s.i. piece on andrew luck, 6/13 issue...

Right, which is making it big. My comment was contrasting what would happen if neither Luck nor Newton played professional football. Luck and his family would still lead a life of riches; Newton and his family wouldn't.

 

OK, some of these families - and I don't know if the Newtons qualify or not - can't even make the rent or pay the electricity for another year. "The money will be there." That's great. But what about the next 12 months? What do they do now? What do they do when the water bill comes? How do they buy groceries?

More than anyone, this crowd should understand the frustration of living paycheck-to-paycheck. And I think that it splits us into two camps: (1) If I have to deal with it, you should, too. Suck it up.; and (2) I totally get why a kid with a struggling family is impatient to not struggle any more.

 

If Luck had come out this year, Newton wouldn't have even gotten a workout from the Panthers.

 

I have no idea what circumstances Oliver Luck came from. From the story, it sounds as if he took advantage of the educational opportunities WVU offered him, and has earned everything he has through hard work, and passed the values of education and hard work onto his children.

The Luck family's "life of riches" didn't happen by accident, or through the luck of being born to rich parents.

OTOH, can you really say that Cam Newton took full advantage of the educational opportunities offered him, or that he had strong values passed onto him by his family? Very debatable, considering his father was ready to sell his son to the highest bidder.

And I suspect Luck will be the far, far better NFL quarterback of the two. Most Pac-10 QBs play in pro-style offenses, have experience under center, reading defenses, audibilizing, etc., concepts completely foreign to Newton.

 

Comparing Luck to Newton is like comparing John Elway to Daunte Culpepper.

 

I bet Ryan Mallett is wishing Luck would have come out then

 

Having just finished the article, I didn't find anything earth-shattering in it. Everyone already knew that Luck was staying because he cared about getting his education. I'm not saying the article was bad - I think the opposite from a writing standpoint - but I wish it had gotten a little more into Andrew Luck's head.

 

Austin Murphy is a fine writer. But he's not a back-of-the-magazine guy. This profile stayed on the surface and repeated a lot of what we already knew. It reminded me of his Tim Tebow profile: Sure, it was smoothly written, but it didn't have much depth beyond "This is the greatest person you'll ever meet."

Here's that piece, which was shorter but was a cover story: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1158168/index.htm

 

this raises a good discussion point: yes, some leatherheads may have already known most of what was in this piece. but i'd argue most s.i. readers, while knowing the name 'andrew luck' and know he passed on being the nfl's no. 1 pick to return to stanford, have not heard anything from luck, or knew the details of his backstory, yada yada yada.

i mean, it's not like the general populace has heard the tale ad nauseam. or really knew much of anything about luck other than he deferred millions at some risk. i didnt start this thread to infer there were any great revelations or broke any new ground or was of spectacular writing quality; personally, as a pretty avid sports fan, i didn't know all that much about luck, or how his teammates/coaches view him, all the jazz, so i learned some. most of all, it just left me with the impression that raised the question: 2 good 2 be true?

every sizeable feature in s.i. doesn't have to include earth-shattering disclosures to be effective. or do they? discuss.

 

I think when the editors place a feature at the back of the magazine, the Gary Smith spot, they're suggesting a certain level of quality.

Here's a look at a few recent ones that come to mind:

Bruce Schoenfeld on college basketball recruiters and their unending pursuits: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1185386/index.htm
Thomas Lake on the death of Darrent Williams: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1184186/index.htm
Scott Price on Novak Djokovic's maturation: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1186004/index.htm
John Ed Bradley on the coach who integrated southern college basketball: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1184836/index.htm
Michael Farber on hockey in Belfast: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1183372/index.htm

So, to me, Murphy's piece would have been just fine higher up in the magazine. I don't think it needed to feature earth-shattering disclosures. But I think it failed to address whether Luck is "2 good 2 be true" or really examine why he's making the decisions he's making. I don't think it trod much ground that a 2-minute ESPN special couldn't have covered, although he obviously had more specific details.