APSE VOTES NO TO CONTEST CHANGES (shocccckerrr!)

Well, Gaylord Perry did end his career in KC ... by jove, I think you have something there!

 

And FoxSports.com's John Moriello rips the APSE in his latest column:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7868150?MSNHPHCP&GT1=39000

 

That column smacked of a very smarmy writer.

 

Well, thanks. So now I know what the proposed changes were, and I can tell you that "over 175,000" as a proposed category is absolute crap.
There is a huge difference between what can be accomplished at Louisville and what can be accomplished at the New York Times -- a much greater difference than what can be accomplished at a 20,000-circ compared to a 40,000.

 

That's true. But even if they could, I doubt you'd see the Kansas City Royals say they ought to compete in Class AAA because, damnit, management wants a title and we're gonna give 'em a title of some kind. They take their lumps and get to be major-leaguers.

I think if you have 150K circulation and you staff pro or major major-college sports in your market, you are a big-league paper. You may not be a good big-league paper, but you are what you are and papers that are smaller than you shouldn't have to pay the price for your paper's lack of ambition.

I really don't see the point of wanting awards so badly that you want to send yourself to the minors to get one. Most of us start off by busting our asses in shitty little towns that no one outside the state has ever heard of, and if we're lucky enough (and I do believe luck often plays a role, and played a big role for me) to get on a decent-size paper, we want to see our newspapers as being big-league because it is one sign that we've done it. After years of striving to get there, we are there. I do not see how it helps morale to tell a proud, big-city staff that it's not good enough to compete against the very best.

 

I thought that line made his point.

Bowa is being stupid and much more insensitive to what happened top Coolbaugh.

 

It's like he had that line on a 1998 save-get.

Bizarre.

 

You picked the exception, not the rule, with the NYT comment.

Over 175,000 would have been perfect.

 

So, let' see, Micco said he voted against it. I wonder why?
Oh, yeah, he's a 213K and doesn't want to "play up." An over 175K puts him in with some big boys.

I think the 100-250K range is too big a difference in market and resources (and we got a Top 10 in daily in that category this year). Why not 100-200K and over 200K for the so-called big boys?

 

I think that works, but it does thin the herd at that second-highest division. I think something like this is doable:

Over 200K: Like was stated earlier, there's not that much difference here. There aren't enough NYTs to make this impossible
80-200: We have three 80-plus rags in this state that is every bit capable of competing with us in the 100-250K
30-80: Splits that bottom division a little, but not as much
Under 30: I think a 12K can easily complete with a 27K.