This idea of "leveling the competitive playing field" is somewhat overstated. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with two distinctive business models and there can never be a true "level field" between an internet retailer and a brick-and-mortar retailer. Each offers it's own distinct advantages to the consumer, and it's up to the consumer to weigh such advantages. Sometimes, a consumer may favor the brick-and-mortar's ability to offer a tangible purchasing experience and the instant gratification that comes with walking out of the store with the product upon checkout. Other times, the consumer may prefer to forfeit the instant gratification a physical shopping experience offers in favor of a discounted price of the digital experience.
Brick-and-mortar retailers will never be able to compete with internet sales on price, as this is the nature and distinction of the two business models. Internet retailers typically experience much lower overhead and associated costs. But brick-and-mortar types can offset this with a real shopping experience that internet retailers can never produce.
Clearly, the sales tax advantage enjoyed by some internet retailers in certain states widens the profit margin, and a streamlined sales tax agreement would mitigate that margin somewhat. But brick-and-mortar stores will forever experience smaller margins on retail sales vs. their internet competitors.
Additionally, the article implies that internet retailers are, or would be, opposed to a streamlined agreement. I think it's important to note that the now local internet giant, Amazon.com, has supported the streamlined sales tax project since it's inception in 2000. The implication above is that Amazon.com has actively lobbied Washington to prevent such legislation, and this is not true. Amazon and others recognized a decade ago the long-term solution to be a streamlined sales tax, and they have actively held this position in D.C. since.
"while UT has three total commitments, including one that isn’t rated by Rivals."
Stephen, I think it may be prudent to note that the "one that isn't rated by Rivals" is a 4* on ESPN and the #16 OLB in the country. A prospect that has not been rated on Rivals means that prospect hasn't been evaluated by Rivals staff, not that the prospect was found unworthy of any ranking.
Assuming that you're aware of how Rivals rankings work, you would know this. As such, I think it would be prudent to include another source that has evaluated the prospect (such as ESPN). Your failure to do this leaves the impression that the omission was intentional and the evidence inconvenient to your agenda in this piece. Does not appear too objective and thorough which is a shame for the TFP. This type of writing is more on the Tennessean's level and it is disappointing.
I realize that you do not pick your own headlines, Mr. Greeson, but this one is EXPLICITLY MISLEADING. For your editor to describe the occurrences of secondary violations as "on a record pace" is not only blatantly false, but indeed irresponsible. The CTFP staff would have to do very little in the way of actual research (of a kind other than poaching and assuming stories from espn.com's college football front page) to realize that Kiffin's string of violations is hardly at a record pace.
In '05-'06, the Oklahoma Sooners reported 46 secondary violations. As we know, Kiffin began his tenure December, and by my quick math that figures to be an average (how one might actually measure "pace") of less than one violation per month. Obviously, at this so-called "record pace," Kiffin would have to continue at such a pace for another 40 months. That means Kiffin would be in his 4th season at the helm by the time he equaled the '05-'06 effort by Bob Stoops & Co.
While I realize it is a slow time of the year for sports journalists and editors covering college football, one would hope this would not lead to a pattern of immature and irresponsible behavior on the part of the Times Free Press staff. This seems ESPECIALLY discouraging considering the chief aim of the article was to highlight the irresponsible behavior of another. As such, we can add "hypocritical" to the growing list of adjectives appropriately describing this effort by Mr. Greeson & friends.
Here's an idea for a story: Instead of writing carbon copy articles that are obviously a result of haphazard perusal of Chris Low's SEC blog and AL.com, why don't you try doing something refreshing and new? Why don't you take these stories about Kiffin's secondary violation (that have been EVERYWHERE, mind you, and already beaten into the ground) and see how the ACTUALLY stack up against other programs in the conference? Perhaps the country? Is original thought discouraged by your editors or were you simply pressed for deadline?
I'm not saying the TFP needs to jump up and down defense of Kiffin. Just be honest in your reporting. If, through research, you discovered this was actually a "record pace" then provide evidence to such a claim. With such a headline as employed above, given the circumstances, it is obvious that you have reneged on your responsibility as a news source to report HONESTLY. After you do that, nothing else you produce matters much.
