-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter OhioTrojan
- Start date
BUCKYLE;1321641; said:
They increase drag therefor slowing northern players down, but they do improve the stiffarm.
Upvote
0
OT wrote:
Jouranlists get crucified for wrong facts!
Before you draw conclusions from information, you need to verify the accuracy of the facts you present.
For example:
The Pac 10 has 5 teams with winning records.
The Big 10 has 6 teams with winning records.
The Big 12 has 7 teams with winning records.
The Pac 10 has 5 teams with winning records.
Your conclusion loses any credibility when the data you use to justify it is later proved to be skewed whether intentionally or by careless fact finding..
Jouranlists get crucified for wrong facts!
Before you draw conclusions from information, you need to verify the accuracy of the facts you present.
For example:
The Pac 10 has 5 teams with winning records.
The Big 10 has 6 teams with winning records.
The Big 12 has 7 teams with winning records.
The Pac 10 has 5 teams with winning records.
Your conclusion loses any credibility when the data you use to justify it is later proved to be skewed whether intentionally or by careless fact finding..
Upvote
0
fourteenandoh
My swing feels like an unfolding lawn chair.
Mr_Burns;1321651; said:That sounds just like something a neanderthal would say.
come on dude, you spelled it wrong. it's neandrethal.
also, the queso sauce at q-doba is fantastic. i agree. their breakfast burritos are the best.
Upvote
0
Mr_Burns;1321651; said:That sounds just like something a neanderthal would say.
Duh, you mean neandrethal.
Chow.
Upvote
0
generaladm
Legend
So, is the Big ten not that bad, but not that good? You were unclear on that.
Sarcasm aside, if you really want constructive criticism on your writing, this piece read like a first draft. The thoughts were mostly disjointed, some needless repetition, and, in some cases, the evidence you cited as support for your argument was only superficially relative. Go back and read it over a few times. It may help to print a copy, and highlight the passages that stand out as needing work. I would also suggest doing a great deal more research. Your conclusions suggest that you have only looked at OSU and the B10 over the last two years. This year's seniors were already 2-3 years into their college careers prior to that span; think about that for a moment. A couple points I disagree with you on are Pryor being "the sole reason that the Buckeyes will be relevant for the next few years on the national scene" (suggests you don't know much about the whole roster), and "and beat (insert flash in the pan Big 10 team of the year here)" (suggests that you are unaware of the hisory of other B10 teams). If you are going to comment on the current state of something (in this case B10 football), it's always a good idea to give at least a little bit of historical perspective. Also, the random comments about other conferences and the Heisman race only detracted from the cohesiveness of the piece. That could be easily remedied by organizing the points about the stated subject in a logical manner, and separating the unrelated thoughts at the very end (many writers include a "random thoughts" section at the end of their articles).
If you're serious about becoming a sportswriter, just keep working at it. As I said earlier, research is a huge part of it. Next time you watch a game, pay attention to how many times the commentators reference a player, past game, strategy, etc. that you are unfamiliar with. That should tell you how much research is required, and how those people got the job. The other major advice I would give is to work on your "flow". A good article (no matter what the subject) should have a logical beginning, middle, and end, and should lead the reader effortlessly through to the conclusion. There are some prescribed methods on how to achieve that (the book The Elements of Style, most notably), but you can always take articles by writers you like, and analyze them. I get the sense that you are tyring for a more humerous style. I would recommend Tony Gerdeman at the-ozone.net, Matt Hinton at rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday (and formerly of sundaymorningquarterback.com - a great site), and Spencer Hall of sportingnews.com (and, as Orson Swindle, at everydayshouldbesaturday.com). I would also recommend reading the game previews here on BP (click the "Home" link on the toolbar), and searching for the more substantial posts by the contributing members. You can go to their profiles and search for their "awared posts" under the statistics tab. Hope that gives you some fod for thought.
Sarcasm aside, if you really want constructive criticism on your writing, this piece read like a first draft. The thoughts were mostly disjointed, some needless repetition, and, in some cases, the evidence you cited as support for your argument was only superficially relative. Go back and read it over a few times. It may help to print a copy, and highlight the passages that stand out as needing work. I would also suggest doing a great deal more research. Your conclusions suggest that you have only looked at OSU and the B10 over the last two years. This year's seniors were already 2-3 years into their college careers prior to that span; think about that for a moment. A couple points I disagree with you on are Pryor being "the sole reason that the Buckeyes will be relevant for the next few years on the national scene" (suggests you don't know much about the whole roster), and "and beat (insert flash in the pan Big 10 team of the year here)" (suggests that you are unaware of the hisory of other B10 teams). If you are going to comment on the current state of something (in this case B10 football), it's always a good idea to give at least a little bit of historical perspective. Also, the random comments about other conferences and the Heisman race only detracted from the cohesiveness of the piece. That could be easily remedied by organizing the points about the stated subject in a logical manner, and separating the unrelated thoughts at the very end (many writers include a "random thoughts" section at the end of their articles).
If you're serious about becoming a sportswriter, just keep working at it. As I said earlier, research is a huge part of it. Next time you watch a game, pay attention to how many times the commentators reference a player, past game, strategy, etc. that you are unfamiliar with. That should tell you how much research is required, and how those people got the job. The other major advice I would give is to work on your "flow". A good article (no matter what the subject) should have a logical beginning, middle, and end, and should lead the reader effortlessly through to the conclusion. There are some prescribed methods on how to achieve that (the book The Elements of Style, most notably), but you can always take articles by writers you like, and analyze them. I get the sense that you are tyring for a more humerous style. I would recommend Tony Gerdeman at the-ozone.net, Matt Hinton at rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday (and formerly of sundaymorningquarterback.com - a great site), and Spencer Hall of sportingnews.com (and, as Orson Swindle, at everydayshouldbesaturday.com). I would also recommend reading the game previews here on BP (click the "Home" link on the toolbar), and searching for the more substantial posts by the contributing members. You can go to their profiles and search for their "awared posts" under the statistics tab. Hope that gives you some fod for thought.
Upvote
0
If calling Tim Tebow "Teabag" doesn't sceam "I'm a legit columnist" I don't know what does. This piece changed my life.
Thanks, Trojan.
Thanks, Trojan.
Upvote
0