I got a few emails and comments over the weekend that I thought I should share.
Turns out some folks didn't like what I had to say about Megan Hanson's letter to the Washington Post where she complained about the paper's coverage of the Women's NCAA Basketball Tournament: Here's Devin McCullen:
I think you're being a little over-the-top here, Eric. I'm sure if you asked the Post, they'd say it's their goal to provide their readers with the total sports coverage they want. If Megan finds them wanting, there's no reason she shouldn't criticize them. (Although the Mrs. Lovejoy approach is just as annoying as when it comes from Congress.)
And what about high-school coverage? Women's Hoops doesn't handle that (and can't be expected to), but I wouldn't be surprised if the Post's coverage is just as unbalanced at that level. If a newspaper (or website) isn't covering as much as they purport to, it's not unreasonable to criticize them. Your advice is good, but I think your criticism is stronger than the offense deserves.
Here's another reader:
1. She could do both.
2. She could use the long traditional method that newspapers have for registering disagreement with their stories. Oh wait, that's what she did.
3. In what part of the free market hand book does it outlaw a customer complaining to management in hopes that the particular business will change?
Points taken, but maybe I should go back to Megan's letter to the particular passage that set me off:
But I also hope that in the future Post editors will consider the message they are sending to budding female athletes by keeping coverage of women's basketball minimal and relegating it to the back pages.
This really got my goat -- she's seems to be arguing that female athletes are a bunch of shrinking violets, something I found out wasn't the case first hand when I first dove into sports writing 20 years ago when I covered the Women's team at Catholic University. Does she really believe that young girls are going to give up playing basketball because the Post gives the Women's NCAAs short shrift? That argument was simply ridiculous, and deserved to be treated as such.
And if you're looking for more extensive high school sports coverage, read the Washington Examiner, where high school coverage is as prominent as anything else in the sports section. One other note: Some readers seem to think I'm an unabashed fan of the Examiner -- and that's not the impression I meant to convey.
Marc Hoff thinks the NCAA gave the short stick to his alma mater, Cornell, when it came to the seedings the the Men's Division I Ice Hockey Tournament:
All righty. What does the NCAA 'Frozen Four' committee have against (my alma mater) Cornell?
#3 in the current uscho.com Division I poll, ECAC tournament champions, yet they do not receive a No. 1 seed. Their reward for not losing in 18 consecutive games is a No. 2 seed ... in the MINNEAPOLIS region. Why is that bad? Only 'cause the University of Minnesota is the No. 1, only playing on their home ice!!!
Meanwhile, the hated Hahvahd Crimson, who my beloved Big Red dispatched 3-1 last night in Albany, get to ride the bus to their regional, and play in front of lots of home snobs, er, fans in Amherst, Mass., as a No. 3 seed.
Apparently we need Gary Bettman, Cornell '74, to get a job on that committee once he's out of work.
Hmmm. I wonder who on the selection committee owed Ted Donato a favor?
Here's Beau Dure on my Harlem Globetrotters post:
Two things about the Globetrotters piece