Worst access?

I can't imagine there is worse access on any level than that which exists for those trying to cover Penn State, Michigan or Virginia football programs.

Those three programs are a disgrace in how they handle and treat the media.

 

only the in-bred pack of nitwits in the ad at u-m would have hired amaker in the first place after his episode at seton hall. who didn't see "absolute failure" and "michigan" written hand in hand on the bathroom wall? ty shine, anybody?

 

From what I've heard, Florida and Alabama football would be right at the top of this list, with Penn State and Michigan not far behind...

 

Georgia and Auburn have great access and SIDs who are tremendous to deal with...

Bama is bad. Florida is worse. They used to have two of the best ever to deal with in Norm Carlson and John Humenik. Carlson was forced out shortly after Spurrier left and Humenik was canned. I've been covering the SEC for more than two decades and the fucker they have there now is the worst around.

Thank god that's not a school I have to cover on a regular basis.

 

With the pressure to win between 7-12 games per year, consistently - and the pressure to please alums, fans, parents, 90 kids - and the obligatory booster/First Down Club meeting appearances, it's a wonder the coaches have any time for media.
The pressure to win dictates the tight ass, lest a staff settle for mediocrity and the occasional bowl game.

 

Sad thing is, with Iowa being a 75-minute drive away, it's not always easy for me to get to practice. But if I can, I'll go.

Yeah, practice can be boring. But you can pick up stuff that might be helpful another day.

 

I really think what the majority (90 percent) of consumers wants is good features, telling interesting stories, on players (first) and perhaps staff (second).
They want to have history recounted for them, which is done via nicely-researched flashback pieces.

Most readers/listeners/viewers, and I really believe this, don't pay that much attention to "who broke the story". The other outlets are so quick to pick up on breaking news, that the consumer inevitably gets the info they need, from wherever they can.
It's likely more of an industry thing, notches in the belt or feathers in the cap, when looking at who scooped who.
If you can write, or tell a good story with audio and/or video, you are accepted by the masses.

 

You would be surprised. Behind BC, they may be the seocnd most popular college team there. It's not like being in a one-college town, and the pros command attention, but there are a lot of Harvard people around, and the Globe treats Harvard specially in a lot of ways.

 

Even if that's true -- and I seriously dispute your 90 percent number -- it's a lot harder to write those nice features without being able to talk to the principles. It adds a little something to the story about Joe Tailback if you can, you know, actually talk to Joe Tailback.

 

OK, but is there anything less relevant in Boston sports than being the no. 2 college in town?

Aside from the Bruins, I mean.

 

And when coaches don't allow you to talk to said players or said staff, or perhaps cut off access arbitrarily a couple times of year on zero notice and with no explanation, as mine is wont to do, those features become really fun to pursue.

P.S. I don't know what my next move will be in my career. Sports? News? Desk? Back-to-school? But I do know this - there is no fucking way that I will ever take another college football beat. Not even if you doubled my salary.

 

We had a pretty good idea after having WVU here for the NCAAs in 2006, but yeah, it's nice.