Doogie article - New 7/27

Donate To GopherHole
Unregistered User

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
14,781
Reaction score
4,979
Points
113
Interview with Adam Weber.

It might be best to skip the commentary on top and just get to the interview. It really shows what a class act Weber is.

Clicky
 

Great interview. Good questions by Doogie and honest, in depth answers by Weber. I really hope Gray, Alipate and Parish are paying attention to his leadership skills and work ethic.

I just wish Doogie wouldn't include snide and unnecessary comments like this (almost like he is trying to fit in with Souhan/Reusse):
Gophers football coach Tim Brewster (although to be polarizing, you have to divide opinion -- does he qualify?)
Click to expand...
 

That's why I wrote that it might be best to skip that section. Totally superfluous.
 

Thats the first thing I thought when I read that. Was that comment really necessary? It seems as if he is trying to please the Anit-Gopher fans, but doesnt realize it is the true Gopher fans that read this article every week.
 

eker0016 said:
Great interview. Good questions by Doogie and honest, in depth answers by Weber. I really hope Gray, Alipate and Parish are paying attention to his leadership skills and work ethic.

I just wish Doogie wouldn't include snide and unnecessary comments like this (almost like he is trying to fit in with Souhan/Reusse):
Click to expand...

Good interview, not so great an article. I'm interested in what Weber has to say. I'm interested in information about the Gophers. I'm not interested in endless potshots at the Gophers.

No, it's not noteworthy that a Gophers player makes someone's list. If it were, then why does the local media devote so much time to attacking the Gophers? No, interest in Gophers football is not miniscule. 50,000 people in TCF may not be terribly big by Big Ten standards, but it is hardly miniscule. And then there are people watching on the couch.

I'm not asking for the local media to be cheerleaders for the Gophers. I just asking them to stop cheering against the Gophers. There isn't a demand for cheering against the Gophers, it's just that people are hungry, and all the media gives people is the equivalent of stale baloney sandwiches. It's that or go hungry.
 


With the way the local media trashes the Gophers, you would think that 1-win seasons were an every year occurance. Doogie has decided that it is noteworthy when anything as obscure as a Gopher football player is discussed. But who decides that? It is our local media that decides what gets discussed. It isn't something objective.

In most cities, the local media provides the most positive coverage that a team will get. Not here. An endless stream of dumping on the local team, and then when people repeat what they heard in the media, the media treats that as vindicating their views.
 

RodentRampage: Of those 50,000, how many read the stories in the paper next day? How many devour talk radio the next few days, searching for information? I wish the passion was widespread... but it's not... If they make a sizable run, this will be a bandwagon town... but if they win 6 or less games, people will tune out by mid-Oct. Comparatively speaking, the TV rating for any 2:30p ABC game -- Penn State -- is about the same as the CBS SEC game rating.

Your "local media provides the most positive coverage that a team will get" begs for a follow-up... Where? Provide examples. And I hope you're not painting me with that negative broad-brush. How long have I defended Weber for? I fell for Fisch's trap. I hear nothing but great things about Horton. My Tyler Cropsey story touched me like no other story I have ever done.

There are a ton of negative angles/rumors that are never touched if someone won't go on record, or more than 2 sources can't confirm... and there are as many positive stories here with Sid as any large market.
 

I have no reason to think that the 50,000 people watching Gophers football games are not picking up the paper and reading about the game. There must be some reason the stories about the game are on the front page.

And I don't see why any Gopher fan would go to talk radio for information on the Gophers. I stopped listening after one too many caller was ridiculed for wanting to talk about the Gophers.
 

Consider me another person who use to have sports radio on 24/7 who no longer listens at all specifically because of the negativity.

I don't think the media has a clue how much the local populace craves decent informative sports journalism. They've shut out the market, and use that as proof that there is none, yet sports internet expodes. Those users must not live in Minnesota.
 



It's an old crowd. Many of those folks leave the game, and don't think about Gophers football again until they go to their next game. Many students are also in the same boat. Many showed up last year to a) be seen and b) see TCF ... think about the last few years of the Dome... there were maybe 30,000 people in there for the Michigan game in '08. We are debating semantics a bit... but it's hard to disagree that Gophers is anything higher than the 4th most popular team in town -- Vikings, Twins, Packers... then the Wild or Gophers hoops?
 


Also count me among the people who no longer listen to sports talk radio. Not because they are negative, it's because they are woefully ill-informed.

Doogie...I'll quote from your article today: "For the record, I really do wish more people locally cared about college football." It does not help when you undercut that desire with unnecessary negativity. It is o.k. to point out areas that need improvement, but I don't believe it is o.k. to pile on, for the sake of piling on.
 

