It's a newspaper, so they're going to report what they consider news. The hearing is news, no way around it. It was also expected that Lang/Davis would rear its ugly head after the (another awkwardly-reasoned) decision by the COA. That said, if the PS cares what its readers are thinking, there is much that can be done to improve. For starters:
1- What's with all the redundancy? Pick a place to post your 'investigation' article and go with it. We don't need to see the same content in every single SU sports category. FB, BB ... alright already. If your reasoning is that the hearing covers two sports, then write it once and provide a link in the other section. Posting the full article repetitively just crowds out other information and tries readers' patience (trust me on this);
2- Stop waiting until BB season starts, or the NCAA's are about to begin, to flood the sports section with scandal pieces. Not only is it annoying, it's downright suspicious. Since scandals don't just happen in October and March, publishing a spate of accusatory "reports" at these peak interest points creates the impression that hits, not contemporaneous reporting, are your real goal;
3- What's with the hyper-attention given to controversial subjects? Yes, we get it. There's a hearing. You don't need all hands on deck to regurgitate "timelines" of every recent accusation leveled at the University, links to probation 25 years ago, etc... You'd think EBOLA had hit the MELO center -- the attention is more spectacular than the issue. Eventually, of course, the NCAA will rule on the seriousness of SU's academic compliance missteps. Until then, no matter what happened with Fab or James, give it a rest. If you're genuinely concerned about systemic institutional fraud in the ACC, fly south;
4- Stop quoting Yahoo as a source. They're out to burn SU and your readership doesn't give a hoot what they "report". Their animus towards the 'Cuse is obvious, beginning with their attack pieces at the tale end of the penn state saga. At that time, anxious to ride the last waves of Sanduski hysteria (i.e., ratings), Yahoo dispatched Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to central NY for the ostensible purpose of investigating Lang/Davis. It wasn't long before a broader, more hateful, plan became apparent -- dig up dirt on SU and throw it to sell advertising. They were trying to fry us any way possible, as we saw with the hatchet job they did on the "drug scandal". Knowledgeable readers who read that particular piece of "journalism" will remember that the author's accusations boiled down to ONE player who supposedly failed several tests and still played (no time line was reported). Along the way, however, they misunderstood SU's policy, engaged in speculation and hyperbole, attempted to drag JB through the mud without justification (drug tests were reported to JC, not JB), etc.. etc.. The only thing "multiple" about the drug scandal was Yahoo's unfounded accusations. Their "work" on Lang Davis was similarly slanted and sensationalized. So in the future, I'd rather see you cite the national inquirer.
