'Other Sports' out, 'Action Sports' in at NYT

Just noticed, on the web at least, the NYT is no longer featuring its longtime, catch-all subsection "Other Sports." It's now called "Action Sports" (although the page leader URL still begs to differ).

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/sports/other/index.htm

So, is this change merely semantical or does it signal a shift in coverage priorities? Whatever the case, at the moment, NYT editors do not appear to actually know what an Action Sport is. Thoughts?

 

The Times is keeping up with the times, even if the Times is still behind the times.

 

You're right, FI, that it would help if the sports featured were action sports.

I don't see one Shaun White reference on there.

 

Does anyone that is interested in action sports buy the Times? Seems like a tree falling in a forest.

 

Does anyone interested in College Football buy The Times?
You buy The Times, like you once did for newspapers, for a complete report. That's the value.

 

it's action sports at Yahoo too...

 

Did Yahoo make the same subsection switch -- "Other Sports" to "Action Sports?" Otherwise, I frequently read (though not necessarily "buy") the NYT's "Other Sports," mostly because of the unpredictable variety of off-beat, interesting other stuff there. Very infrequently did it ever feature actual Action Sports, though I wouldn't mind if it did...

 

Most people that buy the Times are college grads, so yes they might have an interest in college sports. The overwhelming majority of Times readers have absolutely no idea who Tony Hawke is. There is no value add to putting action sports into the Times, it won't result in a single extra copy being sold.

 

Nice to know I wasn't the only who choked on my croissant when I saw that.
Talk about NOT having a clue!

I love how Paralympics now fall under "action sports"

So does the Tour de France and marathon (zzzz)

 

Because college grads don't know who Tony Hawk is?
Bad analogy.

 

Go to your local skate park and find out how many Times readers are there. This is a case of old men editors having no clue as to who their real target audience is. "The kids like Tony Hawk, well then lets cover him", as though those kids give a flying f*ck about the Times in the first place.

 

i think you could make the case that the kids at the skate park don't read any newspaper. but are you saying editors shouldn't try to do anything to lure new readers? especially young ones? the ones we have are dying off. maybe we should do something to attract new ones.