[yvonne]

So, the Bay Area News Group has a BearTalk Blog for kal sports, and now opened a SpartanCentral. Call me crazy, but I thought there was another Bay Area NCAA Div I school that had kind of OK athletics. I must be wrong, though.

[yvonne]

So, the Bay Area News Group has a BearTalk Blog for kal sports, and now opened a SpartanCentral. Call me crazy, but I thought there was another Bay Area NCAA Div I school that had kind of OK athletics. I must be wrong, though.

[yvonne]

When I contacted Tom Fitzgerald, the guy who criticized Stanford fans several years ago about not selling out Stanford Stadium, pointing out the current turnaround, he was dismissive, if not disdainful, saying that any team that went to three consecutive BCS bowls should sell out. He said he refused to "throw [us] bouquets." Moreover, when I pointed out Stanford's relative size compared to its opponents, he pointed to Notre Dame's 100,000 — because you know, we have decades of success and an entire religious community to draw fans from.

The Bay Area media's contempt for Stanford is downright puzzling. It's to the point that ESPN's Lunchtime Links draws from the Rule of Tree blog because of the lack of coverage from the local papers.

[yvonne]

When I contacted Tom Fitzgerald, the guy who criticized Stanford fans several years ago about not selling out Stanford Stadium, pointing out the current turnaround, he was dismissive, if not disdainful, saying that any team that went to three consecutive BCS bowls should sell out. He said he refused to "throw [us] bouquets." Moreover, when I pointed out Stanford's relative size compared to its opponents, he pointed to Notre Dame's 100,000 — because you know, we have decades of success and an entire religious community to draw fans from.

The Bay Area media's contempt for Stanford is downright puzzling. It's to the point that ESPN's Lunchtime Links draws from the Rule of Tree blog because of the lack of coverage from the local papers.

[rudruff]

Waiting for the ESPN blog to link a Cardboard thread. . .

[rudruff]

Waiting for the ESPN blog to link a Cardboard thread. . .

[Mick]

When I contacted Tom Fitzgerald, the guy who criticized Stanford fans several years ago about not selling out Stanford Stadium, pointing out the current turnaround, he was dismissive, if not disdainful, saying that any team that went to three consecutive BCS bowls should sell out. He said he refused to "throw [us] bouquets." Moreover, when I pointed out Stanford's relative size compared to its opponents, he pointed to the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends's 100,000 — because you know, we have decades of success and an entire religious community to draw fans from.

The Bay Area media's contempt for Stanford is downright puzzling. It's to the point that ESPN's Lunchtime Links draws from the Rule of Tree blog because of the lack of coverage from the local papers.

Downright jealousy.  That's all.  Most sportswriters have/had no hope of getting in to Stanford.  Easy to feel superior to football factories.  Hence, the reaction.  Maybe a dash of ego and refusal to admit when they're wrong.

[Mick]

When I contacted Tom Fitzgerald, the guy who criticized Stanford fans several years ago about not selling out Stanford Stadium, pointing out the current turnaround, he was dismissive, if not disdainful, saying that any team that went to three consecutive BCS bowls should sell out. He said he refused to "throw [us] bouquets." Moreover, when I pointed out Stanford's relative size compared to its opponents, he pointed to the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends's 100,000 — because you know, we have decades of success and an entire religious community to draw fans from.

The Bay Area media's contempt for Stanford is downright puzzling. It's to the point that ESPN's Lunchtime Links draws from the Rule of Tree blog because of the lack of coverage from the local papers.

Downright jealousy.  That's all.  Most sportswriters have/had no hope of getting in to Stanford.  Easy to feel superior to football factories.  Hence, the reaction.  Maybe a dash of ego and refusal to admit when they're wrong.

[yvonne]

Maybe, but the Trenton Times doesn't treat Princeton the way the Bay Area press treats Stanford. Perhaps, it's because Princeton has the academic part of the package without the full Div 1 (FBS) package.

[yvonne]

Maybe, but the Trenton Times doesn't treat Princeton the way the Bay Area press treats Stanford. Perhaps, it's because Princeton has the academic part of the package without the full Div 1 (FBS) package.

[yvonne]

I would buy into the fan base argument if it weren't for the Merc's creating a San Jose State blog. That school had an average attendance of 10,789 coming off an 11-2 season.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/football-5/...n-question

[yvonne]

I would buy into the fan base argument if it weren't for the Merc's creating a San Jose State blog. That school had an average attendance of 10,789 coming off an 11-2 season.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/football-5/...n-question

[Leftcoast]

Doesn't every Bay Area fanbase think local media outlets are biased and should add more coverage of THEIR team?  Living in the area I hear outraged choruses from San Jose Spartan, Ca.l Bear and Stanford fans at roughly the same volume.  I could easily find examples but I bet you know them as well as I do .

Rather then complain about marginally uneven coverage relative to each other I hope area schools band together to raise the profile of all our programs vis-a-vis the 800 lb gorilla our arguments here ignore - The Bay Area is a pro sports market.  All three area schools fight for fan mind share not with each other but with the 49ers, Giants, Warriors, Sharks, As and Raiders. 

Winning games in Palo Alto has helped somewhat but despite the recent growth of Stanford sports gear on area streets the dominant red worn by fans matches that worn by Jim Harbaugh's new team , not his old.  The Media gatekeepers follow the fans and  Bay Area fans overwhelmingly follow pro sports.

The 49ers are feasting on front page headlines, talk show fanfare and TV news anchor leads while college sports programs fight each other over the dropped table scraps.  Getting even a small seat at the banquet table for all three colleges would help more than Stanford beating out the Be.ars for the dropped bones.

[Leftcoast]

Doesn't every Bay Area fanbase think local media outlets are biased and should add more coverage of THEIR team?  Living in the area I hear outraged choruses from San Jose Spartan, Ca.l Bear and Stanford fans at roughly the same volume.  I could easily find examples but I bet you know them as well as I do .

Rather then complain about marginally uneven coverage relative to each other I hope area schools band together to raise the profile of all our programs vis-a-vis the 800 lb gorilla our arguments here ignore - The Bay Area is a pro sports market.  All three area schools fight for fan mind share not with each other but with the 49ers, Giants, Warriors, Sharks, As and Raiders. 

Winning games in Palo Alto has helped somewhat but despite the recent growth of Stanford sports gear on area streets the dominant red worn by fans matches that worn by Jim Harbaugh's new team , not his old.  The Media gatekeepers follow the fans and  Bay Area fans overwhelmingly follow pro sports.

The 49ers are feasting on front page headlines, talk show fanfare and TV news anchor leads while college sports programs fight each other over the dropped table scraps.  Getting even a small seat at the banquet table for all three colleges would help more than Stanford beating out the Be.ars for the dropped bones.

[Redrum]

Stanford is Nobody's Child.  The one guy who historically spent time and focus (can't give him time and effort) on Stanford-- Jon Wilner--  was no friend.  Not even really pumped up about covering a Pac-10/12 program.  I always attributed the gaps in Fitzgerald's coverage to a part-time status and penny-pinching by the Chron.  Now, I guess,  it's arguable he just didn't give a ****.    The Chron oughta put him out to pasture on grounds of terminal jadedness,  and go hunt up Darren Sabedra,  who did a decent job maximizing his gig covering Stanford (and covering Wilner's ***)  before the Merc's umpteenth re-org.  Think he's covering HS sports in the East Bay.

I'm always amused by writers and their fans who don't have the mental agility to see the difference between being a mouthpiece/cheerleader for (whatever team) and just having enthusiasm for the sport they cover and the chance to practice their craft and just enjoy it.  Maybe Tom F.  should be assigned a gig covering Colorado St. or Northern Arizona U.  sports as a kind of shock therapy.  But his journalistic integrity is intact, even if his contributions continue to diminish.

[Redrum]

Stanford is Nobody's Child.  The one guy who historically spent time and focus (can't give him time and effort) on Stanford-- Jon Wilner--  was no friend.  Not even really pumped up about covering a Pac-10/12 program.  I always attributed the gaps in Fitzgerald's coverage to a part-time status and penny-pinching by the Chron.  Now, I guess,  it's arguable he just didn't give a ****.    The Chron oughta put him out to pasture on grounds of terminal jadedness,  and go hunt up Darren Sabedra,  who did a decent job maximizing his gig covering Stanford (and covering Wilner's ***)  before the Merc's umpteenth re-org.  Think he's covering HS sports in the East Bay.

I'm always amused by writers and their fans who don't have the mental agility to see the difference between being a mouthpiece/cheerleader for (whatever team) and just having enthusiasm for the sport they cover and the chance to practice their craft and just enjoy it.  Maybe Tom F.  should be assigned a gig covering Colorado St. or Northern Arizona U.  sports as a kind of shock therapy.  But his journalistic integrity is intact, even if his contributions continue to diminish.

