ESPN: Whitlock’s statements were “not acceptable” regarding Evans

Posted on by

It didn’t take long for Jason Whitlock to become topic A in Bristol.

This morning, ESPN issued a statement, saying his comments towards Sports Illustrated’s Thayer Evans were “not acceptable.”

“We have discussed Jason’s comments with him. They were personal in nature, they do not represent ESPN and they are not acceptable based on the standards we have set.”

Tuesday, Whitlock went on an Oklahoma City radio station and blasted Evans, who along with George Dohrmann is writing a series of stories about improprieties in the Oklahoma State football program.

ESPN has media policies in place about how its employees should address the competition. As in they really aren’t supposed to comment or criticize other media.

However, they are allowed to weigh in if it warrants discussing media coverage of a particular story. Even then, they are asked to follow certain guidelines.

The policy contains this line: “Comments must not be personal, vicious, dismissive…No cheap shots.”

And then there’s this: “No personal attacks or innuendo toward people, media companies, networks or publications.”

Now you be the judge about whether Whitlock crossed the line with comments about Evans to an Oklahoma City radio station.

“Knowing the lack of competence that’s there with Thayer Evans, knowing the level of simplemindedness that’s there with Thayer Evans, to base any part of the story on his reporting is mind-boggling.”

Does that fall under the category of a personal attack, juror 1?

And then there’s this from Whitlock.

“ … Let me end by saying this and I honestly mean this without malice. It wouldn’t shock me if Thayer Evans couldn’t spell cat and I say in all seriousness.”

Ding-ding-ding. Sound the cheap shot bell. I still love how he insisted that line was meant “without malice.”

Finally, Whitlock blasted “the brand of sports writers who love doing these investigative pieces.”

Yep, didn’t exactly go over well with ESPN’s many sports investigative reporters, who are among the best in the business.

I don’t respect the entire brand of investigative journalism that is being done here.

To add the whole dynamic, Whitlock sought a forum for his comments with a tweet inviting Oklahoma radio stations to give him a call for an interview. Not that he meant any malice.

Obviously, Whitlock veered from ESPN’s media policy on many different levels. The network responded to quell any internal fires as much as anything else.

Several of his new teammates talked about a double standard. They speculated what would happen to them if they went on the same rant.

“I’d be fired,” a staffer said.

Since Whitlock might not be current on ESPN’s policies, he likely received a lecture filling him in on what is acceptable at his new place of employment.

It might be a while before Whitlock comments about the competition again. And if he does, it definitely will be without malice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paper bans columnist from writing about South Carolina football

Posted on by

Jim Romenesko has a post on why Ron Morris won’t be covering South Carolina football this year. It seems Steve Spurrier isn’t a fan of Morris and has called him out on several occasions.

The 68-year-old football coach won’t have a repeat performance this year, though, because The State has told Morris that he can no longer write about University of South Carolina Gamecocks football. (He’s been writing a lot about Clemson lately.)

“The publisher of the paper has removed Ron from any coverage of the football program, which down there is akin to the Washington Post not letting Dan Balz write about government,” one of Morris’s former colleagues tells me. “Effectively, he’s being forced out at the behest of the football coach, with the publisher not standing up for him.”

Morris declined to talk to me, but others familiar with the situation — including former University of South Carolina and State staffers — told me how The State’s publisher made his veteran columnist agree in writing that he would never again write about Gamecocks football or talk about the USC program on TV and radio shows.

“It was a journalism restraining order,” says one of Morris’s ex-colleagues.

Romenesko did reach Spurrier about the situation.

“Ron Morris just wrote stuff that wasn’t true about me and I reacted,” Spurrier told me over the phone last Thursday. “I was fine with him the first five or six years here, and then he would write stuff that wasn’t true.”

Did he complain to The State’s publisher? I asked.

“I complained to the world about him. I complained to Gamecock Nation on my radio show. But don’t put that on me” that Morris can no longer write about Gamecocks football. “He is responsible for that.”

Of course, a football coach doesn’t have that kind of power, right?

 

And another thing, Jason: SI using named sources in Oklahoma State stories

Posted on by

Received this tweet from Dan Levy of Bleacher Report:

did Whitlock complain about anonymous sources when ranting on an article where, best I read, there aren’t any

Indeed, Levy is right. Jason Whitlock and others can rip on Thayer Evans all they want. And they did.

However, it is fairly difficult to dispute that Sports Illustrated is using named sources in its Oklahoma State stories.  Multiple name sources.

From today’s installment on academics.

