Real Sports story implicates Auburn, other schools

And I'm sure that doesn't count game prep time, either, right? Stretching, travel time, pregame meetings, that sort of thing.

 

Glad to see a great thread gets ruined by the same people who defend players and schools every time they're caught cheating.

I think there is more cheating in today's SEC than there was in the SWC in the 1980s.

The difference is, teams are better at cheating and not getting caught than they were back then and they know that with the rare exception of Real Sports, nobody is going to come after them and do the work that the NCAA should be doing.

SI doesn't do this kind of reporting anymore. They do some stupid fucking story on which NCAA athletes are criminals that raises more questions than it answers.

ESPN is never going to do this kind of reporting, which is a shame because they have a team of reporters who would probably be pretty damn good at it.

 

I think we've reached the point where the only way this stuff breaks is if it's done by an outlet like Yahoo that has the time and, more importantly, space to produce the kind of long-form investigative reporting you need on these types of stories.

Either that or its got to involve something that gets the news side's attention like the Fiesta Bowl deal.

 

I would just like to point out that my defense of the players amounts to "the whole system is so fucked and the NCAA/NFL/NBA cartel is so unfair that I no longer care who gets theirs or how they do it, especially since the 'penalties' players face aren't real penalties anyway." I think that puts me with the large majority of sports fans.

 

Glad to see you try to just change the topic when confronted with reasons for why your position on this topic is completely illogical.

As for the rest of your post, it is perfectly legitimate to discuss the validity of the rules when discussing whether journalists should be devoting more resources to determining if they're being broken. Setting aside your position on this particular set of rules, would you agree with this sentiment as a general maxim (that is, if law X is immoral, unjust, unfair, etc., journalists should not serve as an auxiliary enforcement mechanism for it)? If so, why can't the people that disagree with the NCAA's position on paying players voice that opinion when discussing whether ESPN or SI or whatever media organization should police it?

 

My main point was that if this was happening 15-20 years ago, SI would have Doug Looney, Armen Keteyian and Don Yaeger camped out on campus. That doesn't happen anymore and I think that's sad.

 

The Fiesta Bowl deal is back page compared to what's going on at these schools.

 

It wasn't happpening 15 to 20 years ago?

 

And I disagree with you because if SI were devoting its resources to that, it would be helping the NCAA enforce its cartel. Yet you chided people for "defend[ing]" players when one needs to consider to merits of the of the rule to assess whether it's, as you put it, "sad" SI doesn't have its reporters on campus.

 

It was happening and those schools were getting nailed. Usually the story would appear in SI and then the NCAA would show up and put the school on probation.

 

Gotta list?

Otherwise, I believe a good percentage of "media-exposed" rules breaking was done by the local or metro newspapers.

 

SMU comes to mind. DMN & local TV finally nailed them.