NCAA Tournament and the Media

A single anecdote about a single meeting, of which no final conclusion was drawn, morphed into a universal statement about both boosters and ADs welcoming the end of local media coverage.

I'm just saying, prove this. Hell, maybe someone can. I even wrote in a previous post a "pay-to-cover" deal could theoretically be arranged, although I suspect it'd be with discounted advertising in the publication, an advertising deal with the school, etc. I drew the line at paying for access to the press conference. That one I don't ever see happening.

It might have been you or someone else who suggested that, long-term, the access had never been worth much, that it only allowed schools to denial of access as a carrot or a club. I'll agree with that, to some extent. And there isn't any question: The travel got way, way out of hand for years. The idea that a columnist in the 90s was entitled to a 3 1/2 star minimum hotel every time he went on the road was absurd.

 

It was me, and Alma is dead-on. Too much on travel. Too much kissy-face for access. Blow the whole thing up. People can watch on TV.

And, Ralph, you keep trying to move the goal posts here. The comment was that boosters would welcome zero media coverage. Not that the locals are super-important. And not your latest - that they "don't care." Maybe they don't. But that's different than welcoming something. It's ambivalence.

 

I'm pretty confident that boosters -- who tend prioritize their own sainthood in the never-ending quest for victory over the coach currently in place -- are OK with a local media that keeps one eye on things and asks some questions at a press conference.

As far as travel, I mean, the Wisconsin, Kentucky, Florida and UConn-centric papers should be sending people this week. Readers/fans want you in those locker rooms. I still believe that. And it only makes sense for Texas and Oklahoma papers to have people there.

Does the Denver Post? The LA Times? The Washington Post? I don't believe so.