Dear dimwit on the phone

Simple answer: stop running the betting lines. In the words of a former publisher "We don't want the community to think we're supporting anything illegal."

 

The only call we've had so far is the person that couldn't understand that just because a channel's "over-the-air" number is 48, its cable number is actually 58, so that's why we put both channel numbers in the paper.
It's not my fault you don't have local cable sir and some satellite service instead...please call your local BCS school.

 

Dear Grizzled Old Fart Who Obviously Hasn't Had Children In School For A Long, Long Time (If Ever):

The reason we didn't have an MLB roundup in Saturday's paper was because the opening night of high school football ate up all our space. I'm (not really) sorry you didn't notice the standings and results on the scoreboard page, but since I was out covering one of the eight or nine games we staffed I had absolutely no input into the decision.

Who gives a shit? Probably 100,000 or so who follow at least one of the 70+ high schools we cover. What they probably don't give a shit about is your rotisserie team.

Signed,
Got Better Things To Do Than Listen To Your Bitching

 

We don't - never have.

I use Sagarin's rankings to indicate who's favored in each week's SEC games, but that's it.

We'll get 1 or 2 calls a year.

 

We haven't run them either, except as part of some NFL packages. Tried once, but with column getting narrower and narrower, the tabbing is impossible.

 

The problem is a given channel might be several different numbers on different providers. If you serve a wide geographic area, you might have 3-4 different cable providers plus satellite, so no way to list them all.

 

We are owned by the same people that own the cable company...guess which channel numbers we use (if at all, we don't give channel numbers for ESPN, FS1, NBCSN, etc.?)

 

We just list the station's call letters. Finding where that station is on the dial is up to the reader.

 

Dear sir,

I'm sorry you're canceling your subscription since we didn't have any "HIGHSCHOOLS football scores" in the Saturday edition. But the season doesn't start until this week, so there weren't any scores for us to report.

Regards,

Inky

 

Don't you know you're costing kids, who haven't played yet, scholarships?

 

More of a dimwit on the Internet.
We're one week into the season and some fans are already grumbling on the interwebs about the last of our conferences officially switching kickoff from 7:30 p.m. to 7 p.m.
It's not as if teams have to travel three or four hours for games. The schools are within 60 or 70 miles of each other and many trips are much closer than that.
One "Back in my day" fan even called it a "fascist" decision and incorrectly blamed the state athletic association.
Others seem to think the sanctity of football is in doubt because the games now have an extra 30 minutes of sunshine on the front end instead of the glare of artificial lights on the back.
My favorite so far comes from the "Get off my lawn" group, who fondly recall games starting at 8 p.m. several decades ago. Apparently, they can't seem to grasp the concept that today's styles of offense, with a lot more passing than back in the '40s or '50s, lead to games lasting three hours or so.
Someone even started a poll, asking posters to pick from 7 p.m., 7:30 p.m., 8 p.m., 4 p.m. ("like the city games") and noon on Saturdays.
As of now, 29 of 59 respondents prefer 7 p.m., 29 want 7:30 p.m., 10 want to go back to 8 p.m. and one prefers Saturdays at noon. No one wants 4 p.m. games.

 

Sadly, I don't think I'll hear back from him.