I'm working on a piece for the site for this week. Basic concept is that so many journalists covering the conference realignment stories just don't get it. Meaning, these are X's and O's guys, guys who write stories about players, drama of a program, etc. But I find that a very small few actually editorializing, actually get it. All too often it's bashing the idea of 16 school conferences without giving any true reason why...other than the perception that change is bad. Note that many of these writers claim 12 is perfect, stressing how it's good for rivalries, when as we know, 9 or 10 is ideal because it means every school players ever school every year...yet they think 12 is how it's supposed to be.
Meanwhile, these writers just don't have the business background nor inclination to accept that this is a multi-billion dollar industry we're talking about...and that like any business, wise financial decisions come first. Instead, many writers do what they can to pretend that it's not the world we live in, a disservice to their readers.
Anyways, I'm interested in everyone's take on writers out there.
I'd like to keep any names I mention in the article positive. So what I'm looking for are the guys who "get it". A prime example would be Jon Wilner. In addition to great and reliable sources, Jon gets the business of college sports.
So if you have any writers you like, please add them and their publication to this thread (if you know the publication). I don't care if it's a Northern Arizona Beat Writer for the Sedona Red Rock News. If they get it, if you like them, list them.
And if there are people in the media you cant' stand because they don't get it, you can feel free to mention them here. Think of this thread as group therepy.