'Bumped up from preps'

[slappy4428]

Probably belongs on another board but what the hell.
From The Pipeline:

Not sure if this has been out there or not, but Bobbi Roquemore, who covers UW-Milwaukee basketball for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, is leaving to take a job with the Dallas Morning-News.

No idea if and when this job will be filled (although you'd think it'd have to be) or if someone like Anthony Witrado will be bumped up from preps and then that job will be filled.

Mods, you know I love ya. And this is not a shot at you; You just happen to be the one who said it in this case on the jobs board. Anyone could have stepped on the landmine.

But question: Why does it always have to be "bumped up from preps"?

In many cases, preps is a stronger beat or what the reporter wants. I understand that at most papers, preps can go to the youngest guy, the least experienced or (in one case I can think of anyway), the guy whose screwed up everyplace else and its the last chance.

But not always. I can think of several papers where the prep guy has been in his beat for years, loves the job, has more respect and stability than the "more important" beats and has made the beat his own. I can name several papers where the prep guy has turned down "bigger beats" because they love what they do. If the prep writer wasn't good at their craft, many papers wouldn't devote the one day a week to extra space for a Preps Plus/Extra/Bonus coverage in addition to the coverage during the week; certainly, they wouldn't be able to pull it off.

Why the stigma that preps is the low end of the food chain?

 

[In Cold Blood]

Slappy,
I hear what you're saying. I can think of several people I know/have grown up reading who are life long prep guys who are quite happy where they are...

I think the stigma comes from the fact that in MOST cases, preps is the launching point on the career path. I'm sure there are always exceptions to every rule, but I'd venture to guess that a large majority of big time beat writers spent at least some time doing preps at the very beginning of their careers.
Certainly, there will always be guys who are happy with preps and stay on that beat forever, but in many cases there is a natural progression up the ladder to bigger beats and that first rung is usually preps.

 

[writing irish]

It's "bumped up from preps" because many reoprters hate the beat and take it out of necessity when they're getting started. It's not that the beat itself is bull****; it's just that lots of people don't want it and would prefer covering college or pros.

 

[zeke12]

I think because there is so much bull**** attached to covering preps -- taking calls, collecting rosters, checking names, bitchy parents, etc. -- that we tend to forget that covering it can be a joy.

I always enjoyed writing preps.

 

[I love puppies!]

Another advantage, if you have family, is little or no traveling. And as you said, a lot of times you're "the man". Plus, you almost always have Sundays off. No coaches next day breakfast or follow up due Sunday night.

I think a lot has to do with perception.

So what do you do?

Preps.

Oh.

As opposed to...

So what do you do?

Cover the (local pro team).

Cool!

 

[slappy4428]

I mean, I've covered my colleges, large and small. And yeah, there was a little swagger that I got to cover a "major beat."

But down the road, I've realized my best (and hardest) work, my best clips and most satisfaction came not from -- for example -- covering people like Ian Gold at Michigan, but people like Ian Gold in high school.

You get more readers (although each has their niche), you get controversy, you get championships.

Maybe it's cause there's no free swag, little food (outside of football) and if you took pictures of the girls you'd get locked up for kiddie porn.

 

[Ace]

I mean, I've covered my colleges, large and small. And yeah, there was a little swagger that I got to cover a "major beat."

But down the road, I've realized my best (and hardest) work, my best clips and most satisfaction came not from -- for example -- covering people like Ian Gold at Michigan, but people like Ian Gold in high school.

You get more readers (although each has their niche), you get controversy, you get championships.

Maybe it's cause there's no free swag, little food (outside of football) and if you took pictures of the girls you'd get locked up for kiddie porn.

Don't worry, slappy. Should the need arise, sports editors can also make the case that all reporting jobs are equal, pay grades are the same, etc., etc.

Just depends on the audience.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

Probably belongs on another board but what the hell.
From The Pipeline:

Not sure if this has been out there or not, but Bobbi Roquemore, who covers UW-Milwaukee basketball for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, is leaving to take a job with the Dallas Morning-News.

No idea if and when this job will be filled (although you'd think it'd have to be) or if someone like Anthony Witrado will be bumped up from preps and then that job will be filled.

Mods, you know I love ya. And this is not a shot at you; You just happen to be the one who said it in this case on the jobs board. Anyone could have stepped on the landmine.

But question: Why does it always have to be "bumped up from preps"?

In many cases, preps is a stronger beat or what the reporter wants. I understand that at most papers, preps can go to the youngest guy, the least experienced or (in one case I can think of anyway), the guy whose screwed up everyplace else and its the last chance.

But not always. I can think of several papers where the prep guy has been in his beat for years, loves the job, has more respect and stability than the "more important" beats and has made the beat his own. I can name several papers where the prep guy has turned down "bigger beats" because they love what they do. If the prep writer wasn't good at their craft, many papers wouldn't devote the one day a week to extra space for a Preps Plus/Extra/Bonus coverage in addition to the coverage during the week; certainly, they wouldn't be able to pull it off.

Why the stigma that preps is the low end of the food chain?

Because preps, as impolitic as this sounds, IS the low end of the chain. At the higher-level beats, you're likely to get feedback from people with share no bloodlines to the people you cover, meaning that you have a larger percentage of average Joes/Jennys reading your stuff. Prep stuff, except for football and sometimes basketball, rarely gets noticed by anyone not related to the topic of the story. In this era of low pay and low internal support, it's important that you feel like the stuff you're slaving over is important.

There are talented writers and reporters out there that choose to be high school writers, and I say excelsior to them. But they're anomalies for the most part. If you're a high school writer in 95 cases out of 99, it's because a) you're not high up enough the food chain to earn a more prominent role, or b) you work at a paper too small or too far away to cover anything BUT preps and recs. And in those cases, there's still a caste system: high school football beat is more important than the high school volleyball or middle school beats.

Can anyone think of a paper where going from a full-time college or pro beat to a full-time prep beat would be considered a step up? Or even a lateral move?

 

[slappy4428]

I can name two, if for no other reason the preps guys at them have been there for 25-plus years each and have carved out a reputation as THE authority on preps in the state. It would be a tough act to follow, but even a party with no ties to current players would see that.

And I'm sure there are others elsewhere in the county.

I understand what you mean by it being the low end of the food chain. But it isn't, nor should it, ALWAYS be treated as such.
Take away the Texas coverage from Abilene (for example)? Hey, we've got AP. Take away the preps? We've got.... an indispensable beat.

 

[mike311gd]

I view covering the Steelers as the "prized position" from a young age, whereas most people, in my opinion, don't grow up thinking, "Man, I really want to cover Mars (a Pittsburgh high school) football."

It's based mostly on perception and partly on notoriety and the pay scale. I view it as being "bumped up," but I know a lot of writers who wouldn't move from their high school beats no matter what the offer. To them, it isn't "bumped up." It's all based on personal perception.

 

[JBHawkEye]

I think because there is so much bull**** attached to covering preps -- taking calls, collecting rosters, checking names, bitchy parents, etc. -- that we tend to forget that covering it can be a joy.

I always enjoyed writing preps.

I enjoyed my times doing preps when it came with dealing with the athletes (99 percent of them) and coaches (99 percent of them). Parents? Couldn't stand them when I was covering preps, can't stand them now as sports editor.

 

[Cosmo]

I've covered all three, and I like covering colleges the best by far. Not even close. It's fun to go to a pro game, no doubt, but the work is grinding and the athletes so disconnected from the general public that it can become tedious. I don't mind covering prep games, but I hate the parent bull**** that inherently goes into covering preps full-time. It's one hell of a grind with all of the stuff that you have to keep up with.

But to answer the question, it's easier to bump someone up from preps to a college beat. You can then fill the preps beat with a newbie for much cheaper than it would take to find a seasoned college writer.

 

[slappy4428]

I'm not saying that younger writers wouldn't or shouldn't view it as "bumped up" because, face it, when we started we all dreamed of the big story or the big team. Covering Michigan was a great thing 20 years ago, but I've aged and looked at where I've done my best work and where I've mattered most.
I know of several editors who kind of look down their nose at preps, but it's also the one thing in their sections that they could least afford to get rid of.
The term "bump up" is poorly used for a beat that essentially dominates a section on a daily basis. It might not get the most play, but the most space is devoted to it.

 

[Cosmo]

Well, it depends on where you're talking if you say "dominating a section." At the Washington Post? Important, but except for rare occasions, preps will never dominate. At a 50K in the Southeast, away from a major city? Sure, it will dominate.

I agree that editors thumb their noses at it, and some don't understand the painstaking work that goes into making the prep beat great.

 

[fishwrapper]

"Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx was bumped down to cover the Yankees."

 

[slappy4428]

Well, it depends on where you're talking if you say "dominating a section." At the Washington Post? Important, but except for rare occasions, preps will never dominate. At a 50K in the Southeast, away from a major city? Sure, it will dominate.

I agree that editors thumb their noses at it, and some don't understand the painstaking work that goes into making the prep beat great.

Of course it wouldn't nor should it dominate at a New York Times or Washington Post.
But at a papers like the MJS, Birmingham News or Detroit Free Press, which pride themselves on being the 'state' paper, it gets a good chunk of inches.
But when the circulation of the average US paper is at 37.6K daily and 63K on Sunday (2000 numbers, http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/chartland.asp) Preps is going to be a significant beat at that size paper.

Not every one subscribes to the theory of the progression of beats like the athletes they cover. Some cases high school IS more important than colleges and colleges ARE more important than pro...

College beats aren't always covering major sports.
I will use a paper I know of which basically fits the average numbers.
This editor has two writers: One covers high school, the other 'minor' sports at the local major university. The minor sports draw decently and are often ranked in the top 10 in the nation, justifying a beat writer -- but outside that immediate area, coverage by other papers is spotty at best in those sports.
Say that writer left and the editor decided to move the longtime prep writer to the Local U minor sports beat. Would that be a step up from preps?

 

[Cosmo]

I'd say no.

 

[fishwrapper]

Not every one subscribes to the theory of the progression of beats like the athletes they cover. Some cases high school IS more important than colleges and colleges ARE more important than pro...

That's why the term "newspaper readers" is such a ubiquitous term.
Each paper, their circulation, their readerships' demographics and reading habits are unique to that city, town or region. There isn't a broad brush in which we can paint. When we do, that's when we get ourselves in trouble.

 

[slappy4428]

And yet, the way some editors describe it here and in real life, moving from high school to college is a bump up. Yeah, I will concede going from preps to Colorado football at the Denver Post or to UK Basketball at in Lexington is a bump up.

But it isn't ALWAYS a bump up at an average paper. At the MJS (sorry Moddy, I hate making you the example with your earlier comment), of course Wisconsin would be a bump up. And I know since it's Milwaukee, UWM hoops are important. But is it a step up?
If I'm at the Detroit Free Press and I'm covering preps, and I've been reassigned to cover Detroit-Mercy and the MAC schools, I'm not necessarily viewing that as a step up.

 

[Cosmo]

Depends on the resources at your disposal, slappy. If they travel with Detroit Mercy hoops and you get to do the beat right, I'd say it's a step up.

I'm in a similar situation ... We cover three colleges, two FBS, one FCS. I cover the FCS school, which on the surface would make it a minor beat compared to the other two. But of the three, it's the only one that's actually in town. And since we travel fully with it and cover it like we would a "major" beat, we all feel like we're on equal footing with each other.