2010 Kentucky Wildcats Men's Basketball - 5th edition

[Hoosier Red]

I've always thought that if players were being paid at a rate you suggest Scrap, they wouldn't be so eager to leave for the NBA. Maybe I'm crazy.

[Scrap Irony]

Where did I say how much they were being paid, Hoosier?

I just said paid.

And a million dollars-- the average salary among 1st round NBA players (which most underclassmen are)-- is a lot more than even my jaded eye would insist they're getting.

It's like any other job. Except, of course, they can't tell.

[WMR]

Forgive me all for beating a dead horse, but a lot of the the things being posted with regards to agendas, dirty pool, and sketchy reporting and hatchet pieces are just driving me crazy.(It's not a drive, it's a really short putt I'll grant.)

I've seen in here and in PM's with WMR that the New York Times has an agenda(presumably anti-UK but I've yet to see a coherent agenda that they have.)
1) What is the agenda?
2) Why in your mind does the New York Times hate UK?

I've seen in the thread and elsewhere that the NY Times had sketchy and or slanted reporting.
1) I've seen nothing brought up as evidence to support this. What made this sketchier reporting than any other investigative reporting for the last 100 years? What amounted to an unbalanced report? Was any allegation brought up without presenting the High School's side of things?

As I said in my PM to WMR, I think we can all agree that UK basketball is a national topic of interest. The fact that the NCAA is investigating the eligibility of one of the players lends credence to the fact that this isn't just a witch hunt by the paper. Someone at the NCAA has determined that at the very least, it's worth looking into. And remember, the NCAA looked and then the NY Times reported they were looking. It's not like the Times went to Birmingham trying to dig up dirt and then called the NCAA.


So please do tell what piece of information was missing from the article? What was available that the paper consciously omitted?

It's not necessarily an anti-UK agenda, it's a crappy reporting with no ethical standards agenda.

I wonder how you would feel if the NYT wrote an article like this about your child?

[WMR]

They stopped investigating in February, if reports are true. And I agree with you about the NY Times. They should report all the news that's fit to print.

But the cynic in me says that those two have been at this story since February and this is what they've found:

A landlord who's mad (deservedly, IMO) Bledsoe and his mom skipped out owing her serious cash tells a story about a coach who paid (cash) three months' rent. Not even remotely proveable and, really, not much of a story.

Secondly, a HS kid who did really well his senior year so that he could get eligible to go to college. If I had a nickel for every time that happened, I could wipe my butt with Ben Franklins for the rest of my life and still could live a life of ease.

That's it.

There's not much there there, you know?

Matt Jones wrote a very good blog about the weak nature of this article, and how even other media members were surprised how weak it was...

http://kentuckysportsradio.com/?p=53115

Unfortunately for me, much of my weekend has been spent dealing with Pete Thamel’s article in the New York Times concerning Eric Bledsoe’s high school transcripts and coach association. When I first read the story on Friday night, I thought it was likely to be overblown by media folks (and it has) and seemed to contain very little mean in its chargrilled packaging. As the weekend has progressed, the last conclusion seems to have been confirmed as every reporter I have spoken with, both local and national, devalued the importance of the article, and most questioned the decision by the Times and Thamel to publish the story. Those most sympathetic to Pete simply said that there “wasn’t really that much there” and those that were a bit more critical anonymously made statements such as “people think the Times’ stories have more credibility because it is the Times. But that story was junk.” Then there is CBS Sports.com’s Gregg Doyel who has used Twitter to blast the Times and Thamel and has pointed out (in a very Doyelesque way) that they either needed to prove Bledsoe cheated “or just shaddup.” It remains to be seen if the story is much ado about nothing, but what is clear is that Thamel’s Friday night of Memorial Day Weekend Dump did not have the sizzle he might have hoped.

