Is anybody else finding it hard to tear away from the biz?

I just saw this thread and go back to the original question assuming this thread has gone all over the map now that we are five pages deep into this.

I was one of dozens of The National alums cut loose in 1991 and more than a decade went by before circumstances brought me back into sports media. Not a lot of jobs open at the time for safe landing. Those first 3-5 years out of the biz were really, really tough as I longed---craved---to be back in a press box, especially during college football season or March Madness, cranking out copy on deadline. I felt left out, ostracized, like I was no longer a member of the print-sports club. I was on the outside looking in, and it hurt.

Today, the pain is long gone. Besides, not sure how much fun there is left to be missed. Happiness, even contentment, comes where there is a good paycheck, whether in a press box, corporate setting or cozied up in the home office near and dear to a family I love.

 

I can only go by my experience, but I'm jaded. I really don't find any difference between covering the local high school game of the week and covering the local NFL team.

Honestly, other than the press boxes are much nicer, the pre-game meals are marginally better and the postgame is a lot easier, there's not much difference to me.

I don't get all tingly inside because I'm covering the NFL. I don't feel like I've "made it" or I'm "special." And more often than not, I feel like I'd rather be home spending a Sunday with my wife and kids than in an NFL stadium.

Now, maybe if I didn't have a wife and kids and I were a 25-year old single guy, I'd probably be ecstatic. But this business, sadly enough, has made me a very bitter young man.

 

As someone who did go from preps to big-time college football, and then back again as a stringer, I can say that there is a certain different satisfaction you get from covering the big stuff. It's not an ego thing, not exactly. There were a few reasons:

1. Fan interest. People care about every single transaction, every move on the depth chart. And they aren't people who are directly involved, necessarily. (There are, of course, drawbacks to this, as well).

2. Quality of play. Let's face it. The game is better at the worst Division I college than the best high school. And better in the NBA or NFL than the best college team.

3. Usually more interesting subjects. This is not universal, of course, as I'll get to. But to generalize on a daily beat, as people age and grow, they start to develop an interesting track record in life. They got there somehow. In high school, everyone is from the same town and largely grew up the same way (the challenge, of course, being to find the kids who did not).

4. Dealing with grown-ups. Some people really like writing about high school kids, and there are lots of valid reasons for that. But I far more enjoyed talking to mature pros, when I got the chance, or college seniors.

5. Travel. Yes, it can wear on you. But before children, it's the best.

6. Better pay. I didn't get to cash in on this - my salaries were almost exactly the same. But in general, the college and pro beats pay better.

7. Credibility. What I was able to do was parlay my work on the beat into a book deal, which I might not have been able to do covering preps.

All of that being said, I could never be a beat writer over the long haul. Too monotonous. Too much pressure to root out minutia you don't care about. With few exceptions (David Maraniss's books, Mark Kriegel's books, etc.), the best stories, both in sports and in news, are slice-of-life pieces about everyday people. I think that's why I really enjoy Constitutional law now, because so often it's an average joe going through a struggle with titanic implications.

 

I'm with you on this. I'm in my mid 20's and still doing the high school thing but I feel I owe it to myself to give it a fair shot. If I quit after only a few years in the business I'd be selling myself short. If I got out already, I'd hate to be sitting around in 10 years wondering "what if?" I've wanted to do this for a living for quite some time. I grinded through journalism school. I grinded through the Podunk Press taking middle school results over the phone. If I jumped ship this soon, I wouldn't be giving myself a fair shot at it. And I feel I owe that to myself.

 

This is a very good, accurate and comprehensive list of the differences between preps and pros that can make a difference to people after a while.

Mind you, I am actually proudest overall of my work on preps, because I can see that I was/am really good at finding good, smart and subtle/informative angles, on topics/subjects about which that is not always easy to do, just because of the level of preps and the legwork involved. I know I did this on a consistent basis and was proud to have gained credibility and trust with sources by doing it, in a way that doesn't often occur with pros who we work with in a constant pack-journalism environment, who we may think we know but we really don't, and who usually speak in cliches, talk a lot without saying anything, consider us to be bothering them more than anything, and who don't need us in the least while we have to hang on their every word and deed.

But, after a while, no matter how much you "love" what you do and feel lucky "to get paid to do something you would do for free, anyway" -- I have news for you: no you wouldn't -- you very naturally are likely to gain the perspective of, um, an adult.

And most adults will eventually tire of chasing down that Athlete of the Week feature, and being on the phone with 15-year-olds at 10 o'clock at night to get it. And they will get sick of, nowadays, having to blog, then video, then write for the paper, all as fast as possible, and all first, etc., then worry about what they didn't do because they have multiple sports and 75 or 100 schools on their beat instead of being able to concentrate on one, and with a possible decline in quality just because of the never-ending process, which all has the potential to give you the distinct feeling that you are a hamster on a wheel.

Yes, I actually got that picture in my head at times with preps, but never had it happen with colleges or pros.

The real stresses and negatives with pros -- and they are significant, especially at larger papers or in competitive markets -- are the constant fear of being beaten, on either major news, or even minutia, and the constant threat of life, interrupted, by phone calls regarding something that's going on for which you are responsible.

 

Two great posts by Waylon and WriteThinking with a lot of perspective.


Although I've been primarily a preps reporter for the few years I've been around, I have done a little professional stuff along the way. As much as I used to dream about covering the pros on a regular basis, I was kind of turned off by it.

For one, when you approach a high school kid for an interview, 99% of the time they are thrilled to talk to you. With small amount of pros I've dealt with, I kind of got the feeling that I -- and the media as a whole -- is kind of a nuisance to them. Some of them had such big egos that made them tough to deal with -- and rather unpleasant to talk to IMO. It's also so easy to get an interview with a high school kid. Simply show up at the end of practice and walk right onto the field. Not quite so easy with the pros.

I enjoy the high school kids because they are out there for all the right reasons and they're not going to big-time you. There's not a ton of pressure to always get the scoop on everything like which left guard was working out with the second team instead of the third. Like anybody really gives a shit. And there's so much information out there on the pros that people can go anywhere to read about them -- they don't have to go to your story. But when you're the only paper covering a high school team, you know you're the only source for anyone in town who wants to follow them.

I suppose they both have their good and bad.

 

I'm honestly trying to decide whether I just want to go down to McDonald's and apply.

I'd take a small paycut, but I could probably make that up with a promotion fairly quickly. I'd have a job with steady hours, more room for advancement, at a company that isn't going anywhere and has branches all over the world.

 

They act that way because they don't know you. Look at it from their perspective. It's not personal toward you. Think of yourself in aggregate - lots of reporters coming their way who they have never met, don't recognize and may never see again. On top of that, they have no idea where this is going to end up, how accountable the reporter is going to be, etc., etc. Nobody wants to become a public pariah because he politely granted an innocuous interview to the Podunk Press and his words were twisted (not saying you are from the Podunk Press - but that's how they view every paper they don't recognize).

When they actually know you, the level of respect is quite mutual and the stand-offishness is dialed down exponentially. Of course there are exceptions, but that's the case in any social environment.

 

If you're going that route, at least choose a fast-food joint or whatever that has better food. Chipotle perhaps?

 

I want McDonald's because it's the biggest and has branches everywhere. Chipotle is regional.

This is coming from my wife's new job at Wal-Mart. It's awesome and I envy her.

 

Definitely a discussion for another thread, but....

Burger King > McDonalds.

 

There are no BK's where I live.

I'm incredibly excited about my playoff football road trip tomorrow, because I get to go to a town with a Burger King.