Thoughts on Scout and Rivals...

I like their kind of thinkin.' ;D ;D

 

Sorry for not knowing the history here: The WarChant site that someone said Rivals bought for $3 million ... was that an independently run site that got so good that Rivals snatched it up? Or was it a Scout site that became a Rivals site?

I've often wondered if an established, mainstream journalist/longtime beat writer would have success by leaving his paper and starting his own subscription site - especially at a big school where sports are king (i.e. Texas football, Kentucky hoops, etc). The key would be that the guy would have to report in the same, unbiased manner that he did at his paper. No fanboy shit. It'd be a lot of work, but it seems like it would have potential simply because it would have credibility. Then again, do fans even CARE about credibility anymore?

Any thoughts?

 

Went back and fixed my spelling errors. Good thing you're not so uptight about grammar.

Anyway, back to Warchant ... the guy posting this nonsense about Gene Williams getting $3 million for moving his site is living in a fantasy world. There's wrong and then there's dead wrong. This guy is dead wrong.

 

It's possible, but that horse is kind of already out of the barn. Running an independent site these days would be AWFULLY difficult. The networks (Rivals/Scout) have a huge advantage in depth of content. And that reach means all the difference when it comes to recruiting coverage. For example, the other day, a DB from Michigan committed to Florida State, but it came out in a Rivals site in Michigan. The Rivals site in Tallahassee didn't lift a finger, but all of their members could read that story for free because it was in the network. An independent operator wouldn't have that luxury.

As for the credibility part ... some fans on these sites want honest analysis, while others want to hear that their team is the best in the world. Different strokes and all. But what they ALL want is INFORMATION. They want to be the first one in their office, or in class or whatever, to know that the second-team fullback has a sprained ankle. Or that the 5-star WR from Miami is "leaning" toward their school. They want to be in the know. And they want that information as soon as practice as over. They don't want to wait until the next morning.

Question the journalism, criticize the ethics, laugh about the idea of calling HS kids every day, but don't underestimate the genius of this business model. Until recently, I worked closely with one of these sites for four years, and the growth is unbelievable. And barring some major legislation from the NCAA, I don't see it slowing down any time soon.

 

The Scout site at Ohio State has tripled in growth in the last 3 years. They are on the cutting edge of what is hot right now. In an era when daily newspaper numbers are tanking all over everywhere, these guys are growing.

Why is that?

Because they are providing today's news today. And it's more than just recruiting. They cover every aspect of football and men's basketball. They are at every football game and it all but a handful of the bkb games on the road. On some big days they file 5-6 stories on the team. They conduct 2-3 Chats a week to connect directly with their subscribers and their answer their questions.

They get it. They provide a product that people want to buy, unlike daily newspapers with shrinking newsholes and less coverage this year than last year. I don't see a lot of bias in their coverage. They are catering to their clientele.

These sites are more than just journalism. They are about building a community.

Their people are largely professional, from what I have seen.

 

Wow - I didn't realize some of the Rivals sites were sending their writers on the road with teams. That's not the case at the school I cover (Major DI). If they're at every practice, every game, providing tons of info to fans in a quick manner, than I can see why those sites are doing so well.

Where I am, all they're really covering is recruiting. They do a good job of it, too. But all the game coverage, etc. ... they're doing it from the comfort of their own living room with the aid of postgame quote sheets found on the school's internet site. And as far as practice coverage? Forget it.

That's why the idea of an independent site run by established, credible journalists seemed intrigiung to me. I guess the main point is that the quality of the Rivals sites differ from school to school. Either way, it's tough to ignore their current power - and the potential they have to increase it.

 

Maybe my point was lost. So I'll try again. Real knows real. If you provide a product people want, they will pay money for it. That's what I see with what they are doing. They have strong journalism and have built a strong community. I will admit that some of these Rivals and Scout sites vary in their degree of professionalism. My point is if you do it the right way, people will stand in line to patronize your product. That's a good lesson for these sites or the papers or anything else.

Zing me now, biotch.

 

The NCAA is going to wake up to what? You can't make any meaningful distinction between Rivals/Scout guys and the local paper beat guy who's been writing fluff for years at the behest of the school. The Knoxville News Sentinel's web site is called GoVols.com for crying out loud. Singling out "web yahoos" for a crackdown involving the NCAA is using the same false logic as saying all people of Arabic descent are terrorists. You contention is niether mutually exclusive, nor mutually exhaustive.
Very few "local paper beat guys" write fluff "at the behest of the school."

Sure, there are blatant homers that write for newspapers. But most of them are innocuous. They go to a game, cheer for their team in the press box while everyone else is laughing at them, then go back to their 5,000-circ. paper and write kiss-ass game stories before working desk for the next six nights.

There's an obvious distinction. And if you did some homework, you'd see that the NCAA has already made it.

 

So you're still basically saying that there are no unscrupulous newspaper doing dirty work for their school, while every Internet writer is an arm of the school. I'd still like to know what distinction makes newspaper guys sacrosanct and Internet guys pariahs.

 

So you're still basically saying that there are no unscrupulous newspaper doing dirty work for their school, while every Internet writer is an arm of the school. I'd still like to know what distinction makes newspaper guys sacrosanct and Internet guys pariahs.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

I don't doubt the presence of an extremely small minority of newspaper reporters who might do dirty work for their school. But if you compare it to the percentage of web site yahoos for Rivals and Scout who do the same thing, there's no comparison.

Sure, there are some web site guys who are ethical and professional. But they're a distinct minority.

You can argue there's no distinction all you want, but you're either uninformed or in denial.

 

If you care to inform me - shatter my denial - I'd be happy to look at something besides anecdotal hyperbole that suggests the NCAA should have a different blanket approach for Internet reporters than other media.