Sports Editors

[uknoit2]

As I have noticed a decline in refs doing an acceptable job, I've also noticed (and my friends West of me would agree) sports editors seem incapable of reporting on basketball games.

It would appear they know very little about the make-up of the game. If a player's not scoring BIG, they're not noticed.

I wonder if they have any idea of the function of a "True" PG? You never see, "Taylor had 4 points and controlled the floor with only one turnover and dished 5 assists while frustrating the defense".

Nor, "Johnson at forward set up his guard's scoring runs with great screens and strong weak-side rebounding".

You don't see this type of reporting because they just don't understand the game! Pitiful

[pedo_29]

As I have noticed a decline in refs doing an acceptable job, I've also noticed (and my friends West of me would agree) sports editors seem incapable of reporting on basketball games.

It would appear they know very little about the make-up of the game. If a player's not scoring BIG, they're not noticed.

I wonder if they have any idea of the function of a "True" PG? You never see, "Taylor had 4 points and controlled the floor with only one turnover and dished 5 assists while frustrating the defense".

Nor, "Johnson at forward set up his guard's scoring runs with great screens and strong weak-side rebounding".

You don't see this type of reporting because they just don't understand the game! Pitiful

 

I'm not at all familiar with what newspaper you are talking about or who the sports writer is you are referring to. But let me give you some perspective from a small town paper from a former sports editor turned editor. It is tough. Pay is low. VERY low. And often-times these are one-man sports departments and they are asked to cover high school boys and girls, middle schools, elementary and youth leagues, wrestling, swimming and everything else that might be going on - including non-sports events at times.

 

Like I said. I don't really know your situation. But before you call someone pitiful, consider the situations.

Edited February 3, 2011 by pedo_29

[uknoit2]

I know these situations well....not like the one you refer to.

Im sure the pay isn't much, but if you're there to do your job...Do it!

[ksgovols]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you must be 'Taylor's' mom, dad or grandparent. I hear what you're saying and I've been in your shoes. The box score doesn't seem to adequately define your kids impact on the game. I've also written reports for younger teams where I made sure every player's name was mentioned and something positive was said. The truth is, besides you, your spouse and the grandparents, noone else really cares how many assists Taylor had or what kind of pressure he put on the ball. They want to know who won and who scored. They'll sell more papers if they pay a parent to take a few photos every game to publish in the paper than to have a write up about the game.

[uknoit2]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you must be 'Taylor's' mom, dad or grandparent. I hear what you're saying and I've been in your shoes. The box score doesn't seem to adequately define your kids impact on the game. I've also written reports for younger teams where I made sure every player's name was mentioned and something positive was said. The truth is, besides you, your spouse and the grandparents, noone else really cares how many assists Taylor had or what kind of pressure he put on the ball. They want to know who won and who scored. They'll sell more papers if they pay a parent to take a few photos every game to publish in the paper than to have a write up about the game.

Well, that doesn't seem to hold true with the reporting on larger schools. And, when younger, the reporting seemed alot more detailed.

My kid is mentioned frequently, so its not that..... it just seems few notice the hustle and sacrifice of the others that make scoring and winning possible....IMO, this is the greatest game on the planet! It has so many facets to appreciate... its just a shame they all are not

 

By the way, a well stated post....pictures now take place of well written articles these days

Edited February 4, 2011 by uknoit2

[wcfields]

As I have noticed a decline in refs doing an acceptable job, I've also noticed (and my friends West of me would agree) sports editors seem incapable of reporting on basketball games.

It would appear they know very little about the make-up of the game. If a player's not scoring BIG, they're not noticed.

I wonder if they have any idea of the function of a "True" PG? You never see, "Taylor had 4 points and controlled the floor with only one turnover and dished 5 assists while frustrating the defense".

Nor, "Johnson at forward set up his guard's scoring runs with great screens and strong weak-side rebounding".

You don't see this type of reporting because they just don't understand the game! Pitiful

The people on this board are generally the most informed folks I've read when it comes to sports. And that is a major compliment.

 

NO, the sportswriters today (with exceptions) at times seem to be writing about a game with which I am unfamiliar. "Double double" or "triple double" is a huge topic, but someone taking a charge to change the momentum of a game or threading a bounce pass to a post player for an easy layup is out. The long range 3 pointer makes headlines. Fundamentals and skill count for little.

 

As a second point, the officiating has declined in quality in my opinion and I have a theory on that. Some may disagree. I am not so sure it's bias or lack of knowledge of the game. When there were TWO officials calling the game it forced the refs to really keep an eye on the game and get into the flow quickly. You could tell how tightly or otherwise they would call the game from early on. I can't tell you how many times I've seen an outside official come running in to make a call that should have been called (or not called) by an official closer to the play. "If I have a whistle, I'm supposed to blow it". And many times, they do blow it.

 

I don't know the stats, but my guess is that with the move to three officials, we are probably close to three times as many calls. [Personally, I don't like the 'mercy rule' either. In my day, I didn't see a coach intentionally run up the score on a weaker team. Do we have to enforce ethics with rules?]

[utfan3]

Agree with some of these post and disagree with some other points. A good PG is the most under-recognized players for the most part in the media. Points scored by an individual player(s) means nothing but it gets the most attention. Give me a smart (floor general) point guard who can get the ball where it needs to be and he will score his points on a very good team most of the time. Give me a dumb point guard and he will have low scoring on a below average team. Recuiters have no tolerance for the do-it-all PG. They are looking for PG that leads the team and gets his team involved.

