Pearlman does preps

Not really surprising, though, considering that it has probably been a long time since he didn't get stats from someone else -- the schools, SIDs and pro scorekeepers at events he has covered.

 

Stat guy was David Kirkau's son.

 

Can't remember a single time covering preps that I ever relied on someone else's stats. There were a few HS that did a really nice job putting together stats and giving a printout, but even then I'd quickly compare with what I had because some schools are notorious for making up stats to make certain players look better. Just expecting to get stats from someone else is a rookie mistake.

As others have said above, I thought the piece was dreadful. I hate when people try to overwrite HS gamers and that might be the most overwritten piece I've seen in a long time. That lede....yikes.

 

Keeping stats for a game you're covering is at least half the battle. It's why covering pro and college sports is much easier than preps, at least in my experience.

 

One's not harder or easier. They're very different. I covered preps in an area where there's stiff competition over breaking news, but in a lot of places, you don't really have competition. That alone makes it much less of a white knuckle job.

 

Covering a major pro or college beat is going to be more difficult than just about any preps beat. That's obvious. I'm talking strictly about gamers. Compiling stats, play-by-play and sometimes photo and video doesn't allow you to write during the game, which makes it much more difficult to turn copy on a tight deadline.

 

Many prep gamers are too bland. Not terrible, just painfully bland. They're written as if the coaches and players are little dots over the history of time, cogs in a giant preps wheel of hundreds of teams and faces and plays, and that whatever's happening on that field isn't particularly important or special, but just part of another giant Friday night.

Over time, I suppose that's the prudent approach. But I didn't mind Pearlman's take. There are too many flourishes, I'll grant that. But the gamer had a focus and a point of view, and I did not feel as though I was reading a gamer compiled by someone with their head buried in the stat book all night. I at least read a story by someone who appeared to take interest in the event at hand, and not in their usual "I'm a prep writer" routine.

Of course, I think stats are overdone. Brutally. If you were telling somebody the story of a game out loud, just in conversation, you wouldn't say "well Billy had 93 yards rushing and Prep Tech marched 36 yards after recovering a fumbled punt for a touchdown, only to miss the extra point, which made for a five-point final margin." If you talked like that, no one would want to talk to you.

So why write like it? Blend the formal and the casual. Too many prep gamers boil down to packing 12 stats into 500 words.

It goes without saying, too, that "ratings" are the bane of the prep beat's existence. Every one of these damn sports ends in a playoff and a single winner. Who cares what they're rated before then? It's a fool's errand.

 

Stats can absolutely bog a gamer down, but Pearlman's story was entirely about the quarterback and how great he was. You gotta give me something more than physical descriptors and, like you said, flourishes.

 

Well, I thought, to some degree, the story was a kind of recompense for the last one he wrote 20 years ago. It's hardly any wonder they were both about QBs.

I mean, I could pull up a prep gamer from anywhere, and it'd almost certainly the same damn thing. So and so took it to such and such, person a ran for x yards, person b ran for y yards, so and so bounced back from a loss to this and that the week before. Coach quote. Description of touchdowns. The End.

Texas high school football has inspired books, movies, songs and a hit TV show. You could call up a prep gamer right now and it'd be just what I wrote. Doesn't need to be. But if you're enslaved to the stenographer style of covering those events, it will be.

 

Jeff,

You're not a bad writer. Those saying that don't know what they're talking about.

What bothered me was that if felt like you did this for you, as some sort of pet project, and not for the subjects or for fulfilling the job requirements. That's why I made the "masturbation" comment.

Specifically request a shit game so you can "go back to your roots" and put on some writing exhibition? I think that's a bit condescending.

 

I am not endorsing stenography. It's one of the reasons I did everything I could to get out of preps once upon a time. But preps is not like other levels of sports that are covered wall-to-wall. People read these items for information on what happened in the game, because there is often no other source for that information.

Jeff entirely missed on that aspect--explaining what happened. The margin of the game was two points, and all he did was describe some plays in the first half within what should have been a feature, column, or sidebar.

Like I said above, this wasn't about him covering a game. It was about him putting on a writing display and telling the story of going "back to his roots."

 

Hey, I originally responded here, then deleted the response because I really don't want to get in a negative back and forth. People have the right to criticize, and a person should be able to take it. Blah, blah. Then, by the time I deleted it someone already commented on it, and then it got even more weird, and ... well, this is what I wrote originally:

Well, dammit, friend told me I was getting killed here. And, of course, I looked. Oy.

First, the story was 100-percent overwritten. No question, fair criticism. Second ... so? Have you read 98% of prep stories out there? Boring, standard, flat, a lede usually along the lines of, "Using a solid offense and the passing of Fred Smith, North Central High upset Stevens High by a score of ..." For me, this was a joyful chance to overwrite and be fun and take stabs. Why not? I mean, seriously, why not? Is there some advantage to flat prep writing? Or being conventional? The article comes, it's read, it vanishes.

To be honest, I got my career going by sorta writing this way. I really did, and if it sucks, so be it. You're supposed to take shots in your writing; you're supposed to reach and grab and try funky shit. That's the way I got noticed by The Tennessean and SI, the way (I'm guessing) guys like Rick and Wright Thompson and Howard Bryant a million others (better writers than me, certainly) got noticed. I teach journalism, and I tell my students the same exact thing: Go for it. And if it falls flat, it falls flat—no biggie. I truly hope no young writers here read the comments and think, "I better keep my writing close to the vest." Because it's a mistake.

Lastly, why always the "[so and so] is a terrible writer stuff" here? I never understand that one. If you're here, you surely know how hard writing is. We all have good days and bad days, no?

Thanks.

Jeff

PS: To be clear, I get the criticism. And, from a technical standpoint, don't disagree.

An additional thought, RE: SnarkShark. I totally get why it might come of as such, but I swear, I wasn't attempting to put on a "writing display." I truly just wanted to try my hands at preps again, and have fun doing so. Which I did (the blog post idea came afterward). You also make a really interesting point, RE: "People read these items for information on what happened in the game, because there is often no other source for that information." Very valid, and maybe what preps should be is what they usually are—sorta standard game recaps, without focusing heavily on one or two players. I don't think I agree, but I need to sleep on it. Again, it's an interesting point.

Oh, one more thing: The "you did it for you" point—totally fair, too. And something I need to consider. I did do it for my own experience. Perhaps that takes away from the product. Hmm ...