Processing Is Not Rare Comment Count

Brian January 25th, 2017 at 2:06 PM

conveyor-solutions-belts

If you had Teddy Greenstein in the Brings Up Erik Swenson Next pool, collect your winnings. I get annoyed at Greenstein because he puts up a front of objectivity while putting out article after article designed to put Harbaugh in a bad light. See the recent article on refereeing where he asked the Big Ten's head of officials if he was bad at his job, got a "no," and said "well, I guess that wraps it all up, folks!"

Anyway. This one was somewhat spoiled by Harbaugh explaining the situation from his perspective...

"There's a camp in June, and we really want you to come so we can see you.' It ended up, after a couple of conversations, that he wasn't going to come to camp.

"I said: 'We're going to be in Indianapolis in the beginning of June for a satellite camp. It's closer to your home.' He said no. I said, 'We really need to see you for ourselves.' He said, 'Just evaluate my senior tape.' 'OK, that's what we will do.'"

...but Greenstein does his best to frame it anyway.

What happened to Swenson is exceedingly rare: a high school player in good academic standing, who remains loyal to the school to which he verbally committed, getting dumped within weeks of signing day.

There is a term for a school dispatching a player it no longer wants: "processing."

Connecticut coach Randy Edsall got crushed last week by national media figures Paul Finebaum ("total disgrace"), Mike Greenberg ("How you go to sleep at night, I have no idea") and the Washington Post's Sally Jenkins ("No one is more committed to Randy Edsall than Randy Edsall") after his scurrilous actions regarding a high school linebacker from New Jersey named Ryan Dickens.

Contrary to pearl-clutchers in the media, "processing" kids before they can sign is a common practice getting ever more common. That's why there's a term for it. Most of these situations go uncommented upon because the kid and coaches know the score and are just looking for a landing spot. The rare thing is a kid getting pissed off about it in the media.

I think we can safely assume that someone moving down from a Power 5 program to a lower level has been processed, and there have been a number of these this year: CB Nick Roberts and QB Todd Centeio went from P5 programs to the AAC. S Ahman Ross is trying to find a landing spot at Appalachian State or Colorado State. RB Bentavious Thompson looks likely to end up at UCF. FIU is the crystal ball favorite for WR Kevaughn Dingle.

That's five guys not from all of the Power 5 or one P5 conference but one recruiting class: Miami's. Every collection of team-specific recruitniks in America has a subliminal list of a few guys who are technically committed but won't actually be in the class. For Michigan this year they were Carter Dunaway and Chase Lasater; for Ohio State they were Danny Clark, Bruce Judson, and Todd Sibley.

The 24/7 decommitment tracker is missing a pager so it only goes back three days. In those three days (three days!) there are four recruitments that look like processing of some variety:

  • WR Warren Jackson decommitted from Arizona and fielded a couple of quick CSU picks.
  • LB DeMarco Artis decommitted from FSU and told 247 that it was "unfortunate."
  • LB Jabreel Stephens decommitted from Louisville and looks set to pick USF.
  • LB Jaquan Henderson flipped from Tennessee to Georgia Tech.

It is exactly one week from signing day.

Even if not all of these are genuine processings that should be sufficient to demonstrate that the practice is not rare, or anything close to it. If Greenstein had done 15 minutes of research he would have reached the same conclusion. You have to wonder why he would not take such a basic step before making an easily-disproved factual assertion.

Comments

kehnonymous

January 25th, 2017 at 2:24 PM ^

Begging to differ here, my friend. Knobs perform the vital function of enable ingress and egress through doors. Unless you're using 'knob' in the crude vernacular - in which case my point still stands, the 'knob' has a dense cluster of nerve endings that facilitate the enjoyment of both sexual congress and particular acts of onanism (or in Ohio parlance, 'visiting the library'). In either case, calling Greenstein a 'knob' is a grave disservice to an actual knob that is far more useful than he will ever be.

schreibee

January 25th, 2017 at 3:14 PM ^

This is going to be set down here, so it's not ambiguous any longer:

Alternative Facts is a rip on the Trump administration, if not Trump himself.

