I hate the Big East. They are supposedly a basketball powerhouse conference. Why not be an all sport conference like the ACC? I will bet you that if UVA or Maryland, UNC, or Duke just fielded basketball teams, the ACC would win the NCAA championship every year. I don't like mix and match conferences, nor mix and match divisions. Come on G'town. Are you big time or not?

what about, "Feinstein sides with Davidson, takes shots at the Georgetown administration and their coach, Strikes a Nerve" for your next post Lindsay?

this commenter is thrilled that this blogger commented on the comment of the comments of the article.

does this mean i have your ear?

I was disappointed but not shocked to find my previous comment posting was removed by the washingtonpost.com caretakers.

This blog is supposed to be about the comments readers write in response to Post content. Are comments about post.com content - like this blog - out of bounds?

Jim Brady, Washingtonpost.com's editor, takes particular pride in the site's "transparency."

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/01/20/jmb_qa.html

So, with that said, I resubmit my humble, thoughtful criticism of this "blog":

This blog is self-serving, condescending garbage that is beneath The Washington Post. The newspaper industry is in its death throes thanks to dwindling ad revenues and shrinking profits. Newsrooms in every media market, including The Post, are being told to "do more with less" and this is how The Post responds --with a blog about reader comments? That is The Post's idea of innovating and evolving and leading the way?

It's true - if I have such an issue with this blog, I could sample something else from The Post's menu of content. A news blog written by an adult journalist, perhaps. But that would be missing the point. The Washington Post has a responsibility to uphold a standard of journalistic excellence and this blog cheapens, rather than enhances, The Post's legacy. The perpetrators of this ill conceived blog deserve to be called out. There are enough blogs and commentary out there that dumb down the news - sports or otherwise - that it is irresponsible of a legitimate, storied news organization to contribute to the cesspool rather than rise above it.

In the initial post that explains why this blog exists, Ms. Applebaum writes:

"Why? Beside the obvious "Why the [censored] not?" answer, it's simply because sports fans tend to say (and shout) some interesting things."

If this is The Post's idea of elevating the level of discourse and doing good journalism, then The Post's battle to stay relevant in the new media world has already been lost.

Grumpy,

You're right, that comment should not have been taken down. I am not sure why it was or who did it, but I'm looking into it. I'll keep you posted. And yes, all readers should feel free to tell us if they don't like something we are doing.

That said, I like this blog. The Post and post.com are big enough to have serious stuff alongside fun stuff. This spot is supposed to be fun. If you're not having fun, hey, plenty of other links to click.

If you or anyone else wants to address this or anything else directly, feel free to email me at jon-dot-denunzio-at-wpni-dot-com.

Jon DeNunzio
Sports editor, washingtonpost.com

An update -- I am told that the original post by "Grumpy" contained personal attacks, to a much greater degree than the recap posted above. The way it was described to me (it's deleted, so I can't read it), I agree that it should have been taken down as per our guidelines listed under "Post a Comment":

"We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site."

Usually, I read comments like these myself and make the call on whether they come down or not; that will continue to be the case in the future. Again, I'll assure readers that much consideration is taken before any post is removed ...

If you have questions, please feel free to address them to me here or by email (see above).

Thanks,

Jon DeNunzio
Sports editor, washingtonpost.com

Yikes! Grumpy surely needs to lighten up. My guess is that he must have some deep seated issues to address. Perhaps jealousy? An Inferiority Complex? Or just a simple case of I.B.S.? I really like this new blog and its lighter look at what your readers are saying about the world of sports. Keep it coming.

Aww, poor grumpy. I think someone's feelings must be hurt because their comments haven't shown up on "crowd noise" yet.

The simple matter is that thousands of readers comment every day. This blog is simply a way for us to read and discuss some of the best comments in the very broad sports section without going from article to article and reading every comment.

I have engaged in intelligent and enlightening conversation with many readers because of the ability to comment. This blog just expands that platform for all of us.

Based on your level of bitterness, it seems that you have no one to listen to you in your daily life, Grumpy. I'd think this blog would be perfect for someone like you who feels ignored, irrelevant and alone.

"if I have such an issue with this blog, I could sample something else from The Post's menu of content"

You hit the nail on the head Grumpy. Don't like Howard Stern? Turn the radio to a different channel. Offended by Fear Factor? Flip to Nightline.

This blog is hardly representing itself as news. Its a relatively new medium and new way for the average reader to express his or her views - it gives us a voice, essentially. If people want to analyze our posts, so be it. If it bothers people that our posts are analyzed, so be it as well, but you certainly don't need to read it if you feel that strongly against it. I would suspect the large majority of people enjoy the blog and like having their comments heard on a larger scale.

And am I the only one that finds it ironic that the very forum you rail out against is the forum and medium in which you choose to voice your own displeasure?

6th and D....boy oh boy. Are you saying that if the ACC concentrated only on their basketball programs that they would win the national championship every year? What, are they going to take all their "star" football players and make them basketball players?

And how is the ACC more of an all sport conference than the Big East? Last time I checked the ACC was even worse in football than in basketball. I'm not seeing them dominate college hockey and you're good at lacrosse but so are Georgetown and Syracuse. What's your point?

Thanks for pointing that out, RL. I love me some irony.

I don't agree with 6th and D's presentation of his argument, but there is a simple point in there, Please Stop. If you don't have to support non-revenue sports, more can be given to the revenue sports. While the Big East may include several sports, many members do not field those teams in the Big East if they even have teams. I don't think Virginia Tech even became a "full member" until 2001 or so after being in the conference for football for about 10 years.

The ACC is easily a greater "all sport" conference than the Big East. The quality of programs vary by school, but few die hard Big East fans would honestly consider the Big East a better all-around conference.

ACC hockey = there is no ACC hockey.
Boston College is a top program, but the ACC does not include hockey
Most schools have a club team and Georgetown is part of the ACC in club ice hockey.

You must not have checked recently if "the ACC was even worse in football than in basketball." You realize BC, VT, and Miami are gone right?

The ACC is probably the top conference in soccer, baseball, lacrosse and field hockey and is much better than the Big East in golf, wrestling, softball, swim and dive, cross country, tennis and track & field(just about any sport contested on this side of the country). Although the ACC wasn't that successful in the tournament on the women's side this year, there is more depth in women's basketball than the Big East. The Big East is UConn and Rutgers. The Big East is primarily a men's basketball conference with football schools. That's a fact. That makes money. I know some hate to hear or see this but the Big East, like every conference, is about money. Why do you think they had expansion plans even before Tech, Miami, and BC left?