Tree, forest, etc: APSE gets excited, writes strongly worded letter to NCAA

But isn't the idea of covering sports like a business, the Darren Rovell model, that causes so many people to dislike him?

Beat writing still has a value, as does paying someone to be curious and go find out why something is the way that it is.

Having local takes is also important. If I was reduced to reading AP gamers every time I picked up the papers, I'd be bored to tears.

 

No, it's because of the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous vibe/persona he gives off.

I'm saying covering the teams almost like the Wall Street Journal covers Fortune 500 companies. That level of seriousness. Still run enterprise and features and analysis. But interesting analysis. Salary cap stories. Labor issue coverage. More on minor-league systems. More on how players are evaluated. More on draft prep. When I say cover it like a business, I don't mean write about jersey sales or Hat Night like Rovell. I mean stop writing so much about what the fans can already see, and instead devote way more time writing about what is going on behind the scenes, both on the business and baseball/football/basketball operations side.

Game coverage has just gotten to the point that it's not worth the trade-off any more. It's not worth kowtowing to maintain access, because it has the effect of diluting the way teams are covered. And it's prohibitively expensive for something readers probably aren't taking the time to read in this era.

Overall, sports coverage just needs to be more interesting, less banal. Resources are finite, and it's time to start figuring out how to use them more efficiently than they're being used right now, due to inertia.

 

They're just complaining about the Final Four seating now?!

 

Isn't this, to a degree, what the universities, conferences and leagues desire? If the media stops covering then the team/event/league can say "Come to our site for everything."

I realize the ramifications of that move - glossed-over coverage, nothing negative, etc. Just using the PGA Tour for example, you can get event recaps, social media updates, videos, scoreboards and photos. The Tour could simply jack that up a bit and not worry about the media. Same for the NFL, NASCAR and others.

Which, of course, would suck and is why there has to be a fight against legitimately onerous heavy-handedness.

 

The counterargument is, "You serve the readers. How do you serve the readers by not providing coverage?" However, I think you may need to lose a battle to win a war.

 

The incredibly stupid part of this as it relates to the Tour is that Tiger and Phil aside, it's still a niche sport. You would think that the more reporters who are tweeting and blogging about their product, the better.
I also have failed to get this answer from one single organization that has tried to restrict blogging and tweeting, such as the SEC or PGA Tour: What exactly is it costing you? CBS isn't going to drop the PGA Tour because a few reporters tweet or blog something before Shane Bacon can get to it.

 

I understand where you're going, and I agree that there will come a point (maybe already occurred) at which access trade-offs won't be worth it. But what you're describing above is niche content that is great for a highly intelligent, highly engaged portion of the audience.

In my mid-sized market at least, we still serve a mass market -- in print, online and elsewhere. We do a ton of enterprise stories that don't get 1/100th the interest of a quick post about a five-star running back narrowing his options to five teams.

What you described above sounds great for a national website, but I'm not sure the majority of readers we still have are going to be thrilled with that coverage plan, nor am I convinced that's the best way to grow our audience with others.

 

What's the point?

Any battle would be a losing one anyway.

The NCAA holds all the cards.

So they plug the holes and have the players change their phone numbers, and also tell the players not to respond to any reporters.

They do not need traditional media anymore. They have their own media outlets. They only continue to play the game because of old traditions.

 

Hondo, how is golf a niche sport?

It's played around the world. It's been around for hundreds of years, starting with knocking skulls or dried animal scrotums with sticks. It spans genders and races, although I'll easily agree it doesn't hit the lower-income strata. Courses range from goat tracks to exclusive layouts.

The NFL and NASCAR are more niche than golf, comparatively speaking.

But I'll agree they should encourage the social media from those covering it. I hate seeing the golf (or any) PBP updates with every putt, stroke, lap at Daytona or basketball play but I don't want them eradicated because a league or team thinks a TV network will get its pants in a knot.

 

Dick, where do you get this shit? Game stories get consistently high hits on our website.

Not every beat is the same access-wise or otherwise. There's no one-size-fits-all when it comes to coverage.

Moreover, I completely reject the notion that gamers can't be interesting. If you're covering a game as part of your beat, you weave storylines of the team/program into your gamer if you know what you're doing. This notion that every gamer is some play-by-play, by-the-numbers template is an insult to those who do it right.

It continues to be, and always has been, a balancing act. You need features/enterprise to make the beat whole and to give the games context, but you can't ignore gamers because that'[s the core of what people are interested in to begin with. At the end of the day, it is really is about wins and losses.

It's the games, stupid. We over-think this shit too much.

 

But why do we need to be at the games to write about the games?

I know this is heresy. I know it is. But why, in 2013, do we need to be at the games?