If you deploy that phrase on this blog, no matter what you're referencing, or whatever the context, nor how pro-Michigan your point is, those who support the Trump presidency will read it as a not-so-veiled slight of their President.

Now, I'm pretty certain you knew that when you typed it in, and were just being disingenuous that you intended no politics.

I intend to continue to use the phrase when it fits - as it does in this story in actual fact - but I won't pretend it's something other than what it is.

canzior

January 25th, 2017 at 3:31 PM ^

But one could argue that he's echoing our President's statement and imitiation is flattery...especially as we don't know ijohnb's political affiliation.

 

Also note, you said "their President" in reference to Trump supporters, but yet he is all of our President.  Trump supporter or not, I would not offend those who do support him by calling Trump "their President."

/s 

schreibee

January 25th, 2017 at 4:53 PM ^

So gald you added the /s

I was definitely referring to those who would be prone to take offense and call "politics" - 

but Alternative Facts refers directy to Spicer & Conway, not the President.

Also.............................NOT MY PRESIDENT!

There - no MORE politics!

ijohnb

January 25th, 2017 at 3:47 PM ^

somebody says doesn't become "political" because it upsets certain people.  In fact, allowing the word "political" to encompass the meaning that you have given it is another example of the same double speak that have rise to "alternative facts."  The definition of "political" has not all of the sudden been expanded to include "any phrase that may tend to upset Trump or his supporter."  To that I say, toughen up, butter cup. 

Saying the phrase "alternative facts" as a joke is not a political statement of any kind. 

schreibee

January 25th, 2017 at 4:56 PM ^

Well it is poitical, because only one side of the isle thinks it is a joke.

The other thinks it's totally valid and feels the mainstream press has been offering up alternative facts as news for years,

So it's inflammatory no matter which side you're on - and I'm pretty sure that's why this blog urges the "no politics" policy. I've had comments removed from threads more than once, so you can call me Capt. Kirk!

OwenGoBlue

January 25th, 2017 at 4:22 PM ^

I think the question is: At what point is a phrase just part of the cultural lexicon?

There will be casual references to alternative facts, building things, and making things great again for the foreseeable future. Some references will be political (on both sides), some will be clever and some will be nonsense.

They are now part of our shared language and experience. I don't think we should police the phrases regardless of context around them.

schreibee

January 25th, 2017 at 5:01 PM ^

Let's agree on one thing here - and those who count themselves as Trump supporters will have to agree with this if they're honest:

"Strategery" didn't offend anyone back then, it was funny!

We do not have that same ability to laugh at ourselves any longer... well some of us. The SNL version of Bernie made me laugh out loud - YUGELY!

 

1 percent

January 26th, 2017 at 12:01 AM ^

Hahahahah! Uhhh wow. So ... No.

Dude, read the kind of vitriol you post. It's almost every comment you are calling someone with a different opinion than you an idiot, a dick or full of bullshit. Literally almost every single comment yet I am a terrible person. Hahaha got it.

I'm cool with people disagreeing with me. No problem with it or the negbangs that come along with it. Personal attacks though? Seems like something that someone who has spent his entire life around children would do.

ijohnb

January 26th, 2017 at 6:42 AM ^

think you will see many sites/chat rooms/etc. become a little more permissive with what people are allowed to say, even when it borders political boundaries. There were a lot of things that needed to be part of the public discourse about Trump that were not publicly debated due to the "vitriol" that he dished out to his dissenters, and the result is that the fabric of democracy and the pillars of a free society are now in real peril, though some have yet to see it unfortunately. It really doesn't matter at this point who voted for who, that is water under the bridge. We are all in the same boat now with very troubled waters ahead. It has really never been more important to hold everybody in government accountable for their statements in every forum possible.