[uknoit2]

The people on this board are generally the most informed folks I've read when it comes to sports. And that is a major compliment.

 

NO, the sportswriters today (with exceptions) at times seem to be writing about a game with which I am unfamiliar. "Double double" or "triple double" is a huge topic, but someone taking a charge to change the momentum of a game or threading a bounce pass to a post player for an easy layup is out. The long range 3 pointer makes headlines. Fundamentals and skill count for little.

 

As a second point, the officiating has declined in quality in my opinion and I have a theory on that. Some may disagree. I am not so sure it's bias or lack of knowledge of the game. When there were TWO officials calling the game it forced the refs to really keep an eye on the game and get into the flow quickly. You could tell how tightly or otherwise they would call the game from early on. I can't tell you how many times I've seen an outside official come running in to make a call that should have been called (or not called) by an official closer to the play. "If I have a whistle, I'm supposed to blow it". And many times, they do blow it.

 

I don't know the stats, but my guess is that with the move to three officials, we are probably close to three times as many calls. [Personally, I don't like the 'mercy rule' either. In my day, I didn't see a coach intentionally run up the score on a weaker team. Do we have to enforce ethics with rules?]

I couldn't have said it better myself!

[uknoit2]

Agree with some of these post and disagree with some other points. A good PG is the most under-recognized players for the most part in the media. Points scored by an individual player(s) means nothing but it gets the most attention. Give me a smart (floor general) point guard who can get the ball where it needs to be and he will score his points on a very good team most of the time. Give me a dumb point guard and he will have low scoring on a below average team. Recuiters have no tolerance for the do-it-all PG. They are looking for PG that leads the team and gets his team involved.

 

SO TRUE! Watching a good team with a sesoned PG is a pleasure!

Ive seen alot of teams, with 'scorers' but no real PG, loose alot of close games in the 4th (no ball/floor control).

THE hardest position on the floor is running point and doing it correctly (any real coach will tell you that)! The likes of Jordan and Kobe may always get the 'props', but they win because of a good PG! True in High School, College, and at one time, the NBA.

Thanks for your post, hope these kids know that there are still knowledgeable fans out here that notice everything they do to bring their team the 'W'....even if the press, coaches, or other players do not!

Edited February 4, 2011 by uknoit2

[ksgovols]

Well, that doesn't seem to hold true with the reporting on larger schools. And, when younger, the reporting seemed alot more detailed.

My kid is mentioned frequently, so its not that..... it just seems few notice the hustle and sacrifice of the others that make scoring and winning possible....IMO, this is the greatest game on the planet! It has so many facets to appreciate... its just a shame they all are not

 

By the way, a well stated post....pictures now take place of well written articles these days

 

I think the reporting is more detailed in the younger groups because it's typically a Dad like me that's writing them and sending them into the paper. By the time they get to high school, the paper sends somebody or the coach calls in the stats and the article is written from that. It's a catch 22. I want to open up the Tennessean and get stats and boxscores after every game. A general interest article on a few of the area schools is appreciated, but mostly you get an article on the high profile school that is doing well every single week. For their circulation, I get that. Our county wide weekly paper does a pretty decent job of covering the 3 high schools in the area, but one sports editor can only be at one of the games. He relies on a Dad to send in a write up and photos of the game. You've got parameters to work within. They want an overall view of how the game went without a play by play, some comments about where the team is in their season and their post season chances, rivalry game, homecoming and stuff like that. They don't want a bio really. Just the facts, a boxscore and a photo or two.

[uknoit2]

I think the reporting is more detailed in the younger groups because it's typically a Dad like me that's writing them and sending them into the paper. By the time they get to high school, the paper sends somebody or the coach calls in the stats and the article is written from that. It's a catch 22. I want to open up the Tennessean and get stats and boxscores after every game. A general interest article on a few of the area schools is appreciated, but mostly you get an article on the high profile school that is doing well every single week. For their circulation, I get that. Our county wide weekly paper does a pretty decent job of covering the 3 high schools in the area, but one sports editor can only be at one of the games. He relies on a Dad to send in a write up and photos of the game. You've got parameters to work within. They want an overall view of how the game went without a play by play, some comments about where the team is in their season and their post season chances, rivalry game, homecoming and stuff like that. They don't want a bio really. Just the facts, a boxscore and a photo or two.

My title "Sports Editor" was probably incorrect. It should have been, "Sports Writers".

There seems to be a different sports writer for most high school games and few give detailed report....but, after reading your posts, I can see why that may be. I dont agree with it, but I see your view.

When I spoke of, "when younger", I was refering to a day long ago when any sports article you read helped you 'see' the game they were reporting.

This is really not a bashing of 'Sports Editors'. Im sure plate is full!

[Cleggy]

I live in the nashville area and every Friday night during h.s. football season the sports segment on the nightly news always cover all the local scores and even have highlights of several games (Friiday Night Lights). This is on every news channel, abc,nbc,cbs, and fox.

 

None of the h.s basketball game results are ever mentioned and you never see any highlights from the games. what gives? Don't the b-ball players deserve the same recognition and warrant the some airtime? I guess football is king like or not.