UConn: Papers? We don't need no stinkin' papers

That five-figure sum covers all sports, I assume. What about visiting media? Would they pay both schools? Or would they even travel, considering their budget for road trips would likely be eaten up by this new cost?

I understand the desired end game, but all I can see this doing is restricting access to the very largest outlets (who aren't exactly sitting pretty financially, either).

 

Yeah, in my mind it would cover all sports and parking for an academic year, and the rate could be negotiated independently with each media outlet on an single or multi-year basis. You'd have a standard deal that you started with and everything could be negotiated from there. It would be like a TV contract but it would be a non-exclusive license to cover the team rather than the exclusive (which CBS thinks is worth billions) broadcast license. For visiting media I guess you could have some kind of reciprocity arrangement with the other school's SID to allow a certain number in free, and a one-game license fee for any beyond the specified number.

As to your second question from earlier, I don't suppose many have the money just lying around, but if the choice were between covering the major driver of interest in the market and not they would have no choice but to find a way to cover it. I'm talking about the major D-I schools that are the dominant force in their markets (SEC football, Duke/UNC basketball, etc.) only.

I'm sure there would be some who would decide they could do just as good a job covering the team by working around the pay model; that's half the point. Then the outlets that pay to play get better access and produce better content, and therefore should attract more readers and make more money.

I know this sounds harsh, but look at it this way:

If I am the sports guy for nearly-local radio station (they can't hear the station at the school but it's only a short drive) that does sports shows during drive time, I can legitimately apply for a press credential to the big game. I might even take my recorder and get a post-game interview with a player. Of course, I'll need an assistant to be credentialed as well, and a parking pass. If I get declined for the credential I guess it's no big deal. I'll just watch on TV and the show will hardly change at all. I really just want it so I can get into the game for free, eat the food in the press box, and try to chat up the beat writers from the big papers. What good do I do for the school? To be honest, not much. Monster SportsTalk in Big City gets most of the audience, and their School City rival gets most of the rest. They have the highly paid guys and pull in most of the ad dollars.

Now take this guy, his assistant, multiply by 10 (a conservative figure) for the number of requests like this an SID gets, and you have 20 guys in the press box/press room who do the school almost no good by being at the game. They just waste resources and get in the way of the reporters who are really busting ass to put out the ton of content they're required to do. Having said that, they have a "legitimate" operation and there's no good reason to give one of them a credential and deny the other. If you're in this guy's shoes, there's no reason NOT to apply for a credential. It costs you nothing and if you don't get it you're out nothing. If you do get it you get a nice expense-paid day at the game.

If you were charging everyone just half the cost you would charge a fan for similar seats, parking, food and amenities, plus giving them post-game access, the outlets who go to games to bust ass and put out content to attract readers/viewers/listeners would bite the bullet and pony up, while the guys like the ones I describe above would at least know they faced some cost in order to apply for a credential. If they're willing to pay it then at least the SID can take solace that the school getting compensated for accommodating this guy who does nothing to help his PR strategy when he asks for another media guide.

 

It would be my hope that restricting access with a license fee would drive out bloggers who do this basically for free as a past-time and drive information (and therefore readers) back to professional media outlets, regenerating revenue for them and boosting their bottom line in the long run. Look what restricted access has done for TV broadcasts, for radio networks carrying pxp. Why can't the same be done for print?

 

Driving out bloggers won't bring newspaper revenue back. Bloggers didn't steal the revenue, it just went into the ether.

 

Bringing eyeballs back, any how, any way, is a necessary step to whatever a newspaper does though.

 

Newspaper products have more eyeballs than ever.

 

I like your goal, Point of Order, and you make some good arguments regarding charging an annual fee to keep the "fringe" media out. It probably would help mainstream print and broadcasters, too.

Something to keep in mind, though, is not every D-I college has the following of a UNC or Duke.

Let's take my favorite Hawkeyes men's basketball team as an example. Do you think the Iowa SID will turn down ANY coverage in any media that could possibly bring attention (and ticket sales) to a moribund team?

I seem to recall that Iowa games would still attract the smaller dailies and/or radio guys from across the state, who might cover one or two games a year to put together a "local prep star bides his time on Hawkeye practice squad" feature story.

Again, from the school's perspective, anything like that might sell a ticket or two out in the boondocks, so why turn those reporters away with a prohibitive fee?

 

No, he won't.

One duty of a good SID, and his (or her) staff, is to be judicious with decisions about giving credentials and access. It's been that way since the early days when they realized SmallTown Paper or LittleBitty Radio adding a few readers, listeners or fans could help. If a SID saw a slacker or disruption in the box then the decision would be made whether to grant credentials in the future.

The dynamic has just changed today. Haven't there been some instances of bloggers and credential issues already, specifically in hockey?

 

I'd venture to say that while newspapers may pass through more hands, most newspapers have smaller news holes, leading readers to spend less time with the newspaper. It's a quantity issue as much as it's a quality issue. Newspapers have been going steadily backward in both areas. My local paper (Journal News in Westchester) should have been embarrassed at the product it published this morning.

 

UConn spends 40 percent of its athletics media relations budget on "social media?" That's the scariest thing I've ever seen.

 

It's probably going to be 50 percent sooner than you'd think.

 

The remaining 60 percent on Freihofer chocolate chip cookies if the operation is anything like it used to be.