What people want in a sports section

If we’re talking print, a good number of them actually are because they’re 80 years old.

Getting people to pay for your content online after all the print readers die off is another story.

 

Again, it's not one size fits all. If your paper is in an area that churns out D1 volleyball products, you should probably get on that.

I've been in areas where the minor league hockey team had a rabid following and in ones where people barely acknowledged the D1 college basketball team.

Tailor your coverage to what people flock to.

 

Correct. What the NYT and Post do is immaterial to what 97% of sports sections should do. That’s part of how Rivals web sites got a foothold in the industry. They cover the hell out of recruiting. Papers who were too good for it paid the price.

 

I think what people want in today's print product is the same as they always wanted (but are not getting anymore), because the only people reading print are over 50. I have no idea what editors should be cramming into their 4-5 page sports sections. I really think it doesn't matter. The people buying the print product will always buy the print product cause they are 55 and up and are addicted. They realize what they are subscribing to is trash compared to the good old days but they still need a paper. Newspapers will never attract younger readers again because nobody wants a 4 or 5 page sports section with awful game stories with no quotes in them. Agree with Fredrick on this??

 

We still have subscribers who are fanatical about baseball box scores.

 

In my opinion, I am of the school of thought that “all news is local news.” I will admit I come from a paper in Western Pa, so yes, Friday night football was super important to our weekly sports budget. We had a D1 school (Pitt) a D2 (Duquesne football) and two D3s (Geneva and Robert Morris). We only gave 20 inches to Pitt and Geneva. But we covered all four schools during basketball season (it didn’t hurt that local players would go to Duq or RMU). We also had a full staff and several stringers for basketball season. We only had one reporter cover high school and legion baseball.

Oh, and we invested a ton of money into video. Last I heard, the highest sports videos were averaging 60 views. Honestly, I don’t get the video craze. Unless you’re a web-only product, are yinz actually seeing the payoff? I think it’s an example of the old saying “the kid’s family will buy copies if his or her photo is in it”. I’m just not sure that, even if it is the school you root for, if you’re watching the video if it’s not your kid. What do you think?

However, when the paper was bought out, first thing they did was cut out pro coverage and leave us with AP. While I completely understand of having beat writers cover pro teams, but Espn has it as soon as it happens, and their web sites have the AP coverage when it’s posted. And honestly, If you’re just going to run AP coverage, it doesn’t even matter if you’re in market or across the nation. But I feel unless you invest in great beat writers and columnists, there’s no point in covering pro sports. However, sports center is not going to cover you’re Week Zero match up of the week. I believe with sports, like news, you should push what your reader can only get from you. Unless it’s 9/11. Then cover that.

 

HS box scores?

 

There was nothing that made me throw things and yell more than a video I spent two hours editing garnering double-digit views.

 

No, MLB.

 

I'm under 30 and I love having the box scores in the paper. It's a quick way to see who did what, especially after a busy football day. If there was a newsletter that had nothing but box scores, I'd be all about it.

 

I want politics in my sports section.

 

As The Big Lead, Barstool, and Sports by Brooks have shown, people want hot women in skimpy clothes in their sports section. I don't see why newspapers don't follow.