Sporting News Today thread (what do you think?)

So $3 a month? That's not bad. Less expensive than the cost of some e-editions per month. I'd sign up.

 

Too many notes. Not enough substance. Consistently odd choices for the cover, particularly after a big event. I stopped reading the daily player Q&A after about five days. I get what they're going for, just doesn't appeal to me.

 

I got the impression they were trying to fill space with a lot of the content, not produce something worth spending some time reading. I read the thing for a few weeks and then gave up on it.

 

I get the mag for free at home and am stunned that despite some good people working there (D'Alessio, Eichenberger) that the publication is so irrelevant.

I keep waiting for a really good in depth read or anything worth telling anyone else about. But it's like they just want to show off how much access they have to former players. Sorry but I'd rather read what a current player thinks instead of pablum from Al Hrabosky or John Wathan.

It sits on my coffee table for two weeks until the next one comes and then I pitch the old issue, wondering if I ever bothered to open it.

Can't figure out what they are supposed to be.

 

Irrelevant? Really, brettwatson? I like it a lot. Then again, I'm one of the few who likes hat ESPN does — "The Jones" included. I'm an Eichenberger fan (and former co-worker) and didn't even realize he worked there until i learned he was leaving.

Latest issue of TSN had a pretty deep, interesting conversation with Roy Halladay (cover), a piece on all the black coaches in D1, a cool Olympic hockey spread and a ton of baseball previews. There's a lot of first-person in there but it certainly doesn't bother me.

John Wall was on cover a few issues ago. JoePa, who rarely does much, gave them a long interview after that.

I didn't see any John Wathan in there but I suspect that's just you trying to be clever.

And failing, as usual.

 

I rarely agree with apseloser -- make that NEVER agree -- but I do here, wholeheartedly. I love that magazine. And while I don't read it daily, I'd pay, what, less than a dime a day for TSN's digital newspaper.

I worked with their baseball writer, Stan McNeal, many moons ago and think he and others -- Decourcey, Matt Hayes, their hockey guy Custance -- all do tremendous jobs of coming up with unique angles and story formats. It's a tiny staff — about a dozen writers if their masthead is to be believed -- and yet, in any given issue, they'll have talked to 200-plus athletes, coaches, etc. (I know this because they smartly tout it in house ads in TSN Today).

Different strokes for different folks but the quick-hit stuff is for me. That's why I read Entertainment Weekly over GQ, USA Today over the NY Times. I'm a sucker for the legend's lane stuff -- an old questionnaire from Ted Williams (like this recent issue) -- and really admire their creativity. I pay 15 bucks a year for it -- about a third of what I pay for SI -- and it's no contest for me. It takes me several hours to get through any one issue of TSN vs. 15 minutes many times with SI.

I've applied for jobs there twice -- no openings but the editor gave me a ton of time. I really respect that.

 

we get 2 copies of the magazine here at my shop — a consistent apse top-10 section over 100,000 circ — and have "borrowed" story ideas (mostly different approaches to alternative story forms) at least half a dozen times in the past year or so.

i can definitely see why people who like hefty stories don't dig it, but i think it's exceptional. as creative as anything out there.

the only thing i don't like is the nascar. get rid of that and i wouldn't have any complaints.

so much bitterness on this board, which is why i rarely post. criticizing tsn (since they changed formats and brought in new people, anyway) is like that idiot who criticized chris jones' writing.

 

I read TSN Today every day, usually just scanning through to find what I want. I enjoy it for the ease of getting a lot of info in one spot. But the staff writers aren't the best.

I used to like DeCourcy a lot but he's fallen off in recent years in my opinion. Still some decent guys but they just can't keep up with the big boys in terms of overall writing talent.

 

The "big boys"? Really? You obviously don't read DeCourcy much, you wannabe putz. He's as good as it gets on college basketball. And I've never so much as met the man.

 

To each their own. Like I said, I was a fan but I believe his work has dropped off recently. You're entitled to your opinion even if it means resorting to juvenile name calling.

 

Arrives too late? What are you, a milkman? Matt Lauer?
It's in your e-mail by 7:05 every morning, which means 6:05 CT, etc.
How much earlier can it get there?

 

I gave it a try for a few weeks ... too much fluff and not enough substance for me.