Started By
Message
re: 2016 Recruiting Discussion
Posted on 10/20/15 at 9:34 am to WestCoastAg
Posted on 10/20/15 at 9:34 am to WestCoastAg
I like the posters who are saying that UCLA didn't know he was taking an OV 
1
Posted on 10/20/15 at 9:37 am to WestCoastAg
I knowPosted on 10/20/15 at 9:40 am to ShaneTheLegLechler
How they respond to this should be pretty entertaining. I think TA is overall better than 247 but dealing with stuff like this in a graceful manner is not exactly their strong suit. Lots of deleted threads and bannings will be coming
Posted on 10/20/15 at 9:44 am to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
Lots of deleted threads and bannings will be coming
Yep. Not going near that one. Curious to see how it is handled as well.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:17 am to Pitch To Johnny
They locked the thread and said they're checking into it & hoping its some sort of mix up.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:23 am to Farmer1906
ETA: Just locked the other one as well.
Don't know what they will do. If he's crawfishing because UCLA is mad, TA can't say anything, because it will make the kid look bad. If there actually was a mix up, they can't say anything because it will make the staff look bad.
Don't know what they will do. If he's crawfishing because UCLA is mad, TA can't say anything, because it will make the kid look bad. If there actually was a mix up, they can't say anything because it will make the staff look bad.
This post was edited on 10/20/15 at 10:38 am
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:32 am to Pitch To Johnny
Sure they can. Just post what really happened and leave it at that.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:43 am to Farmer1906
No they can't, because here's how that goes:
1: Post what really happened
2: Piss him off even more and lose our chance with a 5 star LB
3: Sumlin cuts off Texags to bare bones info
1: Post what really happened
2: Piss him off even more and lose our chance with a 5 star LB
3: Sumlin cuts off Texags to bare bones info
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:49 am to Roger Klarvin
4. Hamm goes full HAM and runs with it.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:51 am to Roger Klarvin
If it was somewhat brief and just felt "optimistic" it would be easy to distance from the article. That is an extremely in depth analysis into the thinking of a recruit and what he said.
Wouldn't be surprised if someone decides to "go on vacation" soon. If the kid is trying to cover his tracks, sucks for the writer
Wouldn't be surprised if someone decides to "go on vacation" soon. If the kid is trying to cover his tracks, sucks for the writer
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:51 am to GenesChin
quote:
If the kid is trying to cover his tracks, sucks for the writer
Maybe, but anything that makes pubes look bad is good.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:51 am to Roger Klarvin
Agree to disagree. Call it a misunderstanding on if it was on the record or not I don't think that makes him any more pissed off than he is.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:55 am to Farmer1906
I think there's a very real possibility that the writer was straight-up fabricating.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:57 am to Iosh
I have a hard time believing that. Texags isn't exactly the pinnacle of professionalism but their entire existence is predicated on an intimate relationship with the athletic department. No way they are publishing straight fabrications.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:57 am to Iosh
quote:
I think there's a very real possibility that the writer was straight-up fabricating.
Maybe if it was coming from Hamm. TA is usually pretty good about the info they put out even if they're the last to put it out. They usually go the extra mile to not spew too much BS or at least keep it ultra vague when they don't know or can't release info.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:57 am to Iosh
i doubt it. i dont think texags would do something that stupid. plus hamm made a report about him on sunday that basically said the same exact stuff
Posted on 10/20/15 at 10:58 am to Farmer1906
If you call an article THAT in depth and specific a "misunderstanding", you are politely calling the author a liar IMO.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 11:24 am to Roger Klarvin
For the record, here's what Hamm is saying about this incident:
quote:
As for this situation, that's unfortunate. Full disclosure, I have an agreement with Betiku that I will send him every article I write to look over before I publish it. He reads all these updates on himself so I wanted to make sure we're always on the same page and there's no information out there he's not ok with. I did that because I wanted to avoid this type of situation. My experience over time has helped me deal with certain types of kids.
quote:
Just an FYI for you guys who like to jump to conclusions on stuff like this. I can all but guarantee you this will have ZERO impact on Betiku coming to A&M or not.
quote:
(GiGeM2010 said... (original post)Hamm did texAgs just cost us our shot at betiku? What morons.)
No. Overreaction IMO. The kid probably just wanted to clear up the fact he didn't talk to the reporter in question. That's just how I see it because he gave me a lot of good quotes.
Posted on 10/20/15 at 11:27 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
i doubt it. i dont think texags would do something that stupid. plus hamm made a report about him on sunday that basically said the same exact stuff
Seems like there are three possibilities:
1 - Betiku spoke with TA, but thought it was off the record
2 - Betiku said the things reported, but didn't know he was talking to a TA reporter
3 - TA ripped off and repackaged the report from Hamm
Any other possibilities?
Posted on 10/20/15 at 11:36 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
If you call an article THAT in depth and specific a "misunderstanding", you are politely calling the author a liar IMO.
No, I think something more along the lines of what Mirth said. 1 or 2.
Page 105 of 226
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News