NCAA Tourney coverage and the economy

Hey, question along these lines: How long a drive is acceptable before you expect your paper to fly you somewhere? I've got a few road games that are 3-4 hours, where there's not much difference in door-to-door travel time between driving vs. flying (given the need to get to airport an hour early, time to rent car, etc) ... For me, I don't mind driving that distance. It's cheaper for the paper to rent a car and reimburse gas than to pay for airfare and a rental. I'm curious what the popular thinking is ...

 

I covered a far-flung conference at one of my earlier stops. Some of the drives were close to 10 hours. We had a fleet of staff cars. We drove.

There was one school in the conference that was 14 hours away. Only played there once every two years, and we flew to that one.

 

I find I get good quality from lesser chains, so I always end up staying at a Super 8 or Days Inn unless I see a really good deal come up. I really don't get the snobbery either.

Most I've driven on a trip is 12 hours from Columbia to Waco. Share the drive with the other guy, and it really wasn't bad at all.

 

I wish more newspapers were doing that - the right way. Have someone other than the main beat writer do video. Too much else to keep track of and do that, too.

Instead, we're trying to build up the online product at expense of the print product. Even though no one has found a way to establish true online advertising profitability.

 

I never minded driving, especially if they pay for the time and the mileage,or let me use a company car (back in the day when papers actually HAD company cars). I tend to get claustrophobic on airplanes and the added security in recent years has further diminished my enthusiasm for flying.

In many minor leagues and small colleges, teams travel by bus and it's not uncommon for beat writers to go along.

 

Ha!

I drove 1,195 miles round trip last week to cover a team in the girls' basketball state semifinals in my state's smallest classification to see them lose by 21.

Basically, because of my remote location, flights to anywhere are prohibitively expensive.

 

...and only score 27 points too...

Mike Ludlum weeps for the Warriors!

 

If, as you say, the readers don't care about reading a story as long as the game is on TV, we're even more royally fucked than I thought.

More games are on TV now than ever. Our job is to be there and get something you can't get by watching the game on TV, right? You can't always rely on the AP, which doesn't always focus on your local team.

I guess we'll just keep giving people less and less and less, and hoping they'll keep paying for our product. Maybe we can jack up the price, too, to make sure they stop subscribing!

 

Sad but true.

The whole focus of newspapers changed with the cable TV boom in the 1980s. No longer was it considered news just to report the score, who did what, etc. More and more papers turned to analysis and even gossip: "Which coach is about to get fired? What teammates don't get along?"

Now, with 24-hour talk radio and the internet, even that territory has somewhat been usurped.

One of the most common questions I got via phone from readers when I was working the sports desk was "what time/channel is the game on".