A New Low for Sports Illustrated


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby dukehjsteve » Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:17 pm

Just opened the new SI issue, pleased to see a big article on
"The Year of the Women" at the London Olympics.

I say no more. See for yourself.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby gh » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:13 pm

Sorry, you'll have to enlighten me. SI's lows of the '90s caused me to quit reading, and I've never gone back.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

e.

Postby Marlow » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:08 pm

It was an excellent article that profiled women who showed

fierceness
longevity
focus
unity
dominance
resilience
persistence
wisdom
consistency

very nicely done.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby dukehjsteve » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:13 pm

Marlow, don't be so righteous... you know the point I'm trying to make.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Marlow » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:24 pm

dukehjsteve wrote:Marlow, don't be so righteous... you know the point I'm trying to make.

??!!
What on earth does 'righteousness' have to do with it? I simply reported on the subject matter and that I liked it.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Blues » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:14 am

dukehjsteve wrote:Just opened the new SI issue, pleased to see a big article on
"The Year of the Women" at the London Olympics.

I say no more. See for yourself.


When I saw the beginning of the thread, I thought that maybe Sports Illustrated had chosen Lolo Jones as their London track and field example in the article. We should be so lucky.

Alas, not even the ubiquitous Lolo, nor any of our amazing track and field medalists or world record holders from London, were evidently considered to be worthy of a mention.... :(

http://insidesportsillustrated.com/2012 ... the-women/
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Marlow » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:04 am

Blues wrote:Alas, not even the ubiquitous Lolo, nor any of our amazing track and field medalists or world record holders from London, were evidently considered to be worthy of a mention.... :(

Oh, THAT'S the beef? That they didn't include a T&F star? Ain't no big whoop to me. As gh noted, I have no T&F expectations for SI. The ones they picked were remarkable women.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Blues » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:31 am

Marlow wrote:
Blues wrote:Alas, not even the ubiquitous Lolo, nor any of our amazing track and field medalists or world record holders from London, were evidently considered to be worthy of a mention.... :(

Oh, THAT'S the beef? That they didn't include a T&F star? Ain't no big whoop to me. As gh noted, I have no T&F expectations for SI. The ones they picked were remarkable women.


Although it may be par for the course for SI, it's still a little surprising... With as many different categories of "distinct characteristics" as they came up with, it seems that they could have invented one more for one (or four) of the T&F ladies... Although several individual athletes were extremely deserving, a story regarding the 4x1 Gold and WR, after a history of previous US botches, might have been worthy of a category, as would have stories involving Olympic champs Sanya, Brittney, Jenn, or Allyson.. Five Olympic Golds in a row in the 4x4 might have been worthy of a category too. It's not like they had nobody to choose from. For now I'll just pretend that it was too hard for them to pick which T&F athlete(s) to use.
Last edited by Blues on Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby gh » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:49 am

I consider this serious enough that USATF's CEO should head to NYC to have a chat with the SI people. Seriously.

Wow, speaking of Mr. Siegel, when's the last time we had any kind of public pronouncement from him? He's certainly the anti-Logan when it comes to being seen and heard. Not sure if that's a good thing.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Pego » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:56 am

To me, SI's "opinions" fall in the category of "irrelevant-to-ludicrous." I would peak at it in my dentist's waiting room in the expectation of a hygienist wielding a sharp object. It still beats out Good Housekeeping.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: e.

Postby tandfman » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:59 am

Marlow wrote:It was an excellent article that profiled women who showed

fierceness
longevity
focus
unity
dominance
resilience
persistence
wisdom
consistency

These are all nice virtues, but what the Olympics are all about is a word that doesn't appear on this list: excellence. The women's 4x100 proved themselves to be better than any other women's 4x100 that has ever run in the history of the planet. That, apparently, doesn't count for anything at SI. Nor do Felix, Richards-Ross, Reese or Suhr have any virtues worth noting.

I agree with dukehjsteve on this one.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Marlow » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:03 am

gh wrote:A. I consider this serious enough that USATF's CEO should head to NYC to have a chat with the SI people. Seriously.
B. Wow, speaking of Mr. Siegel, when's the last time we had any kind of public pronouncement from him? He's certainly the anti-Logan when it comes to being seen and heard. Not sure if that's a good thing.

A. A little 'showing the flag' is always a good thing, but having the CEO of USATF lobbying SI for 'more/better' coverage smacks of desperation. Send the PR guys [Communications - Jared Slinde;
Marketing - Taylor Payne] with a CEO 'open letter'.
B. I was thinking the same thing. An invisible CEO is worse than a too visible one.

This isn't worth getting our panties (boxers?) in a bunch, but is symptomatic of T&F's eroding public facade.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Cooter Brown » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:19 am

I had honestly forgotten that USATF had selected a CEO and I couldn't have come up with his name if you paid me.
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby preston » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:26 am

Definitely agree with "dukehjsteve", "tandfman" and "Blues" on this. Track got shafted.

If they wanted to keep the womens' theme:

w4x4 – Longevity & Dominance – US wins 5th straight.
SRR – Focus – wins first Oly indy medal after famous blowups.
w4x1 – Unity – After the Tarmoh/Felix affair at the trials many thought this team could not be unified.
Brigitta Barrett – Resilience – From NCAA Season to Olympic Silver.
Felix – Persistence – After her three previous trips to the Olympics ended with silver (twice) and Felix finally stood atop the medal stand in London.
Jen Suhr – Wisdom – After injuries and the famous interchange between coach in 2008 she puts it all together.
Brittany Reese – Consistency - She just won like she had been doing for the last few years.

You ever get the feeling that the interests Siegel is trying to leverage are...well...Siegel's?
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Marlow » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:47 am

preston wrote:Track got shafted.


That would require that expectations were not met. Mine were. I love the magazine, but stopping expecting T&F coverage a long, long time ago.

edit [after hjsteve's post below]: This is me NOT getting the last post! :wink:
Last edited by Marlow on Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby dukehjsteve » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:19 pm

We cannot, should not, must not, let Marlow get the last word. STOP HIM !!!!!
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:28 pm

Slightly ironic that they are pinning things on Title IX, and yet their lead athlete is one where Title IX does not enter directly, just through greater participation in sports by females. However, given that some of that was going to happen anyway, Title IX has had little to do with the sport, which is competed outside of school environments at the highest levels and the levels leading up to that, not in college or even high school gymnastics.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Trackrunner » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:58 pm

What are you all complaining about? Whenever anyone gets on here and makes any kind of suggestion to improve the sport or makes recommendations that may extend the reach of track to a wider audience it is almost always promptly shot down as naive and unworkable followed by a refrain of "folks need to just accept that the golden days of track and field have come and gone and get over it already".

So SI completely ignores track athletes here and this is drawing the ire of some of the same folks who want to maintain the status quo and are for business as usual in the sport? I see. Did they forget that track is a niche sport that is just not very popular and its heyday was back in the 60s and 70s? Why then would SI think the exploits of a track athlete were even noteworthy of an honorable mention? Wallow in nostalgia and memories of the days when track and field mattered if you want but folks really need to just "get over it already". 8-)
Trackrunner
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:57 pm

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Marlow » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:45 am

Just happened upon this 1991 SI cover, in 'higher' days . . . :wink:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_onli ... _large.jpg

It's rather beautiful.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby gh » Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:27 am

Trackrunner wrote:What are you all complaining about? Whenever anyone gets on here and makes any kind of suggestion to improve the sport or makes recommendations that may extend the reach of track to a wider audience it is almost always promptly shot down as naive and unworkable followed by a refrain of "folks need to just accept that the golden days of track and field have come and gone and get over it already".....)


