ESPN college sites/hiring

[Pringle]

The Texas and USC sites are a bit more Rivals/Scout-style "fan site" than I expected.

I thought ESPN had tried that route a few years ago with a separate college network and was going to professionalize the approach a bit this time.

But this just looks like the same Rivals/Scout-style content, just with former newspaper reporters doing the writing.

I ask only because I'm curious: What do you see as the differences between Rivals/Scout/ESPN team sites and traditional newspaper coverage? Mostly presentation or also content? Have you already noticed the ESPN sites soft pedaling negative developments?

Not that I've undertaken a serious study, but I've always thought the content, on most days, seems pretty similar. I think the newspaper work sometimes seems more serious because of context - it's tucked inside a paper that is also covering a homicide and the President's jobs plan and Wall Street news, so it kind of accidentally puts coverage of the team in perspective. Obviously, the team-specific sites don't do that, so they seem more ... fannish.

Am I wrong? I'm curious to hear what others have found to be the differences?

 

[MileHigh]

Who's editing these sites? Just absorbed with everything else at the .com in Bristol?

 

[black dude with pompano]

The Texas and USC sites are a bit more Rivals/Scout-style "fan site" than I expected.

I thought ESPN had tried that route a few years ago with a separate college network and was going to professionalize the approach a bit this time.

But this just looks like the same Rivals/Scout-style content, just with former newspaper reporters doing the writing.

I ask only because I'm curious: What do you see as the differences between Rivals/Scout/ESPN team sites and traditional newspaper coverage? Mostly presentation or also content? Have you already noticed the ESPN sites soft pedaling negative developments?

Not that I've undertaken a serious study, but I've always thought the content, on most days, seems pretty similar. I think the newspaper work sometimes seems more serious because of context - it's tucked inside a paper that is also covering a homicide and the President's jobs plan and Wall Street news, so it kind of accidentally puts coverage of the team in perspective. Obviously, the team-specific sites don't do that, so they seem more ... fannish.

Am I wrong? I'm curious to hear what others have found to be the differences?

The main difference is that the newspaper covering, say, Ohio State writes for the Ohio State fan, the Michigan fan, the Big 10 fan, the MAC fan, the casual fan and the little old lady who doesn't know much about football but likes to know how the local team is doing.

The Rivals Ohio State site (and I know nothing about this site, I'm just using it as a generic example) writes for the 5,000 most passionate/insane/informed Ohio State fans in the world.

The coverage reflects that. And in college sports moreso than professional sports, the most passionate fans want their news through a certain filter.

Yes, there are some college fans who prefer the unvarnished truth, but most don't like to have their world view challenged -- and their world view is that Good Ol' State U. is uniquely special, pure and better than all the other programs in the county.

 

[Versatile]

The Texas and USC sites are a bit more Rivals/Scout-style "fan site" than I expected.

I thought ESPN had tried that route a few years ago with a separate college network and was going to professionalize the approach a bit this time.

But this just looks like the same Rivals/Scout-style content, just with former newspaper reporters doing the writing.

I ask only because I'm curious: What do you see as the differences between Rivals/Scout/ESPN team sites and traditional newspaper coverage? Mostly presentation or also content? Have you already noticed the ESPN sites soft pedaling negative developments?

Not that I've undertaken a serious study, but I've always thought the content, on most days, seems pretty similar. I think the newspaper work sometimes seems more serious because of context - it's tucked inside a paper that is also covering a homicide and the President's jobs plan and Wall Street news, so it kind of accidentally puts coverage of the team in perspective. Obviously, the team-specific sites don't do that, so they seem more ... fannish.

Am I wrong? I'm curious to hear what others have found to be the differences?

The main difference is that the newspaper covering, say, Ohio State writes for the Ohio State fan, the Michigan fan, the Big 10 fan, the MAC fan, the casual fan and the little old lady who doesn't know much about football but likes to know how the local team is doing.

The Rivals Ohio State site (and I know nothing about this site, I'm just using it as a generic example) writes for the 5,000 most passionate/insane/informed Ohio State fans in the world.

The coverage reflects that. And in college sports moreso than professional sports, the most passionate fans want their news through a certain filter.

Yes, there are some college fans who prefer the unvarnished truth, but most don't like to have their world view challenged -- and their world view is that Good Ol' State U. is uniquely special, pure and better than all the other programs in the county.

I freelanced a few game stories for a Rivals site while I was in college. The guy told me he liked my writing for the student paper, but he wanted a more straightforward play-by-play, heavy quotes story for his site. He paid well and it was easier to write those stories, but I certainly felt very differently about the type of "journalism" they were after.

 

[mbaker]

The rumor is Jeremy Crabtree is in charge of this thing, which makes some sense as he was at rivals.com for a long time. Also heard each site has its own editor, not just wrapped up with .com copy.