Dooley "rewards" reporters with access to scrimmage

The fans who praised the coach in the comments should be reminded that the coach isn't only limiting media access, he's limiting fan access -- the people who pay for the tickets, merchandise, etc., that fund his program.

I'm surprised that as much as people want information in this age, they'll still applaud a coach who limits the free flow of journalism.

 

CDD reminds everyone here to be respectful of the program. CDD doesn't want to cut off access to meaningless groin stretches, but will if he has to.

Respectfully yours,
CDD's self-apponted media watchdog

 

There was a story by Kyle Veazey in the Clarion-Ledger yesterday talking about the trend by some coaches to limit media and limit access.
When it's my school that's doing it, I love the concept.
The most accomplished sports teams today have a veil of secrecy whereby they can prepare and have a surprise element about them.
Aside from a good feature here and there, or some hard, breaking news, I, personally, don't need so much of the 24-hour news cycle.
I can spend more time reading a good book, or doing stuff with my family, or visiting with my aging parents or golfing or traveling.
Damn, folks. We don't need all the access.
Most of it is boring, mundane stuff anyway.

Oh, and I can't stand fantasy football either.
Carry on.

 

Desiring access to practice or to players or coaches doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the 24-hour news cycle. Newspapers had great access to teams 30 years ago and made good use of it by writing in-depth, interesting stories. Serious writers used that access to write books, too.

 

Access doesn't mean allowing bloggers to go to practice and secretly tape all the trick plays.

It could mean the opportunity to talk to a player sometime during the week outside of a generic Monday news conference or postgame cluster.

Your readers might appreciate getting some insight and getting to know some of their beloved Podunk Ploddgers.

 

The pressure on coaches to win at least 8 or 9 games consistently was not a part of college football 30 years ago.
You had coaches with long tenures at schools, despite some up and down seasons.
You did not have to money at stake then that is here now.
The pressures to win are pushing coaches to prepare more intensely than ever, and certainly much more intensely than what we saw 30 years ago.
I'm fine with more closed practices.
Don't close 'em all. But certainly coaches are justified with increased limiting of access.

 

Here's the thing about this, though. The fans believe the coach and if he says "You don't need to know, and that writer is trying to tell something I don't want anyone to know," the fans will stick up for the coach.

"How dare that writer go against Coach Dick Head! He said that was off the record! He said not to write that!"

Fans love it when Gundy or Meyer or Saban "chews out" a writer, even if it's a sarcastic one-liner or dagger-eyed stare. Their loyalties are to the coach. Anyone else is tearing down the school, the team, the process or whatever bullshit the coach is spewing.

I would love to see the newspapers not send their writers to cover a university's athletic teams for a week. No games, practices, videos, notebooks or blogs. Nothing but AP copy. If the fans want the watered-down stuff from the school or the positive-spin fanboi looser crap, have at it.

 

Ironic that the team which allowed the most access over the past decade was 77-13 since 2002 with one consensus title and part of another one. Yes USC was probably doing some underhanded things, but tons of access didn't seem to slow them down.

 

Awww. The poor babies have more pressure, so that justifies cutting off access and acting like assholes?

Sorry. I don't understand how any journalist can actually argue that less access is a good thing. Apparently, having the job be easier is more important than journalistic ideals to some people.

 

What is important about practices as news? 1. Personnel changes, which I perfectly understand why coaches would prefer to keep secret. 2. Injuries, which had damn well better be made public ASAP, but which the reporter does not necessarily have to be present to see.
Just about zero NFL teams have open practices now, but news still manages to be gathered, somehow.

 

Personnel changes can be asked about, but the coach doesn't have to respond.

Injury reports are mandatory in the NFL, right? Required by the league office? Colleges hide behind HIPPA or just refuse to get into it.

Comparing the mandatory requirements of the NFL with college coaches who close shop isn't completely valid.