WJAR TV reports details of Hurley's Contract Extension

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

In yet another hack job, Adam Bagni puts out information on Dan Hurley's perks
in his new contract.
Makes us seem like a country club/NBA team.
No mention of the small percentage the State is actually funding.
This was a NEWS story, folks.
Another shoddy attempt by TV 10, like they did with Baron's contract, to
get people angry at URI and URI athletics.

RF1 · Unread post by **RF1** » 11 years ago

http://www.turnto10.com/story/22079899/ ... -extension

Another pathetic attempt by WJAR to make something of nothing. They are so desperate to create controversy that they will do anything.

RF1 · Unread post by **RF1** » 11 years ago

Hurley Contract Extension
http://ftpcontent5.worldnow.com/wjar/pd ... ntract.pdf

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 11 years ago

Actually, I think it is good reporting and good info. No mention was made of state funds. No real editorial position about the merits of the contract from what I could tell. This is the info that we wanted when Baron was the coach. Now that we like the coach we don't have any interest anymore? Seemed pretty straight forward to me.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

So, it's a news story?
He said to me he didn't mention taxpayers.He didn't have to.
So what? Isn't the motive to inflame viewers?
It sure isn't informational as a news story.
No difference between this and Taricani's story on Baron's contract
a couple of years ago.
It's waiving the red flag to the viewers and sitting back and waiting for the reaction.
This is TV 10. No friend of URI or URI athletics.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

For some odd reason, Bagni chose to retweet this:

RodfromCranston
@RodfromCranston
@NBC10_Adam You didn't have to mention taxpayersWasn't the story an attempt to inflame viewers at the contract extension?What other purpose?

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 11 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:So, it's a news story?
He said to me he didn't mention taxpayers.He didn't have to.
So what? Isn't the motive to inflame viewers?
It sure isn't informational as a news story.
No difference between this and Taricani's story on Baron's contract
a couple of years ago.
It's waiving the red flag to the viewers and sitting back and waiting for the reaction.
This is TV 10. No friend of URI or URI athletics.

I don't disagree that 10 is terrible, but I do think this is news. In places where sports matters, the coach's contract gets reported on. You don't think that Nick Saban's contract makes the news in Birmingham? I don't see what is inflammatory about it. This is the contract. I happen to think it is a good deal for URI and a good deal for the state, to the extent they are on the hook.

This is the kind of reactionary whininess that damages credibility. URI has plenty of gripes with the Providence media. Lets not waste our ammo on solid reporting. All he did was report what was in the contract with zero commentary. If Rhode Islanders get upset about this, that makes them dumb. It doesn't make the reporting bad. Anyway, angry Rhode Islanders are the least fearsome people on earth. They can't stop blatant corruption and nepotism. They aren't going to be able to do anything about how URI spends its own money.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

You see it your way, I see it mine.
My right. You seem to take the contrarian role to most of
what I say, anyway.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 11 years ago

Not true, Rod. I agree with most of what you say. But typing "I agree" all the time is kind of boring. I mostly only post when I disagree with something.

Anyways, I'm not really sure I see what the problem is here. So now we know what is in Hurley's contract. What is the downside? Personally, I'm happy to be able to read it (but I'm a nerd for that stuff, I guess).

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

TP, did you see the "story"?
They repeat the news on Cox5.
I urge you to watch it.
It was presented as if it were some major breaking story,
only 10 minutes into the broadcast.
To me, it's like the Projo stories this week of Dr. Dooley's travels.
Yes, it merely presents the facts, and the reaction it gets is
roundly negative.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 11 years ago

I didn't see the video. Only read the story on the 10 website. If the video is inflammatory then I would have a different opinion about that.

reef · Unread post by **reef** » 11 years ago

Say it aint so Channel 10 !!!!

seanmc94 · Unread post by **seanmc94** » 11 years ago

I will reserve judgement until I see the piece. On its merits; it's pretty straight forward. However, it's all in the presentation

ElmCityRhody · Unread post by **ElmCityRhody** » 11 years ago

Typical of me.. But I thought the only part of the story that interested me is about the uniforms and Adidas.. I soured big time on Adidas after their BS uniform stunt they pulled last season.. bring on nike.. Although not sure we can get out of Adidas.. But please.. No under armour (what Hurley used at Wagner)..

The new contract also contains an interesting stipulation regarding apparel supplier Adidas. In the contract, the university agrees to use all efforts to remove the team's obligations with the company. And all future apparel and footwear supplier agreements with the men's basketball team must be approved by Hurley.

