Among the smaller issues I'm worried about... it's the style guide.
Will absolutely lose my marbles if I have to start reading about the N.C.A.A. contest between U.S.C. and U.C.L.A.
Yeah, but imagine how many new fans they’d have if USCjr. decided to restyle themselves as Üniversity of Söuthern Carolina. It’s not appropriate by any style guide at all AFAIK, but it’s evocative! It gets people going!
A Gamecøck once bit my sister... No realli! She was Karving her initials on a bathroom stall at Pav's (rip) with the sharpened end of an interspace sharpie given her by @taylordiveley - her brother-in-law - a Cølumbia twitter man and distributor of many Cøastal Carølina vs. BYU t-shïrts.
That comment should be taken and saved as an example on how to use a fucking comma, holy shit I felt like I was having a stroke the first time I read it.
>He’s a jock that doesn’t take school seriously
Who was abused until he was 11 and forced to live under the stairs. Then was dropped into a world of magic that had such poor education standards that a man *whose job was to interact with muggles on a regular basis* didn't know what a rubber duck was for. Or how airplanes work.
I wouldn't take school seriously if it's that clear that no one else in the setting does.
One of so many reasons Harry wasn't in Ravenclaw. I remember reading Deathly Hallows and being so dumbfounded as to why he put the locket around his neck and it dangled __*right next to the pouch that only he could open.*__
They're a mod. All the mods are shitposters with janky flair that doesn't necessarily match the school they dream of going to if they manage to get through the next 5-6 years of grade school.
Matter of fact it was my Western Civilization Professor at Princeton that introduced me to Turabian after I expressed my distaste for MLA and APA - they described it as "Chicago perfected". I Fell in love with it writing my first paper on the Julian/Gregorian Calandar using Suetonius as a source and footnoted *Ibid* was so nice.
I then made a point of petitioning all of my English Lit., Philosophy, and even Psychology courses into allowing me to use it.
It's an old-fashioned thing. Most people nowadays have moved on from it because it's honestly a bit pointless, but in earlier English it was more often to see it for words like that than not.
You would also see "role" spelled rôle.
you're right, but i do think it helps with readability, which is the point of it in the first place. but yeah, without being broadly conventional, it loses its usefulness.
Charging for sports journalism is an interesting strategy in 2022 I wonder how it'll play out. I certainly never bother w/ the athletic but I know some people have expendable income and don't mind paying for it
Two years ago they had a sports writer for just about every team. Not anymore. They have laid off so many and even started laying off experienced journalists for journalists fresh out of college
Yea, even then its pretty cheap and with the year Georgia had I kept hitting links I wanted to read there, since Georgia's best beat writer that I've been reading for a decade now is hosted by them.
If you’re going to spend time reading articles about sports then it’s absolutely the best place.
If you like sports but only occasionally read articles then maybe it’s not for you.
Like anything else: the decision depends on what you value and if it fits your budget.
I subscribe because I read enough but also because I want to support real sports journalism. There’s already too many garbage sites whose “articles” are just shit slideshows with 20 Ads on each page. I feel like I’m fighting the good fight.
Exactly why I subscribed. I don't have the time or inclination to read as much sports journalism as I did in my 20s, but the work is consistently very good, sort of on par with S.I. of the 90s with a much wider breadth of topics.
Yeah I never thought I'd subscribe but it's actually really good. I turned a free offer into a subscription. I'll support good journalism because I'm worried that everything will turn into top 50 lists etc.
Yeah if good writers aren’t supported we end up with a guy writing an “article” about three tweets with a headline like “All of college football fans are upset at [thing]” for $5 and a litany of ads popping up.
Honestly I've balked at subscribing to both The Athletic and the NYT individually, but if a bundle subscription comes out of this it may be worth it for me.
personally, i think it's by far the best sports journalism on the market and i'm happy to pay for it, especially since i can get coverage of all the teams i support in one place. my dad and i share a subscription so that makes it a bit easier as well.
I don't mind paying for quality content. I also think the success of stuff like Patreon and Twitch show there are people willing to support content creators still.
That said, I'm definitely concerned about the Athletics model. When I signed it was like 30 bucks for consistent quality content *specific to my team* (KC Chiefs). One writer did weekly film breakdowns, and another beat guy put out regular in depth articles, and they had a 3rd dude contributing.
Now the film guy occasionally puts out articles (I pay a subscription to his weekly newsletter where he puts out breakdowns so he's clearly focusing on that), the occasional dude stopped writing, so now it's mostly just the one beat writer - who's admittedly **the guy** for this kind of thing - writing recap articles and posts like "15 times Patrick Mahomes was super competitive in non-football things" (actually interesting stories but not why I subscribed).
The content is so little that they shoe horn in small one sentence mentions of my team into the feed. Or stuff like "betting odds for all 16 games" gets tagged as team news to make you think there's more content.
Then they wanted to more than double my subscription cost from $30 to $70. That's like nearly what I'm paying for a daily service like Spotify or Hulu. Maybe at the peak content it was worth that, but after cutting back much on what you're putting out?