Bill Haslam’s Internet mission
This idea of "leveling the competitive playing field" is somewhat overstated. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with two distinctive business models and there can never be a true "level field" between an internet retailer and a brick-and-mortar retailer. Each offers it's own distinct advantages to the consumer, and it's up to the consumer to weigh such advantages. Sometimes, a consumer may favor the brick-and-mortar's ability to offer a tangible purchasing experience and the instant gratification that comes with walking out of the store with the product upon checkout. Other times, the consumer may prefer to forfeit the instant gratification a physical shopping experience offers in favor of a discounted price of the digital experience.
Brick-and-mortar retailers will never be able to compete with internet sales on price, as this is the nature and distinction of the two business models. Internet retailers typically experience much lower overhead and associated costs. But brick-and-mortar types can offset this with a real shopping experience that internet retailers can never produce.
Clearly, the sales tax advantage enjoyed by some internet retailers in certain states widens the profit margin, and a streamlined sales tax agreement would mitigate that margin somewhat. But brick-and-mortar stores will forever experience smaller margins on retail sales vs. their internet competitors.
Additionally, the article implies that internet retailers are, or would be, opposed to a streamlined agreement. I think it's important to note that the now local internet giant, Amazon.com, has supported the streamlined sales tax project since it's inception in 2000. The implication above is that Amazon.com has actively lobbied Washington to prevent such legislation, and this is not true. Amazon and others recognized a decade ago the long-term solution to be a streamlined sales tax, and they have actively held this position in D.C. since.
Hargis: Vandy has recruiting edge on UT
Stephen, I think it may be prudent to note that the "one that isn't rated by Rivals" is a 4* on ESPN and the #16 OLB in the country. A prospect that has not been rated on Rivals means that prospect hasn't been evaluated by Rivals staff, not that the prospect was found unworthy of any ranking.
Assuming that you're aware of how Rivals rankings work, you would know this. As such, I think it would be prudent to include another source that has evaluated the prospect (such as ESPN). Your failure to do this leaves the impression that the omission was intentional and the evidence inconvenient to your agenda in this piece. Does not appear too objective and thorough which is a shame for the TFP. This type of writing is more on the Tennessean's level and it is disappointing.
Perhaps you were pressed for time.
Greeson: Kiffin is on record pace in violations
I realize that you do not pick your own headlines, Mr. Greeson, but this one is EXPLICITLY MISLEADING. For your editor to describe the occurrences of secondary violations as "on a record pace" is not only blatantly false, but indeed irresponsible. The CTFP staff would have to do very little in the way of actual research (of a kind other than poaching and assuming stories from espn.com's college football front page) to realize that Kiffin's string of violations is hardly at a record pace.
In '05-'06, the Oklahoma Sooners reported 46 secondary violations. As we know, Kiffin began his tenure December, and by my quick math that figures to be an average (how one might actually measure "pace") of less than one violation per month. Obviously, at this so-called "record pace," Kiffin would have to continue at such a pace for another 40 months. That means Kiffin would be in his 4th season at the helm by the time he equaled the '05-'06 effort by Bob Stoops & Co.
While I realize it is a slow time of the year for sports journalists and editors covering college football, one would hope this would not lead to a pattern of immature and irresponsible behavior on the part of the Times Free Press staff. This seems ESPECIALLY discouraging considering the chief aim of the article was to highlight the irresponsible behavior of another. As such, we can add "hypocritical" to the growing list of adjectives appropriately describing this effort by Mr. Greeson & friends.
Here's an idea for a story: Instead of writing carbon copy articles that are obviously a result of haphazard perusal of Chris Low's SEC blog and AL.com, why don't you try doing something refreshing and new? Why don't you take these stories about Kiffin's secondary violation (that have been EVERYWHERE, mind you, and already beaten into the ground) and see how the ACTUALLY stack up against other programs in the conference? Perhaps the country? Is original thought discouraged by your editors or were you simply pressed for deadline?
I'm not saying the TFP needs to jump up and down defense of Kiffin. Just be honest in your reporting. If, through research, you discovered this was actually a "record pace" then provide evidence to such a claim. With such a headline as employed above, given the circumstances, it is obvious that you have reneged on your responsibility as a news source to report HONESTLY. After you do that, nothing else you produce matters much.