I suppose this isn't really pursuant to the conversation, but one idea that should be retired is the general interest sports column, which by definition offer opinion. But with the explosion of information available to everyone and the increasing level of knowledge gained as a result of this development, the notion of some person reflecting on an individual sport from 64,000 feet up is horribly dated--and the result usually something like this Foster column. Multiple posts on here, using readily available data, very convincingly batted away Fosters arguments, rendering his column as a piece of persuasive discourse pretty much a failure. If the News and Freep want me to read their paper they better not only engage me but also persuade me that what I'm reading is highly informative and can stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise, I will just go to one of the numerous blogs available and at least be more informed (although probably not as engaged). In some respects its unfair to expect Foster and Sharp and Wojo, who have to cover the whole sports universe, to be as conversant in every sport as the guys who cover only one. But that's why they should probably just do away with this type of columnist, unless the person is an exceptional writer, capable of describing lyrically what a sports event means to its fans and city. But so few of them can. That's why they should reserve most of their space for writers who actually know, in great detail, the sport they are writing about.