Talk:Randy Shannon

This article is the best example I have ever read of the "Good Ol' Boy Network" in action. What you have here is a diatribe against a black coach by someone who isn't happy about a black coach. Read between thelines people. This is why only 3 out of over 150 coaches in the NCAA are black. Can we call this what it is please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djb1968 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is incredibly biased. Miami has been bad the last couple years. Randy Shannon inherited a program in ruins. The article declares him the reason for Miami's struggles. It stresses that the U has lost multiple home games under Shannon, but as of now they have only lost 2 (NC State and GA Tech). It also states that this is the worst Miami year in decades when they are currently 5-4 and need only to win one of their next 3 to equal Larry Coker's final year of 6-6 regular season. Considering this is Shannon's first year as a head coach, I don't think it is time to declare him the scourge of the universe just yet. This article needs to be changed, it is more inline with what would be seen on a website campaigning to have a coach fired.

DeMiLiCh839 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed most of the unsourced, patently biased statements in the article. It was a bit perplexing to see UM's move away from the Orange Bowl as having anything to do with Randy Shannon. WTStoffs 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias

I've removed some of the lunacy (players' 2nd amendment rights to carry guns at a private school?) but this thing still needs help. If you want to attack your coach, go post on a message board. Wikipedia is a place for neutral articles, not hate pieces. --B 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This article definitely focused too much on the negative, but now it focuses soley on the positive. Balanced, objective, and well-sourced is the goal here, not PR spin in one direction or the other. Zeng8r (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This article continues to read like it was written by someone with an ax to grind against the article's subject, with only occasional balancing statements. Dankster (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Far later than it should have happened, but I finally edited the article to give what I believe is a clearly neutral position. I added more game details to give an equal focus to important wins and important losses, removed some judgmental adverbs, and took out a few small sections that gave far too much attention to petty disputes. The article could be cleaned up a little still, but I don't believe it reflects any bias in either direction--Dankster (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Marve's transfer

This whole "recruiting wars" nonsense was brought up by Eugene Marve and no one else. It's all hearsay from his at this point. His credibility is non-existent after everything he has said, so all his hearsay accusations will not be allowed.ObiWan353 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law. Our responsibility as editors is not to make subjective judgments about who is more credible, Eugene Marve or Randy Shannon; it's to include relevant information, verifiable by citation to a reputable source (in this case, The Herald), pertaining to the dispute over Robert Marve's transfer. Take some time to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia Policy, which stresses that "verifiability," not "truth," is the appropriate standard for content. Also, your accusation of "hearsay" is humorous if utterly irrelevant. Again, we're not in a court of law and Wikipedia Policy is not coextensive with the Federal Rules of Evidence. It matters not that Eugene Marve, in relaying what Shannon allegedly said at the hearing, is offering an "out-of-court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted." All that matters is that Eugene was present at the hearing and in a position to offer an eyewitness account of what was said; thus, his comments are relevant and their inclusion in the article is proper.-PassionoftheDamon (talk)

But you are presenting the information he is alleging as hard fact, and that is where you cross the line. I understand we are not a court of law, but I'm not sure what "coextensive with the Federal Rules of Evidence" means or what it has to do with how this information is presented. If you want to include it, you must have it as a quote from Eugene Marve, as it was his claim and no one else's, therefore, there really is no "verifiability".ObiWan353 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not presented as hard fact when it's clearly prefaced by the word "purportedly." Also, no one from the university has come forward to dispute Eugene Marve's account of what transpired at the hearing, so there's no reason to cast it in a dubious light. Finally, if you're going to (incorrectly) throw around words like "hearsay," you ought to at least know what the FRE are. Reverted.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not "prefaced" when you have it in the middle of the sentence. No one from UM will ever come forward to dignify any of Marve's claims, because they're nonsense. If you've kept up with the other things he's said (including his "apologies") you would know that there are plenty of reasons to cast what he says in a dubious light. And lastly, I know what hearsay is. I won't remove the claims but I will make it clearer to understand. Agreed?ObiWan353 (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's prefaced quite clearly by the word "purportedly." If you don't understand that, then you apparently don't know how to read or what "preface" means ("to precede"). And until someone from UM comes forward to contradict Eugene Marve's firsthand account of what was said at the hearing, there is absolutely no reason to view or cast it in a dubious light -- that is not our responsibility as objective editors. Whatever issues you personally have with Robert and Eugene Marve, they're your issues and utterly irrelevant to the content of this article-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For someone who claims to be "objective", you take on a very aggressive tone. Your sentence had "purportedly" in the MIDDLE of the statement. That doesn't PREFACE anything. Either way, I had left the claims in there so you have no reason to restore all the other stuff along with it, which is incorrect altogether.ObiWan353 (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's now obvious that you have no idea what the word "preface" actually means. It means "to precede," Shakespeare. As the modifier "purportedly" clearly precedes the account of the hearing, it prefaces it. Prefacing has nothing to do with the absolute location of a modifier within a sentence; it has to do with the modifier's placement in relation to what needs to be modified. Not to mention, you deliberately and surreptitiously altered the wording within the section to make it misleading (i.e., the University of Miami has alleged nothing; Randy Shannon made the allegations).-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Again with the aggression. First of all, you completely omit the fact the Eugene Marve made those claims, so your use of "purportedly" has no basis. But of course, here you make clear your dislike for Shannon. If you read http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/colleges/um/story/835745.html, you'll see that no wording was altered. Shannon made none of the allegations. UM issued the press release. And for the third time, I LEFT THE CLAIMS THERE. I just added that E. Marve made them. The rest of the stuff you're restoring is inaccurate.ObiWan353 (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the claim that "the University of Miami" made the allegations about improper contact, that's dubious. Shannon was the first to make that allegation and UM only issued a press release after calling Shannon in to explain the strict transfer restrictions (and before the hearing). Furthermore, it wasn't technically "the university" that issued the press release in support of Shannon's allegations, but the athletic department, as this link makes clear: [1]. The university-at-large remained impartial and did not have any involvement in the matter until the appeals hearing, where Robert Marve and an official from the AD made their respective cases to the three-person panel representing the university. The panel, of course, partially repealed the restrictions and made no statement or finding of fact regarding Shannon's claims of improper contact. Claiming that the "University of Miami" made the allegations is patently misleading; the most that could be said is that the Athletic Department made them. As to the issue of attribution, it's enough if the sentence reads either, "Eugene Marve claimed no evidence was offered..." or "purportedly no evidence was offered..." -- but not both, as your version had it. That's overkill. If the word "purportedly" is included, there's no need to also specify that Eugene Marve was making the claim; if the claims are directly attributed to Eugene Marve, there's no reason to qualify what is asserted the word "purportedly." Either one makes the modification. Finally, as demonstrated below, everything else you surreptitiously deleted is verifiable, which is the standard for inclusion here at Wikipedia, no matter how much you may wish it to be otherwise in order to comport with your feelings about Shannon.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't care to get involved with most of this but edits that add adjectives such as "unranked" and "soundly [defeated]" and phrases such as "questionable non-use of timeouts and the leisurely pace of Miami's final drive, was cited" without any citations whatsoever are clearly POV and unacceptable. Your blind reversions also wiped out completely non-controversial edits that corrected the dashes used in the article. Finally, please ensure you're aware of our Three-revert rule as you've made several reverts recently, each undone by different editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, "unranked" and "soundly" are not POV and "unacceptable." They're called adjectives and adverbs -- you know, words that describe and without which writing would be sterile and bland. They're also non-controversial. It is a verifiable FACT that Georgia Tech was unranked.[2] As for the NC State game, when one team led the other by 17 points before a garbage TD in the final minute of the game, and major newspapers describe it as a "thud" [3] and state that NC State "did what it wanted,"[4] describing it as a "sound[...] defeat" is not only a fair appraisal -- it's being charitable. Finally, while there weren't any citations at the time for the criticism of Shannon's clock management skills in the Emerald Bowl, that's not a reason to wholly delete information. The proper protocol is to slap inline tags where applicable, then, if no cites are given after a length of time, to delete. But alas, there are a myriad of cites to verify that bit of information: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. In the future, please familiarize yourself with our NPOV and Citation policies. Doing so will give you a better understanding of Wikipedia protocol, provide for a more enjoyable editing experience, and reduce the likelihood of needless disagreements.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell us about references and citations; add them. This is a BLP and we must have sources for the material in this article. --ElKevbo (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your points, I don't really understand why you establish a difference between UM's athletic dept and UM itself. I doubt the athletic dept has freedom to act independently of the university. Either way, I'm much more satisfied with this version than with the version you were restoring, so I won't change anything. Here's an olive branch...ObiWan353 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Recruiting classes

To the person hiding behind 204.153.16.62: All of Randy Shannon's classes have been highly rated, including the last two in the the top ten of several different media outlets (ESPN, Rivals, Scout), so your personal opinion is irrelevant. Please refrain from adding it to this page. ObiWan353 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the 5th ranked 2008 recruiting class[12] was 'highly ranked' by most standards. The 19th ranked 2007 class[13] and 24th ranked 2009 class[14] were not 'highly ranked' for the Miami Hurricanes. Go to Rivals.com or Scout.com and compare Larry Coker's 2002-2006 recruiting classes to Randy Shannon's 2007 and 2009 classes. On Rivals you have Coker's 2002-2006 Hurricane classes ranked 8,5,4 and 7. [15] Shannon's 2007 and 2009 are ranked 19 and 15.[16] These classees were not 'highly ranked' for Miami. Perform the same exercise on Scout.com if you like, and you'll get Coker with 4,6,3 and 12[17]; and Shannon with 13 and 24.[18] So either 'top 25 classes' or 'a highly ranked recruiting class' are more accurate descriptions of Shannon's 2007-2009 recruiting. 'Highly rated recruiting classes' is too subjective for 19th and 24th ranked classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.148.37 (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your point, you are also being selective about who is doing the ranking. ESPN had the 2008 class as #1, and the 2009 class as #7. The 2007 class was ranked #9. So either we go by all of them, or we can cherry pick to reflect our opinion. At any rate, being in the top 25, at least to me, out of 119 schools, is "highly rated". It's all a matter of perspective. When I have some spare time, I'll flesh out the section a little more to reflect all the references listed. That way we can all be happy. ObiWan353 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

this article is so biased against shannon, and the author's vigorous and reference-laden defending of the article above only shows how much time he has spent researching his attacks on Shannon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djb1968 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I offer as proof of bias against Shannon the fact that a few months ago I added one simple line to this article "Randy Shannon's 2008 recruiting class was ranked #1 by ESPN." (including reference) I return to the article later and it's been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djb1968 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Randy Shannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/ncaa/02/09/miami.ap/index.html?eref=sircrc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)