And, let's just say that there's a certain college head coach in the nation's heartland who really wishes he'd get back to -- and stick with -- that NFL beat.
Various on-air reports from Schefter during the past day or so had Notre Dame and Bob Stoops sharing a mutual interest; a Stoops representative(s) meeting with a search firm hired by the Irish; a source claiming that an agreement was all but a formality; and, finally, talks between the two sides breaking down to the point that Stoops would not be the Irish head coach after all.
It seems as if that last tidbit was the final straw for Stoops, who spoke to Tulsa World while on a recruiting trip to San Diego and made it perfectly clear that he had a major issue with Schefter's spate of reports.
Stoops started off by saying that he didn't "know where (Schefter) is getting his information, but it's wrong. It's all been wrong", then declared, in no uncertain terms, that Schefter was looking to cover his own ass for what Stoops perceives to be erroneous reports Monday night.
"He's trying to cover his (Monday night) mistake," Stoops said of the report that discussions had broken down. "There were never any talks that broke down, because there were never ever any negotiations or details or plans for a meeting."
Stoops added that he and his agent, Neil Cornrich, "have never never talked about any meetings with anybody."
OK, so now does that end all of the Stoops-to-South Bend talk?
We'd like to think so, but it seems highly doubtful.
Gee, ESPN issuing false and/or premature reports? Nooooooooooo...
Why anyone tunes into the worldwide leader in garbage, is beyond me.
I hate to say this, but reporters (legitimate and illegitimate) seem to have an MO when predictions or "scoops" get disproven or are erroneous. Not just in sports, but politics and across the board.
Its reporter states something as fact or inevitable (some kind of prediction). Subject denies the report. When prediction does not come true, reporter either recants (which is the right thing to do) or follows up with some kind of extenuating circumstances claim that prevented the reporters "prediction" from coming true.
Like "breakdown in negotiations" or something that explains why the inevitable as reported did not happen. I expect that to happen here.
BTW: Anyone ever notice, that regardless of the report, if a reporter claims bad info, or blames the source, they still never reveal the source, which is why one wonders if they ever factor in a hidden agenda to mislead the reporter, or if the reporter simple made up the story based on their own speculation (i.e. no source).
In the words of Kirk Herbstreit Les Miles to Michigan
Was the "source" on this the same one who told Herbstreit that Les Miles had signed a contract with Michigan in December 2007?
Ask Al Davis, Schefter is nothing but a rumormonger!
Is anyone here old enough to remember when ESPN was a viable source for sports news and information?
I think ESPN lost it's way in the late 80's, and is now just a circus.
So wait, Bob Stoops is going to Notre Dame?
I remember ESPN announced the rumor that Chucky was going to leave the NFL and come to Ohio State to replace Cooper- oops.
Sonny, you are right on about all reporters (sports, politics, etc.) playing this game in order to be "first" to report something. I would appreciate a news organization that delays reporting a story to get the facts 99% correct. This is why I have started watching the BBC news, PBS, and have turned off ESPN, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC.
Stoops would be a mistake for both parties, and he knows it. He wants another shot with a healthy OU team.
Freshmen 51
Sophomores 20
Juniors 20
Seniors 20
With a QB rating of 129.25, Landry Jones gives them a very credible replacement for Bradford, and their O line is enormous.
He'll want to prove what 'could have been' if they had stayed healthy.
The idea of AS not having credible info is nothing new for ESPN. Outside of the sporting events that are broadcasted, the other 70% of the entire network's makeup is based on its ability to speculate, guess, theorize, & just straight up bullshit the viewer. If anybody believes Scott Bayless actually believes the things he says needs to be slapped. The same way he would be if he didnt follow the producer's line. Stick to radio peeps.
if jay glazor reports it, it's got merit. shefter...not really
Just as I said with Urban Meyer last week, so it is the same with Bob Stoops: Until Notre Dame announces that Stoops is not a candidate or introduces someone else as their next HC, then all of Stoops' protestations that he has no interest in the Irish job are going to fall on deaf ears. Stoops may not be in the same position as Meyer (#1 ranking, playing against #2 ranked team for SEC title and BCS championship game slot vs. massively disappointing 7-5 season after starting ranked #3) but he's not going to jeopardize his current situation in Norman by stating interest in ND, whether he really has it or not. Again, it isn't fair, but it's the way it is.
And to save time and repetition, the same applies for Brian Kelly, Kirk Ferentz, and any other HC who currently has another gig and is mentioned as a candidate.
As for reporters jumping the gun and stating speculation as "fact," it is an unfortunate consequence of the Information Age in which we live. Back when the news was controlled by four networks and a handful of powerful newspapers, the emphasis was on accuracy and not on being the first to break the story. Now with dozens of cable news channels, Internet newspapers, and countless blogs, the glory goes to the one who is the first to report a "news" item, and often that means taking a chance that you're wrong. After all, if you wind up being correct, your reputation as a reporter soars and your news organization can trumpet your success for months or years; if you're wrong, it will quickly be forgotten, lost among the rest of the clutter. Sadly, the good ol' days of journalism ain't coming back.
"As for reporters jumping the gun and stating speculation as "fact," it is an unfortunate consequence of the Information Age in which we live. Back when the news was controlled by four networks and a handful of powerful newspapers, the emphasis was on accuracy and not on being the first to break the story. Now with dozens of cable news channels, Internet newspapers, and countless blogs, the glory goes to the one who is the first to report a "news" item, and often that means taking a chance that you're wrong."
(You can't see it, but I'm giving you a standing ovation over this statement. Well said, sir. Well said.)