No game story?

I'll echo what armageddon said. Unfortunately for us, our print coverage goes up on the website at midnight, meaning the gamer does not get earlier play. In the vast majority of cases, the gamer is by far, the most read story in the coverage package. It's usually double the next story.

Having said that, I don't think a 2011 gamer should necessarily read the same way a 1991 gamer used to read.

 

I think the higher ups don't really understand all a gamer can be.

I think a lot of writer doesn't understand either.

I've got one writer who can craft 20 inches of just greatness centering around one play with just enough of the other stuff.

I've got another who basically hands me AP inverted pyramid with rambling quotes awkwardly shoved in.

 

The first-version gamer goes up quickly but when it comes to the rewrite the gamer is often one of the later pieces posted.

Yet the number of comments posted between the first posting and the rewrite remains huge, much bigger than the comments on the other slugs.

For college and pros we have gamer, sides, notes and a 5-pound sack of other shit that I can't begin to describe.

When the msg boards link our college stuff (generally the next AM) the most popular story is the gamer.

 

I think gamers are still a necessity.

"Nobody wants to read play by play."

I can tell you one thing: The amount of people who read a 50-inch enterprise story on a junior high hockey team's finances is vastly overstated.

Gamers are read because of the emotional quotes by players and coaches after the game. I absolutely think people read gamers for this reason. I think editors get their jollies off with enterprises because that gets their bosses' jollies off. People may not read a 40-inch gamer, but I guarantee a vast majority of the same people aren't going to sit down and read your enterprise story about whethor or not the sport of gymnastics is disappearing in the state.

Point: A good enterprise is a good enterprise. Don't assume everything is a good enterprise just because there's some kind of story to it. Gamers are still relevant because people want to hear what coaches, players had to say about this event. Don't assume its your words they care about. Gamers without quotes don't accomplish a lot, but it's still something.

I guess if you're doing a gamer and you're doing large play by play, than you're not doing a very good gamer. Blowouts should turn into features with a couple graphs saying when the game-changing run took place. If it's close, write about the game-winning shot or sequence of events that led to the victory.

There's a lot you can accomplish with a good gamer. Just calling it "play by play" is painting it with a broad brush. If you find your gamers are all play by play, than you should re-evaluate your style.

 

I don't think readers always can point out a game story compared with other game coverage in the paper, especially when newspapers give great play to a column and possibly play the game story inside. Readers want information and if it's being covered thoroughly in other ways, they probably won't care.

 

I really do think you're right on with this.

 

At least he inverts the pyramid. I've known writers who start with the first quarter.

 

I had a stringer one time who started with the coin toss. It was three paragraphs when I got done with it.

 

Dave Kindred had some ideas on this back in 2009.

http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/a-plea-for-a-fading-form/

 

So try this: What is a game story in this day and age?

 

See, I think the answer is "Anything you say it is."

Aside from running on night events, it's not going to be, "The Bears took charge in the third quarter, marching 63 yards on seven plays ..."

But I still believe there should be one story that's obviously the game story, that describes what happened in the game, who won and why.

See, my local paper puts its game story on page 3 on the big football days and puts a columnist out front.

I don't agree with that, and won't. Your lead beat guy, writing the gamer, should be your lead story, even today. At least to me.

But it doesn't have to be the game story of 1980. It can be a much better game story. But that form isn't obsolete at all if done right.

 

In a previous incarnation, a stop or three ago, we had a great columnist cover one of our beats. He wrote the "game story" as analysis, as a column. All the pertinent information was included, but it went beyond the traditional game story because he gave the readers what they had become used to — his unique voice and analysis you weren't going to get anywhere else. It's not the game story I have a problem with. It's the traditional game story. Making the successful leap from one to the other demands two things of a writer: better-than-average talent and better-than-average work ethic (and more of the latter can make up for less of the former) The traditional game story, like many things in a newsroom, has become too easy, too matter-of-fact. Readers deserve better, especially in a day and age when competition for the basics is so heightened.