In Deadspin’s world, everything sucks. If it doesn’t suck, the site doesn’t want any part of it.
So it shouldn’t be a surprise that Deadspin ran a post Tuesday with this headline:
Why SI’s Oklahoma State Series Sucked: The Inside Story
Recently, Deadspin labeled me as “ESPN PR’s favorite sports media reporter.” Now after this post, I am sure that I will be Sports Illustrated PR’s favorite too.
However, I can’t let this pass.
The Deadspin post, written by Dom Cosentino, is based on “a source” who was in the room when Sports Illustrated’s George Dohrmann and B.J. Schecter laid out the series for Oklahoma State officials. Considering that there were a handful of people in the room, SI likely has a good idea of the identity of this person.
Do you think this person had an agenda?
Cosentino writes:
The two sides met for approximately three hours that Tuesday—that conversation was off the record, according to an SI source—then re-convened on Wednesday afternoon for roughly three more hours. These meetings would be the first time school officials were informed specifically and directly about the depth of SI’s investigation.
A report in The Oklahoman described the meetings OSU had with SI as “very professional.” Our source agreed with that assessment, adding that the discussions were “cordial.” At the same time, the source said, “We asked for a lot of information, most of which was not provided.”
There also was some Thayer Evans stuff about being pro-Oklahoma, territory that’s already been covered.
Cosentino later writes:
Our source said the Oklahoma State officials asked for names of any players, coaches, tutors, or professors mentioned in the report. Dohrmann and Schecter did not provide the names of any players making specific allegations, nor did they provide the names of any tutors or professors. Once the stories were published, the source added, it was apparent that SI had talked mostly to “disgruntled” players prior to the meetings—players who the source said posed “very little risk” of informing school officials they were being questioned by a reporter.
“There were inferences made that players would recant,” the source said. “They did not want us contacting them.”
On one hand, SI was being prudent: The magazine clearly did not want OSU interfering with its investigation. Also, the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prevents schools from releasing transcripts without the consent of a student over the age of 18. But SI’s reluctance to name certain players, tutors, or professors also made it impossible for OSU to verify—or refute—some of the specific allegations being made.
Cosentino then hammered SI for having the wrong information about Fath’ Carter and his academic record. Perhaps that situation could have been rectified, he implies from the source, if SI had been more forthcoming about what it had.
Admittedly, the Carter segment is troubling, giving the school and its supporters a huge target to shoot down the series. It is a big flaw. SI definitely would like to have that one back.
However, does that mean the entire series “sucked?” Hardly.
SI talked to more than 60 former players and numerous assistant coaches and other staffers associated with the program through the years. Even if some of them were labeled quote-unquote “disgruntled,” it leads to a basic question: Why did Oklahoma State have so many disgruntled players? Doesn’t that suggest a trend?
Cosentino writes:
Dohrmann and Schecter also presented the OSU officials with a figure indicating that from 2002 to 2010, 48 percent of football players left the program before exhausting their eligibility. OSU objected to that number and asked about SI’s methodology. Dohrmann and Schecter promised to look into it. That 48 percent figure was subsequently leaked to the Oklahoman, perhaps justifying the magazine’s discretion in dealing with the university.
Actually, the number had to be adjusted down because it included a player who was killed in a car accident.
Cosentino:
By the time SI published the eligibility figure in Part 5 of its series, Vernon Grant had been removed from the list, and the statistic had been revised to 43.5 percent. “They came back and apologized and said they recalculated this number,” the source said. “On their own, they admitted that the 48 percent is wrong.”
Yes, but how much difference is there from 48 to 43.5 percent? Doesn’t that still suggest a problem. Not sure what Cosentino is getting at here.
I’m not saying Cosentino didn’t make some valid points. And to be fair, he might have written a more balanced piece if SI had made its reporters available to counter some of the charges. It didn’t, although SI’s top editors Chris Stone and Jon Wertheim previously did a Q/A chat on Deadspin.
Clearly, though, Cosentino got used by the “source” at Oklahoma State. The crisis management agenda continues at the school, and Cosentino and Deadspin were more than willing to go along for the ride.
You do realize the source Cosentino used was not with Oklahoma State, but with Sports Illustrated, right? That fact completely undermines your last paragraph.
