07-16-2012, 02:43 PM
My deepest sympathies
07-16-2012, 02:49 PM
Twitter and the Scout message board are saying the story is false and Anderson lied to the Chronicle. This is getting weird.
07-16-2012, 02:52 PM
Sourcing here is odd--the anonymous sources are either people in Maryland, or people Anderson worked with at Stanford in the nineties, but no one in the department currently.
Very much hoping this is false.
Very much hoping this is false.
Sourcing here is odd--the anonymous sources are either people in Maryland, or people Anderson worked with at Stanford in the nineties, but no one in the department currently.
Very much hoping this is false.
Very much hoping this is false.
07-16-2012, 03:08 PM
That said I suspect it's probably correct. The two people saying it's wrong are:
A radio station
A blog called The Big Lead.
The Big Lead's record isn't bad. However, my basic rule of thumb is this: whenever a radio station reports anything sports-related, it is usually wrong, most infamously (recently) when one reported Jim Harbaugh to Kansas was a done deal. Maybe the closest a radio station came to being right was the Chip Kelly-to-NFL thing, but even though the general thrust of the story was correct (Chip Kelly was really close to taking an NFL job), it was still wrong as Chip Kelly did not take an NFL job.
So I fear we've got to cross our fingers on Kevin Anderson, AD.
A radio station
A blog called The Big Lead.
The Big Lead's record isn't bad. However, my basic rule of thumb is this: whenever a radio station reports anything sports-related, it is usually wrong, most infamously (recently) when one reported Jim Harbaugh to Kansas was a done deal. Maybe the closest a radio station came to being right was the Chip Kelly-to-NFL thing, but even though the general thrust of the story was correct (Chip Kelly was really close to taking an NFL job), it was still wrong as Chip Kelly did not take an NFL job.
So I fear we've got to cross our fingers on Kevin Anderson, AD.
That said I suspect it's probably correct. The two people saying it's wrong are:
A radio station
A blog called The Big Lead.
The Big Lead's record isn't bad. However, my basic rule of thumb is this: whenever a radio station reports anything sports-related, it is usually wrong, most infamously (recently) when one reported Jim Harbaugh to Kansas was a done deal. Maybe the closest a radio station came to being right was the Chip Kelly-to-NFL thing, but even though the general thrust of the story was correct (Chip Kelly was really close to taking an NFL job), it was still wrong as Chip Kelly did not take an NFL job.
So I fear we've got to cross our fingers on Kevin Anderson, AD.
A radio station
A blog called The Big Lead.
The Big Lead's record isn't bad. However, my basic rule of thumb is this: whenever a radio station reports anything sports-related, it is usually wrong, most infamously (recently) when one reported Jim Harbaugh to Kansas was a done deal. Maybe the closest a radio station came to being right was the Chip Kelly-to-NFL thing, but even though the general thrust of the story was correct (Chip Kelly was really close to taking an NFL job), it was still wrong as Chip Kelly did not take an NFL job.
So I fear we've got to cross our fingers on Kevin Anderson, AD.
07-16-2012, 03:11 PM
And seconds after I finish...I am proven wrong, maybe? Kevin Anderson: "There's no truth to this" from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr..._blog.html
Not quite Shermanesque, but close enough to give me comfort.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr..._blog.html
Not quite Shermanesque, but close enough to give me comfort.
And seconds after I finish...I am proven wrong, maybe? Kevin Anderson: "There's no truth to this" from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr..._blog.html
Not quite Shermanesque, but close enough to give me comfort.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr..._blog.html
Not quite Shermanesque, but close enough to give me comfort.
07-16-2012, 03:22 PM
Apparently the Washington Times reporter asked a question in what I'll guess is a conference call, and Anderson replied, "Patrick, you're stuck with me."
https://twitter.com/D1scourse/status/224990643087355904
Think this one can be put to bed.
https://twitter.com/D1scourse/status/224990643087355904
Think this one can be put to bed.
Apparently the Washington Times reporter asked a question in what I'll guess is a conference call, and Anderson replied, "Patrick, you're stuck with me."
https://twitter.com/D1scourse/status/224990643087355904
Think this one can be put to bed.
https://twitter.com/D1scourse/status/224990643087355904
Think this one can be put to bed.