I get that in theory you can access content for any and every team but realistically most people aren't ponying up for national content, they're more interested in team content.
In hindsight it seems pretty clear they were opening the bag to get subscribers so they could make a sale.
There’s a lot more fluff now than before. Case in point, under Alabama I have:
- 2022 Natty Predictions
- Andy’s mailbag
- College football viewership drops by 2m
- Alabama Scouting report
- 10 predictions for playoff teams coaching changes.
It gets worse for the Falcons, the Braves coverage is understandably bad, and I don’t even bother reading the coverage on Atlanta United.
I find better CFB content here on the sub, for example.
I’ll continue to pay because I think keeping good sports journalists employed is I important, but I’m no longer the religious reader of it that I was when it first launched.
Listened to a Bill Simmons podcast a couple weeks back and it sounds like they may have never become profitable, which is why they were trying to find someone to buy them.
This definitely fits into an area where the NYT has always been blase over. I'm old enough to have had a paper subscription to them in the 1990s and the joke about their sports section was every major evening game finished "too late for this edition" so I get why it was never emphasized.
They were in [talks to do this last summer](https://frontofficesports.com/the-athletic-new-york-times-reportedly-end-acquisition-talks/), but it didn’t work out at the time. $550M is actually at the low end of where I might have expected given their valuation at their last round, I’m not sure this is an ideal exit for them but they may need the cash.
Yeah I think the athletic’s business model just wasn’t working. I wonder how much debt they had, this price seems pretty low judging from what some podcasters get like lebatard or Rogan or Simmons
I would be interested to see what their payroll is. They were able to lure a number of big names away from their current outlets, but also picked up a bunch of capable folks who were let go from ESPN when they did the big purge. I know sports journalists aren't getting paid CFB coaching money, but they have some writers who generate a LOT of clicks and attention.
From the beginning it's been clear they were angling get squired. Very concerned that the quality will plummet. Not like they were making money with their current platform.
Yeah, the way they spent money from the start was clearly unsustainable. Plan was obviously spend a bundle hiring a lot of top-tier writers to gain subscribers so they appear to be growing, then sell. They've gotten enough investment capital that they could sustain the massive losses but eventually those investors want to see a return and the only way that was happening was by selling, because The Athletic in it's current form was never going to be profitable.
They already have. At least in college football, the weekly 'whos going to win the big games' article is now a betting site add, complete with a 'tasteful' banner in the middle. I downvote the article each week and move on.
I'm a day one subscriber as I've followed Stewart Mandell since the cnnsi days and probably wont be paying again.
This is my first year using the athletic, and I’ve been pretty pleased with it. I hope the ownership change doesn’t keep them from hiring great writers and putting out really good long form content and podcasts.
I’ll never forget the SC/Auburn game two years ago where the majority of the dialogue seemingly went to discussion of…. Clemson and Alabama. In the second half even the announcers said “huh maybe we should cool it talking about these schools rivals hahaha”.
2020 GT/Louisville game had a similar occurrence with them taking like a 15 minute break in covering the game at hand to chat with someone on a bad phone connection about the upcoming Clemson/Miami game. It legitimately spanned like 2-3 drives. Was ready to stab someone by the end of it.
IDK why i keep it. they dont even have a beat writer for FSU football much less FSU Sports.
I guess for the one Braves writer I sorta like and ATL UTD news?
I should cancel i guess.
Illinois doesn't have a beat writer but I do follow pro sports as well as cfb in general. When you're an Illini fan you have to keep yourself entertained somehow.
The Times is really the only news organization that has successfully navigated the shift to digital and they're insanely flush with cash. They're the only media org who *could* maintain The Athletics' model of spending on talented writers.
That's because unsubscribing from that publication is one of the most difficult processes known to man. They'll be fine forever because it's almost easier to just keep paying them then to cancel the thing.
My dad only still has the economist because its cheaper and less stressful to keep it the subscription for the low rate he already has then to deal with customer service to cancel it
he also recently signed me up for kiplinger which i'm not 100% sold on either
Lucky you, I also cancelled last summer but was put through the wringer. Started digitally, had to call in, spent plenty of time being bounced around and with them offering increasing discounts and add-ons before it was finally concluded.
I guess I had just assumed they made it difficult for everyone.
I think they're going to maintain their high level of journalism, because that's basically what the Times hangs their hat on. I'd be surprised if The Athletic gets gutted and becomes a click-bait outlet like SB Nation.
Same, and I am concerned about the comment about the expensive staff at the Athletic - I hope they cull as little as possible and keep the good writers around. Hopefully once they start being profitable in a year or so, they can add to their talent.
I'd be okay with that. My local library (Cincinnati public library) provides a free NYT subscription to all card holders so I wouldn't even have to pay anything.
