Sporting News Today thread (what do you think?)

It's always in the bushes or under the car, too.

 

For the past 4 years, I've lived on the west coast of Florida. For reasons I can explain, I still pay good money to get print versions of 3 papers every day --- the St Pete Times, the Tampa Trib and an early edition of the Miami Herald. And yes, I work for one of them.

This morning, it took me a combined 23 minutes to get through all 3 Sunday sports sections. It took me the usual 30 to get through one edition of Sporting News' e-paper, and that's just scanning most of it.

I don't know how you --- a few of you anyway --- can criticize what they're doing, ESPECIALLY the magazine. I've been a subscriber to it for as long as I can remember. Before they overhauled things --- in 2007 or '08, when they brought in fresh blood from the KC Star, AJC, Sentinel, etc. --- the criticism was warranted. There was nothing at all special about it.

But now? Now, I agree with a few of the above posters --- I think it's outstanding. I'm busy in my job and family life (divorced with 4 kids). I still like the occasional 6-8-page narrative, but I just don't have as much time as I'd like to wade through those kinds of stories as I used to (unless Gary Smith is writing them). I find myself reading more of the short stuff --- and, admittedly, liking them when they're clever and original. That's what SN does in the magazine --- and they do it very, very well.

And like the dude above, people in my shop also read it and borrow from it occasionally. There is so much in every issue, I don't even mind that they don't publish every week anymore (I almost dumped it when they made that change). I don't know how any sports fan couldn't appreciate all they have in there --- in every single issue. I know 2 guys who work there --- one online, one on the magazine side --- and have heard that their MRI data shows that readers feel likewise. They're spending more time with SN's magazine than they are with the competition and like it more than ever. I completely get why.

I get 16 magazines at home and put the new SN at the very top, along with Esquire, Rolling Stone and Time. I loathe (but still subscribe to) ESPN and the new Newsweek. SI is hit and miss for me --- sometimes good, more times than not just dull. And as much as I like looking at half-naked (or completely naked) women, I think Maxim is just junk. Hard to read (like ESPN) and just not very smartly put together. That's the next magazine I'm dropping.

Anyhoo, just my 2 cents. Being a junkie, I love these discussions about magazines. Wish one would hire me.

 

And when it comes to Decourcy, I'm with the other guy (not footballscribe). Unlike other sports, there are only two must reads, nationally, in college basketball --- him and Andy Katz. Katz breaks a ton of news, seems like he knows everyone who's anyone; Decourcy is great at analysis, big picture, getting fresh perspective from coaches.

To say he's slipped is just asinine. I wish I could slip and still be that good.

 

You know, we all long for the days of the National and having an all-sports paper. Then we get one and we're not happy about it. To each his own, I guess.

I think SN Today does a good job for what its mission is -- deliver you the day's news in your inbox first thing in the morning. It's a perfect world because all late scores are included. My one gripe: too much AP for my taste, but hey... that's how they can do gamers in print. Give me the good features.

I'll pay the money for the e-edition when they ask it from me. I don't know how many others will, but we'll see what happens.

 

With all due respect to the hard-working people at TSN, suggesting any comparison to The National is like trying to make the case David Weathers resembles Tom Seaver because he's also a stocky right-handed pitcher.

 

With all respect, no comparison. The National was fantastic. This is the closest thing we're going to get, but even I know it ain't the National... lol (Bad grammar excuse)

 

The National was a wonderful product.
It also was impossible to get, almost never timely and had a suicidal business model.
Sporting News Today has been in operation for about 18 months and hasn't missed a late score yet.
The old days aren't always better.

 

Longtime reader, first-time poster. And a 34-year-old chick, for what that's worth. Sorry to crash the mostly boys party, fellas.

I've been tempted to sign up and chime in on several topics — especially ones that bash my old employer, ESPN — and decided this was the one.

I'd describe myself as a pretty diehard fan (the word Sporting News often uses to describe its target audience). So diehard that I snuggled up on the couch yesterday with Bo, my significant other — Bo is a German shepherd, BTW — and watched Pitt-Nova and US-Canada. I also spent a lot of time with my 2nd-favorite magazine (behind Playgi ... er, Cosmo) ... TSN.

The earlier crack about it not being relevant just could not be further from the truth. I don't know how you could read any recent issue and say it's irrelevant. I won't rattle through all that's in there but there's a whole LOT. I actually like the fact that they stick to the sports they do — no tennis, no golf, no Olympics, no soccer. There's football, baseball, basketball (and a little, yick, NASCAR). The cover all those sports year-round and do it very, very creatively.

And so what if they don't have 10-page narratives? Those aren't for everyone, me included.

I will say that their Today product is not for me — I'm not so diehard that I read every boxscore — but their magazine is A plus plus.

Please be kind, boys. Not sure I can take being insulted by the veterans on this board

 

It's a nice product, all the way around. More readable and handy than a Web site; quicker, cheaper, neater, more manageable than a traditional newspaper.

 

I spent lunch with it today, and I loved it.

I had to move my screen closer, but it gave me tons of content without an obvious pro-NBA/NFL slant.

 

agreed, and I'm surprised more advertisers haven't jumped on board ... i would think the prospect of doing ads in rich colors (with the possibility to add video, audio, have a click-through straight to your site etc.) would be enticing. Maybe they charge outrageous prices? Maybe they don't want it full of ads for some reason. I don't know.

I'm also curious why no one else is trying anything similar. SNT has its limitations and drawbacks but overall it looks, feel and navigates much better than the typical "e-edition" that many papers put on the Web. Just the fact it's built to fit your monitor (as opposed to traditional broadsheet) is pretty ingenious.

I could see a struggling small daily maybe shifting to a print product once or twice and week (basically to throw all the inserts into), and then doing an SNT type e-paper the other days and being successful.