Dumb A** Bleacher Report

[Charlie NT 73]

Article on the Bleacher Report, "2010 Non-BCS Conference Profiles: Sun Belt Conference

http://bleacherreport.com/sun-belt-football

Check out North Texas RB, "Lamar Dunbar", who is mentioned twice in the story.

Geez! One of the very best RB's in the country and the Bleacher Report

cannot report Dunbar's name correctly!

IMHO, this article confirms to me the Bleacher Report is about as useful as screen doors on a submarine.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Bleacher Report certainly has low standards in several respects, but the quality of the articles can be hit-and-miss. Some here don't like him, but Tobi Writes' articles in the Bleacher Report demonstrate a knowledge of Mean Green football as good as, or maybe better than, anyone else covering them.

[All About UNT]

Bleacher Report certainly has low standards in several respects, but the quality of the articles can be hit-and-miss. Some here don't like him, but Tobi Writes' articles in the Bleacher Report demonstrate a knowledge of Mean Green football as good as, or maybe better than, anyone else covering them.

I agree....anytime Tobi writes I am paying attention to what he is saying.

[cwb]

Article on the Bleacher Report, "2010 Non-BCS Conference Profiles: Sun Belt Conference

http://bleacherrepor...n-belt-football

Check out North Texas RB, "Lamar Dunbar", who is mentioned twice in the story.

Geez! One of the very best RB's in the country and the Bleacher Report

cannot report Dunbar's name correctly!

IMHO, this article confirms to me the Bleacher Report is about as useful as screen doors on a submarine.

They keep the fish out.

[TheTastyGreek]

They keep the fish out.

Without stopping the breeze!

What's the problem again?

[KRAM1]

You would, however, think Tobi could get the name of UNT's excellent running back correct. That seems like such an easy thing for someone who "demonstrates a knowledge of Mean Green football as good as, or maybe better than, anyone else covering them". Just saying...I do think Charlie NT73 has a point. Getting Lance Dunbar's name incorrect certainly does not add credence to the good work that Tobi can do. Sort of makes one "ignore" or write-off the Bleacher Report. Like Vito or not, he would probably never make this type of mistake. If you know the Mean Green at all, you know it is not "Lamar". Just a typo perhaps?????

EDIT...thanks to Mean Green 93-98....I stand corrected...Tobi did not write the article in question. My apologies to Tobi....the thing was written by one Asher Feldman. Missed that...it's just that most everything I read from the Bleacher Report is written by Tobi. I just passed the author of this one right by. I would imagine that Tobi would NOT have made this mistake.

OK, public apology done. Again, thanks Mean Green 93-98.

Edited July 22, 2010 by KRAM1

[Mean Green 93-98]

You would, however, think Tobi could get the name of UNT's excellent running back correct. That seems like such an easy thing for someone who "demonstrates a knowledge of Mean Green football as good as, or maybe better than, anyone else covering them". Just saying...I do think Charlie NT73 has a point. Getting Lance Dunbar's name incorrect certainly does not add credence to the good work that Tobi can do. Sort of makes one "ignore" or write-off the Bleacher Report. Like Vito or not, he would probably never make this type of mistake. If you know the Mean Green at all, you know it is not "Lamar". Just a typo perhaps?????

Tobi didn't write that.

[KRAM1]

Tobi didn't write that.

OK, let me go back and have another read. I certainly do not want to credit it to the wrong person. I'll take another look-see...appreciate the note.

EDIT: You are correct, sir. See "public apology" to Tobi in my original post. Thanks.

Edited July 22, 2010 by KRAM1

[GrandGreen]

I like the bleacher report. It does cover the Mean Green well. No, I don't agree with a lot of the opinions like the article supporting NT joining the WAC. Complaining about grammar, spelling and incorrect names is silly. Did you understand the article? This is the Internet and a lot of the coverage comes without the benefit of significant proof reading. By the way a lot of printed magazine and newspaper articles have the same issues. Like it or not; the emphasis is more on content and volume than correctness in the digital world.

Loose instead of lose bothers me, but not has much as people who oppose views by attacking typos, spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. in lieu of logically expressing a counter position.

