Story Poster
Photo by Jerome Miron-USA TODAY Sports
Baylor Football

Baylor senior running backs Ebner, Lovett to opt out

October 25, 2020
57,214

According to multiple sources closes to the Baylor football program, senior running backs Trestan Ebner and John Lovett have opted out the remainder of the 2020 football season. 

The two seniors had combined for 177 yards on 54 carries and two touchdown to go along with 15 receptions for 225 yards and two touchdowns on the season. Ebner added two kicks for touchdowns in Baylor’s season opener against Kansas. 

The news comes on the heels of Baylor’s 27-16 loss on Saturday to Texas where the co-starters touched the ball a combined 16 times for 85 yards.

Lovett was Baylor’s leading rusher in each of his first three seasons, rushing for 1,795 yards and 17 touchdowns beginning in 2017. Ebner cumulated 844 yards on 164 carries with seven touchdowns and caught 83 passes for 1,047 yards and seven touchdowns over the same span.

Both players were part of Baylor’s 2017 recruiting class. 

Discussion from...

Baylor senior running backs Ebner, Lovett to opt out

35,498 Views | 53 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by historian
BUbackerinET
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just read another post that indicates they have reversed course, after speaking with Aranda, so I suppose that answers my question from the post above...
Mitch Henessey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, was the report by the staff here premature? Or false? Or did they report something that then changed? Not a great look for this site.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Henessey said:

So, was the report by the staff here premature? Or false? Or did they report something that then changed? Not a great look for this site.
There's no way to spin this one IMO. The report was inaccurate.

Even if Ebner and Lovett were one foot out there door and telling people they were leaving, it's not news until it's official. To report it as a done deal based on "sources," only to reverse course 12 hours later is poor journalism. And it's made worse in this case because it turned a fanbase against two frustrated football players for no good reason.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Depends on how people respond. I shrug my shoulders and look forward to Saturday. In my mind, it's water under the bridge. If Baylor's fans show up in force Saturday to support their team, which they will, and we get a solid win over froggy, which we should, then it will be debated on these boards a bit longer but most people will lose interest.
Baylor3216
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why not update the thread title that apparently is now inaccurate?
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's more than a thread, it's a news article. At the time, it seemed accurate based upon available information. Updates have corrected it.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Mitch Henessey said:

So, was the report by the staff here premature? Or false? Or did they report something that then changed? Not a great look for this site.
There's no way to spin this one IMO. The report was inaccurate.

Even if Ebner and Lovett were one foot out there door and telling people they were leaving, it's not news until it's official. To report it as a done deal based on "sources," only to reverse course 12 hours later is poor journalism. And it's made worse in this case because it turned a fanbase against two frustrated football players for no good reason.
Yep and it made at least one idiot on another thread make up and announce a stupid declaration about the employment status of one of our assistants who happens to be among our best recruiters. Which of course screws up recruiting for at least for 24 hours.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maybe that's why he did it. Possible troll?
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I dont know. I have seen the poster around on the football boards for what I recall as a few years now.
Mitch Henessey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's stuff like this that makes me not want to subscribe to a premium membership here. Colt, Brian, and Ashley are all great guys, and I've interacted with them all on various Baylor sites through the years.

But every couple of years there's a gaffe like this. No one is perfect, and no journalist is going to get correct scoop every single time, but the misses have been significant.

Off the top of my head:
- 2016: Briles to be retained by BOR, approx. 3 days before he was fired
- 2017: Chad Morris done deal as next HC (thank God this one was wrong)
-2020: Ebner and Lovett to opt out

These are big stories and created a lot of buzz/were cited by other news sources. Having them patently wrong is a bad, bad look.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

It's more than a thread, it's a news article. At the time, it seemed accurate based upon available information. Updates have corrected it.
It can't seem accurate. Either the original report was accurate or it wasn't. And given that nothing happened, there's no way to retroactively claim it was accurate.

The original story was nothing more than rumor and conjecture on what might happen. There was a (significantly better) time in journalism when it wasn't considered news until events actually occurred.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Henessey said:

It's stuff like this that makes me not want to subscribe to a premium membership here. Colt, Brian, and Ashley are all great guys, and I've interacted with them all on various Baylor sites through the years.

But every couple of years there's a gaffe like this. No one is perfect, and no journalist is going to get correct scoop every single time, but the misses have been significant.

Off the top of my head:
- 2016: Briles to be retained by BOR, approx. 3 days before he was fired
- 2017: Chad Morris done deal as next HC (thank God this one was wrong)
-2020: Ebner and Lovett to opt out

These are big stories and created a lot of buzz/were cited by other news sources. Having them patently wrong is a bad, bad look.
Yep, and then they get defensive on social media when called out about it.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

historian said:

It's more than a thread, it's a news article. At the time, it seemed accurate based upon available information. Updates have corrected it.
It can't seem accurate. Either the original report was accurate or it wasn't. And given that nothing happened, there's no way to retroactively claim it was accurate.

The original story was nothing more than rumor and conjecture on what might happen. There was a (significantly better) time in journalism when it wasn't considered news until events actually occurred.


You are pretty rough. Apparently it was accurate. After a discussion with coaches, the players changed their minds. Sounds like the facts were reported.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SATXBear said:

bear2be2 said:

historian said:

It's more than a thread, it's a news article. At the time, it seemed accurate based upon available information. Updates have corrected it.
It can't seem accurate. Either the original report was accurate or it wasn't. And given that nothing happened, there's no way to retroactively claim it was accurate.

The original story was nothing more than rumor and conjecture on what might happen. There was a (significantly better) time in journalism when it wasn't considered news until events actually occurred.


You are pretty rough. Apparently it was accurate. After a discussion with coaches, the players changed their minds. Sounds like the facts were reported.
What facts? The only pertinent fact here is that those players did not, in fact, opt out. Whether they considered it or not is irrelevant. Within 12 hours of the original report, they had decided not to. So reporting that they had decided to opt out is inaccurate, regardless of what they were telling teammates the day before. At best, they were weighing that as an option, which isn't news if it doesn't happen.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

SATXBear said:

bear2be2 said:

historian said:

It's more than a thread, it's a news article. At the time, it seemed accurate based upon available information. Updates have corrected it.
It can't seem accurate. Either the original report was accurate or it wasn't. And given that nothing happened, there's no way to retroactively claim it was accurate.

The original story was nothing more than rumor and conjecture on what might happen. There was a (significantly better) time in journalism when it wasn't considered news until events actually occurred.


You are pretty rough. Apparently it was accurate. After a discussion with coaches, the players changed their minds. Sounds like the facts were reported.
What facts? The only pertinent fact here is that those players did not, in fact, opt out. Whether they considered it or not is irrelevant. Within 12 hours of the original report, they had decided not to. So reporting that they had decided to opt out is inaccurate, regardless of what they were telling teammates the day before. At best, they were weighing that as an option, which isn't news if it doesn't happen.


Did they tell the coaches they wanted to opt out and then change their mind? Sounds like news if true.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It appears they were unhappy with certain things (lack of playing time?) and talked about it, someone gossiped so that word was out & reported, & the coaches convinced them to change their minds.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

It appears they were unhappy with certain things (lack of playing time?) and talked about it, someone gossiped so that word was out & reported, & the coaches convinced them to change their minds.
The news would have gotten out anyways. We just heard it first. I am fine with that.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would prefer it that way. If it started in Austin or Ft Worth it would have been far less credible.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.