[Hoosier Red]

Matt Jones wrote a very good blog about the weak nature of this article, and how even other media members were surprised how weak it was...

http://kentuckysportsradio.com/?p=53115

Seriously WMR? That's what you have, a Kentucky blog, quoting Greg Doyle and anonymous media sources.
A quick note on anonymous sources because you brought this point up earlier, notice the New York Times writer used two anonymous sources, identified them to the degree he could, and stated the reason they were going to remain anonymous. Matt Jones just said "every reporter I spoke with local and national" Obviously a blog post doesn't have the journalistic rules that a newspaper article does, but if you're trying to establish credibility, then that's not the way to do it.

And again, all they said really was, "there's not much there," or "the story is junk." That's an opinion and of course reasonable minds can disagree but I wish someone would tell me how THE NCAA INVESTIGATING THE ELIGIBILITY OF A UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY PLAYER is not newsworthy. Even if nothing comes of this, it's at least newsworthy that it was being questioned. Sorry Doyel, it's not the New York Times job to "prove" anything. It's their job to report on newsworthy events as they are happening.

Even if Scrap's reports are true,(and I have my doubts that the New York Times, which has very few national basketball writers, would have someone in Alabama for three months even when the NCAA investigation had gone cold) but even if those are true, obviously something brought the NCAA back as they are again currently looking into the issues. For whatever reason the NCAA is back, and the Times article details what they are looking into. Someone tell me how that is not newsworthy.

The second half of the blog goes off on a diatribe about how Pat Forde is out to get UK which doesn't really have much to do with the New York Times.

It's not necessarily an anti-UK agenda, it's a crappy reporting with no ethical standards agenda.

Define the ethics(journalistic or otherwise) that were broken. Did Thamel break any laws in obtaining the information? Did he not do everything he could to give both sides to the story?
If a non-biased reader can come away from that story and say, "I don't think much of that will stick," in my mind that's the mark of a good story with solid reporting.

I wonder how you would feel if the NYT wrote an article like this about your child?

If it was my kid, I'd be pissed. But I'd be pissed at the landlady who (if she's lying) was lying about where the payments came from. I'd be pissed at the teacher from Parker who said my kid wasn't a very good student. It's not the media's responsibility to be nice to your kid.
Your obvious benevolence towards poor little children being taken advantage of by the mean mean media is truly touching. It would be more touching if it extended to those who don't happen to play basketball at UK.

[Cedric]

Holy heck. Greg Doyle? I wouldn't quote him if I wanted to win some internet fight.

[Joseph]

100$ handshakes absolutely exist. a friend from high school [not just some random guy I went to school with, but an actual friend] went to WVU [but was recruited by Miami and others]. These booster dinners he attended during recruitment and after enrollment netted him quite a bit of money.

Let's just say when he left for college he drove a little pontiac fiero. When he came home after that first year he drove a BMW.

[Scrap Irony]

...Even if Scrap's reports are true,(and I have my doubts that the New York Times, which has very few national basketball writers, would have someone in Alabama for three months even when the NCAA investigation had gone cold) but even if those are true, obviously something brought the NCAA back as they are again currently looking into the issues. For whatever reason the NCAA is back, and the Times article details what they are looking into. Someone tell me how that is not newsworthy.

Again, not what I said, Hoosier. I said they've been at it for months now after the NCAA concluded its investigation in February. I'm guessing they spent some time in Alabama, but I don't think anyone would spend three or four months in Alabama if they didn't have to.

Three or four months on a story is a long, long time. Typically, you get two or three weeks at most. If you're a part of a bigger paper (with a national reputation) and you're secure enough in your job, you might get up to six weeks. If you're on your own and writing the article "spec", you obviously get as long as you can go without getting paid.

Both reporters are paid reporters by the NYT. That means a deadline. I'm guessing an editor demanded what they had and told them to move on. What they had isn't much. At all.

It's the same stuff you'd see at virtually any school across America, Division I, Division II, NAIA, whathaveyou.

The landlord's quotes are questionable at best.
The grade point issue is easily explained and a non-story.

The most damning piece of "evidence" is a quote by an angry ex-landlord who is still owed serious money and an anonymous quote from a coach who said Bledsoe's coach wanted cash.

(BTW, Bledsoe's HS coach didn't want him at UK-- was in fact really, really ticked he went to Kentucky. Said it in the papers, doubted whether he could co-exist with Wall, said it wasn't a good fit, etc. Does that sound like a guy who got paid off?)

If not for the names attached (Kentucky, Calipari, Bledsoe), it wouldn't be news.

[Hoosier Red]

Again, not what I said, Hoosier. I said they've been at it for months now after the NCAA concluded its investigation in February. I'm guessing they spent some time in Alabama, but I don't think anyone would spend three or four months in Alabama if they didn't have to.

I apologize if I misunderstood Scrap.

If not for the names attached (Kentucky, Calipari, Bledsoe), it wouldn't be news.

But that's been my point all along. The fact that it's big names, and the NCAA investigating means that it is in fact news.
I agree, if the NCAA was looking into the eligibility of a University of Indianapolis player, I doubt the NY Times would pick up that story. If you want Kentucky to play Division 2 basketball, they probably won't have to deal with this aggravation.
The fact that every other media outlet picked up the story as soon as the Times printed it shows that it was news.

I think what the point I've been trying to make throughout this whole argument is that this wasn't some expose by the NY Times.

Thamel wasn't trying to prove that Kentucky is crooked, or that Bledsoe did something wrong, or that Calipari should be punished. So when you say they "don't have much" they didn't need much. They are simply reporting that the NCAA is looking into the eligibility of a UK player. That's the story. Once the premise of the story is that the NCAA is looking into Eric Bledsoe's eligibility, the questions become 1) What are the alleged incidents that would potentially make him ineligible and 2) How credible are those allegations.
The story I think answers both of those questions.

Agree or disagree?

[Scrap Irony]

I've agreed with you from the start. Is it news? Absolutely.

The question is: should it be news?

[Hoosier Red]

You'll have to forgive me Scrap, my arguments were more with those(WMR) calling this a hatchet piece and poor journalism.

Should it be news? That's a gray area. I think as long as the article is written in a way that is fair to Bledsoe, and doesn't try to presume guilt than yes it's news.

I was thinking of this in terms of the legal system. The fact that the NCAA is looking into his eligibility to me gets this to at least "The DA is investigating" like the Rothelisberger case, given what we know there's certainly not enough to "convict" and there may not even be enough to for a "grand jury indictment" to stretch the analogy.
But given Calipari's past(2 vacated seasons whatever his reasons) and given the high profile of both the player and the program, I'd have to say it's news.

[WMR]

Again, not what I said, Hoosier. I said they've been at it for months now after the NCAA concluded its investigation in February. I'm guessing they spent some time in Alabama, but I don't think anyone would spend three or four months in Alabama if they didn't have to.

Three or four months on a story is a long, long time. Typically, you get two or three weeks at most. If you're a part of a bigger paper (with a national reputation) and you're secure enough in your job, you might get up to six weeks. If you're on your own and writing the article "spec", you obviously get as long as you can go without getting paid.

Both reporters are paid reporters by the NYT. That means a deadline. I'm guessing an editor demanded what they had and told them to move on. What they had isn't much. At all.

It's the same stuff you'd see at virtually any school across America, Division I, Division II, NAIA, whathaveyou.

The landlord's quotes are questionable at best.
The grade point issue is easily explained and a non-story.

The most damning piece of "evidence" is a quote by an angry ex-landlord who is still owed serious money and an anonymous quote from a coach who said Bledsoe's coach wanted cash.

(BTW, Bledsoe's HS coach didn't want him at UK-- was in fact really, really ticked he went to Kentucky. Said it in the papers, doubted whether he could co-exist with Wall, said it wasn't a good fit, etc. Does that sound like a guy who got paid off?)

