Shame on you, Ryan Aber!

[AdaSooner]

The fact that a booster provided a small amount of money to OU basketball players is old news. The result of the NCAA's findings and that OU acted properly by returning the money as soon as the violation was discovered, which resulted in a minor penalty is current news. You would never know that if you picked up this morning's Oklahoman and saw the headline:

"Oklahoma basketball: OU booster provided money to basketball players."

http://newsok.com/ou-booster-provided-money-to-basketball-players/article/5399905

In contrast to that article, let's take a look at the headline on the same story the Tulsa World ran yesterday:

"OU basketball extra benefits case closes with minor penalty."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...cle_55d69877-86c6-5a3c-aa77-26a4b6b788f5.html

One newspaper's story is factual and current. The other may be, too, except it uses a headline designed to sensationalize the story and to make it look like the OU basketball program is guilty of a cover up, not that the NCAA essentially cleared our coaches and players of a scheme to pay players.

Shame on you, Ryan Aber! If your editor is guilty of choosing a headline like the one in my morning newspaper for you, he should be equally ashamed.

 

[ChongoChingi]

It doesn't seem too sensationalized to me. It would be nice to say something about getting it cleared up and that it was only a minor incident but what the headline says "Oklahoma basketball: OU booster provided money to basketball players" is accurate. The article explains what happened and what the repercussions are. Thank goodness the incident and the repercussions weren't any worse than they were.

 

[AdaSooner]

It doesn't seem too sensationalized to me. It would be nice to say something about getting it cleared up and that it was only a minor incident but what the headline says "Oklahoma basketball: OU booster provided money to basketball players" is accurate. The article explains what happened and what the repercussions are. Thank goodness the incident and the repercussions weren't any worse than they were.

To be clear, I didn't say the story or the headline were not factual. I said that both stories contain the facts, except that one headline gives the story a more positive slant by focusing on current news. The other chose to go with a headline that gave the impression OU was still involved in a scheme to pay players.

IMO, that has all of the earmarks of an attempt to sensationalize and carry on the negative part of this story.

 

[skyvue]

It doesn't seem too sensationalized to me. It would be nice to say something about getting it cleared up and that it was only a minor incident but what the headline says "Oklahoma basketball: OU booster provided money to basketball players" is accurate. The article explains what happened and what the repercussions are. Thank goodness the incident and the repercussions weren't any worse than they were.

But the info in the headline wasn't the breaking news; it was, in fact, old news. But it gave the story a more sensational spin, so accuracy be damned, I guess.

The "new" news was that the incident was adjudged to be minor, and the matter is considered closed, with no further punishment pending. So something like "NCAA Rules OU Hoops Infraction Minor; No Further Penalty Imposed" (ugh, headlines were never my strength) would have been much more accurate.

 

[opsooner]

To be clear, I didn't say the story or the headline were not factual. I said that both stories contain the facts, except that one headline gives the story a more positive slant by focusing on current news. The other chose to go with a headline that gave the impression OU was still involved in a scheme to pay players.

IMO, that has all of the earmarks of an attempt to sensationalize and carry on the negative part of this story.

I agree with what you are saying. The story now should be the NCAA findings not the violations again. I suspect it was a good opportunity to pile on and maybe sell a little more controversy after the boys-on-the-bus incident.

 

[AdaSooner]

But the info in the headline wasn't the breaking news; it was, in fact, old news. But it gave the story a more sensational spin, so accuracy be damned, I guess.

The "new" news was that the incident was adjudged to be minor, and the matter is considered closed, with no further punishment pending. So something like "NCAA Rules OU Hoops Infraction Minor; No Further Penalty Imposed" (ugh, headlines were never my strength) would have been much more accurate.

Headlines may not be one of your strengths, but you understood what I was getting at perfectly.

Ryan Aber does a good job most of the time. I just think he or his editor dropped the ball on this one by focusing on "old news" in an attempt to emphasize the negative. I'm not sure what they did rises to the level of sensationalism, which would suggest an editorial bias. But, it's darned close in my book.

I agree with what you are saying. The story now should be the NCAA findings not the violations again. I suspect it was a good opportunity to pile on and maybe sell a little more controversy after the boys-on-the-bus incident.

Nailed it!

 

[Sooner04]

Not saying this is the case here, but most of the time the writer of the article has little to no say in the wording of the headline.

 

[AdaSooner]

Not saying this is the case here, but most of the time the writer of the article has little to no say in the wording of the headline.