URI_IEP · Unread post by **URI_IEP** » 11 years ago

Go look at the end of the thread titled "Rutgers Coaching Search - Eddie Jordan hired (updated 4/18)". This kind of detailed contract information was exactly what people on this board (myself included) were looking for from the local media folks. If people want to get angry about a news resport detailing the state university's coach's contract extension, oh well.

URI_IEP · Unread post by **URI_IEP** » 11 years ago

Also, the last line of the article is the most telling, "NBC 10 obtained a copy of Hurley's new contract, through a Freedom of Information Act request." This is EXACTLY what ATP requested that our local media do in order to obtain the extended contract. Instead of lambasting the reporter for publishing the information, we should be thanking him for reading this board and reacting so quickly to our request.

BarlowHall05 · Unread post by **BarlowHall05** » 11 years ago

ElmCityRhody wrote:...I soured big time on Adidas after their BS uniform stunt they pulled last season.. bring on nike.. Although not sure we can get out of Adidas..

What was the issue with adidas and the uniforms?

I may be in the minority, but I thought the move to adidas was a positive move from a fan's perspective. Nike never provided the amount of authorized apparel that I saw in the Ram Zone that I saw this year with adidas. In prior years, you were lucky to get something by Champion with a URI logo on it. Adidas produced shorts, hoodies and workout gear, all in good quality.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 11 years ago

We're veering off topic here, but the Notre Dame and Cincinnati uniforms that Adidas produced were an abomination.

RF1 · Unread post by **RF1** » 11 years ago

If this was truly just an informational piece to enlighten viewers with no intent to inflame taxpayers, why then did WJAR choose to ignore the recent contract extensions of O'Shea at Bryant and Cooley at PC? The Cooley contract in particular is far much larger dollar-wise and probably has far more interesting clauses. Furthermore, local media outlets have told us for years that Providence College gets more coverage because they have more fans in the state. Why then does this logic get turned upside down on matters like this? While URI is public and certain information must be made public, that does not prevent media from requesting information from private entities such as Bryant and PC. If these schools choose to hide this information from their paying students and basketball fans, they could make that known to viewers. Given that many aspects of O'Shea's and Cooley's deals have been leaked, they could offer generalizations indicating confirmation was denied.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 11 years ago

I haven't been able to see the video for this story, since Channel 10 hasn't learned how to put all their work online (like Channel 12 has for years).

I'd argue that the headline "URI coach gets added perks" could have been clearer. Every item in the amendment improves the program. When I read "URI coach gets added perks", I'm thinking a clothing stipend, buy game receipts, or other stuff to pad his wallet.

Whatever. Next season everything changes. Rhody's BACK!

I do, for the record, thank WJAR's Adam Bagni for getting access to the contract.

URI_IEP · Unread post by **URI_IEP** » 11 years ago

Who really cares how the story was presented. The fact that the majority of Hurley's salary is not coming from the state cuts both ways; it gets reported poorly by the media and is negatively perceived by the public because of the PC bias, but what can they do about it besides piss and moan? I guess I'm used to seeing passive aggressive reporting about the teams I root for because I grew up a Yankee fan in RI (please don't ban me

. In the end the state pays so little of Hurley's salary, that even if there is a "public outcry", nothing major can be affected.

Also, as a side story that some of you may find amusing, I had the privilege to caddy for Father Shanley in the summer of 2005 who was playing as a guest at PJCC. The member who invited him down to play had a ritual of playing a round with the PC president every year. This was Father Shanley's first year on the job. I was wearing my URI hat as I always did and got quite a bit of grief from the member and Father Shanley for it. We joked about the rivalry during the round, and as we were walking down the 18th fairway Father Shanely said, "As long as I'm president at PC, URI will NEVER beat us in basketball." That year we beat them 77-69 at the Ryan center (I think it was the blizzard game). Dawan scored 18 in the second half and we came back from 4 down with 5 minutes to play (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recap?gid=200512030485). Next summer Father Shanley came down to play again. He didn't mention my hat that time around...

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

When the anchorman concludes his introduction of the "story"
with, "SWEET DEAL!"Chartered Flights!",
it smells like trying to sensationalize the story.
You people want to thank WJAR? When have they ever been a friend to
the school or its athletic programs?
I could give a flying shit about a sneeker contract being changed. How is that
even a story?

3wisemen · Unread post by **3wisemen** » 11 years ago

RF1 wrote:If this was truly just an informational piece to enlighten viewers with no intent to inflame taxpayers, why then did WJAR choose to ignore the recent contract extensions of O'Shea at Bryant and Cooley at PC? The Cooley contract in particular is far much larger dollar-wise and probably has far more interesting clauses. Furthermore, local media outlets have told us for years that Providence College gets more coverage because they have more fans in the state. Why then does this logic get turned upside down on matters like this? While URI is public and certain information must be made public, that does not prevent media from requesting information from private entities such as Bryant and PC. If these schools choose to hide this information from their paying students and basketball fans, they could make that known to viewers. Given that many aspects of O'Shea's and Cooley's deals have been leaked, they could offer generalizations indicating confirmation was denied.

