Negative recruiting and good journalism
I briefly alluded to this in today's installment of 'Couple of Things', but I think it's worth fleshing out a little more, particularly in light of Paul's defense of Notre Dame at Classic Ground (seeing that he is, after all, a Notre Dame fan).
First off, regarding the allegations, and as I said earlier, let's not get shocked by this. I remember doing a recruiting diary for Antonio Mercier who said similar things concerning Georgia's pursuit of him following an initial commitment to South Carolina, so the concept of coaches saying things to boost their standing in comparison with rival programs isn't unheard of.
So forgive me if I find it very difficult to believe that Charlie Weis and the Notre Dame coaching staff - particularly when you see how much bravado and attitude they have brought to South Bend - didn't say some things, possibly negative, about Clemson. This man is a walking, talking, living, breathing embodiment of human machismo who thrives on the 'us vs. them' mentality, so for him to say the equivalent of 'well, golly gee, all we did was say how swell Notre Dame is' is laughable. I'm quite sure some coaches on his staff said some things about Clemson that could be construed as negative (I mean, haven't we all?).
All of that said ... I don't necessarily know if that is a bad thing. It probably isn't a good thing, but it may not be entirely evil or anything. Football is football, and folks say things about their rivals. Coaches want to get the best players possible, so this is just like any other business and that means they try to win (and it's a big reason why Notre Dame fans, like Paul, love Weis).
And, keeping this in perspective with, say, the Albert Means debacle a few years back, a few macho and disparaging words aren't necessarily that bad. I'd rather have a coach say 'why do you want to go to Florida where you'll be surrounded by all of those jean shorts' than say 'why do you want to go Florida ... here's a new Escalade?'
Now, regarding the actual allegations, apparently incoming Clemson freshman Jamie Cumbie told Larry Williams of the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier that after the former had committed to the Tigers, Weis and other Notre Dame coaches continued recruiting him (not unusual) and sent him letters which disparaged Clemson and called the school's education 'horrible.'
A week later, Cumbie changes his tune, says that he spoke out-of-turn and that Notre Dame didn't do any of the like (conspiracy theorists are already working on this one, I bet). Paul faults Williams for this, and I disagree with him.
Now, I need a brief disclaimer here - I know Larry having worked with him some back when he was at the Augusta Chronicle and I was at the Athens Banner-Herald. But that disclaimer also comes with some insight. Larry was a good reporter who worked hard, and I sincerely doubt that he would simply publish something to make Notre Dame look bad because there is no real reason to do so.
Perhaps he should have sought comment from Notre Dame after Cumbie opened his mouth, but ultimately we don't know if he did or didn't (policies for newspapers disclosing whether or not they sought and were denied comment vary at each outlet).
To me, it seems like Larry picked up on a good sound bite - and it was arguably a good sound bite - and wrote a story about it. Turns out the kid misspoke (possibly), and as a result there is another story to write. It doesn't seem to be a 'hack job' at all in my book, but rather the pursuit of a story.
As far as relating this to Gary Gray's backing off of a verbal commitment to South Carolina to take a closer look at Notre Dame, the two are definitely connected ... particularly for a newspaper in South Carolina. It searches for a pattern - the pattern being that one recruit says Notre Dame continued to go after him while another says he now wants to think about going there, presumably because the Irish kept after him. And if you follow Clemson or South Carolina athletics, and one school from the Midwest keeps going after guys who say they want to play for your school, this is a valid story.
I don't see what's there to get all up in arms about? If I was Weis, I'd say 'you're damn right we said Clemson sucked ... this is friggin' Notre Dame, and we own this place!' ... or something like that.
Of course, if I was Weis, I'd also implore Jimmy Clausen to do something about his LFO-like hair cut.
First off, regarding the allegations, and as I said earlier, let's not get shocked by this. I remember doing a recruiting diary for Antonio Mercier who said similar things concerning Georgia's pursuit of him following an initial commitment to South Carolina, so the concept of coaches saying things to boost their standing in comparison with rival programs isn't unheard of.
So forgive me if I find it very difficult to believe that Charlie Weis and the Notre Dame coaching staff - particularly when you see how much bravado and attitude they have brought to South Bend - didn't say some things, possibly negative, about Clemson. This man is a walking, talking, living, breathing embodiment of human machismo who thrives on the 'us vs. them' mentality, so for him to say the equivalent of 'well, golly gee, all we did was say how swell Notre Dame is' is laughable. I'm quite sure some coaches on his staff said some things about Clemson that could be construed as negative (I mean, haven't we all?).
All of that said ... I don't necessarily know if that is a bad thing. It probably isn't a good thing, but it may not be entirely evil or anything. Football is football, and folks say things about their rivals. Coaches want to get the best players possible, so this is just like any other business and that means they try to win (and it's a big reason why Notre Dame fans, like Paul, love Weis).
And, keeping this in perspective with, say, the Albert Means debacle a few years back, a few macho and disparaging words aren't necessarily that bad. I'd rather have a coach say 'why do you want to go to Florida where you'll be surrounded by all of those jean shorts' than say 'why do you want to go Florida ... here's a new Escalade?'
Now, regarding the actual allegations, apparently incoming Clemson freshman Jamie Cumbie told Larry Williams of the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier that after the former had committed to the Tigers, Weis and other Notre Dame coaches continued recruiting him (not unusual) and sent him letters which disparaged Clemson and called the school's education 'horrible.'
A week later, Cumbie changes his tune, says that he spoke out-of-turn and that Notre Dame didn't do any of the like (conspiracy theorists are already working on this one, I bet). Paul faults Williams for this, and I disagree with him.
Now, I need a brief disclaimer here - I know Larry having worked with him some back when he was at the Augusta Chronicle and I was at the Athens Banner-Herald. But that disclaimer also comes with some insight. Larry was a good reporter who worked hard, and I sincerely doubt that he would simply publish something to make Notre Dame look bad because there is no real reason to do so.
Perhaps he should have sought comment from Notre Dame after Cumbie opened his mouth, but ultimately we don't know if he did or didn't (policies for newspapers disclosing whether or not they sought and were denied comment vary at each outlet).
To me, it seems like Larry picked up on a good sound bite - and it was arguably a good sound bite - and wrote a story about it. Turns out the kid misspoke (possibly), and as a result there is another story to write. It doesn't seem to be a 'hack job' at all in my book, but rather the pursuit of a story.
As far as relating this to Gary Gray's backing off of a verbal commitment to South Carolina to take a closer look at Notre Dame, the two are definitely connected ... particularly for a newspaper in South Carolina. It searches for a pattern - the pattern being that one recruit says Notre Dame continued to go after him while another says he now wants to think about going there, presumably because the Irish kept after him. And if you follow Clemson or South Carolina athletics, and one school from the Midwest keeps going after guys who say they want to play for your school, this is a valid story.
I don't see what's there to get all up in arms about? If I was Weis, I'd say 'you're damn right we said Clemson sucked ... this is friggin' Notre Dame, and we own this place!' ... or something like that.
Of course, if I was Weis, I'd also implore Jimmy Clausen to do something about his LFO-like hair cut.
posted by Jmac at 10:56 AM
1 Comments:
I do fault Williams and Cumbie both. But it would have only taken a quick phone call to the ND SID, and Williams would have had a quotation. He did not make that call and created a story, intentionally related to Gray, about negative recruiting. That was my issue.
And a verbal is just that, a verbal, and not anything binding; yet Weis continues to recruit only if the player agrees.
Post a Comment
<< Home