XiX

January 25th, 2017 at 3:03 PM ^

Since you seem to like policing this issue I'm really just curious as to if your response only has to do with this particular phrase or is it also applicable to "make _____ great again"?

I've yet to have seen you respond to that phrase as well so, like I said, just curious...

1 percent

January 25th, 2017 at 3:12 PM ^

uhh yeah sure. I haven't seen anyone post that on here?

I guess I'm just confused by your comment because I barely ever do it. I just don't like thinly veiled "oh it's not political" political statements. If someone were to type 'Make Michigan Great Again' then I'm fairly certain it would get called out or negged to Bolivian too, idk.

1 percent

January 25th, 2017 at 3:34 PM ^

no worries, mate.

I'm sure there were some 'great again' references during the election. The problem for me is that it's pretty obviously a political shot and when I said no politics he tried to play it off as if he wasn't referencing politics yet everyone else that commented or up/down voted knew what he was referencing.

There have been bigger travesties.

blue in dc

January 25th, 2017 at 11:51 PM ^

Having called out the phrase "Make Michigan Great Again", I can attest to the fact that I got many more negs arguing that the phrase was political than the phrase itself got. The lesson I took from it was that it is in fact the calling out of the statement that leads to the political discussion, not the original statement. Ironically I wasn't taking issue with the statement so much as I was taking issue with using the statement, then adding the disclaimer - no politics. I took offense to throwing out something that could obviosly being viewed as political and then suggesting it wasn't ok to call you for it. Without tbe disclaimer, I probably would have just ignored it.

I'd also say that given the context of this post - alt facts is actually a reasonable characterization of the suggestion that processing is "exceedingly rare" which makes it less about the politics of the phrase and more about the fact that a phrase that was used in a political context happens to also be a very good descriptor of the topic being discussed.

Mr. Yost

January 25th, 2017 at 6:21 PM ^

I just read this whole thread and I found it interesting that someone with the username 1 percent says no politics and then there's a discussion about whether or not we can use certain phrases and yada yada.

1 percent can be taken as a political term. It can be offensive to people. Really to 99% of the country.

Or...if you take a deep breath you realize it could be support of Brock Mealer who was given a 1% chance to walk again.

My point? Lighten up. We can't take every single phrase or term and take it away just because a politician said it. A political slogan? That's one thing. But if you look hard enough you can make a lot of what you see "political" if the definition is because a politician used the term.

(1% could be taken as mocking "We are the 99%" which "is a political slogan widely used and coined by the Occupy movement. It was the name of a Tumblr blog page launched in late August 2011 and is a variation on the phrase "We The 99%" from an August 2011 flyer for the NYC General Assembly.")

*In my opinion that's not the case...and even if it was, why would I give a shit? It's not like anyone in this thread has tried to push his/her political views on someone else. And if you're offended by a little ribbing why are you on a sports blog? Especially one that is in the top 1% of snark.

1 percent

January 25th, 2017 at 6:45 PM ^

Glad people take a deep breath .... also glad I read all of your post lol. 

Like I said, I didn't find it offensive, I found it political. It's going to take a lot more than what john said to offend me. Also said there have been bigger travesties. If you didnt find it political then that's cool with me, I honestly and unsnarkingly do not care. 

 

BigPuppy4

January 25th, 2017 at 2:14 PM ^

At the end of the day, Harbaugh makes for a great headline. People are going to attach his name to anything and everything that they can. Folks like Greenstein, Finebaum, etc. cannot keep him out of the news because of the attention that he will bring to any situation. The examples above show teams such as Arizona, Miami, Tennessee, and FSU, which rarely make a ripple in the national landscape. Coaches like Saban and Harbaugh make national news for any comment that they make.

gruden

January 25th, 2017 at 8:06 PM ^

Sure wish there were more articles about Saint Saban and stuff like this.  Have to go back over 6 years to read an article about Alabama processing. 

Well, I guess when Harbaugh wins a couple championships maybe these jerks will find another target.