No particular offense to Greg Pickel (the author of that piece), since we see this phraseology repeated ad infinitum in sports reporting, but what is it with this type of reporting:
"On Thursday, Penn State Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics Sandy Barbour explained why the school locked in Franklin with the 10-year agreement."
Franklin isn't "locked in" to squat. In fact, two years from now his walk-away buyout is less than it was a year ago - when he was playing Free-Agent (again). $2 Million buyout in 2024 vs the $4 million buyout that was "locking in" Franklin while he and Jimmy Sexton were playing twiddlie-dinks with Barbour this year.
Now, one can understand why Barbour would try to explain away the contract by incessantly referring to it as "locking in" Franklin - and maybe most journalists don't care to point out that inanity, or call on Barbour to defend/explain those statements. But they (the journalists) surely shouldn't feel compelled to repeat them over and over, as if they were anything but inanity. Obviously, I get it. It's a fair question.
For what it is worth, Mike Poorman was one of the very few sports scribes to take the time to actually look at, and understand, Franklin's contract history. His article is here (first part deals with on-field results, second half with the contract stuff)
James Franklin’s 100 Games and Penn State Contract: I Crunched the Numbers so You Don’t Have to | State College, PA
And then acting as if the $1 million per year is like your employer providing a life insurance benefit like they might provide to rank-and-file employees (It is not. It is, for all intents and purposes, another $1 million in compensation - shielded from taxes.) That part, I get, obviously. Because most of those writing about just simply have no understanding of it. Which is to be expected, obviously.
www.on3.com
