Shady reporting on shady practices
Shady reporting on shady practices
Rivals.com College Football - Should coaches speak if money is raised?
I'm not going to defend Weis or Willingham's speaking events, they can do that themselves. But what i do find interesting is that the writers lead with Weis and then Willingham (while at ND) as two of the coaches operating in this
gray area.
In the first few paragraphs, they imply that Weis received a letter of intent (Rudolph) three weeks after this speaking event. Of course, it takes them many paragraphs later they point out that Rudolph commited to ND back in March 2007, nearly 11 months before national signing day. They also don't mention that Rudolph never once waivered in his commitment, so it's not like Weis did this to seal the deal.
They then quote some no-name dingleberries who say "wow, that sure seems like an NCAA violation to me" and wait until the end of the piece to actually quote the NCAA rules. That is classic liberal reporting, where the authors want you to have a certain feeling, and aren't willing to just give you the facts to let you make up your own mind.
So then, nearly at the end of the article, they point out what would clearly make the coaches' speaking activities a viloation of the NCAA rules is if the money were going straigh to the athletics dept. Neither Weis' or Willingham's speaking engagments did that.
But then the authors point out the money from Jim Tressel's two speaking engagements were confirmed to go to the athletic depts, therefore that's a violation.
So why lead with the examples of ND/Weis/Willingham if you're going to exonerate them later, and wait until the middle to end of the piece to reveal you have evidence that others did in fact break the rules. (notice there's no question mark at the end of my "question")