There are 40 stations in the Gophers Radio Network. 37 of those cover football. The three that don't cover it are one station in Minneapolis that only covers women's basketball, and two in Roseau that only covers men's hockey.

25 stations run men's basktball, 25 run women's basketball, and 25 run men's hockey. This doesn't jive with interest in Gophers football being "miniscule". Support may not be #1, but hardly miniscule.
 



I've stayed out of the whole running Doogie bashing on here. I'm chiming in with what I hope is constructive criticism.

Doogie~
It was a good interview. And I think the angle/analysis of Weber as a polarizing figure was well done and informative too. My problem with the article is that you add in some little digs that don't really add to your overall theme. You can make the point about Weber being polarizing without taking a dig at Brewster, the U's "ranking" in the MN sports market, or the size of the fanbase. If adding unneeded quick potshots to an otherwise good article is the style you prefer then so be it. But that's the core of what bugs me (and I suspect bugs many here) with your articles. You can right opinion articles without those little pokes and digs. There are other ways to open an article with zip...try exploring them.
 


Doogie said:
RodentRampage: Of those 50,000, how many read the stories in the paper next day? How many devour talk radio the next few days, searching for information? I wish the passion was widespread... but it's not... If they make a sizable run, this will be a bandwagon town... but if they win 6 or less games, people will tune out by mid-Oct. Comparatively speaking, the TV rating for any 2:30p ABC game -- Penn State -- is about the same as the CBS SEC game rating.

Your "local media provides the most positive coverage that a team will get" begs for a follow-up... Where? Provide examples. And I hope you're not painting me with that negative broad-brush. How long have I defended Weber for? I fell for Fisch's trap. I hear nothing but great things about Horton. My Tyler Cropsey story touched me like no other story I have ever done.

There are a ton of negative angles/rumors that are never touched if someone won't go on record, or more than 2 sources can't confirm... and there are as many positive stories here with Sid as any large market.
Click to expand...

Doogie

Loved the interview itself and appreciate you do more than most anyone to promote the Gophs, but I do agree with most on this thread that the intro to article didn't fit and wasn't necessary.

You asked for examples of local media being positive. I live in Memphis and I can tell you that anytime they have players in town for visits, anytime someone verbals, it makes it in the Commercial Appeal. This is true for football as well as basketball and you can't argue there is great interest in Memphis football as they were lucky to get 20,000 a game the last few years.

They talk about the kid's ratings (rivals, scout or espn), his background, strengths, projections on when and where player will play, etc. While it's true there is only 1 professional sports team in Memphis, the paper still has a person dedicated to all things U of Memphis and there are numerous articles a week. I haven't seen 1 article in any of the papers about the verbals Brewster has received so far. I believe there would be more interest if people had some feeling about the kids coming into the program and the efforts being made.

I'm sure this is also true in other cities that have D-1 programs.

Now you can argue chicken or egg (apparently recently resolved in favor of chicken) on what comes first regarding coverage vs interest, but, as I believe Rodent suggested, there is a lot more interest out there than believed but they just get tired of the negatively and basically being laughed down.

It's the State school, the kids aren't professionals, and they work as hard as anyone out there, so I believe they deserve more than they are getting. Not asking to be a cheerleader, just more coverage of the basics and what's going on.

Thank you,
 

GoAUpher said:
I've stayed out of the whole running Doogie bashing on here. I'm chiming in with what I hope is constructive criticism.

Doogie~
It was a good interview. And I think the angle/analysis of Weber as a polarizing figure was well done and informative too. My problem with the article is that you add in some little digs that don't really add to your overall theme. You can make the point about Weber being polarizing without taking a dig at Brewster, the U's "ranking" in the MN sports market, or the size of the fanbase. If adding unneeded quick potshots to an otherwise good article is the style you prefer then so be it. But that's the core of what bugs me (and I suspect bugs many here) with your articles. You can right opinion articles without those little pokes and digs. There are other ways to open an article with zip...try exploring them.
Click to expand...

I agree, take out the potshots and it's a much better article.
 

RodentRampage said:
I agree, take out the potshots and it's a much better article.
Click to expand...

Take out the pot-shots yes. Fair game is exploring the shortfalls of the program, discussing things the staff is doing to rectify those situations, and maybe even adding some of your own ideas on what the program needs to do to get to the next level. Without the unnecessary pot-shots.
 

TNGophfan said:
Doogie

Loved the interview itself and appreciate you do more than most anyone to promote the Gophs, but I do agree with most on this thread that the intro to article didn't fit and wasn't necessary.

