3&O: Purdue '08
I realize this is not relevant to the larger point of the book, but I just got done reading the section on the 2008 Purdue game and I was kind shocked at how wrong Bacon got the details of the game. He says UM lead 42-35, but Purdue scored and missed a two point conversion. UM then had to get a first down to win, but couldn't do it, and then the hook and ladder happened.
I just saw this game on the BTN, so it was fresh in my memory, but UM was actually down 42-35 and Minor scored with just over a minute to go to tie it up. Purdue then scored the hook and ladder play but got their extra point blocked to get to the six point final spread. I love the book so far and think it's pretty important for all UM fans to read it, but I was really suprised by this mistake and what it potentially says about the lack of attention to detail and editing for the book.
October 27th, 2011 at 5:03 PM ^
My post should probably be deleted.
October 27th, 2011 at 4:41 PM ^
Yeah he messed that up, but in the grander scheme of things, I'm concerned far less about him messing that up than other things in the book...if they did or didn't get messed up.
October 27th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^
I'm not sure anyone really cares about the details of that game, but the fact that he didn't get something right that he could have checked an ESPN box score on, in my opinion, takes away credibility from some of the other assertions that can't be as easily checked.
October 27th, 2011 at 5:34 PM ^
October 27th, 2011 at 5:46 PM ^
First of all, I'm not sure the mistakes he makes are mundane. Its not like he got the Purdue kicker's name wrong, he is almost making up a new version and sequence of events of what actually happened and commenting on it as if it did happen.
That being said, if his recollection of the Purdue game was taken from his 10,000 pages of extensive notes, I'm less likely to believe anything that he took notes of while it was happening. Which, from the way he talks about it in interviews, is pretty much everything in the book. Not to say that I think everything in the book is false, I just question that everything in the book is true (there is a huge difference).
October 27th, 2011 at 6:07 PM ^
October 27th, 2011 at 6:59 PM ^
About the score of the fucking 2008 Purdue game?
October 27th, 2011 at 8:38 PM ^
But it does make one wonder what else he got wrong. As someone rightly points out we will probably never hear from all involved in this situation so we are depending entirely on Bacon's reporting for information. That means we ought to hold this book to a high standards in terms of accuracy.
<br>
<br>
<br>While hardly an egregious error the inaccurate portrayal of easily attained facts is an indication of sloppy reporting. Bacon is not nor will he be the last writer to do so.In my reading of history books I am constantly finding discrepancies and factual errors. It happens. But that does not excuse it. A person who writes of history must be accurate above all else.
October 27th, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^
This whole thing reminds me of this scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY
Until the important facts are found to be incorrect, this is a silly conversation to be having.
October 27th, 2011 at 6:29 PM ^
It is pretty clear that Martin, Brandon, Carr and MSC are not going to comment on the book and are going to ignore the fact that it exists. With that said, how is it even possible for Bacon's retelling of personal conversations between Martin and MSC to be found incorrect? I don't think it is, and therefor just taking everything as the gospel truth seems like a huge leap of faith if there are other events in the book that can be checked and are incorrect. That is my point.
I don't think this changes the overall theme of the book, or the way people are portrayed. I think we just need to be cautious in using these specific recountings as fact. Almost like the difference between seeing a video of someone doing something, vs. having someone else describe to you what they saw the person doing.
Also, I loved that movie.
October 28th, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^
Yeah, that jumped out to me as incorrect, but at the same time my sense is that Bacon and his editors spent more time focusing on the behind-the-scenes details than a relatively meaningless score breakdown.
But concern is that people are going to harp on these minor errors and then say "well, how can we trust ANYTHING in the book?" It is a book designed to make people uncomfortable, and my fear is that people will hide their discomfort with the truth behind claims of "factual mistakes" in accounts of coaching behavior, behind-the-scenes sniping, and other glaring faults in the atheltic department at UM.
October 27th, 2011 at 6:51 PM ^
The fact that there are fairly obvious errors in the book not reduce your opinion of his credibility?
October 27th, 2011 at 10:32 PM ^
Because it happens all the time?
October 27th, 2011 at 11:07 PM ^
Look, the guy wrote an extremely complicated story line. he got some details screwed up about events of the game...but he got the main conclusions correct (the hook and ladder that Purdue ran). The fact that it got let through is an indictment of the editors, not necessarily of Bacon.
Now, if Bacon had several of these errors, sure, it looks bad on him. But I disagree that this is a fairly obvious error when teh central theme of the book really has nothing to do with how the last 3 plays of Purdue 2008 played out exactly. In a 400+ page book, there are bound to be some factual errors.
October 28th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
I strongly suspect the editing was focused on the more controversial journalist claims made in the book. Non-controversial events like the end of the Purdue game in 2008 were probably not looked at carefully.
