NYT Writer Offers Lame Response

Thayer Evans, author of a controversial article on the recruitment of Oklahoma commit Jamarkus McFarland, didn't provide much insight into the story behind the story today.

In a Dallas Morning News article on the Texas response to the brewing controversy, Evans said, "The article speaks for itself. We will continue to follow the story."

A follow-up article sounds interesting, but we still know nothing about how everything came together.

*Chip Brown, a columnist for Rivals' Orangebloods.com, has started digging into the story. Brown quotes McFarland's uncle, Tony McFarland, who says his nephew wanted to attend Texas, but eventually capitulated to his mother's desire for him to pick Oklahoma. Brown also quotes three unnamed sources who dispute the details of the hedonistic Texas victory party as described in a class paper by McFarland that Evans used in the NYT article.

To play devil's advocate for a moment... The information from McFarland's uncle in this article certainly provides a different perspective on the recruiting process. But where do his sympathies lie in all of this? Is he a Texas fan? And how close was he to his nephew during this process? The article says he spoke with his nephew, but was he ever present when Texas coaches were meeting the recruit his mother, either in person or on the phone? He talked to Will Muschamp at one point, according to the article, but that's all we know.

Similarly, why is the opinion of McFarland's uncle relevant to the NYT story, which was billed as an inside look at the experience of McFarland and his mother during his recruitment? It seems clear from the article that McFarland's mother, Kashemeyia Adams, played a big part in the decision, steering her son to OU when he initially favored Texas and USC. Having McFarland's uncle say that doesn't provide much new information. 

Same with quotes from the anonymous sources who supposedly accompanied McFarland during OU-Texas weekend. They confirm what McFarland already has admitted--parts of his paper were made up. (Also, isn't there something a little ironic about using anonymous sources to discredit the integrity of another journalist?)

Believe what you want, but Homerism still doesn't see a good reason to believe anyone.