In what ways should college sports be covered differently than the pros?

Name-calling is a personal attack. Simple as that.

And trying to "steer the thread" is pretty much what every poster on this board -- or any board -- does. Putting forth a line of thought. It's the nature of the medium ... another nature of the medium is using strength in numbers and anonymity to gang up on people (examples are numerous on this board, including the "do you find this work demeaning" thread).

That kind of crap mucks up this board and makes the good stuff hard to find. And yeah, I know, messages like I'm writing right now do that, too. But you're the one who got the ball rolling downhill.

Now I'm done with this topic.

 

are you going to apologize before you leave for good?

 

I just wanted to make note of how funny this was, and what a shame it would be for it to get washed away in the weekend tide of bile.

 

Someone far more intelligent than I probably already posted this, but what the hell...

There are differences in the situations with the OSU QB, Sammie Stroughter and the HS football player who has herpes.

The columnist saw the OSU QB eat chicken fingers fed to him by his mother. That's kind of troubling. What 18, 19, 20, 21-year old wants to be out in public, being fed by his mother? If the columnist didn't write what she saw, she would not have been doing her job.

 

Well, apparently, she didn't see it. Someone else did and relayed the information to her.

I agree with your general premise, though.

 

Furthering the discussion, I'll throw in a column on John David Booty by AP college football writer Ralph Russo:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7046580

First graf: Looking for Southern California's soft spot? Try behind center.

 

So we're bored with this topic already?
Does a USC player get held to a higher standard because Carroll's program embraces the spotlight?

The full piece.

RUSSO ON FOOTBALL: USC QB Booty must get better if Trojans want to win another national title
By RALPH D. RUSSO AP College Football Writer
News Fuze
Article Launched:09/30/2007 03:05:19 PM PDT

Looking for Southern California's soft spot? Try behind center.
OK, let's make this very clear: John David Booty is better than most college quarterbacks. He'll probably have an NFL career.

Despite all the Heisman hype, though, Booty is no Carson Palmer and he's no Matt Leinart. That's an awfully high standard to hold a quarterback to, but Booty was expected to be playing near that level by now and he's not. That's a big reason why USC is now No. 2 in the AP Top 25.

The Trojans made a slew of mistakes in 27-24 victory at Washington on Saturday night. They had 16 penalties, three turnovers and a blocked punt. USC's inexperienced receivers don't appear to be in sync with their fifth-year senior quarterback.

"We missed a lot of passes," USC coach Pete Carroll said. "(Booty) said he didn't have a secure grip on the football. But there were a lot of catchable passes. That was really surprising—three times we had balls that we dropped."

That doesn't excuse Booty for several passes he had batted down at the line of scrimmage, a problem that plagued him last season—remember the final pivotal plays in losses to Oregon State and UCLA—and hasn't been fixed.

Nor does it take him off the hook for the inaccurate passes, like the one he threw behind Stanley Havili that hit the fullback in the shoulder pads and bounced to Washington's Mesphin Forrester, who returned it for a touchdown.

Booty threw two interceptions and would've had a critical third in the fourth quarter, but Washington's Byron Davenport bobbled the underthrown pass in the end zone and replay review correctly called it incomplete. USC ended up getting a much-needed field goal on the drive and Booty nearly threw away those three points.

In a hostile environment, with his team barely hanging on for much of the second half, Booty never distinguished himself. He was just another guy on an offense that couldn't stop hurting itself.

"I think it's fixable, " Booty said of the many miscues made by an offense that gained 460 yards. "It's just one game out of four and it happens every year, where you go on the road and it is a tight game with all the elements—there was rain, it was cold, the wind was swirling, the crowd was really into it—but we were able to come out with a win. There are some things that we would love to have back and we would love to do over again, but that is why you play the game."

Much was made by Carroll and USC offensive coordinator Steve Sarkisian going into this season about how Booty, now a year removed from back surgery, would be stronger and better.

Right now, though, the strength of USC's offense is clearly its running game with Stafon Johnson and Chauncey Washington. That running game took a hit against Washington when freshman center Kristofer O'Dowd (dislocated knee) and right guard Chilo Rachal (sprained knee) were lost on the same play in the first quarter. It's unclear how long they will be out.

With Stanford next up for USC, the Trojans should easily regroup with a big win at the L.A. Coliseum.

Down the road, however, there are some daunting road trips. The Trojans play at Oregon later this month and at California and at Arizona State in November. At some point they'll be in a tight spot and need their quarterback to be great.

Seventeen starts into his college career, it's still unclear if Booty can do that. It's unlikely the Trojans can win a national title if he doesn't.

———

AP Sports Writer Gregg Bell contributed to this report.

———

Ralph D. Russo covers college football for The Associated Press. Write to him at rrusso(at)ap.org.

 

I don't think we're bored, I think we agree with you and could probably find 20 more articles like this around the country. Maybe you could PM waynew or email Mike Gundy with this.

 

That story focuses on execution on the football field, was based on facts (observable and factual), and all parties to the issue were quoted.

The column in question focused on his character via lots of interpretation, the central parties were not quoted or given listed as "no comments," the story was based on "rumblings and rumor" and "back stories on the sly" etc etc ... the column would not have been OK had it been about a pro or an amateur.

 

If you get the big praise, you get the big criticism.
This is not hard.
And I don't think I've heard of a weirder story than that chicken-fingers tale ever. What are they, a family of herons?

 

I'm way tardy to the party but I'll note this;

I find it interesting to see folks here trotting out the "boo fucking hoo" attitude.

I've found, at the risk of painting with a broad, broad brush, that we (I include myself) are the last folks who should be talking tough about how athletes or coaches or whomever should just STFU and deal with the criticism.

Most folks with whom I've worked and those I've encountered across the country get more than a little crazy when anything they've written is scrutinized or questioned by anyone.

And I mean anyone. Editors, coaches, players, fans on the Internet, etc.

And, yes, college athletes do get a nice financial reward with the free education. But that doesn't make them pros. I cover a FB team in a BCS league and I've seen a handful of guys with nice rides over the years -- all after they signed with agents.

The rest? Their mode of transportation ranged from Nike shoes to bikes to scooters held together by duct tape.