didnt is whether four accused players(and by extension their blameless teammates)could receive due process 24 hours before a once-in-a-lifetime milestone The paper didn t consider it Lundy says, because he didnt realize the players could bse their tournament eligibility. This from a guy who wrote" basketball is my sport" in a subsequent ditor's column. Apparently executive sports editor Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, who helped edit the series, and Dohrmann, who covered college sports at the Los Angeles Times, didnt either. (Dohrmann refused comment. Isn t it arrogant when journalists refuse to talk, yet expect everyone to talk to them?) A paper would optim ally go all out to get the investigation done earlier to give the facts more time to play out before a big event. It's not always possible to hustle and be fair, but for the Gopher series, PiPress brass didnt even try to push the envelope. Lundy says he and two co-editors received Dohrmann s rough draft on Friday, March 4, and didn t return it to the reporter until Monday. As early as that Friday Lundy projected a Wednesday publication date Journalists can t always foresee consequences, and many think they shouldnt even consider them. But newspapers do, depending on the circumstances. For exam ple, would Lundy publish a well-researched investigative piece on a po litician the day before an election?You would try hard not to run that sort of thing in the last 24 hours, " he explains. (He says if the choice was between last-day bombshell or after-the-fact he'd select the former. But Lundy isn t sure sports can be equated to politics: "Some people might argue an election is more im portant than a basketball game. In other words, different game, different standards. But don't college kids, even if they may have cheated deserve at least as much consideration as a potentially corrupt politician? In context the Unive rsity or the NCaa had it in their power to allow the players to play and chose not to. But the PiPress' tim ing put everybody else in a hurry-up defense In high-profile exposes critics routinely trot out profit as the motivation, but when it comes to newspapers, the charge rarely holds water. Lundy says the paper sold 8,000 extra copies on expose day: at a quarter a paper this put a whopping $2,000 in the bank. The paper lost twenty times as much from the 200-some angry readers who canceled subscriptions a better theory is that credit and renown, not profit, motivates journalists. But though this story played bigger because it capitalized on ncaa tounament hype does any body think a U heating scandal wouldnt have been big news in August? As with everything else in Minnesota lately the scandal once again showcased Ventura's m ind in its"me"mode. During his"despicable "broadside, Ventura alluded to a pattern of PiPress sensationalism; I asked him for other exam ples. He identified PiPress associatedidn't is whether four accused players (and by extension, their blameless teammates) could receive due process 24 hours before a once-in-a-lifetime milestone. The paper didn't consider it, Lundy says, because he didn't realize the players could lose their tournament eligibility. This from a guy who wrote "basketball is my sport" in a subsequent editor's column. Apparently executive sports editor Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, who helped edit the series, and Dohrmann, who covered college sports at the Los Angeles Times, didn't either. (Dohrmann refused comment. Isn't it arrogant when journalists refuse to talk, yet expect everyone to talk to them ?) A paper would optimally go all out to get the investigation done earlier, to give the facts more time to play out before a big event. It's not always possible to hustle and be fair, but for the Gopher series, PiPress brass didn't even try to push the envelope. Lundy says he and two co-editors received Dohrmann's rough draft on Friday, March 4, and didn't return it to the reporter until Monday. As early as that Friday, Lundy projected a Wednesday publication date. Journalists can't always foresee consequences, and many think they shouldn't even consider them . But newspapers do, depending on the circumstances. For example, would Lundy publish a well-researched investigative piece on a politician the day before an election? "You would try hard not to run that sort of thing in the last 24 hours," he explains. (He says if the choice was between last-day bombshell or after-the-fact, he'd select the former.) But Lundy isn't sure sports can be equated to politics: "Some people might argue an election is more important than a basketball game." In other words, different game, different standards. But don't college kids, even if they may have cheated, deserve at least as much consideration as a potentially corrupt politician? In context, the University or the NCAA had it in their power to allow the players to play, and chose not to. But the PiPress' timing put everybody else in a hurry-up defense. In high-profile exposes critics routinely trot out profit as the motivation, but when it comes to newspapers, the charge rarely holds water. Lundy says the paper sold 8,000 extra copies on expose day; at a quarter a paper, this put a whopping $2,000 in the bank. The paper lost twenty times as much from the 200-some angry readers who canceled subscriptions. A better theory is that credit and renown, not profit, motivates journalists. But though this story played bigger because it capitalized on NCAA tournament hype, does anybody think a U cheating scandal wouldn't have been big news in August? As with everything else in Minnesota lately, the scandal once again showcased Ventura's mind in its "me" mode. During his "despicable" broadside, Ventura alluded to a pattern of PiPress sensationalism; I asked him for other examples. He identified PiPress associate