“The philosophy, the main focus [of the program], was to keep [the best players]  eligible through any means necessary,” says Fath’ Carter, a safety from 2000 to  ’03. “The goal was not to educate but to get them the passing grades they needed  to keep playing. That’s the only thing it was about.”

“Online classes are the easiest way for [players] to keep their grades up,” Cole  says. “If you didn’t do the work, you can email [the instructor] and can almost  talk them into giving you a passing grade anyway.”

Is everyone lying? Were they all misquoted?

In fact, it is hard for me to remember a series of stories on this scale that had so many named sources. Usually, anonymous sources are prominent when the dirt starts flying on college campuses.

Named sources equates to greater credibility in our business.

People can believe what they want to believe. In my mind, having names behind those quotes makes me believe Oklahoma State is looking at some tough times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason Whitlock needs to brush up on Pulitzer Prize winner George Dohrmann’s credentials

Posted on by

When Sports Illustrated broke its story on Oklahoma State yesterday, Jason Whitlock went trolling via his Twitter account for Oklahoma radio stations to call him.

Sure enough, the Oklahoma City Sports Animal found him. Whitlock, as only he can, went to great lengths to debunk SI’s package.

His reason? One of the co-authors is Thayer Evans.

Kelly Hines in the Tulsa World had the diatribe, which included this:

“But then in addition to that, having worked with Thayer Evans at Fox Sports, having followed his work for some time, I am completely and utterly flabbergasted that a legitimate news outlet would allow Thayer Evans to be involved in some type of investigative piece on college football that tears down a program, and particularly one that tears down Oklahoma State when it is no secret what a huge, enormous, gigantic Oklahoma homer Thayer Evans is. This is just incredible. Knowing the lack of competence that’s there with Thayer Evans, knowing the level of simplemindedness that’s there with Thayer Evans, to base any part of the story on his reporting is mind-boggling.

And then it gets worse with Whitlock concluding:

“ … Let me end by saying this and I honestly mean this without malice. It wouldn’t shock me if Thayer Evans couldn’t spell cat and I say in all seriousness.”

Oh, I’m sure Evans didn’t see any malice in that statement.

Whitlock also had this statement:

“ … I can’t disparage (other writer George Dohrmann) because I have never worked with him. I have never seen any of his raw copy or anything like that.

Oh yes, George Dohrmann. Take a look at this excerpt from his bio, Jason.

SPORTS ILLUSTRATED senior writer George Dohrmann is the rare sportswriter to have won a Pulitzer Prize. He earned journalism’s top honor in 2000 while at the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The Pulitzer cited his “determined reporting, despite negative reader reaction, that revealed academic fraud in the men’s basketball program at the University of Minnesota.”

Jason, George won a Pulitzer Prize. You know, the same prize that you openly campaigned for last year.

I would say winning a Pulitzer gives Dohrmann fairly solid credentials to tackle this kind of story, especially since that Pulitzer came from his investigation of a college program.

And Jason, Dohrmann wrote the story. The entire package was overseen by SI executive editor Jon Wertheim, who has some impressive credentials in his own right.

In a Q/A with Anthony Slater of NewsOK.com, Dohrmann addressed the reporting that went into the story.

DG: How credible do you think the sources are?

Dohrmann: Very credible, or we wouldn’t write these things. These are players who spoke to us on the record, who we found. They didn’t come to us, they didn’t come and say, ‘Oh, I got a story to tell.’ We had to track them down and go to them and then hear their stories. This wasn’t something where, I think there’s a perception that, a lot of people who talk about their school is bitter because they got kicked off the team or they didn’t start. But you played the game, a lot of guys aren’t bitter at all, sometimes they are just years removed from this experience and you go and see them and they have time on their hands and you show them attention and you’re curious about their experience and they share it with you. Sometimes it’s not a guy sitting their spewing venom about a school he once attended.

Whitlock, though, isn’t impressed with what he calls the “brand of sports writers who love doing these investigative pieces.”

They are not hard to do these days in terms of so-and-so got this money under the table. We’re into this area where unnamed sources can say anything, any of these he-said, she-said stories. I don’t respect the entire brand of investigative journalism that is being done here. It’s not our job to go out and do NCAA policing.

“ … There’s some cute girl on campus who is a hostess who may have slept with one of these players. This has been going on for years and it goes on in the frathouses and the academic corruption they are going to talk about goes on in the frathouses and all across campus. We are singling out these athletes. It’s a good story. It will get you a promotion. It will get you on SportsCenter. It will get you talked about on this radio show and all over Twitter. But it’s bogus. It’s a trick for clicks.

