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

[Tom Petty]

boo forking hoo

 

[Some Guy]

I'm way tardy to the party but I'll note this;

I find it interesting to see folks here trotting out the "boo forking hoo" attitude.

I've found, at the risk of painting with a broad, broad brush, that we (I include myself) are the last folks who should be talking tough about how athletes or coaches or whomever should just STFU and deal with the criticism.

Most folks with whom I've worked and those I've encountered across the country get more than a little crazy when anything they've written is scrutinized or questioned by anyone.

And I mean anyone. Editors, coaches, players, fans on the Internet, etc.

And, yes, college athletes do get a nice financial reward with the free education. But that doesn't make them pros. I cover a FB team in a BCS league and I've seen a handful of guys with nice rides over the years -- all after they signed with agents.

The rest? Their mode of transportation ranged from Nike shoes to bikes to scooters held together by duct tape.

So we might all be hypocrites. So what? Doesn't mean we aren't right.

 

[BB Bobcat]

I hesitate to get involved in this, but ...

For those of you who say there is a line between preps and college, what about those big high schools, like in Texas, where they play in front of 15,000 fans every Friday? Do they still get treated like a prep kid who plays in front of 500?

What about a DIII college kid? Does he get the same treatment as a D-I kid? How about a Big Ten guy vs. a MAC guy?

I'm just trying to figure out if the standard is the kid's age, whether he's getting compensated (via scholarship) or how big the stage is?

Personally I think it's all of the above, and you can't make any blanket statements. You have to take things on a case-by-case basis to determine if the newsworthiness to the public outweighs the intrusion to the subject.