Bryant and PC are private schools. They're not obliged to share contact information with anybody. Despite the small percentage the state contributes to URI, Dan Hurley is still a state employee. What Channel 10 and the rest of the news people like Taricani do is prey on the uninformed to cause a stir.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 11 years ago

RF1 - I don't live in RI, so I don't know whether and to what extent PC's and Bryant's coaching contracts were reported on, but one difference is that URI's contracts are subject to information requests and the other schools' aren't.

I guess my lack of outrage here is based on the facts that I wanted to know what was in the contract and what I have seen reported was reported in a relatively straightforward manner and didn't appear to misrepresent the facts.

EricRueb · Unread post by **EricRueb** » 11 years ago

3Wise,
What RF was saying was if it was an informational piece, like the reporter said in a tweet to Rod, than why not inform viewers of the other contracts of other D-I coaches.
The reporting is decent, but let's not make Bagni out to be Woodward and Bernstein for filing a basic FOIA request. Truth of the matter is, he shouldn't have to do it; the school should publically release the numbers, but there is some serious paranoia going on down there. For as much complaining as goes on about coverage, if a reporter asks for info saying "you can file an FOIA request" instead of handing over the info you already have and delaying the process a week isn't a good way to get people on your side.
That said, any editor worth their salt wouldn't have let this get through without putting exactly how much the taxpayers are responsible for, especially if this is playing in the news portion of the broadcast as opposed to the sports portion. If you're pushing this as a news story, you put the info that's relevant to people who care about news - and that's how much is this going to cost taxpayers.
Why was this info not included? One of two reasons - journalism incompetence or there is an actual bias. As someone who's been accused of the latter when it's been the former, I'm going to say that they didn't have the numbers or didn't think about getting them. Sometimes you have a story, you think it's good, it runs, and after it's published/broadcast you think "Dammit. I really should have put that in there."
While this probably won't go over well here, you're going to have to trust me that the perceived media bias isn't what you think it is. Why aren't women's sports covered in this state? Media bias? Why aren't high school sports covered better? Media bias?
Each outlet has a limited number of resources. You can only be in so many places at so many times and writing stories - especially good ones - is more complicated than talking to two people, then writing a story. I hate when people start yelling about media bias because it's rarely true.

Iggy1979 · Unread post by **Iggy1979** » 11 years ago

I also didn't see the video, but I have no problems with the written portion. It's details I wanted to know and I applaud Ch. 10 for requesting the contract through FOI. It's something that every reporter covering the team should do.

wakefield · Unread post by **wakefield** » 11 years ago

A good example of the media be biased is how they report on education reform. News corp is actually in business of education reform and NBC promotes it.

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 11 years ago

2 things:
1. what is a training table? food?
2. what is the brand Hurley wants to sign with? Does he have previous ties to a brand? Even more important, are we going to get kids delivered by a brand to Hurley? ( Shabazz Muhammed UCLA Adidas) ? Is Hurley a Under Armor guy?Nike? Adidas?Converse? hopefully not a Russel Athletic guy like Georgia Tech

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 11 years ago

I don't know what shoe brand Hurley wants, but a "training table" is food. It is meals designed by a nutritionist specifically for athletes. Big college programs now view that as a component of the program almost on par with weight training in terms of significance.

Ramblinrose · Unread post by **Ramblinrose** » 11 years ago

This story didn't really bother me. I had information I wanted to know about. People want to know what taxpayers are spending money on. I would say for sure URI has not gotten its money's worth from a basketball coach since 1999.
I think the Taricani story had a tone that it was revealing some kind of scandal, when there was none. We have no idea if Hurley's contract will be worth it. But if you want to have a serious D-1 program this is what you have to do these days _ pay big for potential.
While they are at private schools, Cooley and O'Shea were rewarded for what has been decent success so far (Rod's nemesis O'Shea gearing up for when Hurley leaves). Hurley was rewarded because of buzz that Rutgers wanted him (i might be cynical, but I suspect Hurley enjoyed the buzz and might have had some buddies create it).
You can't compare college coaching to the real world.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 11 years ago

Rosie picked a fine weekend to give up LSD.

Ramblinrose · Unread post by **Ramblinrose** » 11 years ago

Well, really ever since Timothy Leary and Jerry Garcia died.

Rhody72 · Unread post by **Rhody72** » 11 years ago

So much for those who thought a buy-out clause wasn't possible. It's mind boggling that some of these "perks" weren't SOP and had to be written into a contract.

MERam · Unread post by **MERam** » 11 years ago

I have a real problem with "journalists" and news outlets who make Freedom of Information requests, report on the documents, and then don't link to the information they are citing. (BTW, thanks to RF1 for doing so.) Not doing so is in my view indicative of why traditional print and television media has lost credibility and viewers -- they still don't understand the internet and the blogosphere, and continue to have the mindset that readers/viewers are sheep who are waiting to get fed information and analysis by the "professionals." While there wasn't anything in the actual contract amendment that was controversial, there was and is absolutely no reason why WJAR couldn't have allowwed readers to see for themselves. I don't know why WJAR didn't link to the document, but from my many expericences with media and FOIA requests, it is often because the media outlet has an agenda, and they want to control the information and the message/story. My rule of thumb is if a media outlet fails to link to the underlying document they are analyzing, I immedately take whatever the reporter is reporting with a sack of salt.

Sorry for the rant, but I've had the unhappy experience twice this past year where media inaccurately reported on FOIA documents concerning clients and didn't link to them in their articles or websites. Just shoddy journalism in this day and age.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 11 years ago

That's a good point, MERam. Thanks for sharing. Wonder what other people close to the industry think about linking to the document they were provided via the FOIA.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 11 years ago

I agree. Good point and good post, MERam.

RIFan · Unread post by **RIFan** » 11 years ago

Could this be the issue with Adidas:

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollar ... ith-adidas

Iggy1979 · Unread post by **Iggy1979** » 11 years ago

MERam wrote:I have a real problem with "journalists" and news outlets who make Freedom of Information requests, report on the documents, and then don't link to the information they are citing. (BTW, thanks to RF1 for doing so.) Not doing so is in my view indicative of why traditional print and television media has lost credibility and viewers -- they still don't understand the internet and the blogosphere, and continue to have the mindset that readers/viewers are sheep who are waiting to get fed information and analysis by the "professionals." While there wasn't anything in the actual contract amendment that was controversial, there was and is absolutely no reason why WJAR couldn't have allowwed readers to see for themselves. I don't know why WJAR didn't link to the document, but from my many expericences with media and FOIA requests, it is often because the media outlet has an agenda, and they want to control the information and the message/story. My rule of thumb is if a media outlet fails to link to the underlying document they are analyzing, I immedately take whatever the reporter is reporting with a sack of salt.

Sorry for the rant, but I've had the unhappy experience twice this past year where media inaccurately reported on FOIA documents concerning clients and didn't link to them in their articles or websites. Just shoddy journalism in this day and age.

I don't think there's an agenda but I do agree they don't understand today's media is much different then it was 10 years ago. I routinely link to PDF documents

Rhody72 · Unread post by **Rhody72** » 11 years ago

Why should they link to the documents? If they do, other media outlets will cite the documents rather than the media outlet as the source. If others want to make a FOIA request, their news will be a week old. WJAR should get credit for their work. It is all part of building a good reputation. It is a competitive world out there bunky.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 11 years ago

Rhody72 wrote:Why should they link to the documents? If they do, other media outlets will cite the documents rather than the media outlet as the source. If others want to make a FOIA request, their news will be a week old. WJAR should get credit for their work. It is all part of building a good reputation. It is a competitive world out there bunky.

That is an old way of thinking. Nobody cares who "got it first" anymore. I want to be informed. If I know WJAR reported it first but withheld the source document from me, then I think WJAR sucks. Why would they want that?

Rhody72 · Unread post by **Rhody72** » 11 years ago

TP, the answer to your question is that they want you to cite (and thereby give credit to) WJAR as the source for any subsequent report on this topic. Also, I suspect WJAR used legal counsel to prepare the FOIA (or at least some staffers time). Why should WJAR let someone else benefit for free for what they had to pay (directly or indirectly) for information that is not publicly available?

Captainron@ · Unread post by **Captainron@** » 11 years ago

As a Rhode Island taxpayer, nothing in this report bothered me.

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 11 years ago

Good to see 72 didn't misplace his Contrarian hat.

What would build WJAR's positive rep would have been a very thorough examination of the contract which would leave the curious reader satisfied and not begging to see the REAL document.

Unfortunately, WJAR's past rep and minimal write-up on the contract left most of us wanting direct access to the public document. This could have been an opportunity for WJAR to post a signature piece of journalism that would attract eyeballs to their site or TV News program. They don't offer the video piece online (dinosaurs catering to the 60 and older crowd), and their write up was lacking detail and full context.

Rhody72 · Unread post by **Rhody72** » 11 years ago

TP, I'm being objective and realistic.

Login • Register