Ah yes, SportsCenter. ESPN has several highly regarded investigative reporters who break stories on college improprieties all the time. Now that Whitlock is back at ESPN, it will be interesting if he has the same assessment when one of his colleagues uncovers dirt on campus. And it becomes the lead story on SportsCenter.

The local radio stations of the school should be sure to give Whitlock a call. He’ll be available for comment.

 

Chamblee on Tiger: Already at 25 majors if he stays with Harmon; Repeated swing changes ‘crazy’

Posted on by

When I asked Brandel Chamblee about his repeated criticism of Tiger Woods, he launched into a six-minute speech. Definitely worth reading in its entirety.

*********

Chamblee: If there’s anything that anyone could say, it’s that since Tiger has ascended to No. 1 in the world with four different golf swings, it does not matter how he swings the golf club. You could take the top 100 teachers and with all those different teaching methods, he could take them all to No. 1 in the world.

Now who could do it in the most efficient way? I think we know who that person is. I think we’ve already seen who that person is. And if Tiger had stayed with that person (Butch Harmon), and hadn’t left out of petty differences, hadn’t left out of boredom, he would have already broke Jack’s records. People would no longer debate about the greatest golfer of all time. As inconceivable as it seems to anyone who grew up watching Jack Nicklaus, it would be a moot argument. Tiger would have won 25 majors; he would have won 100 golf tournaments if he stayed with (Harmon).

While I’m critical of the changes he’s made, what I’m most critical is the toll and time it took to make those changes on his body. The greatest gift is time. He achieved this incredible success and consistency, only to tear it down and build it back up. To get where? To get back to the same exact spot where he was. To then tear that down and build it back up. Where was the goal? To get back where he was.

I get it. A friend of mine said this: He is like the pianist who has mastered every piece of music. The only problem is, in order to advance, he needs more music. Well, Beethoven is dead. So how does he come up with new music? He has to create it himself.

Tiger always was going somewhere with his golf game. Now he’s going somewhere with his golf swing. That’s where I’m critical of him. He was in the middle of this one, long flawless note and he stopped or he was interrupted, whichever one you want to choose. And he’s trying to recreate it again.

I’m also critical, because I stood next to him and I watched the greatest golf swing the game has ever seen. The greatest stretch of golf the world has ever seen. And he willfully dismantled it. That’s the craziest thing in the history of sports. Not golf. All of sports. There’s no equivalent to it, but if you’re a sports fan, it’s literally the ’27 Yankees starting with a new roster in 1928.

So while I think it is the most bizarre thing in the history of sport, it’s also the most interesting thing in the history of sport. It keeps people glued to their TV.

 

 

Q/A with Brandel Chamblee: ‘Audience deserves an opinion that’s not obvious’

Posted on by

Brandel Chamblee is in my backyard this week for Golf Channel’s coverage of the BMW Championship at Conway Farms in Lake Forest, Ill.

From my Golf World story on analysts:

Chamblee, 51, has emerged as the Golf Channel’s most important player. After a 15-year career which included one PGA Tour title, he made the transition to the Golf Channel in 2004. He separated himself from the pack, elevating his broadcast game in the process, by voicing blunt opinions backed by an endless stream of facts, virtually all of which he researched himself.

Then Chamblee digs in and dares someone to take him on. He has a strong, almost bulldog mentality when it comes to making a point, all of which makes for good television. Chamblee’s content and presentation are unique for a sport where many analysts tread lightly.

“He probably should have been a trial attorney,” said Golf Channel president Mike McCarley.

Earlier this summer, I had a chance to chat with Chamblee at the Golf Channel’s studios in Orlando.

When I walked into the viewing room, Chamblee’s eyes were intensely locked into his computer. It provided a good snapshot of how he does what he does.

My Q/A.

What are you working on?

Chamblee: I was up until 4:30 last night. I was writing on the oft-repeated argument that it is harder to win on the tour these days and how players are better today than they’ve ever been. It makes me insane when people say that.

It’s just not the case. Statistically, if the scoring averages were more congested, then you could make that argument. Coincidentally, the disparity between scoring averages almost is to the hundredth of a point as it was in 1980. Between first and 30, between 30th and 50th, between 50th and 125th, the disparity of scoring average actually almost is identical.

Where do you get those numbers?

I dig them up. I do the research.

Do you look at golf from more of an analytic approach?

Yeah, I suppose. When we’re analyzing golf, we’re looking at golf swings. Some of it, though, you have to tediously look up the information and try to connect dots. It takes time.

Do you feel naked out there if you’re not prepared? What is it about you and your preparation?

