Should Reporters Change the Way They Cover College Sports?

[Scooch]

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I suspect most on this board either live in the northeast or have roots here. The northeast has always been pro sports-centric and been known for the intensity of the media coverage of those sports. Very little is off limits. Reporters make their bones by breaking stories of contract disputes, player dissention, locker room conflict, coaching malfeasance, ownership neglect, and the like.

College sports has long been handled differently. There have been far less stories about dissention, conflict, etc. In fact, those are the things that have been the domain of message board "insiders". Whispers about player-coach conflicts. Confidential messages about bad behavior. Private whispers about NIL budgets.

Sure, there's been the occasional expose about probation-related things. But the day-to-day info we see regularly reported about pro sports is largely non-existent when it comes to college.

And I kinda understood that. Ultimately, college athletes were students whose only renumeration was a scholarship and some small stipends. Why should they have the dirty laundry of their team exposed?

However, things have changed dramatically. College athletes, particularly football and men's basketball players, are professionals. There's no "semi" about it. For all intents and purposes, they are compensated for their athletic prowess. They have free agency and chose their destinations largely by pay level.

So, given this change, why does it seem that the media is still operating under the old model? I've been thinking about people's references to last year's "misfits" and "malcontents" on the SU hoops team. Plus all those vague suggestions about our NIL spending, or lack there of. Needless to say, if that was the Knicks or Celtics or 76ers we'd have seen a ton of reporting about those issues. And yet I don't recall much of anything actually being reported about SU's situation. Just the aforementioned whispers and private threads by insiders close to the program.

Is it time for the college sports media to treat their subjects and teams like the professionals they really are? Curious what people think.

 

[cto]

I think part of the reason for the discrepancy is the the multiplicity of college teams (and fan bases) as compared to pro teams in the northeast. There are huge numbers of reporters assigned to cover the Yankees or the Giants (which have huge fan bases) as their primary (if not only) job. But aside from an anomaly like Syracuse basketball which has syr.com reporters assigned to it or UConn basketball which are the only real CT sports teams, few reporters have a specific sports team (or even a specific sport) as their only assignment, so there is no competition to "break" stories. Thus, there is not the 24-7 in-depth type coverage you get with something like the state of NYC pro football.

 

[CardiacCuse]

yeah with NIL the gloves should come off, imo

the sense of entitlement and laziness and just blase nature of todays game (esp from Syracuse) is seriously threatening my interest...I didnt even tune in to the duke game.

the thing that might help balance out this runaway train of poor player behavior and me me me is if they knew they cant hide behind a soft media, imo...its very necessary

but then the coaches would also get fired way quicker...


whos willing to bet that if we knew everyhing thats happened under red that his seat wouldnt be hotter than it is right now? does anyone think full transparency would help reds case to continue??

 

[hungrychuck]

I think CTO’s answer is closest to right.

Beat reporters are always going to have a tough time doing frank reporting on a college team.

Remember that the PS reporting on the JB violations {the first ones) came from the news side.

News outlets can’t afford investigative teams any longer.

Beat reporters who stray outside their lane will still be put into deep freeze.

 

[Scooch]

Can someone explain to me why there’s more “risk” in writing truthful stories about college teams than pro teams? Why is a reporter more likely to be denied access, whatever that means, to a college team than a pro team. I’m honestly stumped.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I suspect most on this board either live in the northeast or have roots here. The northeast has always been pro sports-centric and been known for the intensity of the media coverage of those sports. Very little is off limits. Reporters make their bones by breaking stories of contract disputes, player dissention, locker room conflict, coaching malfeasance, ownership neglect, and the like.

College sports has long been handled differently. There have been far less stories about dissention, conflict, etc. In fact, those are the things that have been the domain of message board "insiders". Whispers about player-coach conflicts. Confidential messages about bad behavior. Private whispers about NIL budgets.

Sure, there's been the occasional expose about probation-related things. But the day-to-day info we see regularly reported about pro sports is largely non-existent when it comes to college.

And I kinda understood that. Ultimately, college athletes were students whose only renumeration was a scholarship and some small stipends. Why should they have the dirty laundry of their team exposed?

However, things have changed dramatically. College athletes, particularly football and men's basketball players, are professionals. There's no "semi" about it. For all intents and purposes, they are compensated for their athletic prowess. They have free agency and chose their destinations largely by pay level.

So, given this change, why does it seem that the media is still operating under the old model? I've been thinking about people's references to last year's "misfits" and "malcontents" on the SU hoops team. Plus all those vague suggestions about our NIL spending, or lack there of. Needless to say, if that was the Knicks or Celtics or 76ers we'd have seen a ton of reporting about those issues. And yet I don't recall much of anything actually being reported about SU's situation. Just the aforementioned whispers and private threads by insiders close to the program.

Is it time for the college sports media to treat their subjects and teams like the professionals they really are? Curious what people think.

I think fans are looking at it differently. I heard multiple people chant "traitor" when Maliq came in the game. I'm not sure I agree or disagree, but as long as the NCAA allows free transfers, I can see where many fans will take that attitude.
Didn't in conference transfers used to have to wait two years to play. Now, some kids don't care if they are playing one year at a school and the next year at the school's rival. Didn't that happen with Michigan and tOSU football?

 

[hungrychuck]

Can someone explain to me why there’s more “risk” in writing truthful stories about college teams than pro teams? Why is a reporter more likely to be denied access, whatever that means, to a college team than a pro team. I’m honestly stumped.

Because, generally speaking, college teams can get away with that sort of retaliatory action more than pro teams.

There’s no regulator, for one thing. No NFL, no MLB. NCAA or ACC is not the same thing.

College programs often operate in a relative vacuum and can do as they please without oversight.

 

[sufandu]

I think the difference is how the sports operate. Fan support is more integral in college sports with regards to recruiting, moreso now in the NIL era. As a beat reporter if you are seen as a hindrance to that by digging up dirt, you'll lose access to the program. That's not a concern with pro sports.

 

[Scooch]

So you guys are suggesting that reporters who cover college sports are spineless and compromised? That’s interesting.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

I don't really care or want this type of reporting. The losses are enough.

Did we not get this last year when Judah and Quadir were the devil and Red was an Angel for putting up with them?