Newsweek's Starr needs a proctologist

It must be nice. It must be nice to be a national sports writer who delves occasionally into whichever sport topic you feel you're qualified to discuss. Yesterday, Newsweek senior editor and Boston bureau chief Mark Starr wrote that the Big Ten is basically worse than the MAC since the 2007 BCS National Championship Game. Ok, so those weren't his exact words, but he definitely gave that impression.

Actually, I'm not too upset with what he said–I'm not going to repeat his words, they were too pathetic. Any college football writer could have said those things about the Big Ten, and sure, I would have been mad, but I'd still respect his or her opinion. That's not the case with this no-so-star Starr.

Now, I ask the man directly...

Where do you get off, mister "I'm a big-time writer, so I'm qualified to opine on anything I want, even if I don't have any clue what I'm writing about." You biography, which is so prominently offered under your staff photo, you list all of your very respectable, and admirable journalistic qualifications. You've covered eight Olympics, the Nancy Kerrigan-Tonya Harding story, figure skating, speed skating, a few NFL personalities, a few NBA personalities, pro tennis, pro soccer, gymnastics and boxing. You've also written for The Wall Street Journal, the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury-News. Your background also includes some politics on the state and national scale. Your degrees from Cornell and Stanford are wonderful accomplishments.

But... what the hell are you doing talking about college football?

Last I remember, your home town of Boston isn't too fanatical about college football, and Cornell and Stanford are hardly Penn State and USC. You have as much experience covering college football as I do, and if you count this blog, you actually have less than I do.

Your article on the Big Ten's mediocrity in 2007 is totally unfounded. Your entire argument is based on what the conference's national perception by the public. If you took any time at all to research the league, you'd know that your argument is unfounded, especially for a nationally-respected journalist. A large chunk of what you say is based on the 2007 national championship game, which Ohio State got slammed by Florida. So, that means that it's perfectly fine that Oklahoma lost 55-19 to USC in 2005? That the loss didn't lower the publics perception of the Big XII? I know USc was supposed to win, but should it have been THAT bad?

I won't go into my argument for the Big Ten, as while I think it's a definite "down" year for the conference, that means nothing when considering how many of the teams are vastly improved. Should the Big Ten be penalized because Indiana, Northwestern, Michigan State and Illinois are all finally winning conference games? I guess you'd rather it be Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin and Penn State beating all those teams every year for a top-heavy conference? Alabama lost to a mediocre Mississippi State team, Auburn lost to South Florida, USC lost to Stanford, Oregon lost to Arizona (I'm watching Wildcats fans storm the field as I write this), Oklahoma lost to Colorado, and there are a bunch more I could list. Why is it OK for those teams to suffer those losses, but not the Big Ten?

I'm getting really sick and tired of writers taking a stab at something just because it's what's been "going around."

Mr. (not-so) Starr, when it comes to college football, please close the word document and hit "don't save." You'll be doing us all a favor. Oh, and if you readers are still wondering what the headline meant: Mark Starr needs to get his head removed from his ass!