Not sure what you mean here. The source was with Okla. State.
it says in the article, in meeting room, according to SI source…and then you post at the end it’s an OSU source…
Ah. I went back and re-read the original piece. I was evidently confused by the “according to an SI source” line in the block you quoted, and the subsequent mention of “our source” later. I missed the statement that their source was an OK St. source that was earlier in the article.
both sides were used as a “source”…
“an Oklahoma State source who attended the meeting told us”
“The two sides met for approximately three hours that Tuesday—that conversation was off the record, according to an SI source”
“The source—an Oklahoma State representative”
“According to a source at the magazine”
“according to our OSU source”
Your very first quote from Cosentino is “The two sides met for approximately three hours that Tuesday—that conversation was off the record, according to an SI source…”
The source was AT the meeting at Oklahoma State, but is identified in the Deadspin article as an “SI source”. The Deadspin article goes on to agree with OSU’s assessment of the meeting. I agree that it sounds like the Deadspin source is from SI, not OSU. Maybe that needs cleared up.
Sherman’s article also makes the assumption that because SI interviewed 60 former players and coaches, that all of them support the allegations in the articles. I read the series of articles, and it seemed like SI quoted the same handful (maybe 15 or so) of players over and over. All SI did was provide their sample size, they didn’t back up that number with quotes from 60 players/former coaches.
regardless, it seems that SI was touting this piece as a giant scandal, when most of it is stuff that many believe happen at many schools. maybe more of it happened at OSU, but nothing much worse than other school. it seems Deadspin has taken issue with it because the articles were something of a letdown based on ‘hype’ or promotion of them. And to combine that with factual/procedural mistakes you agree with, it’s not hard to see why some people will say it sucked. Also, ‘sucked’ gets used a lot, I don’t think anyone says it’s the worst piece of journalism in history, just not that good.
How exactly did OSU use its unsavory PR agenda to manipulate the Deadspin columnist? I’ve just reread what you’ve written and still don’t know what you mean.
While SI claims 60 players were interviewed, far fewer were actually quoted in the series. Pretty sure I could find 20 or so malcontents from any program over a ten year period. And many of the OSU malcontents have recanted and/or claimed Evans’ interviews were leading. The tone of the series itself was unbalanced and unprofessional, like something from Rush Limbaugh. Why are you defending it? Because Deadspin labeled you an ESPN homer? So you have an agenda?
The incorrect graduation figures illustrate the sloppy nature of the reporting, bolstered by later errors. If SI publishes a story as scathing as “the Dirty Game,” they ought to be sure about their facts. SI wasn’t sure. So irresponsible.
Did you not read the Deadspin piece? The point was that SI made almost no attempt to try to verify facts, including the extremely simple task of running the allegations by OSU officials who could have corroborated or refuted with direct evidence. The only time SI did this was after OSU officials pointed out an inaccuracy in the meeting in Stillwater. When SI did that, the specific allegation was shown to erroneous. The failure of SI to do this is well corroborated by other media sources, including the Oklahoman and Tulsa World.
so the (less than) 6 players who said they did bad things at OSU and the (less than) 6 players who said they saw bad things done at OSU, and the (1) unnamed assistant coach (out of the 60 players and coaches interviewed, out of the 300+ who were there) over an 8 year period (1.3 per year) are a lot of “disgruntled” players/personnel???????? and that is your defense of your garbage?????? LMFAO. what a hack you are turning out to be.
This story on the story about the story sucks.
Deadspin shouldn’t be criticising others for reporting of percentage figures!
This blog post tends to follow the Sports Illustrated articles in that it mainly asks a bunch of questions and hopes the reader will infer something nefarious was happening.
Any point that starts with “Doesn’t that suggest…” is by it’s very nature lacking in hard evidence.
“Admittedly, the Carter segment is troubling, giving the school and its supporters a huge target to shoot down the series. It is a big flaw. SI definitely would like to have that one back.”
The Carter segment is troubling because SI did nothing to try to verify Carter’s story. There is very little in the rest of the series to show that SI tried to verify any of the stories told by the other players, so there is no reason to think that this was “one” incident in an otherwise well-reported story. If SI had investigated the series, they would have mentioned the police reports and the transcripts and bank account records that would corroborate the anecdotes they were publishing.
“SI talked to more than 60 former players and numerous assistant coaches and other staffers associated with the program through the years. Even if some of them were labeled quote-unquote “disgruntled,” it leads to a basic question: Why did Oklahoma State have so many disgruntled players? Doesn’t that suggest a trend?”
SI only quotes about 12-15 players. Some of the players that SI talked to and did not quote have been clear that they were not disgruntled. Is about a 15 disgruntled people in an organization of several hundred really a horrible trend when most of those 15 were kicked out because they couldn’t follow the rules?
