is predicting that Rich Rodriguez won't be fired and Jim Harbuagh will come in.
I totally agree you have put it in a nut shell, JH is coming or not, RR is staying or not. I am amazed at what is supposed to be a discussion turns into bashing each other, we are suppose to unite as U of M fans, we may disagree on our opinions but all this hating on each other makes us look bad.
Since we are mentioning what MSM are saying about JH. Peter King on NBC's football night said he talked to JH about Luck and there is a chance Luck stays for another year. I caught it while having dinner and there was alot of talking, so hopefully someone can confirm as well.
Luck may stay another year because he is very concerned with academics
Edit: Couldn't find where I originally read it, but this is close:
Thanks. I thought I heard that from King. I don't think he said anything about JH, but everyone can infer what they want.
the level of willful ignorance demonstrated tonight on MGoBlog, on the proper use of "anonymous sources" is really staggering to me. If someone wants to say, "Schefter's been right in the past; I wouldn't bet against him," I'd say, that's not my point. He might be right. He might be wrong, as so many others have in the recent past.
If someone wants to alternatively say, "This is sports! It ain't national security, or a federal prosceution!" I'd also say, fine; if you think Schefter occupies a position of sub-journalistic infotainment, I might agree.
But for the people who accused me of not knowing how source-anonymity is supposed to work, well, here's the New York Times to help you out:
Principles for Granting Anonymity
The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers reliable and newsworthy. When we use such sources, we accept an obligation not only to convince a reader of their reliability but also to convey what we can learn of their motivation – as much as we can supply to let a reader know whether the sources have a clear point of view on the issue under discussion.
In routine interviewing – that is, most of the interviewing we do – anonymity must not be automatic or an assumed condition. In that kind of reporting, anonymity should not be offered to a source. Exceptions will occur in the reporting of highly sensitive stories, when it is we who have sought out a source who may face legal jeopardy or loss of livelihood for speaking with us. Similarly they will occur in approaches to authoritative officials in government who, as a matter of policy, do not speak for attribution. On those occasions, we may use an offer of anonymity as a wedge to make telephone contact, get an interview or learn a fact. In such a case, the reporter should press the source, after the conversation, to go on the record with the newsworthy information that has emerged.
Whenever anonymity is granted, it should be the subject of energetic negotiation to arrive at phrasing that will tell the reader as much as possible about the placement and motivation of the source – in particular, whether the source has firsthand knowledge of the facts.
In any situation when we cite anonymous sources, at least some readers may suspect that the newspaper is being used to convey tainted information or special pleading. If the impetus for anonymity has originated with the source, further reporting is essential to satisfy the reporter and the reader that the paper has sought the whole story.
We will not use anonymous sourcing when sources we can name are readily available.
Confidential sources must have direct knowledge of the information they are giving us — or they must be the authorized representatives of an authority, known to us, who has such knowledge.
We do not grant anonymity to people who are engaged in speculation, unless the very act of speculating is newsworthy and can be clearly labeled for what it is.
We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack. If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source.
Anonymity should not be invoked for a trivial comment, or to make an unremarkable comment appear portentous.
We do not promise sources that we will refrain from additional reporting or efforts to verify the information being reported.
We do not promise sources that we will refrain from seeking comment from others on the subject of the story. (We may, however, agree to a limited delay in further inquiries – until the close of stock trading, for example.)
Responsibilities of Editors
When anonymity is granted, reporter and source must understand that the commitment is undertaken by the newspaper, not alone by an individual journalist. Any editor who learns a source's identity is required to maintain exactly the same confidentiality as the reporter. That editor may not divulge the identity to other reporters, or to unauthorized editors. And the editor may not use the source – either for reporting on the current story or for later ones.
- In the case of a routine story with unidentified sourcing, the name or explicit role of the source should be conveyed confidentially to the reporter's department head. At the discretion of the department head – and provided the reporter agrees – the responsibility for learning about the source may be delegated to a subordinate supervising editor. (Departments are expected to formulate their own day-to-day routines, in consultation with reporters, for expeditious handling of source information.) In all such routine cases, the department head is accountable for knowing the identity of the source, or for knowing which subordinate editor has been informed. Upon request, the executive editor and the managing editors are entitled to know the identity of the source.
- In the case of a moderately sensitive story, the reporter may wish to share the identity with the executive editor or managing editor only. Such a request should be honored without prejudice, and not taken to signify a lack of trust.
