Picking on Sports Writers

I am not particularly fond of sports writers nowadays. In my hierarchy of favorite things, they rank slightly above disease, visits to the dentist, and terrorism. It's not that I don't like sports or reading [anyone who knows me, knows that I love both]. And it's not that I've grown tired of reading about the Cowboys' failures in clutch situations [because while painful, it's also true]. It's that their writing is so bland, so un-insightful, so obvious, so outlandish, so unfunny, so tedious and cliche', that they systematically destroy two things I love in a mere 600 words. They should not be called sport writers, because they do many things, but writing is not one of them. They have earned a different title. The term "douchebag" comes to mind.

Let me clarify quickly. I am not including people like David Halberstam or H.G. Bissinger or Michael Lewis in this group of despised sports writers. My anger is directed toward the weekly columnists, who write their articles once or twice a week, and yet never seem to have anything to say. I hate 99% of sports journalists [cnnsi writer Jeff Pearlman is a rare exception] for many reasons, but the two below are the most pressing.

Reason #1: Sports writers are never held accountable for their predictions, claims, etc, and are then paid for said predictions. It infuriates me when after week 1, a writer will say that team so-and-so looks "super bowl bound", or that they're "the team to beat right now." Really? You know all that after one week? You completely grasp the potential and character of a team after one week, and can already predict how the season will turn out, even though there is no way to account for injuries? You must, because after all, you wrote it, then put your name at the bottom. But seriously, really? I guess that explains why you're a sports writer. These are the same people who anointed Matt Barkley "one of the greatest freshman quarterbacks of all time" after his win at Ohio State [the same Matt Barkley who lost four games this year, and who put up rather pedestrian numbers in the process]. The same people who will call a team unstoppable one week and then hopeless the next. Who will call T.O. 'matured' in one article and a 'cancer' in another. Sometimes, when they've scavenged the sports world for stories and not found any, they talk about the psychology of the game [makes me nauseous], and how someone is a true competitor [are there such things as false competitors?], and that a player has a "will to win." They are consistently inconsistent, if nothing else. I have figured out the pattern that your syndicated sports writer follows, and I am here to share it with you. They make sensational claims [to attract readers], and when those claims don't pan out [which they usually don't], they keep on making newer, even more ridiculous claims [which they're never held to answer for], and then when one of their rocks launched into the darkness actually hits something, they refer to it endlessly [for credibility with their new, laughable claims] and proclaim their own brilliance.

Reason #2: The funny/original opinion piece, reserved for the 'senior' or well-respected columnists of the sports realm. This is specifically directed at Rick Reilly and Bill Simmons, and any other writer who is convinced they are clever, and worst of all, funny. In these articles, you can expect to be hit with one-liner after one-liner. "Tiger Woods drives a golf ball better than a Cadillac." Or maybe, "the game was so shocking, it felt like I was watching Janet Jackson at halftime all over again." It makes me angry just writing those. I read sports articles, *gasp*, to read about sports. Not to be impressed with your pop culture references, or to read your practice for a stand-up routine. I want to read interviews that I can't get, or stories that are only told in locker rooms. What makes it even more unbearable are the short, formulaic endings at the end of each piece. As you read it, you are left with an empty, hopeless feeling in your stomach, especially because you know that Reilly or Simmons wanted to applaud themselves for their ingenious ending to a masterful blending of comedy and sports. For an article on Tiger Woods [which both men have written], it would end with something like "After all, that's par for the course." For Lance Armstrong, it would be "...a man who has shown the ability to do anything. Except quit." It's painfully uncreative. Agonizing also comes to mind.

I ask any sports writer who may be reading this to remember a few things. You are here to write about sports. More specifically, to write about what happened, the inside information from coaches and players, and your 'expertise' occasionally as well. It's ok to admit that you don't know who's going to win it all at the beginning of the season, because then, even though you can't write, you're still being honest. And honesty, in any situation, is a homerun.

*Vomit.