School Sites

[Thomas Goldkamp]

No matter how good the school site is, those same die-hard fans who want night-of coverage of things and only want the party line, they are the same fans who want the recruiting scoop. Colleges can't say a word on recruiting til signing day, which of course for some of these kids is up to two years after the news breaks.

Who do you think feeds the recruiting sites scoops? The 17-year-old kid?

On the recruiting end, the danger for those that make a living off recruiting reporting is that the schools control the people giving the scoops. That's a tricky proposition, because it's also beneficial for the school to have the recruiting sites getting those scoops. Mutually beneficial relationship. The day it ceases to be is the day recruiting reporting sites are going to find it much tougher. Kids, parents and high school coaches are much less likely to give accurate information about who is recruiting them, for very obvious reasons.

Florida has tried to take advantage of recruiting on the school site every way it can without stepping over the NCAA lines. The UAA made a huge deal about its national signing day coverage for football this year, hailing it as the only place to get "official" information when the recruits sign. While that's true, it was way behind on reporting when those NLIs got in, because it had to cross the Ts and dot the Is with compliance.

But I guarantee if it keeps pushing that line, the school's going to have secondary violations (who cares, right?). What happens when one of those school writers retweets a prospect or a commit who hasn't signed? Where does that fall in the rulebook?

 

[mediaguy]

I'm sure the university-employed beat writers are well aware of what they can and cannot write and retweet about recruits. You just have to stay away from it entirely until kids have signed letters of intent. Most sites now just try to get best signing-day coverage -- lots of video, comments from coaches hours before the media can get it, etc.

 

[Mark2010]

Just one more reason newspapers are struggling. When I want news, a score, stats, or even video I normally go first to the official site. That's true both for my own personal information and when I was putting out a sports section in print.

With dwindling resources, papers are more dependent than ever on outside sources to get information --- whether it's a call from a high school coach or a game story from an SID.

Honestly, do we really need a dozen different writers covering an Ohio State football game? I don't really think that we do and it seems universities and professional teams are realizing that.

 

[slappy4428]

Florida's baseball team lost to a MAC team. How the **** can you put a positive spin on that?

 

[J Staley]

I don't think it has to be about finding a positive spin. Fans aren't that dense — sometimes the positive angle doesn't exist. But the school-generated story can mention the negative aspects without being snarky, pointed or assigning blame, then calling for somebody's head , which is not what some fans want to read after their team suffers a disappointing loss.

 

[Thomas Goldkamp]

I don't think it has to be about finding a positive spin. Fans aren't that dense — sometimes the positive angle doesn't exist. But the school-generated story can mention the negative aspects without being snarky, pointed or assigning blame, then calling for somebody's head , which is not what some fans want to read after their team suffers a disappointing loss.

Exactly, and providing the example I did was proof that you can do just that. I really thought the article itself was well-crafted. It did exactly what you explained. As I've said a few times in this thread, I respect Scott. In addition to my interactions with him personally, I've read every post on the crazy-long thread about him and literally everyone I respect that I've met in this business has raved about him. If I could write every story as well as he does, I'd feel pretty good about myself.

Fact of the matter is, when he started in the position he is in now, even some people who knew him ahead of time were skeptical about what it would mean for everyone on the beat. I wasn't even working full-time at that point, for full disclosure. Scott has handled what he does as gracefully as you could possibly ask for from our perspective. Like Alma said, we know what he will do and what he won't. He's a hell of a writer, and I have yet to meet anyone on the beat who doesn't like him or his work.

But for whatever reason, that headline irked me last night. And it resurfaced some of the questions I had about how best to cope with the (from my perspective) growing trend of school sites wising up to the benefits of having someone with a non-PR background writing about the program. Look, I feel like I'm a pretty good writer. But I also have a pretty good grasp on reality. I know with the kind of access he gets and the kind of writer he is, Scott is going to beat me on a lot of things.

My main point in bringing up the topic, frustrated though I was, was to learn. I want to learn what I can do to hit the areas they can't. Job security, as simple as that.

And many of the comments in this thread have been enlightening, especially the ones reminding me of the fact that it makes perfect sense for the schools to go after the market they see available for them. Hell, it's good business sense. In a lot of ways, that's why I brought the topic up in the first place. Looking for ways to compete with that to make sure the business I work for can continue to be profitable so I have a job.

I'm sure I come across as whiny and young sometimes, but I really do appreciate the feedback.

 

[SFIND]

Honestly, do we really need a dozen different writers covering an Ohio State football game?

The Columbus Dispatch says, "absolutely"

 

[Stitch]

There will always be a role for journalists, even if access is cut off, because there will always be someone who wants to air an organization's dirty laundry. Sure, you won't get canned quotes from a presser, or get answers to "talk about" questions directed at player who can't string more than two sentences together, but there will be a place for real news. That place won't be in print, but someone who is good at getting the dirty details will succeed. It will be survival of the fittest.

 

[Tommy 2-Tone]

Once again, no one in the media takes responsibility for why they are failing. If you weren't negative all the time, if you weren't so sour, always trying to make something out of nothing so you can get on ESPN, maybe people would be more willing to work with you. The public is tiring of all negative, all the time. You did it to yourselves, and your unwillingness to embrace the Internet early on, LIKE THE SCHOOLS, has fried your profession. Schools have every right to control their own access, their own message, and there is plenty of coverage of negative things on their sites, just minus smartass comments from media slaps. And when you all go to 3 days a week, the school sites will be more important and at that point, should consider charging for access to game because the media is a business. You're done and we're enjoying it.

 

[mediaguy]

In terms of generating overall venom from a first post, I like Tommy 2-Tone as much as anyone.

Yes, you can reach your core fans on your site. If you want to reach beyond that, those dying newspapers might help, if they can afford your cover charge.

 

[Tommy 2-Tone]

"Yes, you can reach your core fans on your site. If you want to reach beyond that, those dying newspapers might help, if they can afford your cover charge."

You assume I am with a school -- I am a fan of college sports who recently cancelled my subscription to our local paper. I know a few people in the athletic department and have heard first hand how some, repeat some and not all, are bitter, negative, jealous, etc., and take it out on successful, popular people. Many more people will like a Peyton Manning than a Jay Marriotti or Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, the "LOOK AT ME" media slapdicks.

 

[Stitch]

Maybe journalists should quit their jobs and start a blog. Then they'll be free to succeed. Or maybe run a fanboi site for Tommy to read.

 

[Chris17]

Maybe journalists should quit their jobs and start a blog. Then they'll be free to succeed. Or maybe run a fanboi site for Tommy to read.

I think you should quit and be a poet....