I just think the audience deserves to at least have an opinion on something that’s not obvious. That’s my job. I watch every shot. I chart every shot. I look at trends. I look for evidence to support those trends, to contradict those trends. I’ll find a half-dozen things a day that are very interesting.

How do you view your job as an analyst?

You have to realize you’re not speaking to the golf professionals. There’s 2,000 of them. It’s a small audience. There are 50 million golfers. You’re trying to explain to them why something happened. From a context point of view, you need to understand who did it like that in the past. You need to understand the context with which it happened. You have to know the situation. Maybe a guy is hitting to the right. Well, he’s working on a new move with his hips. What does that cause you to do with your golf swing? Who did it in the past? And how did they overcome that?

You just try to add layer upon layer?

I told Rich Beem when you say why something happened, it’s your opinion of why it happened. You need to support your opinions with as many facts as you can so that the (viewers) know that you’ve done your homework.

You mention Beem, what advice to you have for players making the transition to television?

They have to treat this job just like they treat their golf. When they played golf, they practiced all day. Not only is this a job, it’s a responsibility. It’s a responsibility to not state the obvious. It’s to enlighten the viewer.

You have to do it in a team-oriented way. Golf is a very selfish endeavor. In TV, it’s the team game. I can have an idea to do something. But if (the production people) can’t very quickly find the video to support the idea, I can’t run with it. All those pieces of the puzzle are amazing to me.

As a golfer, isn’t it unusual to be thrown into a world where you depend so heavily on other people?

You have to dive in. You have to work it. You have to come up with a completely different way of saying the same thing. Every single day. Writers do that, and I always had a great respect for writers when I was a golfer. When I went to the media center, here’s 300 people who all have the same information. It’s their job to come up with a different way to write about it.

That’s kind of like TV is. We all have same information, but you have to come up with a different way of presenting that information. You’ve got to do it in a memorable way, an insightful way, and a concise way.

How do you view your critics, especially those among PGA Tour players who take issue with some of the things you say?

I’m a huge fan of watching Rory McIlroy. I have to talk about shots he hits, because he’s on TV all the time. He’s the next closest thing to Tiger in that way. So you have to talk about why he misses a shot; why he doesn’t make as many putts as Tiger Woods does, because people are unfairly comparing him to Tiger. Then you have to talk about why those comparisons are unfair. In the process of doing that, you’re saying he’s not as good as Tiger. I understand if I’m Rory McIlroy, you could be upset. But if you listen to the entire show, you’ll hear us say he is extraordinary in almost every facet of the game.

But I understand that most people only hear criticism. And they hear it via their friends. So they don’t always get the whole story.

Later today: Chamblee on why Tiger Woods should be at 25 majors by now.

 

 

T.J. Simers on leaving LA Times for Orange County Register: ‘Save newspapers as we remember them’

Posted on by

Jason McIntyre of the Big Lead received an email from T.J. Simers explaining his decision:

I had the opportunity to remain at the Times as Page 2 columnist, including a recent offer of a guaranteed contract.

But I was overwhelmed by the excitement I felt at the Orange County Register and the crusader-like effort to prove newspapers still matter. In my initial meeting with the paper’s top editors they were aware of the best newspaper movie ever made: Deadline USA and wanted to talk about Mike Royko. I might’ve agreed to work for nothing, but they have decided to actually pay me.

Later he wrote:

The Register experiment to beef up the paper reminds me of the thrill I felt when I got into this business. As Sandy Koufax’s grandfather told him, “Time is the most important thing you have in life.” And I choose to spend it now with folks eager to still have some fun as newspaper men and women.

I would hope everyone would now start reading the Register—at the very least to save newspapers as we remember them.

 

Record opening rating for ESPN: Twitter abuse for Berman

Posted on by

First the good for ESPN:

Last night’s Philadelphia Eagles victory over the Washington Redskins earned an 11.6 overnight rating according to Nielsen, based on the metered markets.  This is the highest rating for ESPN’s Monday Night Football opener ever (eight games, starting in 2006).  The previous best came in 2010, a 10.5 overnight rating for Baltimore vs. the New York Jets.  Last year, the Cincinnati-Baltimore opener earned an 8.1 overnight rating.

And the not-so-good. As expected, many viewers weren’t enthralled to hear Chris Berman on play-by-play for the second game.

A sample of the tweets:

Hopefully Chris Berman goes back back back back back to his 2 minute segment on Sportscentre once a week

#ObamaWasResponsibleFor Chris Berman on MNF between the Chargers and the #Texans

Tried muting the game, but even Chris Berman‘s subtitles were yelling at me.

WHY THE HELL IS THERE A GARBAGE TRUCK MAKING SO MUCH NOISE OUTSIDE MY WINDOW AT THIS HOUR forget it, that’s Chris Berman

Not much sleep.. Had horrible nightmare that Chris Berman was doing the play by play of my meal at Applebee’s

Chris Berman is yelling about time zones and suddenly all human achievement seems meaningless.

Sports Illustrated unloads on Oklahoma State football; 5-part series uncovers much dirt

Posted on by

Good morning, Oklahoma State. Actually, it isn’t so good.

Sports Illustrated just unveiled the first of a five-part series that alleges Oklahoma State cut some corners to rise to prominence in the 2000s.

Cheating in college football? To quote Capt. Renault, “Shocked.”

Interesting to note that SI’s story will be handled on all of its platforms, and not just the magazine. Yet another example of a new day at SI.

Here’s the official rundown from SI:

************

“The Dirty Game,” a SPORTS ILLUSTRATED special investigative report that looks into the transformation of a struggling college football program into a national powerhouse, is set to launch tomorrow morning on SI.com. The series is the result of a comprehensive 10-month investigation into the Oklahoma State University football program. It includes independent and on-the-record interviews with more than 60 former OSU football players who played from 1999 to 2011, as well as current and former OSU football staffers.

The findings will be presented in a five-part series across SI’s family of platforms, beginning with Part 1 (money), which launches on SI.com tomorrow at 9 a.m. ET and is this week’s magazine cover story, on newsstands and tablets Wednesday. Additional live coverage can be found on SI Now, SI.com’s live daily talk show (weekdays at 1 p.m. ET) and across SI’s social media outlets.

After 11 losing seasons in 12 years, OSU turned itself into one of the top programs in the nation. Since 2002, OSU has had 10 winning seasons, earned its first Big 12 title and went to its first BCS Bowl. The report reveals that OSU went to extreme measures to build a winning program, with an increased willingness to cut corners and bend rules. The transgressions began under former coach Les Miles, who was the head coach in Stillwater from 2001 to ’04 and is now the head coach at LSU, and continued under current head coach Mike Gundy, who was promoted from offensive coordinator in 2005.

SI executive editor Jon Wertheim, SI assistant managing editor Hank Hersch and SI.com executive editor B.J. Schecter oversaw the investigative report, which was written and reported by senior writers George Dohrmann and Thayer Evans.

“We wanted to take a comprehensive look at a big-time program, particularly one that made a rapid ascent,” says Wertheim. “There’s obviously a steady drumbeat of scandal in college sports – improper benefits here; a recruiting violation there – and plenty of rumor and hearsay about the unseemly underbelly. For this piece, we were more about venturing inside the factory and seeing how the sausage is made.”

Parts 2 — 4 of the report continue on SI.com this week and the series culminates in next week’s SI issue and on SI.com. In addition, SI.com will feature videos of former Cowboys talking about their experiences in Stillwater. SI Now will have live coverage and reaction throughout the week. The series will run as follows:

Part 1: Money (On SI.com Tuesday, 9/10 and in the 9/16/13 SI issue): SI finds that OSU used a bonus system orchestrated by an assistant coach whereby players were paid for their performance on the field, with some stars collecting $500 or more per game. In addition, the report finds that OSU boosters and at least two assistant coaches funneled money to players via direct payments and a system of no-show and sham jobs. Some players say they collected more than $10,000 annually in under-the-table payouts.
Part 2: Academics (On SI.com Wednesday, 9/11): Widespread academic misconduct, which included tutors and other OSU personnel completing coursework for players, and professors giving passing grades for little or no work, all in the interest of keeping top players eligible.
Part 3: Drugs (On SI.com Thursday, 9/12): OSU tolerated and at times enabled recreational drug use, primarily through a specious counseling program that allowed some players to continue to use drugs while avoiding penalties. The school’s drug policy was selectively enforced, with some stars going unpunished despite repeated positive tests.
Part 4: Sex (On SI.com Friday, 9/13): OSU’s hostess program, Orange Pride, figured so prominently in the recruitment of prospects that the group more than tripled in size under Miles. Both Miles and Gundy took the unusual step of personally interviewing candidates. Multiple former players and Orange Pride members say that a small subset of the group had sex with recruits, a violation of NCAA rules.
Part 5: The Fallout (On SI.com Tuesday, 9/17, and in the 9/23/13 SI issue): SI finds that many players who were no longer useful to the football program were cast aside, returning to worlds they had hoped to escape. Some have been incarcerated, others live on the streets, many have battled drug abuse and a few have attempted suicide.