Edited July 22, 2010 by GrandGreen

[VideoEagle]

I like the bleacher report. It does cover the Mean Green well. No, I don't agree with a lot of the opinions like the article supporting NT joining the WAC. Complaining about grammar, spelling and incorrect names is silly. Did you understand the article? This is the Internet and a lot of the coverage comes without the benefit of significant proof reading. By the way a lot of printed magazine and newspaper articles have the same issues. Like it or not; the emphasis is more on content and volume than correctness in the digital world.

Loose instead of lose bothers me, but not has much as people who oppose views by attacking typos, spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. in lieu of logically expressing a counter position.

Wow. So facts and anything at approaches accuracy should give way to "volume" and "content." Of course that "content" is utterly devoid of reality but there is a lot of volume. That "content" also must exclude any sort of logic or fact-based reasoning as well.

If a so called writer lacks even the most basic desire to appear literate and doesn't even bother read what he scrawled onto a page, why is there any reason to assign any value to his drivel?

Name a functioning magazine or newspaper or legitimate news website with the a spelling, grammar or factual error at the Bleacher Reports usual rate one every third sentence.

I can't think of a single reason to read, much less believe, anything appearing in The Bleacher Report.

[UNT90]

Wow. So facts and anything at approaches accuracy should give way to "volume" and "content." Of course that "content" is utterly devoid of reality but there is a lot of volume. That "content" also must exclude any sort of logic or fact-based reasoning as well.

If a so called writer lacks even the most basic desire to appear literate and doesn't even bother read what he scrawled onto a page, why is there any reason to assign any value to his drivel?

Name a functioning magazine or newspaper or legitimate news website with the a spelling, grammar or factual error at the Bleacher Reports usual rate one every third sentence.

I can't think of a single reason to read, much less believe, anything appearing in The Bleacher Report.

I agree. How can you trust the research on the content when the writer is so lazy as not to use grammar and spell check? That kind of lets you know the motivation of the writer, don't ya think?

But, it is only college sports. It's not like they are reporting on world war... or global warming...

Edited July 22, 2010 by UNT90

[Mean Green 93-98]

Wow. So facts and anything at approaches accuracy should give way to "volume" and "content." Of course that "content" is utterly devoid of reality but there is a lot of volume. That "content" also must exclude any sort of logic or fact-based reasoning as well.

If a so called writer lacks even the most basic desire to appear literate and doesn't even bother read what he scrawled onto a page, why is there any reason to assign any value to his drivel?

Name a functioning magazine or newspaper or legitimate news website with the a spelling, grammar or factual error at the Bleacher Reports usual rate one every third sentence.

I can't think of a single reason to read, much less believe, anything appearing in The Bleacher Report.

Okay, I understand that the spelling and grammar may rarely exceed the level of what we find on gmg.com. But "utterly devoid of reality"? C'mon. That's at least hyperbole, if not slander. Here is one of Tobi Writes' articles for Bleacher Report. You may not agree with his conclusions, but where is the factual error?

[GrandGreen]

Wow. So facts and anything at approaches accuracy should give way to "volume" and "content." Of course that "content" is utterly devoid of reality but there is a lot of volume. That "content" also must exclude any sort of logic or fact-based reasoning as well.

If a so called writer lacks even the most basic desire to appear literate and doesn't even bother read what he scrawled onto a page, why is there any reason to assign any value to his drivel?

Name a functioning magazine or newspaper or legitimate news website with the a spelling, grammar or factual error at the Bleacher Reports usual rate one every third sentence.

I can't think of a single reason to read, much less believe, anything appearing in The Bleacher Report.

Well, don't read it, pretty simple.

[sportscycle]

Just an interesting addition to this thread:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=teamreports-2010-ncaaf-nnp

It's not just Bleacher Report that makes mistakes. Give this article a break.

[Green P1]

BleacherReport.com can has cheezburger?

fail

[Quoner]

You get what you pay for. No sense bitching about free content unless something egregious pops up.

EDIT: That said, there are plenty of people doing it for free, doing it well and doing it with care. Look at the articles and podcasts on this very site. You vote with page views (unless you can find a questionable Facebook photo of Tobi Writes; then it's open season).

Edited August 11, 2010 by Quoner

[forevereagle]

I think that we can all be upset that we never got to see an article about Tom Teabag or Jordan Shapely.