ESPN fanning the Billy D to UK flames

They could match it, but what would that mean for Urban Meyer? You KNOW he's got to be paid $500,000 or more per year more than the basketball coach. I thought someone said today he's in the $2.5 million per year area as it is.

 

I disagree. For something really important...absolutely on the record. If Schlabach was reporting, for example, Billy Donovan used steroids, then the accusers MUST be on the record. For something like this, do you really expect the Kentucky AD to go on the record and say "Yes, we've offered Billy Donovan a contract?" The problem with people is THEY LIE...especially on the record. I can't think of one coach who left a team that didn't either lie or use the non denial denials in the article. Donovan didn't pull a Saban, but he didn't say "I will be back at Florida and I won't even listen to Kentucky" And I also can't imagine ESPN.com doesn't know exactly who the sources are in the story. If they don't, it's a huge problem.

 

Everything Alma says here is true ... but that doesn't make it right.

Seems to me both Donovan and UK leave themselves plenty of manuevering room with their statements.

All Donovan had to say to his people is "I don't want to hear a damn word about it until we're through playing."

And that's that.

 

Do you really believe that? Let's say Donovan released a statement before the team arrived in Atlanta, such as: "I will not field any questions about the Kentucky job, the Michigan job, etc...I'll only talk about Florida and the Final Four."

Do you really believe all the scribes at the Final Four would avoid the subject?

 

But not off, huh? If it's on the record, at least you know who did.

The only really important story is who takes the job. And they'll hold a press conference for that. Again...am I nuts for thinking you get people on the record?

 

Donovan has said, again and again, he likes Florida, his focus is on the game, and that's all. Reporters have taken that to mean he hasn't completely ruled out Kentucky because he didn't say the words "I will not go to Kentucky."

That's journalism?

 

No you're not nuts. But I can't tell you how many times sources I trust, from years of consistent work, have been willing to speak ONLY if I don't use their name. Why? Cuz they fear their boss or bosses.

My bosses are cool with it and we haven't been burned yet.

 

They never did in the Bonds case.

Personally, I think really minor, insignificant things should be on the record too. Just me.

 

It's knowing, from experience, you're not going to hear him say the words: "I'm not going to Kentucky in this lifetime or the next. He isn't dumb, you know.

 

So find someone who doesn't fear their boss.

I'm, like, serious here. If you honestly think the public trust hasn't been eroded by the utter disregard for on-the-record sources...the Internet thrives on it. It gives any internet fool, who has no oversight, no editor, to say whatever they please, and have it be no less "right" than your "cleared" source.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, your new Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball coach!!!!!!!!!!11

 

Sort of like when the Politco reported that John Edwards was going to drop out of the presidential race on a single anonymous source.
Anonymous sources are the very definition of "truthiness" and that is eroding the public trust.
As far as UK goes, they are going to hire somebody and Donovan is a likely suspect, but if someone is saying that he is, then they should say their name.
Then it turns into "some people say" and that's bad.