I almost always abstain from dunking on TDC student writers, but intentional trolling like this inherently solicits... let's call it "feedback"...
Also, in the Age of AI Software, this Human Effort really stands out as its own kind of slop...
Also, also, in the context of "there is no failure, only learning, there is opportunity here... so, young homie,
Myles Hannak, read up and get better! Pretty please?
So I gave AI Software Claude his article and this prompt:
"Read this and coach me up: why does my article suck?"
AI Software answer:
Happy to give you an honest read. I'm not going to be gentle about it — you asked to get coached up, so here we go.
The core problem: You don't have a point.
You gesture at a thesis — "shift resources away from wrestling toward other sports" — but you never commit to it. You hedge constantly ("I'm not saying I could do better," "that can change with the flick of a light switch"). A column lives or dies on a clear argument. Yours wobbles.
Structural problems:
The piece meanders badly. You open talking about athletic department budget allocation, drift into coaching legacy, veer into Bo Nickal's UFC career, take a detour through Carter Starocci's "negative" story without saying what it is, land on women's wrestling, and then close with… a vague sentiment about wanting competition. These aren't connected. A reader can't follow where you're going because you don't seem to know.
The specific claims collapse under scrutiny:
"The current most notable former Nittany Lions wrestler is Bo Nickal" — is that true? David Taylor is a two-time world champion and Olympic gold medalist. That's a far more prominent post-college wrestling figure than an undefeated UFC prospect who's fought mostly limited opposition. The Nickal claim is the kind of thing that should be verified before it anchors a paragraph.
"The Carter Starocci story is the only recent headline that has lasted, really, and it's a negative one." You don't say what it is. A reader who doesn't already know the story is completely lost. If you're going to drop a bomb, detonate it.
Voice and prose issues:
A lot of your sentences are filler — they sound like something, but don't say anything:
- "The tide always turns, and this dominance may not last." (So what?)
- "Winning is great, but developing the game matters, too." (Who's arguing otherwise?)
- "The university needs to loosen the reins and let wrestling grow naturally." (What does that mean, practically?)
You're also mixing metaphors and idioms in ways that muddy the read. "Overwatering a plant that's already outgrown its pot" is decent. "Shaking up the status quo," "shifting budgets," "bruised egos," "grass gets greener," and "gold onto a mountain" all in three paragraphs is too much.
What's actually worth keeping:
The Pat Kraft detail — that he's mat-side for every match — is the most specific, grounded observation in the piece and it lands. The women's wrestling point has genuine legs. Those deserve more space, not less.
The bottom line:
Pick one real argument and build the piece around it. Either: "Penn State should add a women's program and here's why they haven't" — or — "The athletic department underinvests in non-wrestling sports and here's the evidence." Both are defensible. What you have now is a vague feeling that Penn State leans too hard on wrestling, dressed up as a column. The feeling might be right. The column isn't there yet.
www.psucollegian.com