You asked for examples of local media being positive. I live in Memphis and I can tell you that anytime they have players in town for visits, anytime someone verbals, it makes it in the Commercial Appeal. This is true for football as well as basketball and you can't argue there is great interest in Memphis football as they were lucky to get 20,000 a game the last few years.

They talk about the kid's ratings (rivals, scout or espn), his background, strengths, projections on when and where player will play, etc. While it's true there is only 1 professional sports team in Memphis, the paper still has a person dedicated to all things U of Memphis and there are numerous articles a week. I haven't seen 1 article in any of the papers about the verbals Brewster has received so far. I believe there would be more interest if people had some feeling about the kids coming into the program and the efforts being made.

I'm sure this is also true in other cities that have D-1 programs.

Now you can argue chicken or egg (apparently recently resolved in favor of chicken) on what comes first regarding coverage vs interest, but, as I believe Rodent suggested, there is a lot more interest out there than believed but they just get tired of the negatively and basically being laughed down.

It's the State school, the kids aren't professionals, and they work as hard as anyone out there, so I believe they deserve more than they are getting. Not asking to be a cheerleader, just more coverage of the basics and what's going on.

Thank you,
Click to expand...

No, thank you.

The hunger in this town for sports focused columnists is unreal and truly unsatisfied. Focus the opinons on sports and what makes it great instead, of what makes us shake our heads, and watch the readership grow.
 

Doogie said:
Your "local media provides the most positive coverage that a team will get" begs for a follow-up... Where? Provide examples. And I hope you're not painting me with that negative broad-brush. How long have I defended Weber for? I fell for Fisch's trap. I hear nothing but great things about Horton. My Tyler Cropsey story touched me like no other story I have ever done.
Click to expand...

Both the Madison and Milwaukee papers cover the Badgers without unneeded negativity. That isn't to say that there aren't critical articles because there are. But again, the articles and opinion pieces tend to stay away from the easy potshots on the whole.

Ultimately I think the crucial difference is between what I'd term negative (or superficially critical) coverage and actually critical coverage. IMO, negative coverage includes things like easy digs on a player, coach, team, or fanbase. It is typically glib and almost never includes suggestions of how things could be improved. It often comes masked as a suggestion for improvement that is actually just another offhand joke/putdown. It is typically found in opinion articles, but sometimes seeps into beat reporting as well. Critical coverage looks at problems or potential problems with a program and approaches them with an intent to uncover, inform, and explore. If its a beat article, it should explore the facts/context behind the issues and gathers input/thoughts of the principle figures involved. If its an opinion column, a critical columnist typically highlights the problem and offers solutions/suggestions (real ones, not more glib potshots...I'm looking at Reusse here).

I'm hoping that Doogie can find ways to avoid that negative glib role in the market and try to go with a critical eye style approach.
 

Joining in on the group saying the negativity is unnecessary. There's enough of it in the market. At the same time, I don't want happy-cheery-everything-is wonderful nonsense, either. I want good analysis. I want realistic expectations. Not potshots. I'll stop reading if you keep taking potshots like that.
 

The Lincoln Star Journal (or Journal Star, never remember which) and the Omaha World Herald both have a separate section on the Huskers at Sunday at least, and IIRC Saturday too. That is one location where I think the coverage is too over the top. Like Vikings coverage here.
 

This all reminds me of this great TED video I saw. This marketing/research guy was tasked with trying to decide how much sweetness to put into diet pepsi. Pepsi gave him parameters and he went about setting up a taste test using different pepsi formulations with different gradations of apsertame. He figured it would be easy. It wasn't the results were inconclusive and the data was scattered about.

This failure plagued him, but one day he solved it. People didn't want the perfect pepsi, the wanted the perfect pepsi's. Finally he found a company who bought into this, Cambells, with their prego spaghetti sauce. They wanted the perfect sauce to beat rival Ragu. He went about his approach to not find the perfect prego formulation, but the perfect prego formulations. And today, we have different choices in nearly every product.

The moral.

Finding the perfect formulation might make some people happy, but mostly you'll find perfect is only perfect for a few. Most people find it less than satisfying because only what they most love is perfect. So in your desire for perfection you miss almost everyone. Best to segment the population and group them, and make the segments very happy.

That is what we have in minnesota sports journalism. One approach that works for a bunch of guys sitting in a studio chatting and exchanging war stories. Meanwhile, the whole of the sports audience is left dissatisfied. And sports, and the sports community is poorly served.

