my biggest issue with this whole thing is the assertion that craven is any good at writing. i'm pretty interested in the little intricacies and behind-the-scenes aspects of the sport, and yet i couldn't get into the piece.
moreover, allow me to critique his disclaimer, copied and pasted here:
"Note: This article is nothing more than my own observations from as subjective of an outlook as I can provide. Unfortunately I never climbed higher on the totem pole than eighth man, but I still felt every bit apart of the great tradition that the Wisconsin Badgers represented. Some former Badgers might disagree with me on this little hypothesis, however I’d like to present my opinion regardless as I feel it is a very valid one.)"
as subjective an outlook as he can provide? perhaps he means objective? or is he just cleverly covering himself for having extreme bias? all it takes to be as subjective as possible is be very self-referential and actively discussing one's bias.
he felt "apart" of the great tradition? of course he did, because he was not in the top 7. hence he was apart not a part. clever again.
bringing it home by saying that his own opinion is valid, subjectivity indeed.
funny when folks on this board are being nitpicky about solinsky's use of "drug" and glance right over these glaring grammatical errors by craven.
heavy is the head THE wears the crown? specious use of an ellipsis? where are all the a-holes usually here on the board. you can't have it both ways.
let's at least get objectivity on the cogency and grammatical correctness of arguments from each side.