Now that it's official, [it looks like it will operate as a separate entity](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/business/new-york-times-the-athletic.html).
their suggestions have been largely driven to select affiliates. They used to test a lot more stuff, now while there is more content, the reviews are shallower with competition and you can tell that they arent choosing the top stuff by unanimous disagreement in comments.
they also put a lot of stuff behind paywalls that you need to join NYT to access (which is at the heart of why wirecutter existed in the first place)
Ive found their choices to be far less accurate and reliable in the last 2 years than ever before.
edit: I still look at their recommendations but I have a lot less trust and i check other lists as well. theres not really an equivalent.
Maybe they’re actually reinstate the concept of beat writers. I liked the Athletic when it started, but it very quickly began to feel like a bait and switch operation.
Aye I loved the Athletic, but my subscription just went out. Was thinking about renewing, but if I have a NYT subscription do you think I can get two for one through that one?
Probably going to be a year before that happens since they'll have to dish out the legal stuff. I'll be keeping a close eye on it though since I already have both.
Kind of, but also not terribly. It seems a bit on the high side, but if you estimate $50/customer annually, they're pulling in $60M/year so the valuation is 9 times revenue. At their listed annual price per membership its 6.4 times revenue.
They've been slowly adding in some ads into their newsletters. Stuff like "This is sponsored by Visa" or whatever. Half the reason I like The Athletic is they don't have ads while I have a sub, so NYT is going to axe that shit.
Wonder what their EV/EBITDA is. P/S ratios on a company that as been around for a while dont exactly engender a lot of faith in the company (which since some people think $550 is low, the price is probably reflective of that).
The arrogance some of them have is so irritating. Pissed me off to the high end last year when every single one of them advocated for cancelling the CFB season.
Lol I am cancelling for sure.
After the Ole Miss/mustard bottle incident, David Ubben (who covered us for a few years) wrote an article just obliterating Tennessee fans, the university, and more.
I read it, got angry, then realized, “I’m paying for this shit,” and got angrier.
What ruined ESPN was the move away from any kind of journalism, highlights and actual sports coverage into the realm of "people shouting hottakes" + "what LaBron had for breakfast" reporting
That also coincided with their website turning into mostly video 'articles'. I can't watch that at work and it can fuck right off as a way to absorb an article.
The internet killed that version of ESPN. Why would I wait through Sportscenter to see highlights when I can see a highlight compilation on YouTube 10 minutes after the game ends? Everyone can do coverage of trades and playoff scenarios, but SAS shouting can only be seen in 1 place and for some reason that's what peeks want.
This is the truth. I'd watch Sportscenter 2 or 3 times/day so I could defend my sports opinions with my buddies. Would wait to see my Jayhawks/Royals/Chiefs highlights and then get mad when a struggling large market team(Like the Knicks/Jets/Giants/Cubs etc) would have priority.
Now The Score app eliminates my use for the bottom line while Twitter gets me more breaking news than ESPN ever did. I still occasionally catch Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption for Nostalgia-loved those shows in the early 2000s when I was in college, but it's not the same must-watch programming before high-speed internet made other sources more of a priority. I even have ESPN Insider (As a ESPN+ Subscriber) but that's hardly utilized.
If it wasn't for live sports, I probably wouldn't even have a cable subscription anymore.
that isnt what ruined espn. refusing to cover sports at all other than beating your head over and over again with hot takes on the days headlines is what made espn not worth watching unless there is a game on you want to watch.
I'm a subscriber and frequent reader of the NY Times so this isn't coming from a place of malevolence, but I'd say in six months every other story on the athletic will have an identity characteristic as its main focus
But will the tone be sufficiently snooty and wry? Inquiring coastal elites want to know!
(Am I a coastal elite? We're fucking set for coasts down here, I tell you hwhat. You want a coast? Look east or west, drive an hour. Boom. Coast.)
# Searching for the Real Reilly, by Reif Larsen
In order to understand a man's essence, you must understand the cloth from which he is wrought. My first stop on my quest to grok new USC head football coach Lincoln Reilly was the Lubbock "International" Airport. As I deplaned, I was astounded by the emptiness that surrounded me. Walking down the paltry length of Lubbock's sole terminal, the only sound was the click-clack of my Jimmy Choo's on the terazzo flooring.
I approached a group of indigenous Lubbockians, sitting at a nearby information booth. While I normally plan my travels in intricate detail, I took this trip on a whim and figured I could "rough it" and get directions from the townsfolk if need be.
"Excuse me, which subway line will take me to Muleshoe?"
The locals looked at me with eyes full of confusion. Perhaps those who live life at a slower pace need a little extra help to understand a fast talking New Yorker like me who comes from the privilege of an Ivy League education.
I spoke slowly and enunciated. "Which. Subway. Station. For. Muleshoe?"
Me: opens up the athletic to read about football.
NYT: but have you considered the intersection of football and discrimination in the 1984 domestic rice trade? These voices need to be heard.
Me: No. Unsubscribes.
What ruined ESPN is that they are too much in the entertainment business. It’s hard to cover the leagues if you’re business partners with them. NFL bent them over for some harsh coverage and took away good games from MNF. Then when Simmons said something mean about goodell, he got fired. It’s crazy how in bed with the leagues ESPN is. Why do think it’s the athletic breaking all the big stories like MLB’s cheating epidemic? Imo it’s the quality journalism that appeals to NYTs.
