Is recruiting coverage the answer?

Don't disagree with that. Recruiting news will never fall into the definition of hard news. I just don't think that necessarily means newspapers can't devote some resources to it with successful results.

 

Yes, recruiting coverage can be icky. But part of that is because of the current saturation of it. I don't remember feeling that way when it was, say, just Tom Lemming and a couple other independent dudes beating the bushes. The kids took the occasional phone call, those guys relayed the info to everyone else through their toll numbers and magazines and that was about it. I bet the kids even enjoyed getting the attention. Now these kids take as many phone calls from recruiting sites and, increasingly, newspaper beat writers as they do coaches actually recruiting them. They avoid your calls, which makes you feel like a stalker, of course, all in service to your readership.

Every time I want to completely rag on people who follow recruiting, I think of myself, thumbing through my "Baseball America Prospect Guide" during spring training baseball games. I know the difference is that those guys are 22-25 years old, but the concept driving it is the same - "Who's next?"

Oh, and a kid verbally committing, I'm sorry, but it's news in this day and age. This isn't 1953 where Furman Bisher or whoever could refuse to print a kid's name until he appeared in a game for the Dawgs. At least 90 percent of the kids who verbal do end up at that school. I would say it's closer to 95 percent.

The school I cover had all of one "decommitment" this year. That's it. I imagine it might be different in the SEC, though.

Like anything else, sports is more fun and engaging the more you know about what you're watching. At least that's how it is for a lot of people. I think that the people who follow it are pretty disconnected from the parts of it that make us uncomfortable. They can come off as nuts, but with the media acting as sort of a firewall for them, they're relatively oblivious to the stalking-a-16-year-old aspect of it. They don't see the sausage getting made. It's an extension of following the team, no different to them than someone knowing which Dodgers third base prospect might develop some power (Blake DeWitt, BTW).

 

You can't have a "decommitment" because there is no "commitment" until the Letter of Intent is signed.
And that's why all this breathless coverage of 16- and 17-year-olds declaring as juniors in a total crock of shit.

 

Well, coaches decide who else to recruit based on who hasn't "committed." Should they simply promise spots to as many kids as possible and then let the first 25 LOIs faxed in on signing day stand?

I understand that it's not official. But what qualifies as "breathless" to you? Should we also no longer report on coaching changes or free-agent signings until the ink is dried and the press conference is called?

Clearly, some of the recruiting coverage is over-the-top and silly. "Leans," "soft leans," "hard leans," "firm verbals" - I mean, c'mon. But when 90-95 percent of these non-commitment commitments stand, how does it not qualify as news? I could see if it was an utter joke, but I think the number that change their minds is greatly exaggerated.

Most good reporters will include a line in their commit stories noting that it's non-binding.

 

If it is non-binding it is NOT a commitment...it is a declaration or an announcment of where Johnny Overrated plans to go. He's just as likely to change his mind as not, despite what your numbers say.
I have a big problem with the language of "verbal" or "oral" "commitments", especially when kids "commit" at the start of their junior seasons.

 

I'd wager that at a major metro, 99 percent of the time when little Johnny and Susie get their names in the paper, it's from a clerk taking a call from a coach -- not because the Prep Writer was covering their lacrosse match.

 

The bottom line is that it takes someone plugged in and knowledgeable to cover recruiting -- however much that is -- while pretty much any part-timer or freelancer can go cover a prep game.

 

OK, so your issue is with the terminology, not the actual reporting? That I can accept. But it's so ingrained by now, old habits die hard. It's a colloquialism that the vast majority of people grasp the meaning of, particularly when you spell it out for them in your copy.

 

It is frustrating, but it is still news if they are committing to a big program or they are a local hot shot. People are interested.

Does your paper run stories when someone is charged with a crime or do they wait to see how they court case plays out?

 

If you cover major college football and you don't report verbal "commitments," you will be irrelevant in about 30 seconds.

 

My favorite is the silent commit, though.

 

This is an excellent point, Ace.

So if you're leaning heavily on part-timers for your foray into recruiting coverage being the No. 1 priority, it would seem you better have a hell of a good group of part-timers who are pretty well-paid, knowledgeable and reliable.

They'll also need a good plan designed to make it work. You don't want 5 reporters from your paper calling the same kid. So much of winning recruiting news wars is about building relationships, not just with the athlete but often with the athlete's mom/dad/hs coach/AAU coach/best friend/hangers-on/parole officer/pimp.

Speaking of AAU ... I've always thought the slimy world of AAU is rife for a big enterprise story by a major metro. In fact, it's probably been done and I missed it. But if you're hitting recruiting really hard, does it make you more likely to shy away from being critical of AAU, since you'll certainly be relying heavily on AAU coaches for your information?