ESPN the Mag vs. SI

[Cosmo]

I never thought I'd say this, but I think I really like the writing in ESPN the Mag, at least on its meatier pieces.

Started subscribing to the Mag because it came with the access to all the insider blogs on the .com, and got my first issue this week.

Seth Wickersham's piece on the fan who began FOIA-bombing Houston Nutt at Arkansas was fascinating. Loved the piece that they wrote piggybacking the Donaghy issue, about how the NBA has continued to undermine its officials with public reprimands. It's the sort of trend stuff I'd expect to find in SI, but haven't been finding much of lately.

Anybody else with similar feelings?

 

[GB-Hack]

I let both of my subs lapse a while back. I've been very tempted recently to re-up with ESPN.

 

[lantaur]

I picked ip SI this past week while waiting for an oil change and was quite disappointed in the presentation. I'm sure I'm not their market base, however.

 

[slappy4428]

I picked ip SI this past week while waiting for an oil change and was quite disappointed in the presentation. I'm sure I'm not their market base, however.

I just reupped SI at 40 bucks a year... It isn't the magazine it was 10 years ago when I started the current subscription run, but still not feeling ESPNTM is a must read either.

 

[Cosmo]

I can do without the Stuart Scott chats and all the other crap in the mag, and the presentation still is a little over the top to me. But the meatiness of the writing surprised me.

 

[Sam Mills 51]

I can do without the Stuart Scott chats and all the other crap in the mag, and the presentation still is a little over the top to me. But the meatiness of the writing surprised me.

The last statement is why I'm back with them. Even survived changes of address.

I can live without the McPaper-like stuff in it, but the long-form pieces are well worth the cost.

 

[friend of a friend]

The LeBron/Jimmy Kimmel cover convinced me to end my ESPN Mag subscription.

 

[Rickys The Best]

I never thought I'd say this, but I think I really like the writing in ESPN the Mag, at least on its meatier pieces.

Started subscribing to the Mag because it came with the access to all the insider blogs on the .com, and got my first issue this week.

Seth Wickersham's piece on the fan who began FOIA-bombing Houston Nutt at Arkansas was fascinating. Loved the piece that they wrote piggybacking the Donaghy issue, about how the NBA has continued to undermine its officials with public reprimands. It's the sort of trend stuff I'd expect to find in SI, but haven't been finding much of lately.

Anybody else with similar feelings?

That's odd...I agree that the mag often has really well-written features, though I wasn't too keen on the Busting a Nutt story. I read it and I never lost focus, so that's good. But it left a lot of basic questions left unanswered, I feel.

 

[BigRed]

I have both and both have their advantages.... I can fire through the first 40 pages of ESPN Mag in about 5 minutes - I have no tolerance for Stuart Scott, Mike-N-Mike and all the factoid junk. But the features and writing - with a few navel-gazing, athlete-apologist exceptions - are usually really well done.
SI is SI - I enjoy the front and the back of the magazine. It rarely disappoints, although I have noticed more sloppiness lately (George Rogers v. Johnny Rodgers, etc.)

 

[Songbird]

I picked ip SI this past week while waiting for an oil change and was quite disappointed in the presentation. I'm sure I'm not their market base, however.

The first things I check in SI are the 2 or 3 double truck photos to start off with, because most of the times they're ******* fascinating, and then go to the back to see Reilly. This week's Reilly was a bit of the head scratcher.

Like with any publication, some weeks are home runs, other weeks are 4-6-3 double plays, and the rest of the time they're just trying to hit a Gwynn'esque .332 with the occasional bottom-of-the-8th 2-run single that allows Hoffman to come in for the save.

 

[Beaker]

I get both mags...and although some of the non-features stuff in ESPN is nothing to be crazy about, I agree that some of their feature writing has been excellent lately, especially the piece on the NBA refereeing mess.

If you can look past the ESPN self-promotional BS, its usually a good read.

 

[Joe Williams]

If you can look past the ESPN self-promotional BS, its usually a good read.

All together now: Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

 

[hockeybeat]

ESPN: The Mag is for readers with ADD.

 

[Cosmo]

Well, so is SI lately, hockeybeat. Especially with the stuff in the front of the magazine. I'm not trying to hate on SI. I still love it and read it every week. They do better profiles than ESPNTM, with less athlete hero worship.

 

[Jones]

Look for ESPN: The Mag to keep improving, at least in the feature well. They recently hired away a youngish editor from Esquire, Chris Berend, who's an excellent guy and the sort of editor that a writer would do well to hitch his horse to. (I believe Wright Thompson is part of Berend's stable.)

I also think they're going to go for the kill on SI, which they probably perceive as weak -- as weak as it's ever been, including in the cash-for-writers department. I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN makes a run at some of SI's remaining major talents.

(They may have already, but I don't get a lot of gossip in my attic in Ottawa.)

 

[friend of the friendless]

Mr Beat,

Sorry. You're close. It's actually an outlet for wirters with OCD.

YHS, YHS, YHS, YHS, YHS, etc, etc, etc

 

[clingerman]

if espn the mag truly wants to take a run at si, it must stop immediately bs like the lebron-kimmel cover. yeah, si has dropped majorly in the past decade, but that espn cover was the worst i've ever seen, at any time, any place, anywhere. i'm sure 95% of the staff's editors were thinking, "what the f--- are we doing?'

 

[Diabeetus]

I'm not a huge fan of ESPNTM, but I read it in the office or library. The best thing they have going for them is their willingness to try new design things. They come up with some really great stuff.

 

[21]

I never thought I'd say this, but I think I really like the writing in ESPN the Mag, at least on its meatier pieces.

The writing is great, it's always been great....some of the best talent in the biz is there.

But when you get away from the real talent--Fleming, Bucher, Friend, Keown, Olney, Kurkjian, etc--there's not much there if you're over 23.

I read it the same way I read Playboy....love the articles, the rest of it seems sort of trite, to me.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Look for ESPN: The Mag to keep improving, at least in the feature well. They recently hired away a youngish editor from Esquire, Chris Berend, who's an excellent guy and the sort of editor that a writer would do well to hitch his horse to. (I believe Wright Thompson is part of Berend's stable.)

I also think they're going to go for the kill on SI, which they probably perceive as weak -- as weak as it's ever been, including in the cash-for-writers department. I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN makes a run at some of SI's remaining major talents.

(They may have already, but I don't get a lot of gossip in my attic in Ottawa.)

ESPN took a run at Rick Reilly when it was launching, and about five years ago took serious runs at Reilly again and Gary Smith at around the same time. Both opted to stick with SI. I know there is lot more to SI than those two, but they are the faces of the magazine. I'll be convinced when ESPN really is able to pilfer a bunch of significant SI talent--it doesn't have to be Gary Smith, but it has to look like some sort of exodus. ESPN has made up way more ground that I would have ever imagined when they launched in the late 90s. I think their circulation is close to 2 million now (bi weekly, as opposed to SI, which is weekly). SI is at somewhere less than 3.5 million, I think. That's still a pretty significant difference (not taking into account how advertisers might value the quality of each of their readers).

ESPN does some quality work that gets ignored by the crotchety types who get freaked by the design and the X Games BS. It mostly fails on the "trying to be funny" stuff and the cross promotion. I personally believe Terry McDonnell's tenure has left SI much worse off. He's looked like the wrong guy. No one needed SI to become US Weekly and he seems like the kind of guy who has more publisher than editor in him. You need the editor to toe the line a little better than he seems to. SI needed to be adaptable; ESPN was a real threat because of its other media properties. But you should never make the changes at the expense of what is already working. There has been some of that.