Bear Down Wildcats

azcat49 wrote:Someone needs to send "DIck" that photoshop. That is freaking great

YoDeFoe wrote:Vitale needs to be taken out to pasture. His absolute lack of self awareness here is embarrassing. Or it would be if he hadn't already vacated his self respect to become a caricature of himself as an announcer years ago.

He's a college basketball tchotchke. Skip the estate sale and call Waste Management for a bulky item collection.

YoDeFoe wrote:I really appreciate any content on Arizona basketball, but goddamn Zona Zealots needs an editor or just better writers.

The entire article is 450 words for 50 quoted words.There's really no "there there" from Goodman - ESPN gave the reporting to a guy with no expertise. We knew that. No one with actual expertise opined, clearly because they didn't want to upset the mothership. Ya duh.

Is that the entirety of the conversation? 50 words we already knew? Good thing they made use of the rest of that space to make a pitiful "we're always the victim" bullshit conclusion at the end.

I'm a stickler for grammar/structure/argument, so I'm sure this shit irks me more than others. But we deserve better from someone publishing a piece.

prh wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:I really appreciate any content on Arizona basketball, but goddamn Zona Zealots needs an editor or just better writers.

The entire article is 450 words for 50 quoted words.There's really no "there there" from Goodman - ESPN gave the reporting to a guy with no expertise. We knew that. No one with actual expertise opined, clearly because they didn't want to upset the mothership. Ya duh.

Is that the entirety of the conversation? 50 words we already knew? Good thing they made use of the rest of that space to make a pitiful "we're always the victim" bullshit conclusion at the end.

I'm a stickler for grammar/structure/argument, so I'm sure this shit irks me more than others. But we deserve better from someone publishing a piece.

Dude Zona Zealots is basically about pumping out headlines with garbage "articles." Nearly all of them are lots of words for one relevant sentence, some are downright incorrect, and all struggle with readability. Been like that for quite awhile.

YoDeFoe wrote:Look at the big brain on ChiCat! Dropping "Ronan Farrow" references and shit.

But for real, that's a good comparison. There were two pretty obvious conflicts in the story that made it clearly suspect, and it supports your point that Schlabach didn't do much digging or corroborating at all.

1) The timing was clearly off, as the wiretaps hadn't started in early 2016 and Arizona had already secured Ayton's commitment in 2017 (depending on which revision to the story you want to pick apart), and 2) Dawkins didn't know Ayton and didn't know anyone involved in the Ayton recruitment - so how in the world would he have offered help in securing that commitment? Why would Miller, who was infinitely more involved with the Ayton recruitment than Dawkins, have listened to a pitch from Dawkins without hanging up the phone laughing?

Not to rehash the whole thing. I'm just restating to add to Chi's point: clearly no corroboration, or even effort to do so.

The more pointed question to Goodman would have been: do you have any sense of why ESPN would allow that report to fly without those clear holes and no corroboration, and does the timing of the news drop following the blockbuster Yahoo story of the same week strike you as a motivating factor?

Chicat wrote:You don’t really get a good sense of what Goodman could have added to the story, either to confirm or rebutt Schlabach, but I do get the sense that if anyone had been assigned to speak to Miller & Co they would have realized quickly that Schlabach’s story had more holes than golf course.

My biggest issue with ESPN remains to this day that they never followed up on Schlabach’s story with any further corresponding evidence. An example of this would be Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker. He spends a year gathering evidence on Harvey Weinstein, publishes his story, and had enough people reach out to him for multiple follow up articles both on Weinstein and other sexual predators in Hollywood and the media.

Did no one call Schlabach with other stories of Miller offering $100k to get players? How about other programs and coaches?

Instead, Schlabach disappeared like a fart in a windstorm and has barely been seen since. Because his story was bullshit and ESPN knows it.

ChooChooCat wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Look at the big brain on ChiCat! Dropping "Ronan Farrow" references and shit.

But for real, that's a good comparison. There were two pretty obvious conflicts in the story that made it clearly suspect, and it supports your point that Schlabach didn't do much digging or corroborating at all.

1) The timing was clearly off, as the wiretaps hadn't started in early 2016 and Arizona had already secured Ayton's commitment in 2017 (depending on which revision to the story you want to pick apart), and 2) Dawkins didn't know Ayton and didn't know anyone involved in the Ayton recruitment - so how in the world would he have offered help in securing that commitment? Why would Miller, who was infinitely more involved with the Ayton recruitment than Dawkins, have listened to a pitch from Dawkins without hanging up the phone laughing?

Not to rehash the whole thing. I'm just restating to add to Chi's point: clearly no corroboration, or even effort to do so.

The more pointed question to Goodman would have been: do you have any sense of why ESPN would allow that report to fly without those clear holes and no corroboration, and does the timing of the news drop following the blockbuster Yahoo story of the same week strike you as a motivating factor?

