Regarding succinct-ness, I agree. I’m (obviously) not the best example, but I do value it.I disagree, 4Q - just because someone discusses one example and keeps their thoughts concise to that example does not mean anything other than they were discussing the one example. Sometimes it helps to be succinct.
That article was a hit piece, holding the SEC out as a bumbling outlier when every P5 conference is doing the exact same thing.
I'm not saying everybody does it makes it OK, and I'm not defending football in September. I believe we shouldn't even think about football until COVID is under control...which it obviously isn't.
Here's what I wrote to a friend. Sorry for the length.
The article really got under my skin because the authors joined a long line of intellectually lazy writers (out of respect for journalists, I won't use that term) who had a pre-conceived narrative, got the perfect vignette they wanted to confirm their prejudices -- yes, prejudices -- and conveniently ignored the next questions banging to beat all get-out inside my head -- Is this an SEC problem, or a college football problem? What is everybody else doing?
Please understand, I'm not saying that "everybody does it" is a defense. I'm saying that to single one group for ridicule (and that's what that article did), when other equally prominent institutions are doing exactly the same thing, is intellectually lazy to the point of being purposely dishonest. It paints an incomplete and highly inaccurate picture that, given the pedigree necessary to write for the Washington Post, I have to believe is intentional.
It is yet another violation of the public trust that newspapers once held, but sadly do no longer.
I 100% agree that there shouldn't be football this fall. And in the end, I think that's what will happen. Might happen before the end of September, maybe only after 2-4 games wherein whole teams get infected, but it's coming. So I have no problem with the idea of no football this year.
What I hate with a passion is painting only the SEC as a bunch of money-grubbing overpaid bureaucrats, who fumble around with no answers to quite legitimate questions, all the while ignoring an inquiry into how the Big 10 and Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC (all currently going 10-game or more seasons, with varying tweaks on conference only) are faring.
And the part about college presidents, "...who rely on college football for prestige and revenue..." is a condescending and elitist slap in the face, ignoring the academic achievements of 14 universities.
Also, how is the unfairness of doing all the right things, only to be infected by somebody who did all the wrong ones, the sole province of football players? Why is that not equally unfair for each and every student?
And the backhanded slam at Greg Sankey's $2.5 million salary conveniently ignores the fact that he's the lowest-paid of the P5 Commissioners, and it's not all that close. Took me about 2 minutes to find that out, Mr. and Ms. Investigative Reporter.
But back to the call: Did the other P5 conferences simply not have a videoconference with players? If not, why not?
If they did they have videoconferences, what was the content? Did their players raise similar concerns? I'm betting they would have. Did their administrators have better answers than the SEC's? I'm betting they wouldn't have.
So is this issue isolated to the knuckle-dragging SEC? Or is it a college football issue, with the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC as Exhibits A, B, C, D and E? If the latter (and I think it is the latter) why not one single stinkin' word about the bigger picture?
The next questions are screaming so loudly and so clearly that writers at this level could have ignored them only intentionally, and that hacks me off no end. It was an intellectually lazy, prejudiced, hit piece in which editors should have done what they're paid to do....intervene and force the obvious next questions.
What hacks me off even more, but mostly makes me sad, is that ethical failures at multiple levels no longer surprise me.