This topic, admittedly related in an indirect way to Sparty, is meant to focus on what types of writing are considered "sports journalism" these days. I read detroit media almost daily b/c that's what I've been doing since I was a kid growing up in MI.
Anyway, this routine (which may require being changed) led me to read a little while back an article by Matt Charboneau discussing Hoke's recruiting and the perception of his players' star ratings relative to Dantonio's. In a nutshell, Charboneau argued that the rating and related numbers effectively meant nothing relative to the scouting a coach like Dantonio does when he observes recruits work out (this assumes he doesn't look at stats and star ratings) and coaches them up. He then cited the last three years (cherry picking) of Michigan recruits losing to MSU recruits to show why recruiting rankings and statistics mean little to nothing.
Without getting into the absurdity of Charboneau's position on football recruiting back then, he now takes a contradicting position with regards to professional teams "recruiting" Kalin Lucas. Kalin Lucas had all the statistical numbers and awards going into his senior year, but remains undrafted--presumabley b/c his workouts didn't meet the needs of the teams drafting players. Charboneau tries to make his straw-man argument that Kalin was more deserving of getting drafted and will likely generate more news than those drafted ahead of him; he tries to make his point by comparing Lucas to a player named Isiah Thomas (not that Isiah, but a cherry pick comparison nonetheless and once again by Charboneau) who was drafted last last week. He's 5'10 to Lucas's 6'0 height. Matt Charboneau ultimately takes issue with the NBA drafting on potential rather than "proven" accomplishments (whereas--remember--in football recruiting it's about potential and workouts for coaches that matter and not ratings based on accomplishments/statistics).
Then out of nowhere, he states:
I guess we chalk it up to the mystery of the draft. Teams and their executives, it seems, must prove they are smarter by finding the superstar nobody knew about. But when was the last time that happened? That type of thinking usually leads to colossal busts and throw-away picks.
It's a slow Sunday in the summer, and I admit this may still not be that interesting a topic to some. I just simply found the contradiction to be too blatant to instead look the other way. Is the best way going forward to simply ignore the "reportings" of the "newspapers" and just focus on the blogs for your substantive sporting news and opinions??? Many news organizations have yet to figure out it seems how to successfully create content that is both readable/intelligent and profitable. I often think in their quest for profits, they have chosen to forsake readibility or intelligence. If so, fail.