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

So it's an absolute. You know it to be true, so you print. Let's change to a high school then who has herpes. You know it to be true. Heck, you even got the medical report. You don't write that he's dealing with a medical condition? You write that he got herpes? Really?

Crazy example, sure, but I'm asking trying to find out if there's any gray area with you.

 

A high school kid is not being paid to compete, unless he's competing for a prep school. Most state associations ban recruiting, if you didn't know. (Doesn't mean it never happens, just means it's outlawed.)

In college, a kid is compensated room, board, books, food and hot coeds in exchange for providing his services on the football field. HE HAS SIGNED A CONTRACT.

 

According to many who post here, the distinction you make makes no difference. Many people here say if he or she is part of a public event, they get the same treatment.

But OK, fine, change the scenario to the college kid. The college kid has herpes. You have the medical record. You print it?

I wouldn't. A simple "medical condition" would suffice.

 

To me, it's not totally about whether they are paid to compete. It's about the stage on which the games are played.

A high schooler isn't going to get as much scrutiny as a big-time, Division-I college athlete. I said it earlier on this thread: If you appear on SportsCenter, in my book, you are a public figure.

Big-time college football is a multi-million dollar business. It deserves to be covered like one. High schoolers, not so much.

I think "medical condition" would be fine with a high schooler. Even then, there are some touchy subjects I think you have to cover.

At a paper I worked at earlier in my career, the star track stud was arrested for statutory rape the Monday before the state meet. He was 18, his girlfriend was not. Hence, the arrest. We had to explain why said stud was being held out of the state meet, so we did. A story ran across the top of the sports section detailing his arrest for statutory rape. We didn't couch it as "legal issues" or whatever.

It kind of sucked for the kid. But it was also our job.

 

I got no problem with that. It's fact-based. It's an actual charge. And the allegation is about an action by that person, an action against another person (legally, it's obviously morally debatable given their respective ages). and actually the crime alleged and the ages makes it definitely a topic of public interest -- there's a wider debate going on about what ages should be covered in statutory rape cases ...

 

you are a damned apologist. i hope you have a job in the social services.

 

Any lines I draw, I draw between h.s. and college.

If Gundy doesn't like criticism from media, he can go coach at Division III.

If Reid can't handle it, he can be content back-up. Or not play.

They want the spotlight and opportunities (job, scholarship), they've got to take the potential heat.

Same can be said for the columnist, too.

 

No difference, at all. (At least in the sports that people care most about)

They are both there to play and to make money. One for their school, the other for themselves and their school. College athletes are also there to get ready for the pros -- to make money.

 

Wow, you are a tough guy. I am very impressed. Make a point and stop the name-calling, why don't you.

Weak.

 

don't comprehend the written word too well, do you? you are a damned apologist.

that. was. my. point.

 

I meant a point about the issue at hand -- not a personal attack.

 

it was an observation of your dire need to steer the thread in a certain direction, not a personal attack.