In response to the recent story about OSU being hit up with 9 NCAA violations, my buddy Paul has something to say:
You
may remember back in November of 2004 how ESPiN exposed "explosive"
allegations against Ohio State by none other than one Maurice Clarett.
Although these allegations were previously investigated by the
NCAA, they were still reported.
It made ESPiN the Rag- I meant mag. It was on SpinCenter.
It was in their college football programming, including games and
halftime shows. Eventually, OSU's AD, Andy Geiger "retired" under the pressure, after inviting the NCAA to look at everything again and claiming that
no one should believe anything said by Maurice Clarett.
Well,
yesterday, the NCAA finished its investigation and issued a report
against The Ohio State University, citing a number of violations.
Here are the nine violations:
•
Former men's basketball coach Jim O'Brien, through then-assistant
coach Paul Biancardi, provided a cash payment of approximately
$6,700 to then-recruit Alex Radojevic.
• Kathleen Salyers had improper in-person contacts and impermissibly provided recruiting inducements to Radojevic.
• An individual (who became a booster after providing benefits) gave recruiting inducements and benefits to a former men's basketball student-athlete, including meals, cash payments and living expenses.
• A booster provided a former men's basketball student-athlete with impermissible academic assistance.
• O'Brien impermissibly provided Kathleen Salyers with two season tickets for four consecutive home men's basketball seasons.
• O'Brien and Biancardi acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct by failing to report their knowing involvement in NCAA rules violations relating to the above allegations.
• Both the institution and O'Brien failed to monitor the conduct and administration of the men's basketball program.
• Ronald Erkis, a Columbus orthodontist, provided impermissible, cost-free or discounted services to several women'sbasketball student-athletes.
• A booster provided an impermissible extra benefit to a football student-athlete in the form of a cash payment of $500 for work that allegedly was never performed.
Seven of the violations relate to basketball. OSU has already incurred a one-year self imposed penalty of no postseason play for that violation. One is from women's basketball. One is from football, and alludes to Troy Smith acceptance of a booster's gift. Smith was suspended for a bowl game and then the opening game of the 2005 season. In particular, the basketball allegations were considered a failure to monitor the basketball team and administration, but not a lack of institutional control. NONE OF THE VIOLATIONS WERE THE RESULT OF MAURICE CLARETT'S ALLEGATIONS, as so explosively reported by ESPiN.
So what does ESPiN put out? So far, here is what they have:
1. ESPiN used an AP wire story that expressly states none of Maurice Clarett's allegations were verified. Well, at least ESPiN can get something right- when it relies on other sources.
2. Ivan Maisel's Tuesday, May 17 "Three-Point Stance" which states: "Ohio State football escapes an NCAA investigation with only the $500 in quarterback Troy Smith's pocket to answer for, which means that Jim Tressel knows how to win with defense whether it's November or May."
3. Page 2's Daily Quickie, which suggests that OSU should stop all sports for one-year, so that it can "get its house back in order." .
So we have no response from Tom Friend, author of the OSU allegations. Or from any other ESPN writer, other than a one-sentence retort from Ivan Maisel. And the Daily Quickie "article" ignores facts found by the fact-finding investigatory body and concludes that Ohio State might one day get the death penalty.
What does this tell us about ESPiN? That they can publish whatever they want, unchecked because there is no other real outlet in the sports/entertainment market on a nation-wide basis. They can create a story (OSU cheats! Maurice Clarett says so!), they can inflame the story (Let's put it on all our shows! Let's put it in our magazine! Let'stalk about it ad nauseaum!), and then they can ignore the real findings while still reaching incorrect conclusions. Why doesn't ESPiN have the courage to own up to its article and devote just as much time and space to the fact that OSU was not found guilty of any of the allegations stated by Maurice Clarett, and that OSU has already imposed penalties on itself and the student athletes who committed the wrong doings in eight of the nine violations?
Because ESPiN isn't in the journalism/news-reporting business anymore. It is in the news-making business. And the facts don't make as much news as allegations and opinions that sound explosive, even if they aren't true. As Mark Cuban has been complaining for years - the media creates the story now, instead of the story being reported by the media. And ESPiN is one of the leading offenders in creating the story.
Well done my friend..
5 comments:
This b.s. made my new years day far less enjoyable than it should have been. Every pre-game and half time show beat the issue to the point where I was pissed (in many respects of the word) by sundown on 1/1.
BOO-YAH!
I am not exactly an Ohio State fan...in fact I believe the author of this article has, in fact, referred to me as a "hate-ah" - or something to that effect, but I will say that there is an important point to take away from this. ESPN has effectively cornered the sports information market. Although both SI and FoxSports do have outlets 'in the sports/entertainment market on a nation-wide basis', their position is greatly marginalized by the ubiquity of the 500 lb gorilla from Bristol.
There may be no greater threat to freedom in America than that imposed by media consolidation. Its effect in the news department (and the degree to which our citizenry is informed, or not) is bad enough - but at least there is a small degree of competition there. ESPN has a veritable monopoly – and can get away with whatever it chooses. With each channel they add their stranglehold grows tighter. As their profits from this network of channels increase so does their ability to add more important programming (see the recent addition of Monday Night Football to their schedule, on top of the NBA, MLB and NHL coverage they already have) - and with this comes greater influence within the sports themselves. At the same time the other sports networks find it increasingly impossible to compete for these contracts, and hence for viewership as well.
So what’s next? If the NFL can give exclusive rights to Madden for using its players names, why not exclusive rights to ESPN to interview it players? If the majority of Americans get their coverage for a particular sport through ESPN (and there is no serious competition for these contracts) what kind of leverage does that give it over decisions within the leagues themselves?
At this point I probably trust Maurice Clarrett just as much as I do Jim Tressell–which is no compliment to either party-but unless you can trust the media through which their statements are filtered what value do any of those words even have?
Well said!
While I don't subscribe to ESPiN, I did read the blurb on the Daily Quickie. I rarely send e-mails to online columnists, but I was so angry I couldn't help myself and wrote some hate-mail to the spin-masters at ESPN.
I do wonder if you are implying that maybe ESPN went to Clarett, not the other way around. Maybe Mo was just the (selfish) victim. "You wanna keep your name in the headlines kid?? Tell us all you know (or can make up) about OSU's indiscretions. We'll make you a star."
A few follow up comments:
To the "hata": I think your comments about media concentration go hand in hand with what I am saying, but speak at a far more politicized level. I think media concentration is a problem that no one (and by no one, I mean either party or the general citizenry) wants to or cares to address. Unfortunatly, I think the fight is going to be waged by certain independent minded citizens, most of whom are somehow internet or law related. And fighting big media companies and general soicetal malaise will be tough. Sigh.
To masug: I don't know if ESPiN went to Maurice or vice versa. And I do not question that ESPiN accurately reported Maurice side of the story. But it was only his side of the story, one that, when investigated by a neutral party, was not verified. At some point, ESPiN has to stand up and say "hey, the NCAA said these allegations do not exist." And something other than an AP wire story will be needed to satisfy me. And don't suddenly shift your focus to the basketball team to justify your opinions (aka Dan Shanoff's "Daily Quickie") when the story has clearly been in the public domain for over a year yet you devoted not nearly the same amount of coverage to those, more easily identifiable claims.
Post a Comment