Having written a couple of books myself,* I can tell you that editing is something of a dying art. Good editors are overworked, since publishers don't want to pay them.
* Networking textbooks. I recommend them to help with any sleeping problems you might have.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:01 PM ^
he got some details screwed up about events of the game...but he got the main conclusions correct (the hook and ladder that Purdue ran).
I'd argue that he got the "conclusion" quite a bit off. In that game, we trailed most of the second half before tying with a minute to go. We were pretty fortunate to be in a position to go to OT - only to blow it in that final minute. In Bacon's version of events, we're ahead in the fourth quarter, and seconds away from winning by a point when a crazy play (the hook-and-lateral) costs us the game. It comes off as another "Can you believe the bad luck RR had?" story when it would be a stretch to consider it that in reality.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
and I fear that this book may be taken as the gospel even if it is just "loosely based on a true story." None of this "unfettered access" was documented or detailed prior to the book being marketed, and I have my suspicions as to Bacon being privy to post game locker room situations, team meetings, and so forth.
Fab Five was a great peice of writing, but large portions of the book have been recognized as complete fiction in the years since it was written. There are many references to discussions and events that Album could not possible have witnessed, and was taking from 3rd or 4th person accounts at best.
To all readers, I would caution that the book may not be the true story that it has been sold as being.
Personally, I am not going to read it. I don't think that the book serves any good purpose. The last three years of Michigan football were depressing, and reading the book seems akin to self-injury as catharsis. The last three years are exactly where I want them, in the rear view mirror.
October 28th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
Because if you have ever read a history book, you'll see factual errors in it all the time. Heck, read some legal books - textbooks, not Grisham novels - and there you will find errors. Editors have a limited amount of time and mental capital to dedicate to a given book, and sometimes minor errors float through especially when they are not central to the main story. Now, if it comes out taht some interview or meeting Bacon spoke of didn't happen, then yes, that is an issue. But being off by a score isn't that big of a deal, especially since we don't know who was ultimately guilty of the mistake - Bacon, and editor, a fact checker, etc. I have family members who have published books, and they can attest to receiving rewrites from editors that contain wrong characterizations and incorrect text derived from something they received on their end. You try to catch them all, but inevitably a couple get through.
October 27th, 2011 at 5:15 PM ^
for the whole 10000+ lines of notes he made to get published. :-) I know I would pay a high price to buy it!
[Edit: Since I realized my response was kinda OT, I should add that errors like this happen all the time. I remember seeing some similar game history errors in Jon Falk's recent book too. Shocked that no one catches these, but I will guess that the reviewers don't spend all their time obsessing over M Football like I do! :-)]
October 27th, 2011 at 5:51 PM ^
This must be what Rosenburg meant when he claimed the book was "full of errors"...{eyes rolling}
October 27th, 2011 at 5:57 PM ^
I haven't read the book yet, but if you were writing this book, would you stop in the middle of your thought process to double check the score of the game, which is already just background information, or would you continue to focus on the important details in the book so that you could get that correct and not leave anything out? I know that I lean toward the former. I'm assuming that during the editorial process, the same mentality took over. Double check a quote and its sources, or make sure that it was a missed 2pt conversion instead of a PAT?
October 27th, 2011 at 8:36 PM ^
Ideally, you should be able to do both. You should never get any easily-verifiable facts wrong, because those can be quickly identified (as this was) and can cast doubts on the rest of your credibility. This wasn't a newspaper article that has to come out in a couple hours. It's a book he spent three years working on. Perhaps he should have asked the university for time off while he was writing, instead of trying to multitask teaching and writing a 400+ page book.
October 28th, 2011 at 10:34 AM ^
I would argue that if he included this narrative of the football game in the book he DOES think it's important. And yes, getting things correct IS important as well.
October 27th, 2011 at 6:04 PM ^
Page 260 - Danny Hope = "a junior high school, no-class asshole".
October 27th, 2011 at 6:43 PM ^
Sometimes I would write down "facts" that I thought I remembered because it seemed like common knowledge to me, but I would be off or mix it up with another event.
October 27th, 2011 at 6:44 PM ^
I blame this one of the editor. Even I don't remember most of the details of that game. Sure, Bacon could have taken the time to fact check it, but I saw first hand what kind of hell he was going through to get the size of it under control and get it in at all (it was due for submission while I was in his class). Frankly, I blame the editor for not checking something like that. Heck, for all we know he DID get it right and the editor thought he remembered it differently and changed it.
