And why to you think that was out of line?  I thought it was a very engaging article, and certainly in the best interest of my alma mater.  Of course, only time will tell what will be best for the young man of reference.

GO EAGLES!

First of all, please define the role of a newspaperman. To tell you what you want to hear or to offer opinions that you might not agree with and provoke discussion?

People at newspapers have been writing columns espousing opinions for -- oh I dunno -- maybe the last 100 years. As far as Arnold being a homer, I'd say he's far from it. He's previously taken USM leaders and their chip-on-their-shoulder fans to task for their collective boneheadedness. This time, he's making a valid case about why the kid from Lumberton should stick around -- even in the face of all the treasures that 'Bama might offer.

Last but not least, can someone please post the NCAA policy forbidding newspaper editors from writing opinions? I want to see the black-letter policy that says he can't write a newspaper column. In the meantime, I'll refer you to the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Your response is laughably transparent. Nobody said Arnold couldn't report sports news or even write columns. This is not a first amendment issue.

What you fail to recognize is that USM has agreed to follow NCAA bylaws. Included in these bylaws is a group of recruiting guidelines that apply to coaches, prospects, student athletes, and boosters. I initially stated that IF Arnold were an alumnus/friend/booster of USM that this COULD be an NCAA violation.

From USM's compliance page on southernmiss.com:

"Only coaches and athletic department staff members may be involved in the recruiting process. Alumni, friends and other athletics representatives who are not employed by the institution may not contact a prospect (or his/her family or guardian) via written correspondence, telephone, or in-person (either on or off campus) for the purpose of soliciting their participation in the athletic program."

Arnold basically wrote an open letter to Grant asking him to play at USM. That's called recruiting.

I know all you EagleTalkers can't wait to get the next savior of the program, but you'll be sorry if recruiting one player sets your program back.

Again, this is not a first amendment issue. NCAA membership is voluntary, so that USM voluntarily agrees to follow these rules and have its alumni, boosters, fans, and friends follow these rules as well.

Besides the issues I raised earlier, I think the pro-Van Arnold reaction here is pretty interesting.

Opinion pieces are just that -- opinion. In most cases, opinion pieces are used to affect change when an public individual (such as a politician) or public organization (such as a government agency) does things that are against the public good. This piece is written to sway the college choice of an 18-year old high school student to "help out USM." That's like writing an opinion piece that the owner of Mack's should use only Mississippi-raised catfish because it helps hometown catfish farmers. It's ridiculous! Private individuals should not be the target of such columns, if for no other reason than it's not the public's decision to make.

Grant will hopefully make the decision that is best for himself, not USM or any other school. Adults who attempt to manipulate kids like this are a pretty low form of life.