Pearlman does preps

[jeff.pearlman]

I have a question, for real, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just fascinated by this whole discussion.

Forget whether you think my article sucked or not, and I ask, Why is it so bad to write a prep gamer as more of a feature-gamer? I mean, yeah, the 40 guys who played in the game, and their parents, are reading to see their names in the story. But I can't imagine the majority of the OC Register sports section readers care about the Laguna Beach-Bolsa Grande outcome. So why not make them care by actually trying to make the stories interesting? Again, I'm not making this a debate about whether my article worked or not. But, throughout my life, I've skimmed past a solid 98 percent of prep stories because they're boring and I have no interest in the outcomes. What draws me to an article is a lede that sucks me in, or an interesting character. The Register still has a large circulation. If I write the standard, "Laguna Beach beat Bolsa Grande behind two touchdowns from Steve Sanders ..." lede, I'm basically writing for .002% of readers. No?

So is it possible the old way of prep gamers is the wrong way? That you're catering to a small number, not the overall readership?

I'm probably not right here. But it strikes me as interesting.

 

[Mr. Sunshine]

Traditional gamers are zombies. And like zombies, they should be killed.

Not only are they boring, but they're a giant waste of potential talent and institutional knowledge.

 

[BDC99]

I mean, yeah, the 40 guys who played in the game, and their parents, are reading to see their names in the story. But I can't imagine the majority of the OC Register sports section readers care about the Laguna Beach-Bolsa Grande outcome. So why not make them care by actually trying to make the stories interesting? ...
If I write the standard, "Laguna Beach beat Bolsa Grande behind two touchdowns from Steve Sanders ..." lede, I'm basically writing for .002% of readers. No?

So is it possible the old way of prep gamers is the wrong way? That you're catering to a small number, not the overall readership?

I'm probably not right here. But it strikes me as interesting.

I don't think so. I think preps is a special animal, and I don't think there is a lot you can do to generate interest in some random game. I think people mostly read prep stories they have ties to, like a big area rivalry or their alma mater or whatever. I think by definition preps has a limited audience, though of course it depends on the size of the market, how many schools are involved, etc. There is a place for features, of course, but I think the game story itself should focus on the getting as many names in as you can and the result itself. Certainly, it doesn't have to be a straight AP lead, but I think we should stick with the nuts and bolts for game coverage and branch out on other things like notebooks/previews/features/columns.

 

[BDC99]

Traditional gamers are zombies. And like zombies, they should be killed.

Not only are they boring, but they're a giant waste of potential talent and institutional knowledge.

I agree, for the most part, but not when you're talking preps. I have been seeing a lot more analysis/columns in place of pro sports game stories recently, and I really like that approach, especially if we're talking MLB or some other sports with a huge number of games.

 

[SnarkShark]

I have a question, for real, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just fascinated by this whole discussion.

Forget whether you think my article sucked or not, and I ask, Why is it so bad to write a prep gamer as more of a feature-gamer? I mean, yeah, the 40 guys who played in the game, and their parents, are reading to see their names in the story. But I can't imagine the majority of the OC Register sports section readers care about the Laguna Beach-Bolsa Grande outcome. So why not make them care by actually trying to make the stories interesting? Again, I'm not making this a debate about whether my article worked or not. But, throughout my life, I've skimmed past a solid 98 percent of prep stories because they're boring and I have no interest in the outcomes. What draws me to an article is a lede that sucks me in, or an interesting character. The Register still has a large circulation. If I write the standard, "Laguna Beach beat Bolsa Grande behind two touchdowns from Steve Sanders ..." lede, I'm basically writing for .002% of readers. No?

So is it possible the old way of prep gamers is the wrong way? That you're catering to a small number, not the overall readership?

I'm probably not right here. But it strikes me as interesting.

The best prep gamers are a balance of good color, feature aspects, and details of the game. That's why I always encouraged people who worked for me at one point to stat games on the field. You can get all kinds of great stories down there just watching and listening, rather than sitting in the press box, crafting a boring boilerplate story.

All that being said, you still have to tell the story, which is the game.

 

[SnarkShark]

I don't think so. I think preps is a special animal, and I don't think there is a lot you can do to generate interest in some random game. I think people mostly read prep stories they have ties to, like a big area rivalry or their alma mater or whatever. I think by definition preps has a limited audience, though of course it depends on the size of the market, how many schools are involved, etc. There is a place for features, of course, but I think the game story itself should focus on the getting as many names in as you can and the result itself. Certainly, it doesn't have to be a straight AP lead, but I think we should stick with the nuts and bolts for game coverage and branch out on other things like notebooks/previews/features/columns.

I completely disagree with this. I agree we shouldn't have what Jeff wrote, but I don't think we should have this suggestion, either.
There's a balance. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

A great prep gamer can have aspects of a feature (color, observations, emotion, etc.), along with the nuts and bolts of telling the story of the game.

 

[JayFarrar]

I'm so sick of the names argument.

Why not just run the forking roster every week with the score on top and call it a day?

Saturday's are the least read paper almost everywhere. No one is running out to buy a paper because they think their kid's name might be in it.

No one. It is a lie we tell ourselves to justify those 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. nights and the grind that high school football can be at some places.

The story in question was what a gamer would look like if written by a novelist and magazine takeout writer, which is exactly what it was.

Does that make it bad or the worst or whatever? No, it is just the stylistic difference between what a magazine guy/gal would do and what a newspaper guy/gal would do.

Magazine guy parachutes in. Won't be seen from again. Writes what he wants and doesn't have to deal with the coach or team again, ever.

A newspaper guy, wanting to keep a good relationship, won't take big chances or be overly critical. Or maybe their paper has some rules for gamers.

I used to freelance for a place that you had to mention every person who scored a point. So it was some insane 56-49 game and I had 12 inches to account for 15 touchdowns and 15 extra points.

That being said and now that Pearlman has joined the fray.

That Kirkau kid really got in your head didn't he?

I got bored and did some googling and you've written that story quite a few times. Seems like it stuck.

 

[BDC99]

I completely disagree with this. I agree we shouldn't have what Jeff wrote, but I don't think we should have this suggestion, either.
There's a balance. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

A great prep gamer can have aspects of a feature (color, observations, emotion, etc.), along with the nuts and bolts of telling the story of the game.

Yes, I agree with all of this. But the result and the names are what matter to the parents and the athletes in the game story. Of course it can still be written well.

 

[SnarkShark]

I'm so sick of the names argument.

Why not just run the forking roster every week with the score on top and call it a day?

Saturday's are the least read paper almost everywhere. No one is running out to buy a paper because they think their kid's name might be in it.

No one. It is a lie we tell ourselves to justify those 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. nights and the grind that high school football can be at some places.

The story in question was what a gamer would look like if written by a novelist and magazine takeout writer, which is exactly what it was.

Does that make it bad or the worst or whatever? No, it is just the stylistic difference between what a magazine guy/gal would do and what a newspaper guy/gal would do.

Magazine guy parachutes in. Won't be seen from again. Writes what he wants and doesn't have to deal with the coach or team again, ever.

A newspaper guy, wanting to keep a good relationship, won't take big chances or be overly critical. Or maybe their paper has some rules for gamers.

I used to freelance for a place that you had to mention every person who scored a point. So it was some insane 56-49 game and I had 12 inches to account for 15 touchdowns and 15 extra points.

That being said and now that Pearlman has joined the fray.

That Kirkau kid really got in your head didn't he?

I got bored and did some googling and you've written that story quite a few times. Seems like it stuck.

This is not even close to accurate. I'm not sure what world you live in, but parents still care very deeply about whether their kids get mentioned online or in print. We have threads dedicated to it.

 

[ChrisLong]

Jay Farrar -- OCR still believes, and I agree, that names are important and the more the better (but to just run the rosters if, of course, ridiculous and a stupid way for you to try to make your point). A few years ago, OCR required that all names in prep copy be boldface. It isn't done any where else in the section.

 

[Batman]

I have a question, for real, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just fascinated by this whole discussion.

Forget whether you think my article sucked or not, and I ask, Why is it so bad to write a prep gamer as more of a feature-gamer? I mean, yeah, the 40 guys who played in the game, and their parents, are reading to see their names in the story. But I can't imagine the majority of the OC Register sports section readers care about the Laguna Beach-Bolsa Grande outcome. So why not make them care by actually trying to make the stories interesting? Again, I'm not making this a debate about whether my article worked or not. But, throughout my life, I've skimmed past a solid 98 percent of prep stories because they're boring and I have no interest in the outcomes. What draws me to an article is a lede that sucks me in, or an interesting character. The Register still has a large circulation. If I write the standard, "Laguna Beach beat Bolsa Grande behind two touchdowns from Steve Sanders ..." lede, I'm basically writing for .002% of readers. No?

So is it possible the old way of prep gamers is the wrong way? That you're catering to a small number, not the overall readership?

I'm probably not right here. But it strikes me as interesting.

I think it works better in basketball or baseball, those sports that play several games a week, than it does for football. With those other sports you have so many games that you almost have to featurize from time to time. There's more room and time to experiment with different techniques.
Myself, I've always wanted to write a gamer as a rhyming poem. One day maybe inspiration will strike like a lightning bolt and I'll be able to pull it off without looking like too much of a hack.
With football, you have so much time to fill between games and so few of them during the season that it's often wiser to save the features for the other days and write a more traditional gamer on Friday night. There's room to mix in elements of a feature, analysis and color into the gamer, but at the end of the day you shouldn't get so wrapped up in those that you forget to tell people what happened. That doesn't mean play-by-play of every touchdown in a 56-49 game, it means hit the highlights and give them some insight into how the teams got there and why it's important.
Whether it's preps or the NFL, that's what we probably should all be striving for in some form or fashion.

 

[Rhody31]

That gamer is what a gamer should be; find the story, write about it. The QB was the story.
Jeff made a few mistakes that any first-timer (or in this case, someone who hasn't done preps in years) would make. Stats would have added some color any information to the story. Did you keep a drive sheet? Or try and do stats?
My biggest issue is turning a 4-point game into what seemed like a blowout; I want to know why the 16-0 lead disappeared, even if its a throw-away graf that says "the XXX defense held prevent the other guys from having a chance." Unless I missed that. Which is possible.
Despite what we all think of ourselves, there isn't a lot of great game-story writing. I read a lot of mediocre game stories 'round these parts and it makes me insane.
If Jeff keeps pumping these out, in a month or so he'll find a groove.
But Jeff, challenge yourself - try to keep stats, tweet, take photos, then write the story and process pics on deadline. Just writing? Rookie shirt.