Mariotti says media not fit to vote

Would have been the two shortest phone calls I ever received, met by the same explanation before a dial tone -- "none of your business."

 

Blind squirrel, acorn.

It's always safe to assume anything and everything Mariotti says is 99.9999997% full of shit.

He happens to be vaguely right in this case but it's certainly not due to any particular ethical insight, factual knowledge or moral credibility on his part.


The FIRST requirement to vote for any award would always have to be the voter's commitment to vote fairly and impartially on each case, disregarding personal prejudices, which means of course fucking Jay Mariotti could never be allowed to vote for any fucking award, ever.

 

I really don't see what the big deal in media voting for awards. There's no ethics being violated, as long as the media members are doing it right.
I get everyone's pissed about Cushing. Was he the best defensive rookie in the NFL this year? Yep. Did he do PED? Yep. Does it say in the DROY voting that the player who wins can't? Nope.
Everyone's jumping on their high horse about this and they need to calm ...the ... fuck...down.

 

That's different. Every paper has a clear division between advertising and editorial. So advertising at a ballpark is no problem.

An reporter casting a ballot that could mean a major award for a coach/team/player he covers is -- to some -- a conflict of interest.

I mean we have people here worrying whether they should pull some accident victim out of the road before he is hit by a semi because, well, we're supposed to be observers.

Yet, that person will happily vote for the Heisman trophy or player of the year or whatever.

 

When players are receiving bonus money for these awards, they better be taken seriously. I personally could care less but it seems like a conflict to me when fanboy beat writers are voting on these things.

If you're are going to have a vote you should also be willing to defend that vote. The fact Mizzou changed his vote because he didn't want to have to explain it is evidence enough that writers should not be voting. Some might say Mizzou just having a vote would be enough evidence.

 

What makes a beat writer voting for an award a fanboy?
And if you vote honestly, why should you have to defend it to someone who doesn't agree with you?

 

Wow, I tell a personal anecdote as it pertains to the thread and I get a personal attack. I'd expect nothing less from JC.

 

Lighten up, Zou. That was a funny.

 

Isn't there a rule in baseball (or maybe it's football) now contractually banning bonuses for awards voted on, by the media?

How about in the Mariotti column how he brags about trying to get Cowley taken off the beat? Mr. Ethics. He doesn't tell about how he personally warred with half the writers at that paper and tried to get them fired, or not hired in the first place.

 

I would say the majority aren't, but you can't tell me that there aren't any.

If you vote honestly and knowledgeably you should have no problem explaining your vote.

 

From someone else, I would agree. Not from that prick.