[FarmBoy]

Wilner's blog seems like it's been on a slow death spiral. THere are fewer and fewer comments on his articles. I used to visit it a couple of times a day during season to track the conversation, now I just check  in once a week to see his predictions. He does still get some nice news items.

Stanford's following in the Bay Area has a lot going against it. (1) It's a small alumni base so the built in readership is small (2) the alumni base leaves the bay area at much higher rates than San Jose and Ca'l alum (3) We don't have the name of the state/town in which many people live emblazaoned on the jersey. If Ca'l put 'Berkeley' on their uni rather than California, over time, I would be the average fan following would drop and (4) the private school, elitist reputation makes the average fan disposed to not like the team. They look for any sign of arrogance and latch on to it. (5) Our uneven history in revenue sports creates big gaps in fandom. I'm sure a lot more of my cohort (late 90's) follow the basketball team than do students from 10 years after or 10 years prior.

Newspapers need to sell subscriptions and ad space. If Stanford fandom isn't going to move the needle, I can understand why they don't devote more resources. Perhaps more (positive) coverage would lead to more fans, but for a dying medium, that seems like a long term investment they can't afford to commit.

[FarmBoy]

Wilner's blog seems like it's been on a slow death spiral. THere are fewer and fewer comments on his articles. I used to visit it a couple of times a day during season to track the conversation, now I just check  in once a week to see his predictions. He does still get some nice news items.

Stanford's following in the Bay Area has a lot going against it. (1) It's a small alumni base so the built in readership is small (2) the alumni base leaves the bay area at much higher rates than San Jose and Ca'l alum (3) We don't have the name of the state/town in which many people live emblazaoned on the jersey. If Ca'l put 'Berkeley' on their uni rather than California, over time, I would be the average fan following would drop and (4) the private school, elitist reputation makes the average fan disposed to not like the team. They look for any sign of arrogance and latch on to it. (5) Our uneven history in revenue sports creates big gaps in fandom. I'm sure a lot more of my cohort (late 90's) follow the basketball team than do students from 10 years after or 10 years prior.

Newspapers need to sell subscriptions and ad space. If Stanford fandom isn't going to move the needle, I can understand why they don't devote more resources. Perhaps more (positive) coverage would lead to more fans, but for a dying medium, that seems like a long term investment they can't afford to commit.

[washingtonismoney]

FitzGerald and Shaw often have cantankerous interactions in press conferences.

[washingtonismoney]

FitzGerald and Shaw often have cantankerous interactions in press conferences.

[stupac2]

With the coverage available from ESPN, Scout, and Rivals, do we really care that the local papers aren't very good? I mean, do we really suffer from a lack of available media coverage? There's a Stanford blog on ESPN! Most schools can't say that. If the worry is that the lack of local coverage means we get less fans than otherwise, well, I just don't think that's very plausible outside of a small, marginal effect.

[stupac2]

With the coverage available from ESPN, Scout, and Rivals, do we really care that the local papers aren't very good? I mean, do we really suffer from a lack of available media coverage? There's a Stanford blog on ESPN! Most schools can't say that. If the worry is that the lack of local coverage means we get less fans than otherwise, well, I just don't think that's very plausible outside of a small, marginal effect.

[Langdude]

Though it is annoying that Fitzgerald would criticize Stanford attendance and not bother a later addendum when his criticism is answered (a common editorialist's, and politician's, foible), it may bother me even more that the Stanford football beat writer for the Chronicle - and a newspaper like the Chron should be able to hire the very best in the nation - doesn't even know the personnel of the team he covers. Check out what he implies about Kodi Whitfield's former position at the end of the article...

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...267651.php

As a former journalist, I can tell you that any writer should get slammed by his or her editor for a mistake born out of not knowing their beat. It's lazy.

-m.

[Langdude]

Though it is annoying that Fitzgerald would criticize Stanford attendance and not bother a later addendum when his criticism is answered (a common editorialist's, and politician's, foible), it may bother me even more that the Stanford football beat writer for the Chronicle - and a newspaper like the Chron should be able to hire the very best in the nation - doesn't even know the personnel of the team he covers. Check out what he implies about Kodi Whitfield's former position at the end of the article...

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...267651.php

As a former journalist, I can tell you that any writer should get slammed by his or her editor for a mistake born out of not knowing their beat. It's lazy.

-m.

[Papa John]

Not to make it sound like I'm piling on the Bay Area media outlets, but... I guess I am:

I was driving home from work last night around 8:15 p.m. In Santa Barbara we can get some of the Bay Area AM radio stations at night, so I tuned in KCBS (740 AM) to hear what they would say about the Stanford-UA men's basketball game. Not a single word, and the game had ended only about an hour earlier.

