What people want in a sports section

[Mr. X]

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.

 

[Alma]

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.

 

[SoloFlyer]

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.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

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.

 

[Cosmo]

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.

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...

 

[MNgremlin]

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.

 

[SoloFlyer]

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.

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.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

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.

 

[cjericho]

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.

 

[Waldo9939]

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.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

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.

 

[MNgremlin]

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.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

But people aren't subscribing to the Podunk Press for the MLB standings or the latest November NHL game.

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.

 

[SoloFlyer]

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.

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.

 

[Alma]

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.

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.

 

[Fredrick]

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??

 

[ICanRowCanoe?]

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

 

[GoogieHowser]

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.

 

[cjericho]

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

HS box scores?

 

[User 149557]

Oh, and we invested a ton of money into video. Last I heard, the highest sports videos were averaging 60 views

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