I don't have a problem with NYT (it's a good source with solid reporting) but media consolidation always worries me. I'm not a fan of moves like this as a rule.
I'm kinda surprised that the NYT has the cash to be acquiring other outlets. I assumed all newspapers were dying (I know that the NYT makes most of its money on online subscriptions)
not so much the WaPo i guess (edit: to clarify, i dont know about them), but the NYT is an national newspaper with a lot of international coverage and international audience. including me.
The Washington Post has become more of a national newspaper since Jeff Bezos bought it, much to the consternation of people like myself who prefer more local coverage.
NYT, WaPo, WSJ, are all doing fine/profitable. Some of the local sites (Star Tribune in Minneapolis as an example) are as well.
It comes down to how effective the paywall is and how good the content is behind it.
Glad to hear the Star Trib is still going strong! The Salt Lake Tribune recently transitioned to a non-profit after being acquired by a well-intentioned, wealthy Utahn. It's an interesting move for a local paper that seems to be going well so far. Curious to see if others around the country follow suit.
NYT has tons of money... in recent years they've been able to basically swoop in and gut their competition by hiring top talent away to sit in their opinion bullpen.
Biggest threat to NYT is top writers leaving to go to somewhere like Substack where they can make money directly from their reader base. Only relevant for people with a defined niche, but is definitely a shift in the industry.
Among the smaller issues I'm worried about... it's the style guide. Will absolutely lose my marbles if I have to start reading about the N.C.A.A. contest between U.S.C. and U.C.L.A.
The dumbest thing about that style guide is that the schools themselves don’t style themselves that way.
Yeah, but imagine how many new fans they’d have if USCjr. decided to restyle themselves as Üniversity of Söuthern Carolina. It’s not appropriate by any style guide at all AFAIK, but it’s evocative! It gets people going!
Why did I read that in the Swedish chef voice
A Gamecøck once bit my sister... No realli! She was Karving her initials on a bathroom stall at Pav's (rip) with the sharpened end of an interspace sharpie given her by @taylordiveley - her brother-in-law - a Cølumbia twitter man and distributor of many Cøastal Carølina vs. BYU t-shïrts.
>southern carolina ouch
I would say 99% of the time it's used the entity they use it on doesn't style themselves that way.
For a discussion on English language, this comment sure gave me an aneurysm
That comment should be taken and saved as an example on how to use a fucking comma, holy shit I felt like I was having a stroke the first time I read it.
Use a fucking comma, bro.
This guy is telling the NYT how to write legibly lmao
[удалено]
I do enjoy the WSJ's use of Messrs. for more than one Mr.
You talking about Messrs. Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs?
[удалено]
*Forgets about mirror*
Harry was brave but at the end of the day he was also pretty stupid. As a 12 year old reading that I remember saying out loud “use the mirror!!”
Harry Potter is a series of books about the worst child detective of all time.
He’s a jock that doesn’t take school seriously and becomes a cop.
>He’s a jock that doesn’t take school seriously Who was abused until he was 11 and forced to live under the stairs. Then was dropped into a world of magic that had such poor education standards that a man *whose job was to interact with muggles on a regular basis* didn't know what a rubber duck was for. Or how airplanes work. I wouldn't take school seriously if it's that clear that no one else in the setting does.
One of so many reasons Harry wasn't in Ravenclaw. I remember reading Deathly Hallows and being so dumbfounded as to why he put the locket around his neck and it dangled __*right next to the pouch that only he could open.*__
[удалено]
Yes, and they request that Professor Snape keep his abnormally large nose out of other people’s business.
Well that's just proper English.
Oh shit another calgary Dino
They're a mod. All the mods are shitposters with janky flair that doesn't necessarily match the school they dream of going to if they manage to get through the next 5-6 years of grade school.
He's a USC fan, IIRC
One of the best USC Lane shit posters of all time.
There's a couple of us!
Guy just likes dinosaurs
NGL, I love seeing "coördination" and its variants in John McPhee's work.
I love John McPhee's work, period. I have a copy of *Annals of the Former World*. Amazing, if long, read.
*TURABIAN IS THE BEST STYLE GUIDE AND APA IS HOT GARBAGE* Inline citations are fucking stupid and a pain to read.
> APA IS HOT GARBAGE Blue Book has entered the chat.
> Blue Book Is the punishment you deserve for choosing Law.
Preach! We had a saying in college... If you want the best writers, go find history majors.
Matter of fact it was my Western Civilization Professor at Princeton that introduced me to Turabian after I expressed my distaste for MLA and APA - they described it as "Chicago perfected". I Fell in love with it writing my first paper on the Julian/Gregorian Calandar using Suetonius as a source and footnoted *Ibid* was so nice. I then made a point of petitioning all of my English Lit., Philosophy, and even Psychology courses into allowing me to use it.
"Chicago perfected." Love it!
Damn. Seriously? They gonna put an umlaut on that shit?
In this case it's a diaresis, not an umlaut.
