Yahoo levels Miami

What did he have to say?
"He's in the middle of developing" another career rather than commenting on the biggest story in his town....epitaph for a newspaper

 

Thanks for both of those.

I had gone to Nexis and saw nothing. Reading the column, I see nothing. It's so high and mighty you'd think the guy knew nothing and didn't care to report anything. Also, if you read Tommy Craggs' recent recollection of his months-ago debate with Charles Robinson, you will recognize Craggs' thinking in the LeBatard column.

 

Oh, when he writes that only the poor kids pay but never the adults, I guess he missed Jim Tressel. Wasn't it last month when Butch Davis got fired and the NC a.d went with him? Bruce Pearl. Kelvin Sampson. Barry Switzer. The Baylor basketball guy, the Fab Five guy. Eddie Sutton. The Dukie at Missouri. Not kids. A couple school presidents even. Not just kids.

 

Not one day in the same newsroom or studio, thankfully.

However, I have long-standing connections to two key states that involve Dan and one famous U.

Dan looks good in blinders.

 

As predictable as the tides.

Some trains are never, EVER late.

 

Craggs' line of thinking is "There should be no college sports." I don't think Le Batard is saying that.

I also think people hate Le Batard (among many others) for what they're associated with in ESPN talking-heads shows. Some (see Paige, Mariotti) deserve those associations. Others are just trying to rake in a little extra cash and are above the lowest-common-denominator stuff you see on TV.

Unfortunately, the most common scenario is the guy who once produced great work but got lazy as he became more of a pseudo-celebrity (or, in some cases, stretched too thin). Perhaps you could argue that Le Batard doesn't put quite as much into his newspaper writing as he once did. You could also argue that his columns reach a smaller audience than any of his radio and TV pursuits.

 

No, the overlaps in the Craggs and LeBatard columns aren't about whether there should be college sports or not. Maybe "amateur" sports, I don't know, I didn't see that. I saw the overlaps in the arguments. Like both guys refer to scandal reporters as mall cops. Both say the scandals happen because of the rules not despite them. Both compare the rule-breaking stories to busting people for marijuana.

I'm not against making money on TV and radio. But it bugs me when I see the star columnist kiss off his newspaper where he made hiis reputation in the first place by doing sit-on-his-ass half-plagiarized crap like that. I hate that the newspaper business is in such bad shape that it has to allow that to happen. No pride. I really hate that anybody takes advantage of his paper's condition. It just hurries up the dying.

 

Wait -- you're arguing that Tommy Craggs' arguments are so new and fresh that somebody who feels the same way must be plagiarizing? Oy. Craggs plagiarized about a half-dozen books on the topic, then.

 

Hate it when someone's column in today's paper is what he said on TV or radio yesterday. ESPN and the radio shows make it easy for columnists to rehash those shows, but I want fresh stuff in the newspaper. Hard enough competing with the airwaves anyway.