I'll grant that we need a snide, ill speaking columnist in town. But only one. The rest trying to be like that, are missing out on grabbing their own segment, and risk being an also ran to a very small audience. And this is why sports media in this town continues to die. We need braver writiers, that can recognize the untapped audience segments and plug in and grow. That is where success lies. Not in riding tattered coat tales of hacks who have saturated their niches.
 

Schnoodler said:
This all reminds me of this great TED video I saw. This marketing/research guy was tasked with trying to decide how much sweetness to put into diet pepsi. Pepsi gave him parameters and he went about setting up a taste test using different pepsi formulations with different gradations of apsertame. He figured it would be easy. It wasn't the results were inconclusive and the data was scattered about.

This failure plagued him, but one day he solved it. People didn't want the perfect pepsi, the wanted the perfect pepsi's. Finally he found a company who bought into this, Cambells, with their prego spaghetti sauce. They wanted the perfect sauce to beat rival Ragu. He went about his approach to not find the perfect prego formulation, but the perfect prego formulations. And today, we have different choices in nearly every product.

The moral.

Finding the perfect formulation might make some people happy, but mostly you'll find perfect is only perfect for a few. Most people find it less than satisfying because only what they most love is perfect. So in your desire for perfection you miss almost everyone. Best to segment the population and group them, and make the segments very happy.

That is what we have in minnesota sports journalism. One approach that works for a bunch of guys sitting in a studio chatting and exchanging war stories. Meanwhile, the whole of the sports audience is left dissatisfied. And sports, and the sports community is poorly served.

I'll grant that we need a snide, ill speaking columnist in town. But only one. The rest trying to be like that, are missing out on grabbing their own segment, and risk being an also ran to a very small audience. And this is why sports media in this town continues to die. We need braver writiers, that can recognize the untapped audience segments and plug in and grow. That is where success lies. Not in riding tattered coat tales of hacks who have saturated their niches.
Click to expand...

Nice! Bonus points for managing to include what might be the first TED reference I've ever seen on a sports board. :)
 


I skip pass the Doogie part and get to the interview part. Let me know if I miss anything that couldn't be solved by a few ...
 

Doogie:

Great interview! Weber is such a class act. Thanks again for your hard work.
 


Doogie said:
There are a ton of negative angles/rumors that are never touched if someone won't go on record, or more than 2 sources can't confirm... and there are as many positive stories here with Sid as any large market.
Click to expand...

This sums up my problem with the sports media in this town. All sports media shouldn't be a simple reaction to Sid Hartman. I'm not that young. Yet, people my age (who aren't sport media personalities) barely know that Sid Hartman exists. One of the primary reasons he is still significant to people under the age of 50 is because the older sports guys are still a 100% reaction to Sid Hartman. Even as Sid's voice is scarcely heard any longer... these guys seem to walk around constantly asking themselves WWSD? Then react diametrically.

When their wives ask if they would like a slice of pie, they think to themselves, "would Sid have another piece of pie." Concluding that Sid would, in fact, refuse said pie they enthusiastically accept. Then they go on a rant about how much better the second piece of pie is, and how no one could ever truly know pie without having had a second piece ... especially Sid Hartman.

I don't mean to single you out specifically. Because almost every sports personality in this town seem to feel the need to exist almost exclusively to be a reaction to Sid Hartman. Many of us have said this before. We don't want positive. We don't want negative. It's time for a post-Sid Hartman era in local sports media to begin. The guy is like 112 years old.
 

Goldmember said:
This sums up my problem with the sports media in this town. All sports media shouldn't be a simple reaction to Sid Hartman. I'm not that young. Yet, people my age (who aren't sport media personalities) barely know that Sid Hartman exists. One of the primary reasons he is still significant to people under the age of 50 is because the older sports guys are still a 100% reaction to Sid Hartman. Even as Sid's voice is scarcely heard any longer... these guys seem to walk around constantly asking themselves WWSD? Then react diametrically.

When their wives ask if they would like a slice of pie, they think to themselves, "would Sid have another piece of pie." Concluding that Sid would, in fact, refuse said pie they enthusiastically accept. Then they go on a rant about how much better the second piece of pie is, and how no one could ever truly know pie without having had a second piece ... especially Sid Hartman.

I don't mean to single you out specifically. Because almost every sports personality in this town seem to feel the need to exist almost exclusively to be a reaction to Sid Hartman. Many of us have said this before. We don't want positive. We don't want negative. It's time for a post-Sid Hartman era in local sports media to begin. The guy is like 112 years old.
Click to expand...

That is a near perfect analysis of all local media members. Nice job. When questioned about being ultra snide or negative their uniform response seems to be " so you want me to be a homer like Sid"? No, I'd just like you to be more analytical and less of a dick.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom