College Football 2012: Neal Brown Does Social Media Right, Unlike Danny Hope
A couple of weeks ago, we got a chance to praise Southern California and its awesome approach to handling its players social media in a responsible fashion. This week, the big story has been about Purdue coach Danny Hope and his severe aversion to the Twittersphere.
Hope took the old-school stance of not understanding the tweeting or the twitting, but he did have one solid point, commenting on the players expressing their emotions and how that gets difficult.
However, the goal, as we pointed out in the USC piece, should be helping kids to work through these issues, not running from them.
Well, when the universe gives you something bad, it has a knack for delivering on the good, too—that's how karma works, right? At least, in this universe it does, as Texas Tech offensive coordinator Neal Brown showed that not only can a coach use Twitter, but he can use it well.
Unlike the 53-year-old Hope, Brown made a strong showing on Twitter this week.
The 31-year-old offensive coordinator elected to release his team's spring awards via the Twitter machine. Bravo to the young coach working to get Texas Tech rolling on the offensive side of the ball.
Sure, the information could have been sent out via press release. The school could have knocked out a post on its school site. But, that's not what happened. The coordinator decided to cut out the middle man, save some time and give the fans the info straight from the source.
Not a massive, watershed moment in social media history, but it's one of those things that lets you know that there are coaches out there who don't take the Hope approach.
Instead of remaining pleasantly ignorant of the new developments that can help their profession, guys like Brown are embracing the new technology.
Perhaps the 22-year gap between Hope and Brown is the issue, although 60-year-old Pete Carroll most certainly appears to "get it" when it comes to the new social media platform.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?