Tressel Out (per Columbus Dispatch)

Translation: He hit a home run with that line. Kinda like "+1" or "Well done, sir."

 

I'd take that bet. I'm not saying Nebraska isn't dirty, but I think Nebraska falls in the "Too smart to get caught" category where Florida, Texas, Alabama and a few other schools seem to be. It has been kind of fun watching USC and Ohio State get nailed, but I'd like to see Florida or Texas nailed next. It won't happen though, they have too much money and are too smart.

 

Here it is.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/magazine/05/30/jim.tressel/index.html

 

Single page, printer friendly: http://bit.ly/kKLepl

 

I have a journalism question.

Didn't ESPN hire the SF writers who wrote "Game of Shadows" in an effort to bolster their investigative reporting?

Why does Sports Illustrated and Yahoo break every one of these stories?

I'm not trying to start a rip-ESPN tangent. It's a business, and they have contracts and ties with leagues. I guess all I'm asking is: Despite some hires that seemed to indicate otherwise, is ESPN content to limit itself to human interest, trend stories (including hard issues coverage on "Outside the Lines"), and between-the-lines analysis? That's fine if they do. I'm just curious about whether it's an affirmative decision or if they just get beat on this stuff like the rest of us do some days.

 

Gotta feel for Dohrmann, sort of getting scooped by his own story. Feels like this morning's story took some of the thunder out off that report.

 

Yes and no, 21.

Dohrmann strikes me as the kind of reporter who is in this to make a difference.

Seems like his reporting on this story made an enormous difference. How this went down is just a peril of magazine publishing schedules - and possibly Memorial Day weekend. The story indicates that SI contacted Ohio State on Friday to let them know that this was coming. Wondering if they could have pushed the call until Monday in a normal business week.

 

Very well might have. Isn't the last thing a magazine does before publishing controversial stuff is confront the subject with what they've got?

 

Maybe it's me but I was expecting something a big more explosive in that story. The Isaac, Clarett & Smith stuff has been common knowledge for years.

 

When did tattoos become so important/popular?

I get that you could buy influence with a kid by giving him a car, but a tattoo and a room to play X-Box in? That's the going rate?

And, if a player shows up one day with a "sleeve" that he obviously couldn't afford, shouldn't that set off as many alarm bells as showing up behind the wheel of a car you can't afford?

 

Next you're going to tell me that MLB.com isn't the place to go to for hard hitting stories about MLB.

Or that Slash isn't real. (For South Park fans only.)