Good Lord, the LA Times sports page looks like garbage today

The dead tree edition.

Seven pages of basically unattractive horsecrap. Nothing interesting. And this is mid-October, when there are tons of sports to write about. Wait 'til next July.

It is no surprise at all. We've recounted all the cuts they've made. And kept someone named Chris Erskine.

Well, congratulations, the hens have come home to roost. The sports page they used to call the "World Champion" is now fit for a two-minute once-over, and thrown in the recycle bin.

Way to go, Tribune Co. Well played.

 

I don't argue with the point that the LA Times isn't what it used to be ... but what is actually happening in the L.A. area? You have two crappy college football teams and that's it.

 

Please.

Graham Jones could be writing about soccer.
Mark Heisler could be writing about the NBA lockout.
Jerry Crowe could still have his column.
Chris Erskine could have been s-canned instead of a real writer.

Its been so long since they had a national baseball writer, I can't remember.

 

I don't argue with the larger point.

But who's to say Heisler wouldn't have written about the lockout on Monday and then not been in today's paper? Or do you think that generates enough news to be a daily beat? Soccer is in its low cycle of U.S. interest, so was Grahame Jones going to write soccer every day for four years that the Times ever felt like they were going to have a light paper?

What's carrying other papers around the nation these days?

--Baseball -- both LA teams are out
--NFL -- don't have it
--College football -- one team isn't eligible for a bowl and one team isn't good enough
--Soccer -- see above
--NHL -- Times long ago made the correct decision that their readers don't care
--NBA -- not happening

My point is a Thursday in October when there really isn't much happening on the local scene is not the best barometer of what ails the Los Angeles Times.

 

I got the LA Times delivered to my door as a kid and the thought of one of their sections being only seven pages is just amazing.

 

Who would know? Wouldn't someone have to buy it and then look at it to know?

 

Before we turn this into a soccer-bashing thread, I will stipulate that the Times could have run a story on the Galaxy or Chivas today. I don't think that would have swayed poin into thinking today's section was top-notch and I don't think it would have satisfied many readers, but I grant that it would have been theoretically possible to write an article that would have taken up some of the space in the LA Times sports section.

 

There is ALWAYS something to write about.

The Times used to have a national NFL writer. Even when there was no team. No more.
The Times used to have a national MLB writer. No more.

Jones didn't have to write about Chivas or Galaxy. There was, once upon a time not that many years ago, an international soccer notes column, several days a week.

It doesn't matter what teams in the area are good or not. The sports page officially sucks. Reading it now is the equivalent of eating a white bread sandwich with lite mayo.

 

I look forward to the three columnar inches that'll be devoted to the Galaxy winning the MLS title.

 

Baseball: Angels interviewing candidates for their open GM position
NFL: No team, but still interest in the Raiders, who just pulled off one of the all-time worst trades
College football: USC is huge, even when mediocre and non-bowl eligible.
Soccer: Galaxy playing tonight for a spot in the CONCACAF Champions League quarterfinals
NHL: If the readers don't care, how does the Times circulation area support two NHL teams? The Kings play tonight.
NBA: Lockout talks went for hours and hours last night.

 

Great, that's six stories, fill seven pages with it.

 

Worse than the Herschel Walker trade or Randy White for Craig Morton?