I commend LetsRun for looking into this (and keeping it in the forefront). I appreciate that you're making an effort to generate original content (do more of it).
That said, if you're looking for feedback I take issue with a few things.
"we think it’s important that Delta tell the running world what happened at this year’s meets, particularly the D1 champs (if they offer a mea cupla and offer to do next year’s meet for free, maybe they could be forgiven)."
What a timing company charges the NCAA is irrelevant. For one it's probably peanuts in the whole scheme of things. Two, it's not our money.
I'm sure (like most things) there's a bid process for this and the NCAA determines that the lowest price bid (that is proficient enough to meet their requirements) is selected. The only thing that should determine whether a timing company is allowed to work in the future should be whether the meet organizers think they are competent. We (public) don't need an explanation (it would be good PR though), but the NCAA better get one.
"When I heard Delta was going to time the championships back in August, I knew there was going to be problems. In fact, I was talking to *Name Removed* on Monday morning Nov. 12, because he was asking me what I knew about the problems Delta had at the Regionals. I didn’t know anything about those issues, but I said something to *Name Removed* like, “Thank God I’m going to be *Distance Removed* miles away from Louisville this weekend because its going to be a mess.” "
Printing something like this is pretty shady IMO. There are no real facts here. You're basically allowing a competitor to have an anonymous voice to discredit a competitor. I have no stake in this, but I know from business experience that it's easy to point out flaws in others work. That in itself isn't bad (if they're justified), but there's a right way to do it.