bostonhawk
Active Member
hi, does anyone have any updates on the coker rumors? is he fully committed? what was the issue with his official visit? thanks
Coker rumors
- Thread starter bostonhawk
- Start date
Bucketochicken
Well-Known Member
No.
Maybe.
No one knows.
Signing day is a week and a half away; we'll just have to wait and see. I don't much creedence can be given to the random context-free fb posting by a teenager. And anyway, who would have friended him to begin with? That's creeeeeeeepy.
bostonhawk
Active Member
Does anyone have any color on how the official visit went? he is the one recruit i would hate to lose after watching his videos. he reminds me of a young Mr. Green!
Bucketochicken
Well-Known Member
Not yet, I don't think. I think Rob at HI is going to try and follow up (I think he wanted to wait until the kid got home and everything), so I s'pose we'll find out soon enough.
Yeah, he looks beastly. Hope he signs.
Yeah, he looks beastly. Hope he signs.
bostonhawk
Active Member
I agree iahawk, but coker made some references to his Iowa committment on his facebook. It appeared he was not happy with something related to Iowa football developments. I just wanted to hear it from someone in the know on this site. the other sites have a lot of garbage posts and that is why i only post here.
so what exactly did it say about the iowa football developments? if it has to do something with this new coaching rumor it could be true. otherwise if no one has any info on what exactly it said on his facebook then dont believe a damn thing. only bad thing about all these forums is that we all get caught up in something little that we have no idea about.
brewhawk23
Well-Known Member
Blair at Hawkeyereport.com did an interview with Coker on his official visit this weekend and Coker stated that his FB comments were in NO WAY related to his commitment to the University of Iowa. Coker said he is firm with his commitment........
IowaFanSince82
Well-Known Member
Why is that such a big deal, if he is a paying customer he can do whatever he wants with it. If i choose to pay out money for something, I better be able to use it and repeat it to other people. Otherwise why have it?
does it state in the contract, "after reading premium board information, you must forget what you just read and in no way repeat it to anyone."
does it state in the contract, "after reading premium board information, you must forget what you just read and in no way repeat it to anyone."
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
No, he didn't. And Blair spoke with him about that and said things are fine with Iowa.
As for posting premium stuff, I dont want to see people copying and pasting. However, I also realize, having had a premium since between late 2000 and October of 2009, that you are not going to put the toothpaste back into the tube. People are not going to just sit tight, no matter how hard you police it. That's one of the main reasons why I went to the free model, because breaking news or info does not stay 'private' for very long, certainly not long enough to make a living at it over the long haul, and its only getting worse.
I think pay networks are akin to people walking around with an illness but they have yet to go to the doctor to get it checked out, because they are not feeling any ill effects quite yet. However, I think that is coming. I mean, most of the stuff people pay for is recruiting, and far too many sites have five or six question and answer Q&A's (I did that too) that wind up having six or seven sentences worth of quotes. there may always be a market for that, but you realize that there isn't much there, and then you see people posting stuff on other sites, twitter, etc, and you decide to do other things with your dollars. The fact is most high school kids are not compelling interview subjects, and many recruiting updates are full of filler, like high school stats, etc. I think talking to HS coaches has been more rewarding as far as content goes.
As long as there are pay sites, however, it's only fair to make certain to provide proper attribution of where you read something, and just don't copy and paste straight out of those areas.
Last edited:
Bucketochicken
Well-Known Member
Because at the pay-portion of a site like that, you're paying for access to that premium info, not for the right to redistribute it.
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
Agreed, which is why it was frustrating to see people read something and run to another place to post it. It happens, and I think people just like to try and build up their 'street cred' as a poster. Interesting phenomena, but it exists. And trying to police it is futile, outside of outright copying and pasting. I tried for years, and in collaboration with others...just didn't work...and it won't.
I have literally seen message boards start from nothing, no where, no reporting, and grow into colossal trafficked sites just because they posted what they read on pay boards, and those pay sites either went out of business, or are a shadow of their former selves, while the new boards are cashing four figure monthly advertising deals.
There is no stopping it.
Mac50702
Well-Known Member
You dont need premium access to look at the front page and see it says that coker is ready to sign with iowa.
homerHAWKeye777
Well-Known Member
Bucket -
I think that folks are discussing some rather "murky" areas of what we can precisely define as ownership.
Here we're not speaking of any proprietary piece of information that can legitimately be patented. Nor are we speaking of a unique literary work or news-piece that is getting stolen and being used for profit by someone else. Of course, that is probably where some of the gray area comes in because such "shared premium info" could potentially get the owners/operators of these forums (read Jon, Rob, etc) in trouble.
However, another flip-side is this ... friends of mine talk to me all the time about premium info that they glean from these sites. The info is then shared to me ... and yet I have no access to the info myself because I'm a self-proclaimed cheapo. Anyhow, as everybody knows ... I often share what others have been so good to tell me. Also, if that weren't enough, I'm occasionally privy to info that isn't on the sites ... and I share that (when my sources say its okay ... or when it doesn't point to my sources) on these sites too.
Anyhow, I understand that folks have to make a buck ... however, the very medium that Jon, Rob, and the like have chosen to work with is very prone to such "information" sharing. As for the redistribution (read sharing) ... cutting and pasting is obviously a no-no (obvious legal ramifications) ... however, I find it ridiculous that redistribution of independent summaries of such premium might be also construed as a no-no.
I think that folks are discussing some rather "murky" areas of what we can precisely define as ownership.
Here we're not speaking of any proprietary piece of information that can legitimately be patented. Nor are we speaking of a unique literary work or news-piece that is getting stolen and being used for profit by someone else. Of course, that is probably where some of the gray area comes in because such "shared premium info" could potentially get the owners/operators of these forums (read Jon, Rob, etc) in trouble.
However, another flip-side is this ... friends of mine talk to me all the time about premium info that they glean from these sites. The info is then shared to me ... and yet I have no access to the info myself because I'm a self-proclaimed cheapo. Anyhow, as everybody knows ... I often share what others have been so good to tell me. Also, if that weren't enough, I'm occasionally privy to info that isn't on the sites ... and I share that (when my sources say its okay ... or when it doesn't point to my sources) on these sites too.
Anyhow, I understand that folks have to make a buck ... however, the very medium that Jon, Rob, and the like have chosen to work with is very prone to such "information" sharing. As for the redistribution (read sharing) ... cutting and pasting is obviously a no-no (obvious legal ramifications) ... however, I find it ridiculous that redistribution of independent summaries of such premium might be also construed as a no-no.
IowaFanSince82
Well-Known Member
Yeah I know i'm paying for it, so your telling me I can't share it with people? if i pay for my subscription, I will share information with other people. I will not say what site I am subscribed to, or where i got the information. But if I know something is false, and I have proof from an "inside or premium access" then I am gonna use it to my advantage. that's my given right to do that, otherwise why pay for it?
here is an example that i came up with:
So if i buy a Paper View event and then my buddie calls me from the road wondering who is winning, I can't disclose that information? They shouldn't be in trouble for doing it, otherwise I will be guilty, i buy every fight on Paper View and tell my buddies about it. I mean if they want to know, I will tell them. I don't re-broadcast it, but i let them know who won and what happened.
here is an example that i came up with:
So if i buy a Paper View event and then my buddie calls me from the road wondering who is winning, I can't disclose that information? They shouldn't be in trouble for doing it, otherwise I will be guilty, i buy every fight on Paper View and tell my buddies about it. I mean if they want to know, I will tell them. I don't re-broadcast it, but i let them know who won and what happened.
The article wasnt even written when he posted the information, it was only listed in a thread.
Of course, Jon is correct when it comes to taking direct quotes from premium articles.
However, taking INFORMATION from a pay site and then discussing/posting it...is in no way, shape or form a violation of the law.
Do you actually believe someone can post something on the internet and then impose a legal sanction to prevent people from discussing the information?
No way in hell. The ethics of this are another issue...but in terms of legality, unless you have some sort of court ordered sanction...once information is given, you cannot tell people what to do with it.
However, taking INFORMATION from a pay site and then discussing/posting it...is in no way, shape or form a violation of the law.
Do you actually believe someone can post something on the internet and then impose a legal sanction to prevent people from discussing the information?
No way in hell. The ethics of this are another issue...but in terms of legality, unless you have some sort of court ordered sanction...once information is given, you cannot tell people what to do with it.