Methinks there's a vast difference between being a niche sport (which most of the stuff in the SI piece was) and being relegated to oblivion.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Pego » Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:02 am

Trackrunner wrote:Whenever anyone gets on here and makes any kind of suggestion to improve the sport or makes recommendations that may extend the reach of track to a wider audience it is almost always promptly shot down as naive and unworkable


Once again you smudge the edges between fantasy and reality. Many of those "marketing concepts", yours and Marlow's including have no chance to make a difference in minds of many of us. Omission of track athletes from the SI story is an inexcusable act and very much a reality.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby dukehjsteve » Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:08 am

gh wrote:
Trackrunner wrote:What are you all complaining about? Whenever anyone gets on here and makes any kind of suggestion to improve the sport or makes recommendations that may extend the reach of track to a wider audience it is almost always promptly shot down as naive and unworkable followed by a refrain of "folks need to just accept that the golden days of track and field have come and gone and get over it already".....)


Methinks there's a vast difference between being a niche sport (which most of the stuff in the SI piece was) and being relegated to oblivion.



Well spoken gh. And this "niche sport" phrase is getting a bit overused. All sports except the Big Three are now "niche sports", so what ? And for sure IN THE OLYMPICS, Track and Field is NOT a "niche sport". We are the Big Enchilada then ( if only then). SI slapped us in the face( and themselves) big time.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Trackrunner » Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:34 am

When I took note on this forum of NBC's abysmal coverage of track and field in its prime time show at the recent London Olympics I was basically told to suck it up and accept that this was the new reality for a niche sport that was just not very popular. While lesser 'sports' like beach volleyball were being given prominent prime time coverage, NBC would show only some of the semi final races for even a 10 second blue riband event like the 100M. I saw this as a problem and noted that if I were a track executive I would be very worried, but the response I got from the crew here was that it was all good because we have access to all of the live streams that fans can go to and this is just the new reality for the sport. The point I was making then was the majority of people get their Olympics through NBC's prime time coverage - and that it would be mostly core fans who would seek out live streaming - and that the sport was being shafted and diminished and on a clear path to irrelevance.

Well there you have it. I think it is great that SI has completely ignored track and field. Perhaps track leadership will awake to the reality that the sport is in deep doo-doo and on its way to oblivion...and make an attempt to do something about it.
Trackrunner
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:57 pm

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Daisy » Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:55 am

Pego wrote:It still beats out Good Housekeeping.

Maybe so, but the the fact you noticed it as a choice says a lot about SI.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Marlow » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:24 pm

dukehjsteve wrote: All sports except the Big Three are now "niche sports", so what ? And for sure IN THE OLYMPICS, Track and Field is NOT a "niche sport". We are the Big Enchilada then ( if only then). SI slapped us in the face( and themselves) big time.

Then why is golf on TV virtually every weekend for most of the year? And why does tennis garner so much attention for its majors (Australian, French, Wimbledon, US Open)? When hockey is not on strike, it still gets lots of attention in the national media (SI loves it!). NASCAR is huge in many parts of the nation! Soccer is growing rapidly in the USA.

If those are only niche sports, then we are truly non-existent. We are blaming SI for being the messenger of the public's disinterest and yes, I say we brought this on ourselves by USATF's amateur approach to marketing the sport. We can only blame ourselves for SI's perceived slight.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby dukehjsteve » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:49 pm

Marlow wrote:
dukehjsteve wrote: All sports except the Big Three are now "niche sports", so what ? And for sure IN THE OLYMPICS, Track and Field is NOT a "niche sport". We are the Big Enchilada then ( if only then). SI slapped us in the face( and themselves) big time.

Then why is golf on TV virtually every weekend for most of the year? And why does tennis garner so much attention for its majors (Australian, French, Wimbledon, US Open)? When hockey is not on strike, it still gets lots of attention in the national media (SI loves it!). NASCAR is huge in many parts of the nation! Soccer is growing rapidly in the USA.

If those are only niche sports, then we are truly non-existent. We are blaming SI for being the messenger of the public's disinterest and yes, I say we brought this on ourselves by USATF's amateur approach to marketing the sport. We can only blame ourselves for SI's perceived slight.