But like an earlier poster mentioned, Stanford is getting plenty of publicity from non-Bay Area media outlets, so perhaps this issue isn't as salient as it would have been, say, 20 years ago.

[Papa John]

Not to make it sound like I'm piling on the Bay Area media outlets, but... I guess I am:

I was driving home from work last night around 8:15 p.m. In Santa Barbara we can get some of the Bay Area AM radio stations at night, so I tuned in KCBS (740 AM) to hear what they would say about the Stanford-UA men's basketball game. Not a single word, and the game had ended only about an hour earlier.

But like an earlier poster mentioned, Stanford is getting plenty of publicity from non-Bay Area media outlets, so perhaps this issue isn't as salient as it would have been, say, 20 years ago.

[Mick]

FitzGerald and Shaw often have cantankerous interactions in press conferences.

I always thought Fitz was generally benign.  Can you cite an example or two?

[Mick]

FitzGerald and Shaw often have cantankerous interactions in press conferences.

I always thought Fitz was generally benign.  Can you cite an example or two?

[yvonne]

By Fitz, do you mean Bob Fitzgerald of Fitz and Brooks on KNBR?

This is Tom Fitzgerald of the Chronicle.

[yvonne]

By Fitz, do you mean Bob Fitzgerald of Fitz and Brooks on KNBR?

This is Tom Fitzgerald of the Chronicle.

[washingtonismoney]

I always thought Fitz was generally benign.  Can you cite an example or two?

I remember Shaw getting really annoyed when Fitz asked him in about three or four different ways whether he'd bench Nunes after the UW game. There have been others, too.

[washingtonismoney]

I always thought Fitz was generally benign.  Can you cite an example or two?

I remember Shaw getting really annoyed when Fitz asked him in about three or four different ways whether he'd bench Nunes after the UW game. There have been others, too.

[Mick]

By Fitz, do you mean Bob Fitzgerald of Fitz and Brooks on KNBR?

This is Tom Fitzgerald of the Chronicle.

Right, my bad, sorry.

[Mick]

By Fitz, do you mean Bob Fitzgerald of Fitz and Brooks on KNBR?

This is Tom Fitzgerald of the Chronicle.

Right, my bad, sorry.

[Redrum]

I got that impression by noting his absence on many potential stories.  Figured he had the budget to go to home games and that was that.  But also, compared to Crumpacker, the Daily Californian editor turned K.a.l. agent provocateur on the Chron,  Fitzgerald doesn't seem to have the enthusiasm for the subject.  Feels like he's mailing it in sometimes.  That's not based on ever having talked to him.  Just from reading the stories.

[Redrum]

I got that impression by noting his absence on many potential stories.  Figured he had the budget to go to home games and that was that.  But also, compared to Crumpacker, the Daily Californian editor turned K.a.l. agent provocateur on the Chron,  Fitzgerald doesn't seem to have the enthusiasm for the subject.  Feels like he's mailing it in sometimes.  That's not based on ever having talked to him.  Just from reading the stories.

[washingtonismoney]

An occasional cantankerous exchange between a beat writer and a coach is to be expected, ...

I agree. Let me rephrase -- I notice cantankerousness more frequently between Fitz and Shaw than any other coach/writer pairing I can think of.

[washingtonismoney]

An occasional cantankerous exchange between a beat writer and a coach is to be expected, ...

I agree. Let me rephrase -- I notice cantankerousness more frequently between Fitz and Shaw than any other coach/writer pairing I can think of.

[Mick]

An occasional cantankerous exchange between a beat writer and a coach is to be expected, if 1)the coach habitually tries to deflect questions and not be forthcoming with information, and 2)the beat writer is any good. I think such exchanges were much more than occasional when Jake Curtis had the Stanford beat; another reporter told me the SID and coaches openly viewed Curtis an enemy. (The reporter who told me was not particularly friendly to Curtis but also thought the Stanford people were paranoid.)

...what the public should know.  More strategic info released harms the coach and gives value to the writer.

[Mick]

An occasional cantankerous exchange between a beat writer and a coach is to be expected, if 1)the coach habitually tries to deflect questions and not be forthcoming with information, and 2)the beat writer is any good. I think such exchanges were much more than occasional when Jake Curtis had the Stanford beat; another reporter told me the SID and coaches openly viewed Curtis an enemy. (The reporter who told me was not particularly friendly to Curtis but also thought the Stanford people were paranoid.)

...what the public should know.  More strategic info released harms the coach and gives value to the writer.