The choice of Schlabach just boggles the mind honestly. I mean he's a SEC football beat writer. So outside of maybe some connection to the Auburn athletic department just who exactly involved in this case would he have ties to? I'm fine with them not giving it to Goodman, but how about even Myron Medcalf or Paul Biancardi FFS? I mean anybody who talks to basketball people or remotely pays attention to the sport and its recruiting on the regular.

rgdeuce wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Look at the big brain on ChiCat! Dropping "Ronan Farrow" references and shit.

But for real, that's a good comparison. There were two pretty obvious conflicts in the story that made it clearly suspect, and it supports your point that Schlabach didn't do much digging or corroborating at all.

1) The timing was clearly off, as the wiretaps hadn't started in early 2016 and Arizona had already secured Ayton's commitment in 2017 (depending on which revision to the story you want to pick apart), and 2) Dawkins didn't know Ayton and didn't know anyone involved in the Ayton recruitment - so how in the world would he have offered help in securing that commitment? Why would Miller, who was infinitely more involved with the Ayton recruitment than Dawkins, have listened to a pitch from Dawkins without hanging up the phone laughing?

Not to rehash the whole thing. I'm just restating to add to Chi's point: clearly no corroboration, or even effort to do so.

The more pointed question to Goodman would have been: do you have any sense of why ESPN would allow that report to fly without those clear holes and no corroboration, and does the timing of the news drop following the blockbuster Yahoo story of the same week strike you as a motivating factor?

The choice of Schlabach just boggles the mind honestly. I mean he's a SEC football beat writer. So outside of maybe some connection to the Auburn athletic department just who exactly involved in this case would he have ties to? I'm fine with them not giving it to Goodman, but how about even Myron Medcalf or Paul Biancardi FFS? I mean anybody who talks to basketball people or remotely pays attention to the sport and its recruiting on the regular.

Who is the most expendable out of all the names you mentioned? There is your answer.

rgdeuce wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Look at the big brain on ChiCat! Dropping "Ronan Farrow" references and shit.

But for real, that's a good comparison. There were two pretty obvious conflicts in the story that made it clearly suspect, and it supports your point that Schlabach didn't do much digging or corroborating at all.

1) The timing was clearly off, as the wiretaps hadn't started in early 2016 and Arizona had already secured Ayton's commitment in 2017 (depending on which revision to the story you want to pick apart), and 2) Dawkins didn't know Ayton and didn't know anyone involved in the Ayton recruitment - so how in the world would he have offered help in securing that commitment? Why would Miller, who was infinitely more involved with the Ayton recruitment than Dawkins, have listened to a pitch from Dawkins without hanging up the phone laughing?

Not to rehash the whole thing. I'm just restating to add to Chi's point: clearly no corroboration, or even effort to do so.

The more pointed question to Goodman would have been: do you have any sense of why ESPN would allow that report to fly without those clear holes and no corroboration, and does the timing of the news drop following the blockbuster Yahoo story of the same week strike you as a motivating factor?

The choice of Schlabach just boggles the mind honestly. I mean he's a SEC football beat writer. So outside of maybe some connection to the Auburn athletic department just who exactly involved in this case would he have ties to? I'm fine with them not giving it to Goodman, but how about even Myron Medcalf or Paul Biancardi FFS? I mean anybody who talks to basketball people or remotely pays attention to the sport and its recruiting on the regular.

Who is the most expendable out of all the names you mentioned? There is your answer.

Chicat wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Look at the big brain on ChiCat! Dropping "Ronan Farrow" references and shit.

But for real, that's a good comparison. There were two pretty obvious conflicts in the story that made it clearly suspect, and it supports your point that Schlabach didn't do much digging or corroborating at all.

1) The timing was clearly off, as the wiretaps hadn't started in early 2016 and Arizona had already secured Ayton's commitment in 2017 (depending on which revision to the story you want to pick apart), and 2) Dawkins didn't know Ayton and didn't know anyone involved in the Ayton recruitment - so how in the world would he have offered help in securing that commitment? Why would Miller, who was infinitely more involved with the Ayton recruitment than Dawkins, have listened to a pitch from Dawkins without hanging up the phone laughing?

Not to rehash the whole thing. I'm just restating to add to Chi's point: clearly no corroboration, or even effort to do so.

The more pointed question to Goodman would have been: do you have any sense of why ESPN would allow that report to fly without those clear holes and no corroboration, and does the timing of the news drop following the blockbuster Yahoo story of the same week strike you as a motivating factor?

The choice of Schlabach just boggles the mind honestly. I mean he's a SEC football beat writer. So outside of maybe some connection to the Auburn athletic department just who exactly involved in this case would he have ties to? I'm fine with them not giving it to Goodman, but how about even Myron Medcalf or Paul Biancardi FFS? I mean anybody who talks to basketball people or remotely pays attention to the sport and its recruiting on the regular.

Who is the most expendable out of all the names you mentioned? There is your answer.

But who else can do college football game predictions that are wrong 45% of the time???

I do get the impression that ESPN was desperate to have something (anything) to get some eyeballs while Yahoo ate their lunch on the story. I’m not sure if Schlabach was actively working his story, or if his editor gave him a phone number and said, “Call this guy and get me a quote about recruiting being dirty pool,” but they rushed out that story and hoped it wouldn’t be questioned too closely with all the other allegations flying around.

prh wrote:I'd venture a guess that he was working on the story, someone above him knew he was working on it, and told him to publish it once Yahoo broke their news. Would partially explain (but not excuse) the blatant holes in the story.

Chicat wrote:

prh wrote:I'd venture a guess that he was working on the story, someone above him knew he was working on it, and told him to publish it once Yahoo broke their news. Would partially explain (but not excuse) the blatant holes in the story.

I think you’re right. Which would explain why they changed the date of the phone call which was literally the entire crux of the story three times.

There’s even the possibility Schlabach never intended to run the story. Which is why no one at Arizona was contacted for comment and there was no independent second source.

Schlabach could have talked to his source, decided it was flimsy but still mentioned it to his bosses. Then the Yahoo report hits the wire and all of a sudden ESPN is beating on him to run with it. At which point the soulless hack could have refused, but instead he decided to protect his job and rushed out the hit piece. Because he’s a giant loser.

Chicat wrote:Schlabach is a pussy. He couldn’t even stand up to a few twitter users, so there’s no chance he was standing up to the ESPN brass.

But getting fired because you refuse to slander a coach and an 18-year-old kid? That would make you a household name in journalism .... for the right reasons.

Chicat wrote:

prh wrote:I'd venture a guess that he was working on the story, someone above him knew he was working on it, and told him to publish it once Yahoo broke their news. Would partially explain (but not excuse) the blatant holes in the story.

I think you’re right. Which would explain why they changed the date of the phone call which was literally the entire crux of the story three times.

There’s even the possibility Schlabach never intended to run the story. Which is why no one at Arizona was contacted for comment and there was no independent second source.

Schlabach could have talked to his source, decided it was flimsy but still mentioned it to his bosses. Then the Yahoo report hits the wire and all of a sudden ESPN is beating on him to run with it. At which point the soulless hack could have refused, but instead he decided to protect his job and rushed out the hit piece. Because he’s a giant loser.

enfuego wrote:It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

ASUHATER! wrote:

enfuego wrote:It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

Seriously Kansas should be given the death penalty.

enfuego wrote:It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

Chicat wrote:

enfuego wrote:It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

The FBI has asked the NCAA to hold off on their investigation. But besides that, please define “cheating” in this context as it relates to NCAA bylaws. What advantage did Arizona get from Book Richardson trying to take a bribe to steer a kid to an agent?

Chicat wrote:

enfuego wrote:It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

The FBI has asked the NCAA to hold off on their investigation. But besides that, please define “cheating” in this context as it relates to NCAA bylaws. What advantage did Arizona get from Book Richardson trying to take a bribe to steer a kid to an agent?

enfuego wrote:

Chicat wrote:

enfuego wrote:It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

The FBI has asked the NCAA to hold off on their investigation. But besides that, please define “cheating” in this context as it relates to NCAA bylaws. What advantage did Arizona get from Book Richardson trying to take a bribe to steer a kid to an agent?

Last I checked you can't pay a recruit to play at your school according to NCAA bylaws:

"The federal indictment says that Richardson participated in a scheme involving a financial manager and sports agents and took $20,000 in bribes last summer and paid a recruit to commit to Arizona."

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... 483.html#3" target="_blank

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

enfuego wrote:

Chicat wrote:

enfuego wrote:It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

The FBI has asked the NCAA to hold off on their investigation. But besides that, please define “cheating” in this context as it relates to NCAA bylaws. What advantage did Arizona get from Book Richardson trying to take a bribe to steer a kid to an agent?

Last I checked you can't pay a recruit to play at your school according to NCAA bylaws:

"The federal indictment says that Richardson participated in a scheme involving a financial manager and sports agents and took $20,000 in bribes last summer and paid a recruit to commit to Arizona."

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... 483.html#3" target="_blank

That recruit is eligible, which he would not be if he'd been paid.

Chicat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

enfuego wrote:

Chicat wrote:

enfuego wrote:It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

The FBI has asked the NCAA to hold off on their investigation. But besides that, please define “cheating” in this context as it relates to NCAA bylaws. What advantage did Arizona get from Book Richardson trying to take a bribe to steer a kid to an agent?

Last I checked you can't pay a recruit to play at your school according to NCAA bylaws:

"The federal indictment says that Richardson participated in a scheme involving a financial manager and sports agents and took $20,000 in bribes last summer and paid a recruit to commit to Arizona."

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... 483.html#3" target="_blank

That recruit is eligible, which he would not be if he'd been paid.

That's your opinion. Just wondering why no other school except Louisville has received sanctions from the NCAA.

Because the only evidence is that Book allegedly told Sood that he needed money to land a recruit. There is no evidence he paid anyone anything. And according to people who have known Book, the most likely explanation is that he kept that money for himself.

Merkin wrote:Have not been following this story, so not sure what is going on and whether or not this has been verified either way.