Baylor senior running backs Ebner, Lovett to opt out

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe that's why he did it. Possible troll?

I dont know. I have seen the poster around on the football boards for what I recall as a few years now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I would prefer it that way. If it started in Austin or Ft Worth it would have been far less credible.