Read this and it prompted me to have some thoughts to share here on a topic that's come up quite a bit in the last few years
https://www.theringer.com/2020/3/10/21173499/coronavirus-locker-room-mlb-nba-nfl-sportswriting
As the article says, yes, we know that we are considered whiners and that most of you don't care about the ins and outs of our job or if we can talk to anybody or any of the rest of it. We know most people think we just get paid to watch games and kick our feet up and eat press box food for a few hours (and for the record, in no way am I saying sportswriting is one of the more difficult jobs out there or really difficult in any way, it's just different than most people think it is).
Anyway, over the years, there's been a lot of discussion about access to the athletes and coaches we cover. A lot of it has happened on this board and I have discussions like this with my friends in the business on a weekly basis. This article lays out the reason it's important to what we do and important to the product you pay for.
Every year, the access gets curtailed a little and sanitized even more. College is different than the pros. Open locker rooms haven't been a thing for a long time. The football locker room has never been open. In basketball, it was open during the Quin years, but hasn't been since. Interviews in college sports are set up this way: You submit a list of players you'd like to talk to after practice or after the game. That list is reviewed by the sports information people and run by the coach. If the players on that list are approved by those people, they are notified that reporters have requested to speak to them. At that point, the players generally get to choose whether they do it or not (for the record, I've always disliked this part of it; every player here thinks they're going to the NBA or the NFL and if you're in those leagues, it's not optional. You don't get to say "I'm not doing it." You can go Marshawn Lynch and refuse to say anything, but you still have to show up. I've often argued with people at Missouri that if you're giving these kids an option not to do interviews, you aren't preparing them for the next level they think they're going to and you're doing them a disservice). If they don't want to, a coach or an SID may suggest that they should do it, but not always and they're rarely if ever forced to do it. So in the end, if you request eight guys, you probably get five of them on a good day. A lot of times you get two.
The value isn't really in interviewing them after a game or even after practice. The majority of the quotes aren't all that enlightening and you guys rarely read a postgame story and say "Wow, that's amazing that guy said that and that you wrote about the game I just spent four hours watching and told me what I already knew happened." The value is in the repeated interaction. It's in the reporters getting to know the subjects and the subjects getting to know the reporters.
Going back 10-15 years, there were a lot of athletes at Mizzou I got to know pretty well and vice versa. Guys like Laurence Bowers, Kim English, T Rucker, Andrew Jones, TJ Moe, Brock Christopher, I still keep in touch with from time to time. Because I wasn't just a guy that stuck a microphone in their faces along with 20 other guys sticking microphones in their faces. We had conversations. They saw me every day and got to know me beyond just this dude that shows up and asks why I missed the shot at the end of the game or what happened when I scored that touchdown.
A big benefit of that is that you build relationships with guys that pay off down the road. Maybe they tell you some things that inform a good story. Maybe you get to know their background and can ask them questions for a story about who they are off the field and what happened in their lives to lead them to the point they're now at. And maybe they trust you enough to give you honest answers and let you write a good story. And maybe when fans read that story, they get to know the player beyond a uniform number and what he did on the court or the field and they become human beings and the fans become a little more invested in how they do at Mizzou and beyond.
Like I said, that access gets a little worse every year. Not just at Missouri, but everywhere. What it results in is relationships that are not mutually beneficial but that are transactional. Hey, I need to have some quotes for this story I write, so can you say something? They say it, we write it, we're done until the next time we need a quote for a story and then we repeat the interaction. It's worse for them, it's worse for us and it's worse for you.
The sports media should serve as the liaison between fans and the team. You guys don't get to talk to these guys and ask them questions very often. We do. Our job is to find out the things you want to know but don't have a way to find out. And that's not necessarily just bad things. Sure, some of it will be negative. And that's a big reason we're at the point we're at. College teams (mostly coaches) view the media as the enemy because they're afraid if we're around too much we're going to find things out they don't want us to know and we're going to write them and then everybody's going to know them. In truth, it's the opposite. I'm really not trying to find out more about a kid so I can screw them or the program over. 99% of the time I'm doing it because if I can tell his story and let you guys get to know him a little bit better, it benefits everyone.
