When my friends visit Washington, they sometimes tell me how lucky I am to have to hometown paper like The Washington Post. "Have you looked at the sport section?" I invariably ask. The Post does cover national politics and foreign policy far better than the San Francisco Chronicle. But sports? I'll take almost any paper over my hometown rag. Let's take today's issue. The main local story, featured on page 1, was the Maryland football team's last minute victory over Clemson, putting them in line for the conference championships and a major bowl bid. In this age of ESPN, many, if not most, of the people who read about the game will have seen it on television. The important thing, then, is to add some understanding to what they have already seen. But the story, written by Marc Carig, states obvious and elaborates it with hollow quotes. Coach Ralph Friedgen, for instance, is quoted, "Early on, nobody thought they were any good. And I always thought they had a chance to be good."
And there was a lot to write about. This game was almost decided by a shockingly bad call with only a few minutes left. With Maryland ahead 10-9, Maryland forced a fumble, and the ball began to bound into end zone. The Clemson player tried to stop it, but appeared to fail, and the referee ruled a safety, which would have made the score 12-9, and forced Clemson to kick to Maryland, giving Maryland a chance to run the clock out for a victory. But the replay booth overturned the referee's call, giving Clemson the ball on its one-yard line, from which it drove down the field for a field goal, forcing Maryland into last-minute heroics to win the game with a field goal of its own with three seconds left.
While the replay booth was studying the call, ESPN showed the play repeatedly, and the announcers expressed their confidence that the call would hold up. And it seemed utterly obvious to this television watcher. Even the Clemson beat writer from the Charleston Post and Courier in South Carolina wrote afterwards, "Replays did not appear to provide conclusive evidence that Spiller gained possession of the ball before it reached the end zone." But the replay officials, who are only supposed to change calls when the replay is conclusive, overturned the ref's call.
This call, like the one made earlier this season at the end of an Oregon-Oklahoma game, seems to cast doubt on the replay system itself. And if Maryland had lost, it might have had more immediate consequences: a student riot in College Park. But while the brief AP report devotes four sentences to it, The Washington Post devotes exactly one passing sentence toward the end to it. "Maryland led 10-9 with less than eight minutes left when an official review overturned what looked like a safety, which would have given the Terrapins a 12-9 lead." That's it, folks. No details about who made the call (were they effected by the hometown crowd?), what explanation was given afterwards for it, whether Maryland coach Ralph Friedgen planned to do anything about it (and if not, why not?).
There were other interesting details about the game. For instance, Maryland's quarterback, who had been confined to flat and screen passes, suddenly unveiled an effective mid-length passing game. Why suddenly in this game? But all one learns from the reporter is that Maryland's quarterback had a "stellar performance." And this was the main story in The Washington Post sports section. And it wasn't just because of a particular writer. Except for its coverage of the Redskins and for a few columnists, The Washington Post's sports coverage is not just forgettable, but inept.
The paper can't even get its facts straight. With Maryland's victory over Clemson, and Wake Forest's victory over Boston College, the championship of the Atlantic division of the Atlantic Coast Conference could come down to Maryland's final game with Wake Forest. One would have imagined a sidebar that spelled out whom the rivals played for the rest of the season. Not only is there none, but in the brief summary of Wake Forest's victory over Boston College, it says their next game is with Stanford, whom they do not play. Their next game is with a resurgent Florida State.
And if you want bad grammar, you can find that, too. Here's an excerpt from the lame preview of the college basketball season: "Expect the [Kansas State] Wildcats to make their first NCAA tournament appearance, especially when high school All-American Bill Walker becomes eligible in mid-December." Does the NCAA tournament begin in November? So, as I say to my envious out-of-town friends, just look at The Washington Post's sports section.
--John B. Judis