07-16-2012, 04:06 PM
The Chronicle's "Anderson to Stanford" story has disappeared from its website. Looks like they are backing away from it.
I guess 71Bear's expression of sympathy wasn't needed. He can go back to contemplating Sandy Barbour for a while . . .
I guess 71Bear's expression of sympathy wasn't needed. He can go back to contemplating Sandy Barbour for a while . . .
07-16-2012, 04:33 PM
Well, if the Anderson story proves to be true, we will have two of the most incompetent AD's in the country within 40 miles of one another...
07-16-2012, 06:29 PM
As noted in an earlier post, I can't believe LSJU would make a stupid move like hiring Anderson....
Dumping Loser Leland in favor of Bowlsby was a wise decision. Hiring another Leland would be a setback.
Dumping Loser Leland in favor of Bowlsby was a wise decision. Hiring another Leland would be a setback.
07-16-2012, 08:20 PM
You know it's a real slow news day at The Chron when they create a story apparently out of whole cloth in order to make another story out of the fact that there is apparently no truth whatsoever to the first story. Looking forward to tomorrow's story: "Stanford Denies Talks With Santa Claus."
I see this story is by Tom FitzGerald. Was the earlier one as well? If so, it's a little surprising, as he seems generally pretty reliable and knowledgeable about Stanford stuff. Now, if this had been a Merc story from Wilner... [cue the daggers from garvin... ;D ]
I see this story is by Tom FitzGerald. Was the earlier one as well? If so, it's a little surprising, as he seems generally pretty reliable and knowledgeable about Stanford stuff. Now, if this had been a Merc story from Wilner... [cue the daggers from garvin... ;D ]
You know it's a real slow news day at The Chron when they create a story apparently out of whole cloth in order to make another story out of the fact that there is apparently no truth whatsoever to the first story. Looking forward to tomorrow's story: "Stanford Denies Talks With Santa Claus."
I see this story is by Tom FitzGerald. Was the earlier one as well? If so, it's a little surprising, as he seems generally pretty reliable and knowledgeable about Stanford stuff. Now, if this had been a Merc story from Wilner... [cue the daggers from garvin... ;D ]
I see this story is by Tom FitzGerald. Was the earlier one as well? If so, it's a little surprising, as he seems generally pretty reliable and knowledgeable about Stanford stuff. Now, if this had been a Merc story from Wilner... [cue the daggers from garvin... ;D ]
07-16-2012, 09:07 PM
In all fairness, 76LSJUMB, the Chron didn't make a story "out of whole cloth in order to make another story." Here's what happened:
1) The Chron ran with a sources said story. In the original story, there's no "Stanford officials declined to confirm or deny" statement in the story, so the editor didn't ask, "Did you call the company?"
2) Other news sources saw the story and called Anderson. They printed stories that quoted the Chron story, as well as Anderson's denial.
3) Someone on the staff at the Chron noticed the other stories and told Fitzgerald. An editor told Fitzgerald to verify. Fitzgerald's story was removed from the web.
4) Fitzgerald corrected the top portion of his story and the new version went live.
1) The Chron ran with a sources said story. In the original story, there's no "Stanford officials declined to confirm or deny" statement in the story, so the editor didn't ask, "Did you call the company?"
2) Other news sources saw the story and called Anderson. They printed stories that quoted the Chron story, as well as Anderson's denial.
3) Someone on the staff at the Chron noticed the other stories and told Fitzgerald. An editor told Fitzgerald to verify. Fitzgerald's story was removed from the web.
4) Fitzgerald corrected the top portion of his story and the new version went live.
In all fairness, 76LSJUMB, the Chron didn't make a story "out of whole cloth in order to make another story." Here's what happened:
1) The Chron ran with a sources said story. In the original story, there's no "Stanford officials declined to confirm or deny" statement in the story, so the editor didn't ask, "Did you call the company?"
2) Other news sources saw the story and called Anderson. They printed stories that quoted the Chron story, as well as Anderson's denial.
3) Someone on the staff at the Chron noticed the other stories and told Fitzgerald. An editor told Fitzgerald to verify. Fitzgerald's story was removed from the web.
4) Fitzgerald corrected the top portion of his story and the new version went live.
1) The Chron ran with a sources said story. In the original story, there's no "Stanford officials declined to confirm or deny" statement in the story, so the editor didn't ask, "Did you call the company?"
2) Other news sources saw the story and called Anderson. They printed stories that quoted the Chron story, as well as Anderson's denial.
3) Someone on the staff at the Chron noticed the other stories and told Fitzgerald. An editor told Fitzgerald to verify. Fitzgerald's story was removed from the web.
4) Fitzgerald corrected the top portion of his story and the new version went live.
07-16-2012, 11:38 PM
Yvonne, you're probably right about The Chron, but, if Anderson's quote in the WaPo story is to be believed, SOMEONE created this out of whole cloth, and The Chron was apparently too busy [or lazy] to fact-check it.
Anderson says:Â I havent talked to anybody from Stanford University about their athletics director position or any other position, Anderson told the Posts Jason Reid in a telephone interview. I have not accepted another job. I have not talked to anyone about another job. This [report] is incorrect.
He says he has not talked to ANYONE about another job. I suppose he could be lying, of course, but it seems pretty clear to me, and apparently didn't take long for the WaPo writers to determine, that there was nothing to see here.
Anderson says:Â I havent talked to anybody from Stanford University about their athletics director position or any other position, Anderson told the Posts Jason Reid in a telephone interview. I have not accepted another job. I have not talked to anyone about another job. This [report] is incorrect.
He says he has not talked to ANYONE about another job. I suppose he could be lying, of course, but it seems pretty clear to me, and apparently didn't take long for the WaPo writers to determine, that there was nothing to see here.
Yvonne, you're probably right about The Chron, but, if Anderson's quote in the WaPo story is to be believed, SOMEONE created this out of whole cloth, and The Chron was apparently too busy [or lazy] to fact-check it.
Anderson says:Â I havent talked to anybody from Stanford University about their athletics director position or any other position, Anderson told the Posts Jason Reid in a telephone interview. I have not accepted another job. I have not talked to anyone about another job. This [report] is incorrect.
He says he has not talked to ANYONE about another job. I suppose he could be lying, of course, but it seems pretty clear to me, and apparently didn't take long for the WaPo writers to determine, that there was nothing to see here.
Anderson says:Â I havent talked to anybody from Stanford University about their athletics director position or any other position, Anderson told the Posts Jason Reid in a telephone interview. I have not accepted another job. I have not talked to anyone about another job. This [report] is incorrect.
He says he has not talked to ANYONE about another job. I suppose he could be lying, of course, but it seems pretty clear to me, and apparently didn't take long for the WaPo writers to determine, that there was nothing to see here.
07-17-2012, 03:28 AM
Garvin -- silly me. when I read the headline and then glimpsed that 71Bear had waddled out from Oski hibernation, I thought he might have been bemoaning having to represent both Marshawn Lynch and Jason Kidd in DUI court this week. thanks for keeping everything straight.
Garvin -- silly me. when I read the headline and then glimpsed that 71Bear had waddled out from Oski hibernation, I thought he might have been bemoaning having to represent both Marshawn Lynch and Jason Kidd in DUI court this week. thanks for keeping everything straight.
07-19-2012, 03:46 PM
WIM, you may be right that radio stations breaking news stories are rarely correct - I really don't know - but I do question your illustrative example. I believe Harbaugh was Kansas's coach for about 2 days, even if he had not formally signed and moved to Lawrence. My understanding is that there was a lot of backstage maneuvering to get Harbaugh to bail on his commitment to KU.
Of course, it's all hearsay . . .
Of course, it's all hearsay . . .
WIM, you may be right that radio stations breaking news stories are rarely correct - I really don't know - but I do question your illustrative example. I believe Harbaugh was Kansas's coach for about 2 days, even if he had not formally signed and moved to Lawrence. My understanding is that there was a lot of backstage maneuvering to get Harbaugh to bail on his commitment to KU.
Of course, it's all hearsay . . .
Of course, it's all hearsay . . .
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »