What are your thoughts on how the John Lovell interview went? I left with much more information on how he thought but I still feel I know little to nothing additional about his book or the topic. Would love to hear your process for how you grade performance in interviews and identity points for improving.
Over the past year and more rapidly in the past few days college sports have went through a large conference realignment. This includes Marshall's alma mater Oregon leaving the Pac 12 and going to the Big 10. Moves like this will end up enriching schools like Oregon who will reap the rewards from ever larger media rights deals, but will hurt school like Oregon State who are too small of a market to make a move and will thus lose out on tens of millions of dollars of yearly revenue. This immense shift of money from smaller schools with smaller markets towards larger schools with large markets strikes me as something that the government might have an interst in seeing as most of these schools are public state schools. This feels like an issue that for many Americans will be very prominet, but will go way over most politicians heads. Do you think government has a role in adressing this issue and if so do you think it would ever be possible when you take into account current levels of partisanship? Feel free to shorten this question as I know it's quite long.
I'm not sure what the point of publishing this interview was. Marshall did his best to ask thoughtful policy questions, to which Lovell would respond with arch-conservative dogma, to which Marshall would try and get Lovell to think analytically about what he just said, to which Lovell would respond with more arch-conservative dogma. There was no analysis, it was purely partisan ideological responses, and not even that much discussion of the topic (declining masculinity in the contemporary world). Bit of a miss in terms of recent interviews for me.