44-year-old writer is treated like a real player on the team

I have not known John to curry favor with any of the teams at WSSU. That's just an FYI.

But I am curious if he, or any others, must sign some liability waiver or something. This could easily become a news story, if you get me.

You know what would be interesting. Screw taking routes and catching easy passes. Put on the pads. And your old high school jersey. Take the field. Then get run over, on purpose, by the team's hardest hitters. Who hits with the most ferocity? Who doesn't? What's it feel like? We're not that big of pussies that we can't do at least that, right? Now THAT would be interesting.

 

If nothing else, it would be fun to watch.

 

We come out 365!! days a year.
Sometime within that time span, there are chances to do something different.

And I'm willing to bet readers remember this story more than they do a feature on the team's offensive line.

One of our biggest problems, I think, is that we read and critque things as journalists/beat writers/editors. That's kinda like a chef critiquing the fries at McDonalds. In his eyes, they suck, no flavor, no seasoning. And yet the public loves them.

At my first paper, we had an old, way-past-her-prime city editor write a weekly what's-going-
on-around-town column. It was without question the worst written thing in the newspaper, filled with exclamation points and run-on sentences. Every week, everyone in the newsroom ripped this poor woman behind her back. Said she was an embarrassment to the profession.

And yet, her column was the most popular thing in the paper.

 

Full disclosure: I've done a piece like this, though it wasn't involving a team or sport I'd normally cover, and I struggled with a lot of these issues.

Verducci has done it a couple of times; as player with the Blue Jays and as an umpire, both times in spring training. I liked both pieces, but it was different from this in a couple of ways. First, TV isn't on the day-to-day beat for the Jays. Second, while his personal experience was conveyed in the writing -- otherwise, what's the point? -- it wasn't so personal. There were snippets of conversations that put the reader in the dugout or on the foul line, hearing the gripes of the fans or the comments from the players. That sort of thing gives this sort of piece value, and maybe it's better suited to magazine writing.

An everyday beat writer, I would think, should be precluded from doing it. A GA or feature writer is the staffer that should do it, although the size of the newspaper staff may dictate whether that's a practice that can be followed to the leter.

 

The column was fine. I agree it was probably one of the most well-read stories in the paper that day.

Yet, I would have been more impressed if there was tackling.

 

I assume that all of the people who like this story also like Nadel's Erin Andrews column? Because that was "different" from what the paper usually runs, and also one of the most-read stories.

I'm surprised that these two criteria are sufficient for many posters here to consider it worthwhile. I think readers are smarter than that.

 

A. Two different issues entirely.

B. You be wrong.

 

Wasn't referring to you, but OK. Should've been more clear.

So why is the OP's story good besides it being "different", which the Nadel thing proves is not good enough by itself? Not badgering, I'm genuinely curious to see why people feel that way. Your post hinted at a couple of reasons which is why I wasn't referring to you.

 

blahblahblah, been done years before, what's the point? I'd be much more interested if he wrote about partying with the players afterward.

 

First, I agree with Mizzou that this type of story has become cliche, particularly when it comes to participating in the Big Three sports.

Second, if you're going to do this type of piece about a football team, man up and take some hits. Jogging some routes and catching some passes? I see drunk fat men do that in the parking lot before every NFL game I attend.

Third, while it has become cliche, that's not to say it should never be done. I loved Verducci's piece on being an umpire. It's not something you read about often and it offered some genuine insight. If you're going to do it, do it for a sport that gets less attention and less understood by the public. Lacrosse, for instance, would be interesting because -- unlike catching a football -- passing, catching and controlling the ball in lacrosse (while avoiding getting blasted by the defense) is such a foreign concept to your reader.

 

Do teams still do bonecrusher drills where one guy has the ball and can call out someone on the team to go up against to see who gets the better end of the collision? That would be fun to do.

 

Oklahoma drills are probably the closest you'll get.

If you have a writer who is willing to go 100 percent against top Division I competition that will go all out in the drill, that would be a hell of a lot more interesting that running routes in 7 on 7.