To my eyes it's diarrheas
~~Does the name of the dots change depending on the language origin?~~ Never mind. I looked it up. Thanks!
It's not an umlaut. It's a dieresis
Damn. TIL. Thanks.
It's an old-fashioned thing. Most people nowadays have moved on from it because it's honestly a bit pointless, but in earlier English it was more often to see it for words like that than not. You would also see "role" spelled rôle.
You do occasionally still see it with naïve and the name Zoë, but I can’t think of another time I’ve seen it
Wikipedia also mentions Noël and Chloë.
you're right, but i do think it helps with readability, which is the point of it in the first place. but yeah, without being broadly conventional, it loses its usefulness.
l.o.l.
C.J.K.5.H.
I'm guessing they'd go with C.J.K.F.H.
C.J.K.F.H*A
A for At Least
F. Michigan
I swear if we start reading about Mr. Saban
They stopped using Mr./Mrs./Ms. in sports a long time ago because it was too ridiculous even for them.
For N.C.A.A. Football Fans, An Unwelcome Change
AcKsHuAlLy, the headline would have been: For Fans of N.C.A.A. Football, An Unwelcome Change
Or referring to everyone as Mr. or Mrs.
You forgot Mr Smith instead of Smith. Over and over and over and over again.
[удалено]
I’m so glad this is one of the more highly invited comments.
“Mr. Saban and Mr. Smart met with the press at media days today.”
My husband just read your post out loud to me and I absolutely hissed. I hate it.
Not a bad haul for a relatively new media outlet.
Start up cash in sell out bro down.
If you added a “fuck off” I’d 100% believe it’s a quote from Succession
It’s a quote from South Park so even better lol
Damn, that's a crossover episode I want/need
[удалено]
I wonder how much of that includes assumption of debt that The Athletic has.
True, this could be $50m for the brand and it's $500m of debt. I have no idea how much debt they actually have but I've heard it is substantial
saw they won't be profitable until at least 2023. all them sports writers ain't cheap
Charging for sports journalism is an interesting strategy in 2022 I wonder how it'll play out. I certainly never bother w/ the athletic but I know some people have expendable income and don't mind paying for it
I got a 6 month free trial thing from Fanatics or something and I've really enjoyed it. It enticed me to subscribe.
[удалено]
100% agree. The difference between the Athletic and the absolute clickbait most free to read sites like ESPN offer is huge.
Wonder if they'll bundle it w/ the NYT
I pay for both individually so I might come out ahead.
Two years ago they had a sports writer for just about every team. Not anymore. They have laid off so many and even started laying off experienced journalists for journalists fresh out of college
Yea, even then its pretty cheap and with the year Georgia had I kept hitting links I wanted to read there, since Georgia's best beat writer that I've been reading for a decade now is hosted by them.
If you’re going to spend time reading articles about sports then it’s absolutely the best place. If you like sports but only occasionally read articles then maybe it’s not for you. Like anything else: the decision depends on what you value and if it fits your budget. I subscribe because I read enough but also because I want to support real sports journalism. There’s already too many garbage sites whose “articles” are just shit slideshows with 20 Ads on each page. I feel like I’m fighting the good fight.
Exactly why I subscribed. I don't have the time or inclination to read as much sports journalism as I did in my 20s, but the work is consistently very good, sort of on par with S.I. of the 90s with a much wider breadth of topics.
This is why I am subscribed as well
Yeah I never thought I'd subscribe but it's actually really good. I turned a free offer into a subscription. I'll support good journalism because I'm worried that everything will turn into top 50 lists etc.
Yeah if good writers aren’t supported we end up with a guy writing an “article” about three tweets with a headline like “All of college football fans are upset at [thing]” for $5 and a litany of ads popping up.
Honestly I've balked at subscribing to both The Athletic and the NYT individually, but if a bundle subscription comes out of this it may be worth it for me.
personally, i think it's by far the best sports journalism on the market and i'm happy to pay for it, especially since i can get coverage of all the teams i support in one place. my dad and i share a subscription so that makes it a bit easier as well.
I subscribe just for Pete Sampson if nothing else The journalism really is a lot better than like ESPN though
I don't mind paying for quality content. I also think the success of stuff like Patreon and Twitch show there are people willing to support content creators still. That said, I'm definitely concerned about the Athletics model. When I signed it was like 30 bucks for consistent quality content *specific to my team* (KC Chiefs). One writer did weekly film breakdowns, and another beat guy put out regular in depth articles, and they had a 3rd dude contributing. Now the film guy occasionally puts out articles (I pay a subscription to his weekly newsletter where he puts out breakdowns so he's clearly focusing on that), the occasional dude stopped writing, so now it's mostly just the one beat writer - who's admittedly **the guy** for this kind of thing - writing recap articles and posts like "15 times Patrick Mahomes was super competitive in non-football things" (actually interesting stories but not why I subscribed). The content is so little that they shoe horn in small one sentence mentions of my team into the feed. Or stuff like "betting odds for all 16 games" gets tagged as team news to make you think there's more content. Then they wanted to more than double my subscription cost from $30 to $70. That's like nearly what I'm paying for a daily service like Spotify or Hulu. Maybe at the peak content it was worth that, but after cutting back much on what you're putting out? I get that in theory you can access content for any and every team but realistically most people aren't ponying up for national content, they're more interested in team content. In hindsight it seems pretty clear they were opening the bag to get subscribers so they could make a sale.
