The Bobcat Nation

Who would want this job?

For years, I’ve often tried to decide whether sports editing is more like umpiring or coaching.
We’re like umpires in that we’re supposed to be perfect — then improve.
We’re like coaches in that everybody who has more than a passing interest in what we do is certain they can do it better.
Like umpires, we typically hear from the public about our job performance only when we screw up or when they think we screwed up.
Like coaches, we must consistently deal with parents who are convinced we have the power to make or break a college athletic scholarship for Jumpin’ Jonny or Sure-shot Suzy.
Though I’ve never had dirt kicked on my feet by an irate coach, I have felt the warm ooze of pepperoni pizza sliding down my back courtesy of irate fans.
Though I’ve never heard catcalls from the bleachers from spectators unhappy with my handling of players, I’ve ... oh, wait, once I was even booed by a band.
I didn’t have my answer to this age-old question until witnessing the circuses at Bozeman and Ennis high schools the past few weeks.
So, as of today, I genuflect at the altar of the high school coach.
Consider the cases of
Bozeman High’s Mike Cole
and Ennis’ Jeff Malby, basketball coaches both. The former’s job hangs in the balance
after two decades; the latter has
already been shown the door.
Their missteps: A few parents don’t like them.
They couch their gripes in
vague generalities, of course. They toss around “poor communication” the way Bush administration scoundrels blather “I can’t recall” when their feet are held to the fire for inconsistencies, malfeasance or corruption.
So the coaches twist in the wind, unable to respond to many complaints because they don’t know what they are.
Coaches have to sit there and take it, in part because they’re public employees, I suppose, but also because of too many spineless administrators.
Come to think of it, I should’ve known all along where I’d land on this debate.
At least my job pays more than cleaning pit toilets for the Park Service. At least I receive less abuse than an IRS tax collector. At least I have more free time for family, friends and exploring Montana’s natural wonders than a first-year Grey’s Anatomy intern.
Can’t say the same for coaches.
A columnist for the Fargo (N.D.) Forum recently calculated that the typical high school coach makes about $2.17 per hour.
Of course, that doesn’t include travel benefits: Hundreds of miles on smelly school buses in wintry weather going to such exotic places as Butte, Billings and Big Timber.
It also doesn’t include the free tickets for front-row seats.
And don’t forget the championship glory, radio shows, shoe contracts, platitudes from Dickie V., etc.
Yeah.
Here’s the thing too many parents seem to forget: Perfect or imperfect, the vast majority of high school coaches are in it because they believe in the game, believe in the redeeming social values of high school athletics, believe in the kids.
There is simply no other rationale for the sacrifices.
Yet the proliferation of parental intrusion seems destined to destroy what was once so good and pure.
If Cole and Malby were isolated examples, that’s one thing. They’re not.
Officials and umpires already are in short supply because they’re fed up with the inane sideline rantings and jabs from know-itall parents.
Finding qualified coaches almost certainly will be the next crisis if it already isn’t. More and more, schools must look outside their own hallways to find people willing to devote the time and thick skin for what is virtually a volunteer position.
The most frustrating part is that the parents who most need admonishing too often are the ones who least recognize it.
Thing is, at least umpires can tell these irrational wingnuts to stuff a lollipop in their mouths, and sports editors can tell them to stuff it, period.
Coaches must grin and bear it.
Which is why, after years of wondering whether I’d rather umpire or coach when I grow up and get a real job, I’ve made up my mind.
I’ll go where you can give parents the boot — instead of the other way around.

More and more, schools must look outside their own hallways to find people willing to devote the time and thick skin for what is virtually a volunteer position.

Every profession has it's bad apples and there shouldn't be a free ride given to them any more than physicians, lawyers, accountants, etc.

BobcatBulldog wrote:

Every profession has it's bad apples and there shouldn't be a free ride given to them any more than physicians, lawyers, accountants, etc.

Maybe I read it wrong, but are you saying that a person who volunteers there time or gets paid next to nothing should be held to the same "bad apples" standard as Physicians, Lawyers, Accountants.

They all have "bad apples" nights, when they are thinking about there real jobs or spouses or kids. It would be nice if they could leave that at the door but its not always that easy and if its not there real job then its going to happen.

Everyone deserves a break, and you know what its a game, a freaking kids game. This is not the pro's, hell its not even college. Its a bunch of kids who like to play a game that they are good at. Is it always fair no, but since when is anything fair,

we are promised "the pursuit of Happiness" not "the pursuit of fairness"

wow, that was supposed to be one sentence.

PS If I ever act like "those parents" and you all know what I am talking about, everyone in the BN has full permission to kick me in the head because I would truly hate myself.

Sorry I am not trying to throw you under the bus billings cat

PapaG wrote:It was great until the ubiquitous partisan political commentary that every daily in the nation seems to red herring into their work these days, no matter the section of the paper...does Jeff Welsch think he's John Canzano?

And Jeff, since I'm sure you are reading this, you know what I mean. I subscribe to the Oregonian.

theblackgecko wrote:

PapaG wrote:It was great until the ubiquitous partisan political commentary that every daily in the nation seems to red herring into their work these days, no matter the section of the paper...does Jeff Welsch think he's John Canzano?

And Jeff, since I'm sure you are reading this, you know what I mean. I subscribe to the Oregonian.

Is that anything like the Red Guard they print in Eugene?

rtb wrote:WOW! Jeff wasn't wrong in his article pointing out the EVERYONE thinks they can do a better job than he can. While searching for spelling errors don't forget to read the article and understand the point he was making. I think the column speaks very well to the situation with Coach Cole here in Bozeman.

PapaG wrote:

theblackgecko wrote:

PapaG wrote:It was great until the ubiquitous partisan political commentary that every daily in the nation seems to red herring into their work these days, no matter the section of the paper...does Jeff Welsch think he's John Canzano?

And Jeff, since I'm sure you are reading this, you know what I mean. I subscribe to the Oregonian.

Is that anything like the Red Guard they print in Eugene?

LOL

I don't know, but whatever point Welsch was making was lost on me after his needless political commentary. If he tightens up his game it would be a great article.

Welsch, there is a reason you are a sports writer. Of course, I know the odds a sports writer has of advancing to a better job, so I can somewhat understand your lame attempt at a resume builder considering the political eanings of most editors and publishers.

Jeff Welsch wrote:

PapaG wrote:

theblackgecko wrote:

PapaG wrote:It was great until the ubiquitous partisan political commentary that every daily in the nation seems to red herring into their work these days, no matter the section of the paper...does Jeff Welsch think he's John Canzano?

And Jeff, since I'm sure you are reading this, you know what I mean. I subscribe to the Oregonian.

Is that anything like the Red Guard they print in Eugene?

LOL

I don't know, but whatever point Welsch was making was lost on me after his needless political commentary. If he tightens up his game it would be a great article.

Welsch, there is a reason you are a sports writer. Of course, I know the odds a sports writer has of advancing to a better job, so I can somewhat understand your lame attempt at a resume builder considering the political eanings of most editors and publishers.

All right, Papa, I'll bite ...
* I know Canzano from my days in Corvallis. Terrific columnist. Finished second nationally among the big boys this year.
* Sorry, but I'll always use analogies from outside the sports world to make a point, whether it's politics, religion, art, fishing, selling insurance, etc. Sports are part of a broader world; its metaphors are used by generals in war, and coaches use war as metaphors, for example. The "I can't recall" gambit that Gonzalez, Libby, et al, have used was the perfect analogy to make my point. My guess is you just didn't like it that I picked on folks of your political persuasion. BTW, you wouldn't have to dig far to find times I've tweaked Bill and/or Hillary Clinton.
Besides, are you saying because I'm a sports writer I can't comment on politics? Does that mean I can't vote, too? And just who DOES qualify to comment on politics?
* You'd be wrong about the political leanings of publishers, no matter what O'Reilly keeps telling you. The vast majority are conservative. If you'd think about it, and recognize that most newspapers are a small business, you'd see it makes sense. Editors? The last five I've worked for have been conservatives. Honest. But since I'm not looking for any other jobs, and don't plan to, the point is moot.

Note to Billings Cat: Your point about AP "filler" copy is well-taken.
Hey, if I had my way, we'd fill our sports section entirely with local copy. It's not going to happen because ...
* It's simply impossible with our limited staff. Trust me, we stretch ourselves to the max just to get two or three byline local stories plus the results that are faxed/called/e-mailed in.
* Though you are absolutely correct about ESPN, the Internet, etc., too many of our readers still get their national news from us. They'd scream if we eliminated baseball boxscores, standings, event coverage, etc. That said, there's a reason why we're the only major daily in the state that doesn't run NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball roundups. Local will always take precedence.

Thanks, gang, for all your interest in what we do ...

JW

PapaG wrote:

Jeff Welsch wrote:

PapaG wrote:

theblackgecko wrote:

PapaG wrote:It was great until the ubiquitous partisan political commentary that every daily in the nation seems to red herring into their work these days, no matter the section of the paper...does Jeff Welsch think he's John Canzano?

And Jeff, since I'm sure you are reading this, you know what I mean. I subscribe to the Oregonian.

Is that anything like the Red Guard they print in Eugene?

LOL

I don't know, but whatever point Welsch was making was lost on me after his needless political commentary. If he tightens up his game it would be a great article.

Welsch, there is a reason you are a sports writer. Of course, I know the odds a sports writer has of advancing to a better job, so I can somewhat understand your lame attempt at a resume builder considering the political eanings of most editors and publishers.

All right, Papa, I'll bite ...
* I know Canzano from my days in Corvallis. Terrific columnist. Finished second nationally among the big boys this year.
* Sorry, but I'll always use analogies from outside the sports world to make a point, whether it's politics, religion, art, fishing, selling insurance, etc. Sports are part of a broader world; its metaphors are used by generals in war, and coaches use war as metaphors, for example. The "I can't recall" gambit that Gonzalez, Libby, et al, have used was the perfect analogy to make my point. My guess is you just didn't like it that I picked on folks of your political persuasion. BTW, you wouldn't have to dig far to find times I've tweaked Bill and/or Hillary Clinton.
Besides, are you saying because I'm a sports writer I can't comment on politics? Does that mean I can't vote, too? And just who DOES qualify to comment on politics?
* You'd be wrong about the political leanings of publishers, no matter what O'Reilly keeps telling you. The vast majority are conservative. If you'd think about it, and recognize that most newspapers are a small business, you'd see it makes sense. Editors? The last five I've worked for have been conservatives. Honest. But since I'm not looking for any other jobs, and don't plan to, the point is moot.

Note to Billings Cat: Your point about AP "filler" copy is well-taken.
Hey, if I had my way, we'd fill our sports section entirely with local copy. It's not going to happen because ...
* It's simply impossible with our limited staff. Trust me, we stretch ourselves to the max just to get two or three byline local stories plus the results that are faxed/called/e-mailed in.
* Though you are absolutely correct about ESPN, the Internet, etc., too many of our readers still get their national news from us. They'd scream if we eliminated baseball boxscores, standings, event coverage, etc. That said, there's a reason why we're the only major daily in the state that doesn't run NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball roundups. Local will always take precedence.

Thanks, gang, for all your interest in what we do ...

JW

Jeff, I was just tweaking your beak. The only reason I subscribe to the Oregonian is for the Sports section, and Canzano is a major reason for this. What you wrote elicited a reaction from me. That's the point, right? Canzano does the same thing, just perhaps a bit more refined at this point of your respective careers.

Oh, and I don't watch O'Reilly, nor do I listen to him, so I'm not sure why you had to throw that in there other than to confirm my gut feeling. I'm more of a Jim Rome guy.

Anyhow, thanks for the upgraded Bobcat coverage. That's been a bonus since my days in Bozeman. Best of luck in Bozeman, and I'll buy you a cold one if I get back there before you move on.