justAthought

LiltillerSDHS Lol, don't worry. I plan on writing the paper about it. I'm just getting outside opinions first. I never said Baylor killed Soddy. I thought Soddy had won. I'm just tired of reading a biased paper. This isn't the only time it's happened, and i wish it would stop. How did i down play winesburgh? He didn't pin in 19 seconds. See, now I know about the quote's reference. Thanks.

I just finished reading the article about the Soddy Daisy Tournament entitled: "Baylor Holds of Trojans for Title" Given the fact it was a great tournament with close matches this title seems appropriate. The picture, however, containing the caption “Soddy-Daisy’s Jason McCoskey, looks at the score as he finishes off Mike Bell” does not. Baylor won, but they show a picture of a Soddy person “finishing off” Bell. McCrosky wasn’t finishing him off; he was barely beating a wrestler that has twice beat him in the past, and one who also began the week with salmonella poisoning. Ok, so being a Baylor athlete in another sport who constantly has felt a bit under appreciated by the paper, I guess you could say I’m being a bit sensitive. Here is what I saw: To begin the article and set the tone the author states that “Baylor came out on top – just barely.” The writer then goes on to say “Baylor survived the Soddy Daisy Invitational – and primarily Soddy-Daisy— by a slim 8.5 point.” Personally I don’t think “survival” was a true concern. It was close, but they still won. Half way down the page the article gives Baylor credit by saying they “did well.” The author preempts this, however, with “despite the losses to Soddy Daisy.” The writer goes on to quote Morgan, referring to a “wake up call” and “a competition to be learned from.” One would almost forget that Baylor, even on a bad day, came out on top. Our winners were then quickly listed, with the author giving credit to Waddell as OW. Highlighted were Downey and Wes Stroud, who did well. The quotes used, however, remind the reader that Downey hasn’t placed into a tourney yet and Wes shocked people. The writer makes these wins sound like chance occurrences. To further this tone, the author uses quotes from Soddy’s coach which discuss the fact that Soddy had a tri-meet Friday night. As stated, “The kids came off a tough physical and emotional night to get here this morning at 6:30 and still performed very well.” For the record: every wrestler that planned on competing that day had to arrive at 6:30 and Baylor had a tri-meet Friday as well as a meet on Thursday. In discussing the finals the writer claims that McCrosky lost in a 7-4 “scramble” against Usary. McCrosky’s scramble was with Bell… Usary won. When discussing Manson, the article downplays his unbeaten record and state title by claiming he “just barely got past” Buchanan. I was there… Manson was not about to lose. The other finals matches that the writer highlights rather than listing surprisingly included Soddy rather than Baylor wins. The writer discusses Winesburgh’s pin and says it occurs in 19 seconds… try with 19 seconds left after Hussein held the kid for a minute. To follow with a boast, the author discusses Doster’s loss, reminding the reader that “Toney also beat a Red Raider” I realize that the Soddy wrestlers had nothing to do with this, and neither did their coach. I personally feel that the Times has on more than one occasion and more than one sport either exploited or downplayed Baylor’s losses and wins. What these writers need to remember is that the athletes participating care about the city paper. They work hard for their success and look forward to support from the community. Though Baylor won this tournament, the wrestlers were overlooked, under appreciated, or even worse exploited for losses that don’t come often. Baylor should be proud of their win. The article was surely a disappointment. These are just my opinions, but I was there during that tournament. Those guys worked for more than that paper gave them credit for. JustAThought