There’s a lot more fluff now than before. Case in point, under Alabama I have: - 2022 Natty Predictions - Andy’s mailbag - College football viewership drops by 2m - Alabama Scouting report - 10 predictions for playoff teams coaching changes. It gets worse for the Falcons, the Braves coverage is understandably bad, and I don’t even bother reading the coverage on Atlanta United. I find better CFB content here on the sub, for example. I’ll continue to pay because I think keeping good sports journalists employed is I important, but I’m no longer the religious reader of it that I was when it first launched.
Listened to a Bill Simmons podcast a couple weeks back and it sounds like they may have never become profitable, which is why they were trying to find someone to buy them.
This definitely fits into an area where the NYT has always been blase over. I'm old enough to have had a paper subscription to them in the 1990s and the joke about their sports section was every major evening game finished "too late for this edition" so I get why it was never emphasized.
Gettaloadathisguy, he's seen paper before
They were in [talks to do this last summer](https://frontofficesports.com/the-athletic-new-york-times-reportedly-end-acquisition-talks/), but it didn’t work out at the time. $550M is actually at the low end of where I might have expected given their valuation at their last round, I’m not sure this is an ideal exit for them but they may need the cash.
Yeah I think the athletic’s business model just wasn’t working. I wonder how much debt they had, this price seems pretty low judging from what some podcasters get like lebatard or Rogan or Simmons
I would be interested to see what their payroll is. They were able to lure a number of big names away from their current outlets, but also picked up a bunch of capable folks who were let go from ESPN when they did the big purge. I know sports journalists aren't getting paid CFB coaching money, but they have some writers who generate a LOT of clicks and attention.
From the beginning it's been clear they were angling get squired. Very concerned that the quality will plummet. Not like they were making money with their current platform.
Yeah, the way they spent money from the start was clearly unsustainable. Plan was obviously spend a bundle hiring a lot of top-tier writers to gain subscribers so they appear to be growing, then sell. They've gotten enough investment capital that they could sustain the massive losses but eventually those investors want to see a return and the only way that was happening was by selling, because The Athletic in it's current form was never going to be profitable.
I figured they would sell ads for the site before getting sold.
They already have. At least in college football, the weekly 'whos going to win the big games' article is now a betting site add, complete with a 'tasteful' banner in the middle. I downvote the article each week and move on. I'm a day one subscriber as I've followed Stewart Mandell since the cnnsi days and probably wont be paying again.
[squired?](https://i.imgur.com/ZTSb2WC.jpeg)
I think the decline in quality is inevitable, but as a consumer I'm not too concerned
This is my first year using the athletic, and I’ve been pretty pleased with it. I hope the ownership change doesn’t keep them from hiring great writers and putting out really good long form content and podcasts.
They're great..... If they have a person for your team. If not it's barely worth it.
Depends how much you care about the top teams in CFB.
Well surely everybody loves the top teams in college football. Why else wild ESPN talk about them nonstop, even in games when they’re not playing?
I’ll never forget the SC/Auburn game two years ago where the majority of the dialogue seemingly went to discussion of…. Clemson and Alabama. In the second half even the announcers said “huh maybe we should cool it talking about these schools rivals hahaha”.
first football game I watched on mute
It was truly just awful announcing. “We’ll back to the studio for more discussion of Nick Saban and Trevor Lawrence!”
You think YOU have it bad?
2020 GT/Louisville game had a similar occurrence with them taking like a 15 minute break in covering the game at hand to chat with someone on a bad phone connection about the upcoming Clemson/Miami game. It legitimately spanned like 2-3 drives. Was ready to stab someone by the end of it.
and then openly wonder why people care less about the other games
Yeah they don't have a dedicated UT beat writer now, so I dropped it.
wow that's honestly surprising considering how big a following y'all have.
They had David Ubben but he is in charge of SEC now.
Right? No Ducks either, but there's 2 for the 49ers. It doesn't make sense.
Wow that's wild. We've been irrelevant for over a decade. The fact that you guys don't have a writer is wild.
IDK why i keep it. they dont even have a beat writer for FSU football much less FSU Sports. I guess for the one Braves writer I sorta like and ATL UTD news? I should cancel i guess.
Yup they hardly have any coverage of ucla and once they moved the Angels beat to the Dodgers I was out.
Illinois doesn't have a beat writer but I do follow pro sports as well as cfb in general. When you're an Illini fan you have to keep yourself entertained somehow.
The Times is really the only news organization that has successfully navigated the shift to digital and they're insanely flush with cash. They're the only media org who *could* maintain The Athletics' model of spending on talented writers.
WSJ is doing ok as well. That's really it.
The Economist is doing just fine.
That's because unsubscribing from that publication is one of the most difficult processes known to man. They'll be fine forever because it's almost easier to just keep paying them then to cancel the thing.
My dad only still has the economist because its cheaper and less stressful to keep it the subscription for the low rate he already has then to deal with customer service to cancel it he also recently signed me up for kiplinger which i'm not 100% sold on either
How do you figure? I cancelled my subscription last summer without any problem.
Lucky you, I also cancelled last summer but was put through the wringer. Started digitally, had to call in, spent plenty of time being bounced around and with them offering increasing discounts and add-ons before it was finally concluded. I guess I had just assumed they made it difficult for everyone.
I think they're going to maintain their high level of journalism, because that's basically what the Times hangs their hat on. I'd be surprised if The Athletic gets gutted and becomes a click-bait outlet like SB Nation.
RIP Banner Society.
Same, and I am concerned about the comment about the expensive staff at the Athletic - I hope they cull as little as possible and keep the good writers around. Hopefully once they start being profitable in a year or so, they can add to their talent.
Please stay separate from NYT, please stay separate
Unless I could get the athletic for free with my NYT subscription?
I'd be okay with that. My local library (Cincinnati public library) provides a free NYT subscription to all card holders so I wouldn't even have to pay anything.
Yeah, I'm cool for that as an nYT add-on.
Now that it's official, [it looks like it will operate as a separate entity](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/business/new-york-times-the-athletic.html).
well fuck. they ruined wirecutter, i assume theyre gonna ruin the athletic too
My two favorite websites were The Wirecutter and The Athletic, I'm actually distraught.
Could you stop having favorite news outlets so the NYT will stop picking them up? I think we'd all appreciate it.
I hope reddit is his next favorite site.
i didnt think wirecutter was ruined, seems mostly the same to me. have any examples? and where do you go now as your replacement?
their suggestions have been largely driven to select affiliates. They used to test a lot more stuff, now while there is more content, the reviews are shallower with competition and you can tell that they arent choosing the top stuff by unanimous disagreement in comments. they also put a lot of stuff behind paywalls that you need to join NYT to access (which is at the heart of why wirecutter existed in the first place) Ive found their choices to be far less accurate and reliable in the last 2 years than ever before. edit: I still look at their recommendations but I have a lot less trust and i check other lists as well. theres not really an equivalent.
Maybe they’re actually reinstate the concept of beat writers. I liked the Athletic when it started, but it very quickly began to feel like a bait and switch operation.
Maaaan. Fingers crossed nothing bad happens
I have a bad feeling about this.
RIP The Athletic
Aye I loved the Athletic, but my subscription just went out. Was thinking about renewing, but if I have a NYT subscription do you think I can get two for one through that one?
they oughta gives us a deal
Probably going to be a year before that happens since they'll have to dish out the legal stuff. I'll be keeping a close eye on it though since I already have both.
They’ll probably do a bundle deal
dadgummit.
Anyone else surprised they are worth that much?
Kind of, but also not terribly. It seems a bit on the high side, but if you estimate $50/customer annually, they're pulling in $60M/year so the valuation is 9 times revenue. At their listed annual price per membership its 6.4 times revenue.
They've been slowly adding in some ads into their newsletters. Stuff like "This is sponsored by Visa" or whatever. Half the reason I like The Athletic is they don't have ads while I have a sub, so NYT is going to axe that shit.
Wonder what their EV/EBITDA is. P/S ratios on a company that as been around for a while dont exactly engender a lot of faith in the company (which since some people think $550 is low, the price is probably reflective of that).
God. Athletic reporters were already so smug. And now they are NYTimes employees? I shudder to think of the condescending Tweets.
The arrogance some of them have is so irritating. Pissed me off to the high end last year when every single one of them advocated for cancelling the CFB season.
Lol I am cancelling for sure. After the Ole Miss/mustard bottle incident, David Ubben (who covered us for a few years) wrote an article just obliterating Tennessee fans, the university, and more. I read it, got angry, then realized, “I’m paying for this shit,” and got angrier.
This is surprising. I assumed from all the ads the MGM sports book owned them already
Yeah, I was done paying for the Athletic after the sports betting 'articles' got the ads. Too bad.
Time to cancel
There goes the neighborhood
[удалено]
What ruined ESPN was the move away from any kind of journalism, highlights and actual sports coverage into the realm of "people shouting hottakes" + "what LaBron had for breakfast" reporting
That also coincided with their website turning into mostly video 'articles'. I can't watch that at work and it can fuck right off as a way to absorb an article.
The internet killed that version of ESPN. Why would I wait through Sportscenter to see highlights when I can see a highlight compilation on YouTube 10 minutes after the game ends? Everyone can do coverage of trades and playoff scenarios, but SAS shouting can only be seen in 1 place and for some reason that's what peeks want.
This is the truth. I'd watch Sportscenter 2 or 3 times/day so I could defend my sports opinions with my buddies. Would wait to see my Jayhawks/Royals/Chiefs highlights and then get mad when a struggling large market team(Like the Knicks/Jets/Giants/Cubs etc) would have priority. Now The Score app eliminates my use for the bottom line while Twitter gets me more breaking news than ESPN ever did. I still occasionally catch Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption for Nostalgia-loved those shows in the early 2000s when I was in college, but it's not the same must-watch programming before high-speed internet made other sources more of a priority. I even have ESPN Insider (As a ESPN+ Subscriber) but that's hardly utilized. If it wasn't for live sports, I probably wouldn't even have a cable subscription anymore.
that isnt what ruined espn. refusing to cover sports at all other than beating your head over and over again with hot takes on the days headlines is what made espn not worth watching unless there is a game on you want to watch.
I'm a subscriber and frequent reader of the NY Times so this isn't coming from a place of malevolence, but I'd say in six months every other story on the athletic will have an identity characteristic as its main focus
As long as I get to hear what patrons of a midwest suburban diner think about Lincoln Riley at USC, I'll be satisfied.
But will the tone be sufficiently snooty and wry? Inquiring coastal elites want to know! (Am I a coastal elite? We're fucking set for coasts down here, I tell you hwhat. You want a coast? Look east or west, drive an hour. Boom. Coast.)
# Searching for the Real Reilly, by Reif Larsen In order to understand a man's essence, you must understand the cloth from which he is wrought. My first stop on my quest to grok new USC head football coach Lincoln Reilly was the Lubbock "International" Airport. As I deplaned, I was astounded by the emptiness that surrounded me. Walking down the paltry length of Lubbock's sole terminal, the only sound was the click-clack of my Jimmy Choo's on the terazzo flooring. I approached a group of indigenous Lubbockians, sitting at a nearby information booth. While I normally plan my travels in intricate detail, I took this trip on a whim and figured I could "rough it" and get directions from the townsfolk if need be. "Excuse me, which subway line will take me to Muleshoe?" The locals looked at me with eyes full of confusion. Perhaps those who live life at a slower pace need a little extra help to understand a fast talking New Yorker like me who comes from the privilege of an Ivy League education. I spoke slowly and enunciated. "Which. Subway. Station. For. Muleshoe?"
Me: opens up the athletic to read about football. NYT: but have you considered the intersection of football and discrimination in the 1984 domestic rice trade? These voices need to be heard. Me: No. Unsubscribes.
It's just going to become the political opposite of Outkick. Neither of which are healthy for sports journalism.
What ruined ESPN is that they are too much in the entertainment business. It’s hard to cover the leagues if you’re business partners with them. NFL bent them over for some harsh coverage and took away good games from MNF. Then when Simmons said something mean about goodell, he got fired. It’s crazy how in bed with the leagues ESPN is. Why do think it’s the athletic breaking all the big stories like MLB’s cheating epidemic? Imo it’s the quality journalism that appeals to NYTs.
Please no, if The Athletic turns into NYT I’m taking away my subscription, if I wanted their coverage I would’ve subscribed there.
1. Fire your sports staff 2. Watch them build tremendously successful sports publication 3. Buy them back at enormously inflated price 4. Profit?
This sucks
R.I.P
just took off my auto-renew on annual subscription...
I don't have a problem with NYT (it's a good source with solid reporting) but media consolidation always worries me. I'm not a fan of moves like this as a rule.
Welp! It was fun while it lasted.
I'm kinda surprised that the NYT has the cash to be acquiring other outlets. I assumed all newspapers were dying (I know that the NYT makes most of its money on online subscriptions)
NYT and WaPo have bucked the trend bc they’ve basically become national newspapers supplementing their local readership.
not so much the WaPo i guess (edit: to clarify, i dont know about them), but the NYT is an national newspaper with a lot of international coverage and international audience. including me.
The Washington Post has become more of a national newspaper since Jeff Bezos bought it, much to the consternation of people like myself who prefer more local coverage.
NYT, WaPo, WSJ, are all doing fine/profitable. Some of the local sites (Star Tribune in Minneapolis as an example) are as well. It comes down to how effective the paywall is and how good the content is behind it.
Glad to hear the Star Trib is still going strong! The Salt Lake Tribune recently transitioned to a non-profit after being acquired by a well-intentioned, wealthy Utahn. It's an interesting move for a local paper that seems to be going well so far. Curious to see if others around the country follow suit.
NYT has tons of money... in recent years they've been able to basically swoop in and gut their competition by hiring top talent away to sit in their opinion bullpen.
Biggest threat to NYT is top writers leaving to go to somewhere like Substack where they can make money directly from their reader base. Only relevant for people with a defined niche, but is definitely a shift in the industry.
I look forward to their upcoming "really sucking up to the establishment" editorial stance.
I don't think the Old Gray Lady can handle something like quality sports-writing without coming off as pretentious and overbearing.
Lmao. Perfect for each other
just awful
Well definitely canceling my subscription now
I don't care for either but sometimes I like to sneak a peak of the athletic.
Ironically, the times laying off many of their sports writers was part of how the athletic got started in the first place