Regardless, I don't care if he got the specifics of that game right. I know Bacon well enough to know that all of the big stuff in that book was well researched and confirmed. I trust his journalistic word more than anybody's when it comes to Michigan, and anybody who thinks I'm nuts should take his class and decide for themselves (sorry to anybody for him its too late).
October 28th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
I don't think that the description of a game is as important as the overall thrust of the book, and what it tells us about modern college athletics, and the issues that arise between the people on the Hill and the athletic department.
I've been so myopically concentrated on Michigan football all my life that I didn't even think about the fact that other schools actually have ADs with prior experience as an AD or coach. Look at our recent rivals' ADs and think about their trajectory on the field:
Wisconsin, Barry Alvarez, head coaching experience.
Nebraska, righted the ship with Tom Osborne, former head coach.
OSU, Gene Smith, former AD at several programs (yes, he certainly did screw up, but the on-the-field performance has been mostly very good).
MSU, Mark Hollis, who'd worked in the athletic department at MSU for a long time, worked for the Western Athletic Conference.
PSU, Tim Curley, worked for the PSU athletic department for years.
Iowa, Gary Barta, prior AD at several schools, including U of Washington.
No wonder our recent coaching searches were less than well-orchestrated (though I do think the University's reputation attracted good coaches). No wonder our on-field trajectory has been relatively disappointing except for 2006.
No wonder we have an AD who wants a mascot and in-stadium advertising. Michigan needs a real AD like other schools have.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^
Says Gardner went to Romulus high school when he went to Detroit Jesuit, then Inkster
October 28th, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
But I don't get worked up about calling cornerbacks safeties, and things like that. You'd think they'd be caught, but they're akin to typos. The problem with the Purdue story is he's retelling an event, not just a mistype...and it's very wrong. So if he can't remember or research something millions of people saw, and is recorded everywhere, accurately, how can we take other things that he wasn't even at but he retells as fact accurately? It doesn't make anything else untrue. It just brings into question whether all the errors were untrue, but everything else that we can't verify was true. Because that doesn't seem very likely.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^
Critics of the book will say that the entire book is inaccurate just because the Purdue game recollection is inaccurate. It's really the one thing those who are still defending LC's actions after his "retirement" have to defend their positions.
Most of the events that truly matter in the book are confirmation of things that many of us had figured out already. The details of the Purdue game have nothing to do with Bacon's being able to cohernetly report that LC offered all of his players transfers after RR had been announced.
But those who really hate the book will find a way to connect the dots, even if the resulting "picture" looks more like spaghetti than logic.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^
October 28th, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^
I have no desire to discredit the book. If Bacon makes a lot of money off it, that's great. But why should we assume everything in it is "what actually happened" when we know for a fact that at least one thing in it is not what happened?
The whole "It has to be true because otherwise he'd be sued" argument doesn't hold that much water. The standards for libel are quite high. Just writing that someone acted like a jerk in one instance is not going to get you in trouble. You've got to write something that has a potentially damaging effect on his/her professional life, which is not likely to ever be the case for anything written about Carr or Bill Martin, two rich retired guys.
Also, it's likely that a lot of that material actually can't be documented, because it probably came from sources who don't want to be named. For instance, we'll probably never know the identities of the five players who report being at the meeting Carr called when RR was hired.
October 28th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
October 30th, 2011 at 1:32 AM ^
one gets the sense that many things are based on innuendo or rumor... I'm sure somebody told him Coleman bitched Martin out and I'm sure that person was highly placed, but it strikes me as a kind of interoffice rumor that might have been spread at the time. And we have no way of confirming the veracity of it.
October 28th, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^
Given how this book potrays several prominent people and casts the UM AD, I would say they were VERY careful about sourcing and verifying the information put forth in the book. Extremely careful with respect to parties and their actions and statements, because anyone that takes umbrage with what he says that can prove he is mis-representing the information would be able to take him for a lot of money. I don't think it would be that difficult to prove damages either....small town/industry. You can be sure the publisher did indeed have this reviewed, verified and approved by attorneys prior to publishing it.
Also, given that there is more damning information that was omitted from the book because it could not be verified, that lends a lot of creedence to the veracity (voracity? lol) of the stuff that made it into the book. Why go to print with one set of information that is not verified and leave another for the same reason?
October 30th, 2011 at 1:28 AM ^
I noticed a more egregious error... Bacon repeatedly claims that Bill Martin had no previous experience in athletics before becoming AD. But that's just patently not true. Martin was president of the US Sailing Association for 3 years and was a member of the USOC's board of directors for 5 years before becoming athletic director. Sure, it's not college coaching but it's also not NO EXPERIENCE IN ATHLETICS
November 8th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^
you may think so b/c it furthers your agenda/point, but were i writing this book and looking at a sailing association, I would not qualify it as previous experience to running a major AD.