What people want in a sports section

I know the answer varies from paper to paper, but I'm wondering if a consensus can be found.

Is it coverage of a market's professional and Division I football and men's basketball teams? You can get so much of that from television and websites.

How much do people want coverage of high school sports? (For purposes of this discussion, people who want coverage of "their" high school, either where their children go or where they went doesn't count.) Do you agree in general that newspapers provide the overwhelming amount of high school sports coverage?

How much do people want coverage of NCAA Division 2 and 3, NAIA and junior college teams? I imagine they can get those things from websites.

How much do people want coverage of major events?

As a reader who used to work for a newspaper and now works for a different kind of news organization that involves writing, I just want to read well-written stories and columns that interest me. The most recent example, a New York Times story on declining participation rates for high school football in New Jersey.

 

You're a journalist. You know way more than most fans do. You're probably smarter than many of them as well, and not nearly as much of a die-hard. Thus, your tastes run toward takeout stories that win awards and read like something you wish you had written.

The larger readership doesn't necessarily want that in their local paper. Or, if they do, they don't appreciate the kind of work that goes into stuff like that, and they want it on top of the other stuff.

A deep misunderstanding of the news audience is part of how we got talk radio in the early 1990s followed by Fox News. I remember the days of newspapers and TV news that spent an inordinate amount of time on whatever was happening overseas, or sports sections that combed through every detail of Wimbledon. That wasn't because the readers clamored for it.

 

There is no consensus. You answered the question with your first clause in your first sentence. It varies from paper to paper.

The only consensus that is clear is that you can't be all things to all people. So prioritize. The Chicago Sun-Times is going to focus on the Bears, Bulls, Cubs/Sox, Blackhawks and less on preps. The Joliet Herald-News, in contrast, should probably focus more on preps and be willing to use wire stories or a shared content agreement (no idea if that's actually in place or not) for pro coverage.

 

I’d say a lot (most?) papers spend too much time on high school game coverage. The bang for the buck outside of football isn’t there.

And it’s correct there’s not real way to answer this because it varies so much region to region. In one part of the country Division III lacrosse might be worth covering. In another JUCO basketball is. Most places they are not.

 

I agree 100 percent with this, especially now that I'm out of the business. I moved to a city where I have zero connection with the prep football scene, and I just don't care at all. Yet the local paper spends a lot of front-page real estate on covering the big high school rivalries and what not. I get it, though.

My old paper used to staff too much of the other stuff ... volleyball, cross country, wrestling, etc. I went to a region volleyball playoff match and there may have been 20 people there, none who already didn't have a vested interest in the program. It was such a damn waste of time. Like writing into the abyss...

 

Here's a question: How much gamer space do you devote to teams/individuals from outside your coverage area? We recently got a LTTE complaining that we limit our coverage within a single game/meet to our area participants, even going as far as calling it censorship when we leave out info about the other team. The sports department didn't even know about this LTTE until it was published in the paper.

 

If you're a newspaper in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, etc and aren't covering high school football, you're failing.

I'd suggest leaning towards features rather than dry gamers, but you should absolutely be at the games and covering the sport heavily.

 

Football is the only high school sport where I’d routinely do gamers, there’s probably some exceptions in some parts of the country. But spending a lot of time at volleyball matches is mainly to avoid getting phone calls from those parents.

I just got back into the business on a college basketball beat. I’ve got both the men’s and women’s team for the local school. Men’s team has been bad, but could be decent this season. Women’s team has been decent and could be really good. I’m still not quite sure how much of my time each team is going to get.

 

Short answer, papers I read in NY and NJ used to be a lot bigger and cost about half as much. So there's pretty much less
pro sports, college sports and hs sports.

 

I was surprised to find out recently about someone going away from preps. But if the market isn’t there for it, why push it? I mean if pros and colleges drive the market, why force the preps down people’s throats? Especially if it’s gamers? Features, enterprise and the occasional investigative should be the driving force. Of course, as Solo mentioned above, if you are in those key states, you better be at a game on a Friday night. Otherwise you’re gonna get killed. Even if you write it more feature-ish, just showing up helps.

 

I want interesting stories or analysis about the local pro and D-I teams.

I don't want stories that look like they were taken from the local teams' own websites. Stop telling me how wonderful the coach of the 2-16 NBA basketball team is, and how they showed so much spirit in that 17 point loss. The newspaper is not there to be a cheerleader.

I will never, ever, ever read a preps story.

 

In a paper like the NY Times or Washington Post or other similar shops, a large commitment to preps doesn't make sense. But people aren't subscribing to the Podunk Press for the MLB standings or the latest November NHL game. In those markets, I think you have to devote a significant chunk of your coverage to preps and small colleges in the area.