A crucial tilt in the Northern Atlantic Conference's South Division between the Benedictine Eagles and the Aurora Spartans came down to the buzzer the other night. Here's Benedictine's play-by-play announcer Mark Vasko navigating us through the final hectic seconds of the game with Aurora up by 1 point.
"Ballgame is overrrrrr" being said in a dejected tone after your team pulls off a buzzer-beating win is definitely not how it's supposed to sound. After multiple rewinds, it appears to me that the correct call was made to count the basket, but it certainly was close. To Vasko's credit, he recovers nicely after running the gamut of emotions in mere seconds as he ends the game elated after a tough road win in that snake pit of a gym in Aurora.
The win helped clinch a tie for the Benedictine Eagles atop their division in the standings. For Aurora, they at least can take solace in fact that they are home to perhaps the top public access show in existence, and no one can take that away from them.
"Is it really plausible to consider a respected publication like Sports Illustrated making up these stories in some sort of vendetta to besmirch the name of Reeves Nelson? What would Sports Illustrated have to gain from making up these anecdotes in a story that didn't really have much long-term traction in the first place?"
That's really the key here and Matt addresses this in the above. Libel and slander laws regarding media require the so-called aggrieved party to prove that the media in question (SI) PURPOSELY attempted to "hurt" the player in question. In other words SI (or any other media) could basically call Nelson the worst person on earth and be "safe" from litigation in saying so. Is that "fair?" "Whatever" says the law. I would love to see something from Nelson's attorneys addressing the libel and slander laws and how it may be different in this case.
Now, calling SI "a respected publication" is up for discussion, at least for me, lol.