I know a lot of people will have one of two reactions to this:
1) TL;DNR
2) Shut up, you get paid to watch sports, quit bitching, we don't care
And that's fine if that's your reaction. But for those who have an interest in what we do day to day and who are genuinely curious why access matters and why we fight for it and complain when we don't get it, maybe you'll find it interesting...or at least worth the two minutes it took you to read.
https://www.theringer.com/2020/3/10/21173499/coronavirus-locker-room-mlb-nba-nfl-sportswriting
As the article says, yes, we know that we are considered whiners and that most of you don't care about the ins and outs of our job or if we can talk to anybody or any of the rest of it. We know most people think we just get paid to watch games and kick our feet up and eat press box food for a few hours (and for the record, in no way am I saying sportswriting is one of the more difficult jobs out there or really difficult in any way, it's just different than most people think it is).
Anyway, over the years, there's been a lot of discussion about access to the athletes and coaches we cover. A lot of it has happened on this board and I have discussions like this with my friends in the business on a weekly basis. This article lays out the reason it's important to what we do and important to the product you pay for.
Every year, the access gets curtailed a little and sanitized even more. College is different than the pros. Open locker rooms haven't been a thing for a long time. The football locker room has never been open. In basketball, it was open during the Quin years, but hasn't been since. Interviews in college sports are set up this way: You submit a list of players you'd like to talk to after practice or after the game. That list is reviewed by the sports information people and run by the coach. If the players on that list are approved by those people, they are notified that reporters have requested to speak to them. At that point, the players generally get to choose whether they do it or not (for the record, I've always disliked this part of it; every player here thinks they're going to the NBA or the NFL and if you're in those leagues, it's not optional. You don't get to say "I'm not doing it." You can go Marshawn Lynch and refuse to say anything, but you still have to show up. I've often argued with people at Missouri that if you're giving these kids an option not to do interviews, you aren't preparing them for the next level they think they're going to and you're doing them a disservice). If they don't want to, a coach or an SID may suggest that they should do it, but not always and they're rarely if ever forced to do it. So in the end, if you request eight guys, you probably get five of them on a good day. A lot of times you get two.
The value isn't really in interviewing them after a game or even after practice. The majority of the quotes aren't all that enlightening and you guys rarely read a postgame story and say "Wow, that's amazing that guy said that and that you wrote about the game I just spent four hours watching and told me what I already knew happened." The value is in the repeated interaction. It's in the reporters getting to know the subjects and the subjects getting to know the reporters.
Going back 10-15 years, there were a lot of athletes at Mizzou I got to know pretty well and vice versa. Guys like Laurence Bowers, Kim English, T Rucker, Andrew Jones, TJ Moe, Brock Christopher, I still keep in touch with from time to time. Because I wasn't just a guy that stuck a microphone in their faces along with 20 other guys sticking microphones in their faces. We had conversations. They saw me every day and got to know me beyond just this dude that shows up and asks why I missed the shot at the end of the game or what happened when I scored that touchdown.
A big benefit of that is that you build relationships with guys that pay off down the road. Maybe they tell you some things that inform a good story. Maybe you get to know their background and can ask them questions for a story about who they are off the field and what happened in their lives to lead them to the point they're now at. And maybe they trust you enough to give you honest answers and let you write a good story. And maybe when fans read that story, they get to know the player beyond a uniform number and what he did on the court or the field and they become human beings and the fans become a little more invested in how they do at Mizzou and beyond.
Like I said, that access gets a little worse every year. Not just at Missouri, but everywhere. What it results in is relationships that are not mutually beneficial but that are transactional. Hey, I need to have some quotes for this story I write, so can you say something? They say it, we write it, we're done until the next time we need a quote for a story and then we repeat the interaction. It's worse for them, it's worse for us and it's worse for you.
The sports media should serve as the liaison between fans and the team. You guys don't get to talk to these guys and ask them questions very often. We do. Our job is to find out the things you want to know but don't have a way to find out. And that's not necessarily just bad things. Sure, some of it will be negative. And that's a big reason we're at the point we're at. College teams (mostly coaches) view the media as the enemy because they're afraid if we're around too much we're going to find things out they don't want us to know and we're going to write them and then everybody's going to know them. In truth, it's the opposite. I'm really not trying to find out more about a kid so I can screw them or the program over. 99% of the time I'm doing it because if I can tell his story and let you guys get to know him a little bit better, it benefits everyone.
I know a lot of people will have one of two reactions to this:
1) TL;DNR
2) Shut up, you get paid to watch sports, quit bitching, we don't care
And that's fine if that's your reaction. But for those who have an interest in what we do day to day and who are genuinely curious why access matters and why we fight for it and complain when we don't get it, maybe you'll find it interesting...or at least worth the two minutes it took you to read.