- In the case of exceptionally sensitive reporting, on crucial issues of law or national security in which sources face dire consequences if exposed, the reporter may appeal to the executive editor for total confidentiality. In such circumstances, intended to be extremely rare, the executive editor may choose to ask for only a limited description of the source and waive the right to know the full identity. Only the executive editor may approve such a request.
The standards editor, while not necessarily entitled to know the identity of a confidential source, is responsible for spot-checking compliance with our procedures – that is, for knowing which editors have learned the identity.
Forms of Attribution to Confidential Sources
When we agree to anonymity, the reporter's duty is to obtain terms that conceal as little as possible of what the reader needs to gauge reliability. We should distinguish conscientiously between high-level and lower-level executives or officials. We should not use blind attribution – "sources said," for example – which is more a tease than a signpost. Attribution should never amount to a truism: since "source" merely means a provider of information, "one source said" is equivalent to "somebody said." And "informed" or "reliable source" is no improvement. (Would The Times quote an uninformed or unreliable one?) The objection is not to the word "source," but to its emptiness without a meaningful modifier: "a Senate source," for example, may be acceptable – unless, of course, it is possible to tell the reader still more. The word "official" is overused, and cries out for greater specificity.
Trail markers should be as detailed as possible. "United States diplomat" is better than "Western diplomat," which is better than "diplomat." Still better is "a United States diplomat who took part in the meeting." And "a lawyer who has read the brief" or "an executive close to the XYZ Company" is far better than "a person familiar with the case," a phrase so vague that it could even mean the reporter.
Readers value signs of candor: "The report was provided by a Senate staff member working to defeat the bill."
Whenever possible, in writing about documents we should specify how we received them.
We should avoid automatic references to sources who "insisted on anonymity" or "demanded anonymity"; rote phrases offer the reader no help and make our decisions appear automatic. When possible, though, articles should tersely explain what kind of understanding was actually reached by reporter and source, and should shed light on the reasons and the source's motives.
In editing on the copy desk or at higher levels, the description of a source must never be altered without consultation with the reporter who made the confidentiality commitment.
It should go without saying that The Times is truthful. We do not dissemble about our sources – we do not, for example, refer to a single person as "sources" and do not say "other officials" when quoting someone who has already been cited by name. We do not say a source has refused to comment if in fact that person has commented off the record. (We may, however, say – when it is true – that the source refused to comment on a specific aspect of the story.) There can be no prescribed formula for attribution, but it must be literally truthful, and not coy.
Multiple Anonymous Sources
When we grant anonymity, we do not necessarily require multiple sources. A cabinet official, for example, or the White House adviser on national security, may require anonymity while conveying a policy decision that is clearly "authorized," necessitating no corroborating source.
But when we grant anonymity for less verifiable assertions – especially if they form a disputed account, or are potentially damaging to one side in a court case, for example – corroborating sources are often necessary. The reporter should confer with the department head or senior deputy to agree upon the need and the number.
In such a case, the reporter and editor must be satisfied that the sources are genuinely independent of one another, not connected behind the scenes in any kind of "echo chamber" that negates the value of a cross-check.
+1 to you my friend, for thinking highly enough of me to believe that I would read this whole thing and not just be interested in a summary.
Holy shit man, let it go.
You are quite possibly the most pretentious prick in the history of this message board
I liked the monkey avatar better.
I'm genuinely confused here. Are Schefter's comments bad because he didn't live up to the New York Times standards of anonymity or because his comments aren't true? Honestly, all I care about is the latter.
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.
so, if there's a press conference in 3 weeks announcing Harbaugh as our coach you're going to apologize for going batshit, yes?
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?
I was just kidding guys! If you say one more word about a process I'll get YOU fired! lol!
You demand from others clarifications, apologies, information, and all sorts of other claims. But when they're shown to be right, or what you were demanding is shown to be based on false evidence, you're not man enough to admit you were wrong. You want to hold people to a higher standard than you hold yourself. And that makes you no better or less hypocritical than the Rodenbergs you rail against.
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"
"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...
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?
"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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
Because I think JH is a target for any team until he sign's with Michigan or anywhere else.
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.
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.
How about what needs to happen. The offense is gonna be great. Keep RR. The defense is embarrassing. New defensive coordinator. Why no talk about that.
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.
He got a ring cause Vince Young outscored everyone. The Texas D didn't win the championship that's for sure. The Broncos had a hell of an offense. Once again the D didn't win that championship. Recruiting and youth a problem I agree though. Keep RR
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.)
Who aren't the Niners interested in??