ESPN story on h.s. basketball team

In Frame 10 of the linked frame-by-frame photo sequence, it appears the ball is off his fingers and the red game-ending rectangle around the backboard in the background HAS NOT lit up (in frame 11, it has).

I think I'd call it good.

 

Too close to tell, even with the frame-by-frame. Those refs had a very difficult call to make, even if they would have had replay.

Very good story, although like Shockey said, I would have liked to see the other team's perspective, even if it would have put a damper on the story.

 

Got a little dusty in the kitchen as well.

Fantastic job by Rinaldi.

 

I agree with that, but I think your last sentence is correct: it should be its own story. If this was a story just about that game, then you'd need more about that stuff. But from the Summerville side once they won, that's the story. It would be cool for someone to talk to the other side.

I'm not really sure what some people mean about ESPN manipulating you with a story like this. I'm genuinely curious.

 

Maybe one of SCSportsJournalists.com can verify this but isn't Summerville the same HS with the football coach who holds the record for most HS football coaching wins?

 

Yes. John McKissick.

 

I think that is pretty simple -- they are always told from one side -- the one side that will illicit the most emotion.

I think Spartanburg's coach, the losing team right?, was pretty stupid when he compared losing to "going to a funeral" given the context -- but a better story would have been told had they also talked to the losing team and the losing coach and the player who hit the shot -- and perhaps, you never know, that team had a motivating force -- a teacher who died, a father who died a player who quit or got hurt -- you know if you cover enough state championships, you figure out nearly every team that gets there is a so-called "team of destiny" or so they think, so it would have added to the story, that's all.

 

Now that I read the column and gamer and folo story on this thing -- the ones from Spartanburg's side, my observation is that the coach of that team is an immature jerk who shouldn't be coaching teens.

He slammed the runner-up trophy on the table and didn't want to take it back home?

Are you fucking serious?

That's great -- that is a great example -- more importantly HE DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TROPHY -- the kids who busted their asses all year, they earned that trophy. And it is up to a coach, no matter how disappointed, in high school sports to make this clear and use it to teach a lesson that sometimes disappointing things happen in life -- it is how you handle them that defines who you are.

But the problem is -- he is a high school coach and we've -- the media -- for some ungodly reason convinced high school coaches they are celebrities and the stars of the show. It is to the point where far too many-- even when they claim otherwise - think it is about them, and not the kids.

Why?

Because we're too lazy to focus all of our energy and spotlight where it should be -- on the kids. Because it is easier to quote a coach who we drink some beers with than trying to think about and ask good questions to teenagers, the kinds of questions which might illicit a response that is worth using.


And this is what you get -- an adult moron slamming a trophy and claiming he doesn't want it because in his world, it is about HIM.

 

I'm really pretty stunned at the Rinaldi love here. Maybe I'm just a jaded bastard (I thought we all were here, guess I was wrong), but every piece he does (including this one) is nothing but pure schlock. There's no great writing, no great storytelling, no wordsmithing. He's just talking slowly with treacly piano music playing behind him. If you simply transcribed his story and all the quotes, it would be formulaic quote-graf-quote-graf schlock. It's basic TV writing ("July 7, 2007, this happened, then this happened.). It's just slickly produced so it seems good. When Chris Connelly did these, they were exactly the same, and surely we don't think Chris Connelly would be a great sportswriter.

It's effective storytelling because it's so simple and the stories are so manipulative and (as pointed out earlier) one-sided. The stories he does are just emotionally manipulative heart-wrenchers by their very nature. Every single one. You could have no voice-over at all here and just have the sources tell their story and it would still be a wonderful tear-jerker. All Rinaldi and the ubiquitous treacly piano music do is beat you over the head with the fact that this is a you-should-be-crying piece. (I mean, the triple shot of the missed free throw accompanied by a heartbeat sound -- come on!).

When my wife and I watch these pieces, we find ourselves laughing at how over-the-top sappy it is.

Sorry if that makes me a jackass, but really... I'm stunned there's so much love for these schlock-fests.

(Oh, and I went frame-by-frame on my TiVo -- the ball left his hand before the red light went on. Shot was good.)

 

but... but... but...

for espn/rinaldi to have told the whole story of the game-ender would've ruined their disney movie ending! espn can't have that!

the piece was fine for what espn/rinaldi manipulated it to be. no need to let the "facts" get in the way of their teary ending.

sorry, but after a good night's sleep, i'm not just being cranky before bedtime on a sunday night. i think those raving about the greatness of the piece and rinaldi's job with it checked their journo credentials at the door.

the firefighting assistant coach died in '07, before the season, in a terrible, terrible tragedy. i'm sure the kid who hit the called-off shot or someone connected with his team has a terrible tale to tell, too. but why ruin what espn already had set to go?

 

if he turned in this piece for a mag or paper, any good editor would throw it back at him to fill the holes in the story, imo.

i get that the piece was on the tragic death of the assistant coach, blah, blag, blah, but the controversial ending left me unmoved -- as if the fix was in to reward his team.

 

It would be one thing if ESPN overruled the shot. But it wasn't ESPN, it was the refs. What more was there to explore there? Should they have done a frame-by-frame breakdown of the shot? Wasn't the story about the coach and the team and what winning the championship meant? Well the team did win the championship, so that's the story IMO. Wouldn't a story about the other side have been an entirely different story? What are the facts that ESPN ignored here?