(04-13-2017 07:41 PM)Buckyball Wrote: (04-13-2017 01:22 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote: (04-12-2017 06:08 PM)Buckyball Wrote: For the record, with respect to "ties" as wins: I believe the national golf publications that keep up with college golf statistics consider a tie for first as a "win" for statistical purposes, unless there specifically is a playoff. The only college tournament that has one of those for first place is the NCAA final. The regional NCAA tournament has a playoff but it is for the last spot as individual players into the NCAA final.
The same publications consider, for example, a five-way tie for fourth to be a 4th place finish, when player and team rankings are computed.
This differs from professional golf only in that the same five-way tie for fourth would have the players all able to claim a "top-five" finish, but they would split the total money designated for 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th place equally. Ties still have sometimes great significance in that the top 12 players (and ties) from the Masters get invited back to Augusta each year, along with the top 4 (and ties....) from the other majors. Likewise for the other tournaments.
In golf, kissing your sister is still pretty good.
Without checking, I don't doubt you could be right about that stuff. But the point is that the author(s) of the copy (and Kenny Hawkins, who by shocking coincidence, again, used **exactly** the same words in the same order as the ETSU release) were deliberately twisting the story to make it more ETSU-friendly *at the expense of both the truth and greater clarity and specificity*. On purpose.
No, the point of my post was exactly the opposite of story-twisting, in that the story was NOT twisted on the point of finishing first. When you finish tied for first in a college golf tournament, it's a win. The kid is considered winner. If the team finishes tied for first, it's considered a win. I read the written article and on that point it was factual. That was the point of my post.
On the rest of your point, I'd be inclined to give a 22 year old grad assistant a break for writing favorable copy before getting dinner, which I'm sure isn't steak.
Are you saying that a 22-yr. old grad student (who can't even distinguish between "match", "set", "game", and "point" for tennis purposes) knew this when he wrote the story? Extremely unlikely. As far as NCAA statistical purposes go, then OK, it's a win. But that's NOT the correct way to write the story. In ALL normal parlance, sports or otherwise, if you tie with somebody else, you *share* first place. Here was Furman's take on it ("
Harford Ties for First"):
Furman's version of tying for first place
And then they repeat that in the body of the story. The NCAA may consider that a "win", but the rest of the world, in standard parlance does not. It's simply incorrect. Math trumps NCAA.
FURTHERMORE..........this has been going on for DECADES - at least back to John Cathey - who was spewing that kind of crap (actually it was even worse, albeit sometimes colorful) before this grad student was even born.
Now, the SoCon has selected them as the "co-golfer and student-athlete of the week". Did she "win" that honor, or share it? They *shared* it - because they *shared* the title at the Brickyard.
Here's another comparison. Furman's body-of-the-story about it:
"
Harford and Loy share the league's weekly award after tying for medalist honors..."
ETSU's body-of-the-story version... They lead (first sentence) with "
For her first place finish....", but then further down they 'admit' that she shared that: "
In the most recent outing in Macon, Ga., Loy finished tied for first place....".
Which way of looking at things is more accurate? Furman's. Why spin things beyond the best, most *informative* way to represent them? What's wrong with saying that Loy "shared" both the title and co-player of the week honors? One can promote ETSU without diminishing the achievements of other competitors.
This kind of self-aggrandizement just leads to trouble. It's essentially taking a step towards dishonesty. It's not there, but it shows a disregard for representing the truth in the clearest manner.
FURTHER still, if we were going to "give [him] a break", then why did Mike White feel the need to make the corrections? It's simply a clear case of valuing self-promotion ahead of the best way to represent the truth. That's just wrong; it's LONG been corporate culture at the ETSU SID office, and I'd like to see it modified. The two, again, ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! You can pat yourself on the back a little bit without diluting the best way to represent the facts.
I'm kinda surprised Dick Sander is on board with this. (Maybe he's not.) He's pretty much a straight shooter. These types of releases don't (to me) seem to fit his way of being honest about stuff.