Uncovering Bias - My "Undying Love" For Upper Deck?

Ive noticed that my "bias" for UD seems to be the focus of every criticism of this blog, so Im happy to address it while its an issue for people.

First off, before I start the discussion, I want to say that there will always be bias on this blog. Always. The reason for this is because everything I write is opinion, nothing more. It just so happens that those opinions seem to have many hobby-wide ripples among people who frequent the blog, but they remain my feelings and my feelings only. This blog never has and never will be objective. You should all know that by now.

Now, people seem to be a little disturbed by the fact that most of the negative remarks here on the blog are in reference to Topps and Donini rather than Upper Deck. My detractors seem to think this is because im in bed with UD or because they are more responsive than other companies. They are partially correct, UD is very much more communicative, yet my gain is nothing from the stuff I say. I get nothing for SCU from any company, despite the number of offers.

In regards to the responsiveness that UD has to many collectors, including myself, I dont see why I shouldnt let that change the field a little. How is transparency a bad thing? I mean, if I have a problem, I have the ability to talk to someone who makes the decisions! That is great no matter how you slice it. How much would you love to talk to Apple about their decision to re-release the iPhone 3G less than a year after you paid 300 for the original? What if you could talk to Microsoft directly about the XBOX's red ring of death? Wouldnt that make it easier to form an opinion about things? Ill tell you, it makes forming opinions a lot easier when you know someone cares and is listening. That will never be a negative.

Its not that I havent given Topps and Donini the chance, either. When I first started SCU, Scott Prusha of Donini was the first of the manufacturers to contact me about something I said. I was excited for the prospects of speaking with the man, but I was quickly disappointed. During my interview, instead of answering the tough questions, he pushed me away with "no comments" and the like. In fact, Topps didnt even respond to my initial interview request!

On the other side of things, UD came at me with a completely different approach. Gregg proceeded to answer every single question I had with reckless abandon, no matter how poorly his answers reflected on the company. He wanted me to be content with the info I wanted, and has never had a problem giving insight into the business. What about Topps and Donini? I havent heard boo from them since.

Does this mean that I wont bash UD for their stupidity? Never. I will not ever be shy to tell you guys what I actually think. The problem is, UD doesnt make a fourth of the mistakes that the other companies do. This may equivocate a bias in many people's mind, but Im okay with that. Those sentiments come with the territory.

Despite what people actually think, the idea of the blog continues to stand true. Basically, if you fuck up, im going to be there to call you on it. Unfortunately for everyone, Donini and Topps happen to fuck up a lot, that means a lot of negative opinions here on SCU. It has nothing to do with anything else other than my feelings on certain goings on.

People also fail to realize that baseball and football are vastly different industries. The idea that Topps may not be the top company in a sport is very foreign to people who dont venture outside of baseball that often. Expectations which hold true in baseball do not necessarily hold true in football and vice versa. Therefore, when a detractor considers that notion, they may be able to see where the UD bias stems from: UD JUST MAKES BETTER FOOTBALL STUFF. Bottom line.

When you look a little deeper into the slinging that goes down, most people just need something sticky to throw at me. Why they chose the "bias," im not sure, because its an inevitable part of a non-objective site. I guess they got bored with the fat jokes.