Your take on the source is pretty interesting to compare to your take on those 15 disgruntled players. Your first Cosentino quote states that the source was from SI. (Maybe a disgruntled SI employee?) But then your last paragraph claims that the source was from OSU and he used Cosentino. How do you know that? Shouldn’t you have the same skepticism of the sources SI used in their series, especially considering that some of the sources have been easily and quickly debunked, as you have of Cosentino’s source? Any journalist should – which is why the lack of corroboration in the SI series resulted in the series sucking.
Why do people keep repeating the line from SI that they talked to 60 people like it means anything? From local reporting in Oklahoma it sounds like they did talk to 60 different people and the vast majority of them refuted the allegations in the story. If they really talked with 60 different people why did they only quote about a dozen people? And from that dozen or so people the majority of those people have came out publicly recanted or claimed that SI presented their quotes out of context in order to paint the picture that SI was trying to paint. There aren’t 60 people quoted in the story, why do people keep repeating that line?
LMFAO. not going to post any of the comments pointing out what a piece of garbage Sherman is and how flawed this piece is. SI forever!!! shoddy journalism forever!!!! you go Sherman. LMFAO
The “over 60 former players and coaches” figure was played up by SI and repeated often in the media, but I think it’s interesting that the number of players actually quoted in the series of articles was substantially fewer. Throughout the series, SI seemed to quote the same handful of former players over and over. Interviewing 60 people is not the same thing as having 60 people that all allege improper benefits or policies. Of course, if you come out with a headline of “over two-thirds of the former coaches and players interviewed have nothing negative to say about their career at OSU”, that’s quite a buzzkill.
“Why did Oklahoma State have so many disgruntled players? Doesn’t that suggest a trend?”
The reason there are “so many” is simple. As soon as Mike Gundy was hired at Oklahoma State in January of 2005, he began cleaning house. In 2005, he dismissed between 15 and 20 players from the team. They were players that should have never been at OSU, and Miles was willing to keep them around as long as they were winning – Gundy would not.
Also – I continue to hear talk about “60 former players and coaches”, as though that is supposed to strengthen the statements of 10-15 guys. Since there’s no shred of evidence of any of those who testified, why should I believe that there is truth in the rest of the “60” who are unidentified. If I interview 60 guys and 15 tell me what I want to hear and the other 45 don’t talk or don’t agree, does that mean that there are really 60 people?? 60 is used only to try and strengthen their point – but there’s no meat to it.
Great. Another writer who takes everything SI laid out as gospel. A lot of us believe that they cherry-picked and took out of context most of their undocumented quotes. Do you not find it odd that none of the interviewees has come forward to confirm that their contributions to the article were presented fairly and comprehensively?
You gotta be fond of Deadspin’s contrarian style; especially when the mainstream media coddles ESPN (Extra Sensitive Pious Network) the same way the Washington establishment media does the Out House Administration. A byproduct of the cozy setup in D.C. is phony “Time” journalists such as Jay Carney and Rick Stengel joining forces with the leftist lunatics.
Story says ‘…SI source’.
C’mon Ed! Is there nothing else to write about? The SI piece was crap, everyone knows it and it’s already old news. Your editor needs to find you something to write about!
Your write up sucked almost as much as SI’s report. I hope you didn’t spend too much on you “look at me – I’m a hack” piece.
“SI talked to more than 60 former players and numerous assistant coaches and other staffers associated with the program through the years.”
This statement is all but meaningless. How many of the 60 former players provided a story contrary to the one asserted by SI? Five? Thirty-five? Fifty-five? Based on SI’s shoddy reporting, we have no idea. For you to throw the statement out as meaningful is irresponsible at best.
Considering only a handful of players(10-15?) were actually quoted in the article, I think it’s safe to assume the 45+ players who were contacted by SI but not quoted in the series did not corroborate the scandalous claims; otherwise, SI would certainly have added their names to add weight to the story.
Uh, you do know that SI’s “articles” featured quotes from nowhere close to 60 players. They had maybe 15 that were actually quoted? Find me one major BCS football program where you couldn’t find 15 disgruntled players out of a 10 year period. Give me a break.
I don’t even understand why you wasted your time writing this. All you did was parrot SI, who was proven to have made factual errors. As they had absolutely no actual evidence for their “reporting” it doesn’t take much to bring the whole thing down.