I had too many theories, that aren’t flushed out, but there’s a comments section so:
- I wonder if the recent “reading/misreading” of the room (team vibes, etc.) is part of this - “A divided locker room” comes to mind.
- Modern athletes are more adept to put themselves ahead of the team when it comes to mental health and personal wellbeing.
- The element of teams withholding medical status - whether it’s to their advantage against their opponents or even to impact the betting odds in some cases.
- Less traditional reporters from newspapers/television/radio and an influx of podcasters and bloggers, it becomes hard to keep the norms that business was conducted under until now.
This is a very interesting topic of discussion, and there's a lot of key points that have been hit. First of all, locker room access has always been a thing, and therefore it would be weird for it not to be a thing. It doesn't go any further than that, but there likely ought to be a reason to change the status quo.
You're also correct that if this goes through there likely ought not to be any cameras of any type allowed in the locker room, because if there are the whole purpose becomes defeated. This becomes revealed as a simple ploy to limit access, and they should just let the reporters back in again. The only way I can see these two things (cameras, but no reporters) coexisting is if reporters are in some way especially disrespectful, and demeaning to the dignity of a player in a way that a camera is not. Are they? I don't know the answer to that.
However, for reporters to maintain their access, that access should mean something, and if players are going to just ditch the locker room before reporters can get there anyway, then this type of access is meaningless, so I (like most) am really torn on this issue.
The players' union is a union for the players. I don't think they should (and looking at this, I don't think they do) care about reporters' jobs at all. That isn't who they represent, so I can see that this request from their end may make some sense. Would it make a reporter's job much more difficult? Yeah, but the players' union doesn't care about that, and they shouldn't care about that.
It's a good piece you've done here Brian, bringing to light all sides of the story.
Robbie, you bring up a lot of great points. For one thing, yes, the players union is for the players. That's their reason for existence, and they should be pushing for stuff like this that players want.
"However, for reporters to maintain their access, that access should mean something." Man, that cuts right to the heart of it, doesn't it? That's a fantastic point.
I had too many theories, that aren’t flushed out, but there’s a comments section so:
- I wonder if the recent “reading/misreading” of the room (team vibes, etc.) is part of this - “A divided locker room” comes to mind.
- Modern athletes are more adept to put themselves ahead of the team when it comes to mental health and personal wellbeing.
- The element of teams withholding medical status - whether it’s to their advantage against their opponents or even to impact the betting odds in some cases.
- Less traditional reporters from newspapers/television/radio and an influx of podcasters and bloggers, it becomes hard to keep the norms that business was conducted under until now.
- And football is just straight up paranoid. :)
Never ever doubt your last point!
This is a very interesting topic of discussion, and there's a lot of key points that have been hit. First of all, locker room access has always been a thing, and therefore it would be weird for it not to be a thing. It doesn't go any further than that, but there likely ought to be a reason to change the status quo.
You're also correct that if this goes through there likely ought not to be any cameras of any type allowed in the locker room, because if there are the whole purpose becomes defeated. This becomes revealed as a simple ploy to limit access, and they should just let the reporters back in again. The only way I can see these two things (cameras, but no reporters) coexisting is if reporters are in some way especially disrespectful, and demeaning to the dignity of a player in a way that a camera is not. Are they? I don't know the answer to that.
However, for reporters to maintain their access, that access should mean something, and if players are going to just ditch the locker room before reporters can get there anyway, then this type of access is meaningless, so I (like most) am really torn on this issue.
The players' union is a union for the players. I don't think they should (and looking at this, I don't think they do) care about reporters' jobs at all. That isn't who they represent, so I can see that this request from their end may make some sense. Would it make a reporter's job much more difficult? Yeah, but the players' union doesn't care about that, and they shouldn't care about that.
It's a good piece you've done here Brian, bringing to light all sides of the story.
Robbie, you bring up a lot of great points. For one thing, yes, the players union is for the players. That's their reason for existence, and they should be pushing for stuff like this that players want.
"However, for reporters to maintain their access, that access should mean something." Man, that cuts right to the heart of it, doesn't it? That's a fantastic point.
Thanks for reading!
Cattywampus?
Hell yeah.
I mean to tag @Joe Posnanski in the main post, so I’ll do it here. Melissa’s story is so powerful and worth telling again and again and again.