If not for the names attached (Kentucky, Calipari, Bledsoe), it wouldn't be news.

Maybe if those idiots at the Times had thrown in a little something about that to counter-balance their one-sided reporting it wouldn't stink as bad as it does.

Here, I'll even write some copy for them....
An unnamed coach said that Bledsoe's coach said you needed XXX amount of dollars to get this kid to your school. This, however, contrasts strongly with what the coach publicly stated throughout the Bledsoe recruitment and how, in his opinion, 'Eric going to play with John Wall was a mistake.'

Not nearly as titillating, huh. The 'lip service' they paid to the 'OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY' was laughably weak.

There is good news and bad news... the bad news is that you're going to see 'reputable' papers sinking to this level of 'reporting', and lower, more and more often in efforts of self-preservation. They need clicks and they need eyeballs. Desperately.

The good news is that newspapers are on their way out and even horse-crap reporting like this that would be better-served on TMZ Sports STILL won't save them, ultimately.

All that being typed, I'm done with this topic until/unless some actual EVIDENCE comes to light. I've wasted too many ones and zeroes on the New York Times and their horrible 'article' already.

[Hoosier Red]

Maybe if those idiots at the Times had thrown in a little something about that to counter-balance their one-sided reporting it wouldn't stink as bad as it does.

Here, I'll even write some copy for them....
An unnamed coach said that Bledsoe's coach said you needed XXX amount of dollars to get this kid to your school. This, however, contrasts strongly with what the coach publicly stated throughout the Bledsoe recruitment and how, in his opinion, 'Eric going to play with John Wall was a mistake.'

Not nearly as titillating, huh. The 'lip service' they paid to the 'OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY' was laughably weak.

All that being typed, I'm done with this topic until/unless some actual EVIDENCE comes to light. I've wasted too many ones and zeroes on the New York Times and their horrible 'article' already.

Sigh.... WMR, if after reading this article, you've come to the conclusion that Pete Thamel was accusing Bledsoe(and his mother and coach) of what is being alleged by others, or was otherwise implying that Bledsoe(and others) were guilty, or was trying to somehow frame the story to imply guilt, then you are quite honestly looking for something to be defensive about.

I apologize for making you "waste" 1's and 0's, I'd just like you to be accurate when you make baseless accusations of bias, or shoddy reporting, or hatchet jobs, or whatever you've now decided this was now.

I mean sure the New York Times sucks, and is a shill for UConn, and has an agenda against John Calipari, and likes to ruin a kid's reputation for sport, and exists essentially to piss you off. But at the very least if you're going to attack something about the article, man up when someone shows you that you're wrong.

Or do you still believe this was a desperate attempt to cover up UConn's violations.
Or do you still believe that when the NCAA is investigating the eligibility of one of the top 5 teams from the past year, it's not news?
Apparantly you still believe that getting a quote from the high school coach, the high school principal, attempting to reach Bledsoe, his mom, and Coach Calipari is considered a laughable attempt to show the other side.

By the way the fact that the high school coach was "asking for money" from coaches doesn't mean that Kentucky paid him. Perhaps they didn't and that's why he bad mouthed them. I don't know what the situation would mean for Bledsoe, but it probably wouldn't be good for the coach.

[joshnky]

This is only somewhat related but apparently the NCAA is going to "crack-down" on the top tier programs in men's basketball.

USA Today Article

Also, I never realized how few people they had dedicated to enforcement. It comes as no surprise that there is corruption when they only have 3 (now 6) people devoted to policing men's basketball.

[WVRed]

I thought this would be a better question to be asked in this thread rather than the one for John Wooden, but here goes:

If John Wooden was in his 40's and coaching in today's day and age, do you believe he would be treated the same way that many treat Calipari?

Obviously Cal isn't in the same league when it comes to national titles, but both were known for having "semi-pro" teams, similar abilities to attract a crowd with their personality, and even questionable connections (Cal with WWW, Wooden with Sam Gilbert).