I know. That's why I pointed an accusing finger at the editor as well. In fact, I think that is more likely what happened here.

 

[Sooner04]

I know. That's why I pointed an accusing finger at the editor as well. In fact, I think that is more likely what happened here.

But your headline says, "Shame on you, Ryan Aber!"

 

[skyvue]

But your headline said, "Shame on you, Ryan Aber!"

I wrote that for Ada.

 

[ChongoChingi]

It doesn't seem sensational to me and the article spelled out what happened and what the results were. Something that shouldn't have happened did happen. It ended up not being a big deal and it is now resolved. "Shame on you, Ryan Aber" is a sensationalized headline for this article.

 

[AdaSooner]

It doesn't seem sensational to me and the article spelled out what happened and what the results were. Something that shouldn't have happened did happen. It ended up not being a big deal and it is now resolved. "Shame on you, Ryan Aber" is a sensationalized headline for this article.

Writing headlines is not one of my strengths either. A better headline might have pointed the finger at the newspaper or Aber's editor. But I stand by my position that the headline was intentionally misleading.

 

[ChongoChingi]

Writing headlines is not one of my strengths either. A better headline might have pointed the finger at the newspaper or Aber's editor. But I stand by my position that the headline was intentionally misleading.

I'm mostly just making conversation. Is Mr Aber usually hard on the Sooners?

 

[AdaSooner]

I'm mostly just making conversation. Is Mr Aber usually hard on the Sooners?

No. That's why I added this later:

Ryan Aber does a good job most of the time. I just think he or his editor dropped the ball on this one by focusing on "old news" in an attempt to emphasize the negative. I'm not sure what they did rises to the level of sensationalism, which would suggest an editorial bias. But, it's darned close in my book.

 

[BlackwellSooner]

Isn't the Sports Editor for the Daily Disappointment Berry Tramel? If so, Ada's headline should have read "Shame on you, Berry Tramel!", since as editor the buck stops at his desk.

 

[Northbase]

The Jokelahoman has become nothing but a pop-up, spam, and digging site with bad journalism. Newsok.com that is. I understand there is a subscription site.

 

[SoonerTraveler]

Note to athletic department “boosters”

As an FYI to the message board, OU often communicates COMPLIANCE messages to all of the various boosters. Any OU booster that reads their mail or their email communications from OU cannot claim to be uneducated on the basic rules. For example, recently I received a OKLAHOMA MEN’S BASKETBALL monthly newsletter to TIP IN CLUB members via email. In addition to giving information about the team and upcoming TIP IN CLUB events, it also contained the following note:

A NOTE FROM COMPLIANCE:

The NCAA defines an “extra benefit” as any special arrangement by an institutional employee or booster (e.g. Tip In Club Member) to provide the student*-athlete or his or her family members or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. (NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.1). It is necessary that we remind all boosters that the NCAA does NOT permit you to provide meals, housing or financial support to future or current student-athletes.

Only the institution may provide meals and housing to athletes. It is the sole responsibility of the institution to ensure that our athlete’s needs are met. The NCAA precludes all boosters from financially assisting athletes, the student-athlete family members and/or friends. If you are aware of an athlete in need, contact our Athletics Compliance Department. Do not jeopardize the eligibility of an athlete by being the “Good Samaritan” and providing impermissible assistance to the athlete or their family and friends.

BOOSTERS / TIP IN CLUB MEMBERS MAY NOT:

• Provide a MEAL to an athlete, their family or their friends;
• Provide HOUSING to an athlete, their family or their friends;
• Provide CASH to an athlete, their family or their friends;
• Provide TRANSPORTATION to an athlete, their family or their friends.

If you have any questions about NCAA rules or need to contact the Athletics Compliance Department please call us at 405-325-7004 or email us at oucompliance@ou.edu.

Notes such as this are not unusual. They appear occasionally in various communications to OU boosters, including SOONER CLUB communications.

I hope members of the message board might find these facts interesting and/or informative.

 

[JDSooners]

Not saying this is the case here, but most of the time the writer of the article has little to no say in the wording of the headline.

You'd think they'd learn their lesson with the "mr. unreliable" headline.

But there was some news worthy info about the donor and what he did, but the biggest part was the NCAA accepting what OU did to fix the problem.

 

[sdcloud9]

Mike Sherman is the sports editor but a paper of that size has a headline writer or perhaps a copy editor that writes the heads.

The reporter can offer suggestions but doesn't typically write the heads.

 

[StatGeek]

I'm with you Ada, bush league by whomever is responsible for the headline.