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.

 

[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?

 

[SmilinBob]

Very interesting question.

I never cared for the drama part of sports and actually bothers me they even report it but that seems to be a huge draw to a lot of people.

I am curious if they would report salaries of the players since they are considered employees of a state tax payer funded institution. Private schools not so much but still, making this public could make things interesting to a lot of people.

Regarding the gloves off approach, agree with CTO but would like to also add that pretty much 100% of, paid by a corporation or paper, reporters all went to a college/university and there seems to be a bit of loyalty or the like to those but very rarely do these same reporters ever play high level pro sports so that loyalty isn't there.

Agree with the freeze outs as well and the pro sports have to have arrangements with the press but university's don't.

 

[Chip]

I've always assumed that if you play football in the SEC, you were already getting the pro treatment. Some other factories as well.

I think more and more you will see the coverage turn to be more pro-like. The sentiment of "they're just college kids" will fade across the board.

 

[Col. Bleep]

A really good beat reporter will find a way to get those stories.
It's much harder in college...because reporters have to get published or on the air and coaches used to getting their rear ends kissed can make that more difficult.
Plus in smaller markets where college sports are big, management is concerned about angering fans.

So, it's often just not done.
A rather benign example: haven't seen anyone ask Donnie Freeman, "Hey Donnie, what's up with your foot? Do you intend to play any more this season?"

Traditional news outlets generally are so thin and so lame now that you can't count on them for much.
Seems that covering the "insides" of college teams could make for a nice web business.

 

[Sbucketball]

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'm pro transparency in reporting everywhere. But I understand backing off college students. With that said, the big revenue sports -- power conference football and men's basketball -- yeah for sure don't be afraid to ask tough questions and report the facts. On those teams the guys making big money are pros now, and the guys making no money aren't news-worthy for reporters anyways so they won't have much to worry about. Maybe different for low level or Olympic sports etc. when it comes to players. All universities should be subject to reporter scrutiny though.

 

[Hoo's That]

Very interesting question.

I never cared for the drama part of sports and actually bothers me they even report it but that seems to be a huge draw to a lot of people.

I am curious if they would report salaries of the players since they are considered employees of a state tax payer funded institution. Private schools not so much but still, making this public could make things interesting to a lot of people.

Regarding the gloves off approach, agree with CTO but would like to also add that pretty much 100% of, paid by a corporation or paper, reporters all went to a college/university and there seems to be a bit of loyalty or the like to those but very rarely do these same reporters ever play high level pro sports so that loyalty isn't there.

Agree with the freeze outs as well and the pro sports have to have arrangements with the press but university's don't.

While that may, indeed, be the case, by law they are not receiving taxpayer money. They, unlike the coaches, are not line items on the schools' budgets. I always cite Nick Saban as an example. While he received a $7+M salary, only $100K came from the state as a line item on Bama's budget (so the president could fire him if necessary). No players show up the same way as line items in the budget getting state money. And, since they don't get state money, it may become harder to use state information laws to get the NIL/salary info.

 

[Hoo's That]

I've always assumed that if you play football in the SEC, you were already getting the pro treatment. Some other factories as well.

I think more and more you will see the coverage turn to be more pro-like. The sentiment of "they're just college kids" will fade across the board.

One side effect of their getting money is that people will become less tolerant of their mistakes both on and off the field.

Late add: Folks on our board have already said as much. They're not "just kids" anymore.

 

[Scooch]

A rather benign example: haven't seen anyone ask Donnie Freeman, "Hey Donnie, what's up with your foot? Do you intend to play any more this season?"

This is a great example. If Jaylen Brown had been out for the past month with an injury, you can be damn well sure that the Celtics media would be asking him, his agent, his personal trainer, the team front office, random doctors at Mass General, etc. about the nature of the injury and when/if we would be returning to play.

If there were some "whispers" about Brown not wanting to come back it wouldn't messaged about in hushed tones in private threads on message boards. It'd be a story in the Globe or Herald or one of the sports radio stations.

I'm not asking reporters to artificially gin up drama. I'm wondering why they seem to refrain from reporting facts that have direct impact on the performance of the team.

And it seems that they KNOW these facts and choose to suppress them. Again, everyone on this board talked about the issues with last year's team The player reaction's to Benny's suspensions. The behavior problems with Copeland. Etc. I have zero doubt that the folks covering the team across print, online, TV and radio know all about those issues, likely in great detail. Yet, was there a single report about them? Issues that, by all accounts here, actively harmed the performance of the team.

It's just so weird to me all the cloak and dagger stuff that surrounds a college program.

 

[sufandu]

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

It's not compromised if you don't dig for things you don't need to. Is it spineless? Maybe. Is it even the reporter's call? I would think they answer to someone that tells them the type of stories they want. And in a world where access can be denied, pissing off the people that decide who gets access probably isn't good business.

 

[sufandu]

I've always assumed that if you play football in the SEC, you were already getting the pro treatment. Some other factories as well.

I think more and more you will see the coverage turn to be more pro-like. The sentiment of "they're just college kids" will fade across the board.

Local SEC reporters kiss the butts of the local schools and find or manufacture whatever dirt they can about their rivals. It's very politics like. That's how you keep fans happy here. If you dig up dirt about the beloved local team, especially if it's having success, you should have your resume updated and ready. Now if a coach of a local team is failing and on the outs with fans, he's fair game.

 

[JeffCuse]

Yes. And many already have. Syracuse is somewhat in a backwards time where its expected to treat these adults who make more than most of us either kid gloves

 

[JeffCuse]

And if they press the issue or speak the truth they fet fired for being negative

 

[sufandu]

Yes. And many already have. Syracuse is somewhat in a backwards time where its expected to treat these adults who make more than most of us either kid gloves

With sports stuff, I don't want to read about drama. Sports are supposed to be fun. I want honest informed analysis of on the field/court performance and I want feel good pieces. Everyone feels like they need to be some insider analyst that is breaking a story. It's why sportcenter sucks now. The fun is gone and the reporters take themselves too seriously. I don't need more of that. I want less.