The demise of SI

At my day job, I read all day, all different kinds of stuff (I am kind of a cosmic, high-speed copy editor, headlines and all, it's God's revenge on a snotty columnist). I read SI every other week. It doesn't suck. There are changes it could make to be better, yes. Dan Patrick, good-bye. I'd get rid of the back column, too, and let Selena and Phil go back to the reporting they are both very good at in their own way. Whoever said the Scorecard and front of the book stuff has nuggets worth expanding was right on.
But face it, the inside of the book doesn't matter. This magazine is now run on the idea of cover selection as a means of selling issues, and nothing else is of importance. Back in my day, young whippersnappers, the idea was the cover of SI was an honor, or at the least, was a photographic representation of the seminal moment in sports of that week. Now, it's marketing plus. And that, I submit, is why the audience of this board, who care about words and sports in equal measure, are more alienated from the product than it deserves. SI has not lowered its quality as much as its lowered its sights.

 

No, the quality is lower, too. There are mistakes that get into print that never would have gotten past the fact checkers in the old days.

They've also cut back on their stringer budget, which was a big part of what made the old magazine good. They paid well, which brought good work from the correspondents. That research was passed on to the writer and one reason their stories were so thorough. When you have an enormous amount of material to choose from, every quote can be a gem.

Cover status is diluted these days since they do regional covers fairly often.

Much is made over the cover and how it will affect sales, but I wonder what percentage of their circulation is rack sales vs. subscriptions.

 

Smasher: I read SI every week for work. And I must disagree with your assessment of quality. Anyplace that employs Lee Jenkins on beat duty cannot be bereft of talent.

 

I still love SI. I do think it was better back in the day but that's because it was bigger with more stories and more length. And I am an old SI groupie. I've read The Franchise three times-great book. But it's ridiculous to pretend the old Si never had groaners of mistakes. Ijust read a 1977 piece by one of the best, Rick telander, on Roger Maris. It includes the line "Next to the cartoon is a color photograph of the 1968 world champion St. Louis Cardinals."

The only problem is the Tigers won the 1968 World Series. Mistakes happen. Today such an error would have people moaning about how terrible SI is and why can't it be like the Tex Maule days.

 

I started my sub 10 years ago. It hasn't been the same since Dr. Z got sick. McCallum leaving full-time stunk, and Rushin and Reilly weren't throwing fastballs anymore (they were still worlds better than Dan Patrick) but Zimmerman's absence is felt the most.

I agree on expanding the number of sports they cover. The feature writing is still the best, in my opinion, but I'd like to see it expand past the normal superstar-centric cabal that's been created by 24-7 ESPN.

I still love the mag, though. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagine ESPN The Magazine doing what SI did with the Roetlisberger story.

 

As a basketball nut, I really miss reading McCallum's stuff. Probably the best hoops writer I've ever read.

 

Whoa, I never suggested anything like "bereft of talent." I just said the quality has declined, for reasons I've outlined in several posts.

 

They may have paid well in the 80s, but they didn't when Dan Jenkins and his fellow Texans, Frank Deford, and others were getting their feet wet in the 60s. As I recall reading in "The Franchise", writers often made less than management's secretaries.

Look, these are trying times for every print publication as they all try to figure out how to coexist with new technology and utilize new media. There are going to be bumps. Copy editing, at every publication, is one of them.

Can it be better? Sure. But it's still better than any sports magazine out there.

 

Smasher, I want to clarify my opinion. I do not believe SI is as good as it was 30-40 years ago. But I believe it is still damn good, and a far better read than its competition ESPN: The Magazine That Hurts Your Eyes.

 

Written by Kenny <i>Moore</i>. Minor detail.

 

I'm fascinated by the Sportsman of the Year history. It's always had some odd choices.

1961: Jerry Lucas. Had a great year, yeah. Final Four MVP. But, uh, Roger Maris?

1984: Edwin Moses, Mary Lou Retton over Carl Lewis.

One of the funniest stories from The Franchise was the one about Mary Decker winning sportsman of the year because she was quite...close, to the managing editor Gil Rogin.

Tiger's won it twice. Guessing a third one is not in his future.