OK Marlow, for once I reluctantly must agree with you. I sort of forgot about tennis/golf/NASCAR. And yes, even though T&F is NOT a niche sport in the Olympics, NBC treats it as if it is. But I'm not exonerating SI, not by a long shot. For one thing I am not renewing my 47 year subscription. Not that they will care.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Marlow » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:56 pm

dukehjsteve wrote:OK Marlow, for once I reluctantly must agree with you. I sort of forgot about tennis/golf/NASCAR. And yes, even though T&F is NOT a niche sport in the Olympics, NBC treats it as if it is. But I'm not exonerating SI, not by a long shot. For one thing I am not renewing my 47 year subscription. Not that they will care.

For the record, I have agreed with almost everything you've posted in the last 10 years here, so it's been with consternation that I have watched you come to believe we don't see T&F from very similar perspectives. I applaud your cancellation of SI. I enjoy their coverage of the other sports and turn to T&FN, eTN and T&FN.com for my T&F fixes! :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Pego » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:11 pm

Trackrunner wrote:When I took note on this forum of NBC's abysmal coverage of track and field in its prime time show at the recent London Olympics I was basically told to suck it up and accept that this was the new reality for a niche sport that was just not very popular. While lesser 'sports' like beach volleyball were being given prominent prime time coverage, NBC would show only some of the semi final races for even a 10 second blue riband event like the 100M. I saw this as a problem and noted that if I were a track executive I would be very worried, but the response I got from the crew here was that it was all good because we have access to all of the live streams that fans can go to and this is just the new reality for the sport. The point I was making then was the majority of people get their Olympics through NBC's prime time coverage - and that it would be mostly core fans who would seek out live streaming - and that the sport was being shafted and diminished and on a clear path to irrelevance.

Well there you have it. I think it is great that SI has completely ignored track and field. Perhaps track leadership will awake to the reality that the sport is in deep doo-doo and on its way to oblivion...and make an attempt to do something about it.


I'll contradict you one more time, albeit marginally :wink: . The NBC Olympic coverage has been abysmal indeed for years, but I would suggest that it is pretty much across the spectrum, not just T&F. As far as this board's reaction is concerned, majority here was highly critical, very few came to NBC's defense. Yes, I was one of those that were happy with the live coverage webcasts. It was better than nothing. Much better.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Marlow » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:00 pm

Pego wrote:As far as this board's reaction is concerned, majority here was highly critical, very few came to NBC's defense. Yes, I was one of those that were happy with the live coverage webcasts. It was better than nothing. Much better.

Exactly. It was terrible, but endurable because of the web-streaming. If I thought USATF could influence (as if!) TPTBe, I'd say go for it, but . . . snowball . . . hell . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby eldanielfire » Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:47 am

It's topics like this which make me love what we get in the UK on the BBC. Sure at times the throw Diamond league meets onto it's little sister digital BBC3 channel and I wish they promoted it as much as the major sports like football, Cricket and F1, but for the most part at least it shows dedication and values it's Athletics coverage and keeps it in the public eye, especially these days as Britain has genuine medal contenders regularly and Usain Bolt and the Jamaicans are essentially nationality neutral so everybody gets behind them.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby berkeley » Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:28 pm

On a somewhat heartening and slightly related note, I was in a doctor's office the other day and saw the two most recent copies of T&FN among the other magazines. OK, full disclosure - he was a podiatrist specializing in runners' injuries. Still, I expected to see Runner's World but not our Bible.
berkeley
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: London, UK

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby G.Ahearn » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:29 pm

. . . .And we are not too surprised to see the SFH story as a Sports Illustrated "top story" today, are we?
G.Ahearn
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Marlow » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:35 pm

berkeley wrote:On a somewhat heartening and slightly related note, I was in a doctor's office the other day and saw the two most recent copies of T&FN among the other magazines.

Was browsing my local Books-a-Million today, and there, half hidden behind the Running World copies, were 6 pristine January 2013 Track & Field News issues!! I pulled them out and put them prominently in the front of the rack. :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A New Low for Sports Illustrated

Postby Daisy » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:58 pm

I was at Barnes and Noble and found TFN for the first time. They were stuffed at the back of the rack. Obviously I pulled them out and put them in the front :)
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests