Rick Reilly's piece this week

[Bob Loblaw]

As soon as I saw Rick Reilly's latest column this week in SI, I knew I had seen it before. And I was correct. It's almost a complete knock off of something ESPN's Page 2 had on its site on March 21st. I guess if you just pick a different freshman, it's OK.

Here's the Kevin Durant one that Page 2 had.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=durant/070321&sportCat=ncb

 

[Bullwinkle]

That's one long-ass legal pad.

I gotta get me one of those.

 

[Clever username]

It was an odd read. Some of the reasons for staying seemed like good reasons to go and vice-versa.

 

[Q-Bert]

The "Stay" list wasn't a list of reasons to stay, and the "Go" list wasn't a list of reasons to go. They were just lists of things to consider for each.

And I can't believe I used that as my first post.

 

[wisportswriter]

On the plus side, your username is Q-Bert. And that's fantastic.
You MUST add an avatar.

 

[Q-Bert]

How's that?

 

[Q-Bert]

It does kinda seem like Reilly borrowed the idea, but his wasn't exactly a cheap knockoff. Very well done, making each of the 'stay's and 'go's relate to each other. "The" Internal Revenue Service, was classic.

And, he actually did some reporting.

 

[Leo Mazzone]

Not really a knock, but it didn't do anything for me. Probably because I'm so tired of Oden/Durant/NBA...or just tired.

 

[Leo Mazzone]

Along the same lines, I came away not having learned much from the Tiger piece. He's competitive, driven and ridiculously wealthy? I had no idea...

 

[zeke12]

The Tiger piece was the worst thing I've read in SI in years.

****e.

 

[Boobie Miles]

I didn't even have enough interest in the Tiger story to read it. Just from the quote on the cover I wasn't thinking it was going to be a very enlightening story. And as Leo said, it doesn't appear that much was revealed in the story that we didn't already know. Just seemed like a random idea for a story, and if they didn't get anything new/exclusive, a waste of time as well.

 

[BTExpress]

This probably belongs in the Pet Peeves thread, but since we're discussing the Tiger piece . . .

Please, no more "2.0" headlines to indicate an athlete has changed or is on some higher level.

 

[Q-Bert]

Headline Writing .000002

 

[zeke12]

Or using a lameass headline and then making it BIGGER THAN YOUR MASTHEAD!

 

[playthrough]

Or using a lameass headline and then making it BIGGER THAN YOUR MASTHEAD!

Wow, you're right...that looks really bad.

 

[zeke12]

Broke a pretty ironclad rule for a lame headline, and took away the impact of a fairly solid photo, I thought.

Of course, the story sucked, too, so I guess that's synergy.

 

[Mitch21]

I usually enjoy his articles...

 

[Sxysprtswrtr]

Just finished my SI copy. Seemed like Reilly spent 20 min on that "column" and then churned it out. I'm like skinsnoles -- usually enjoy reading his stuff but ... eh... mediocre content this timearound.

 

[Bob Loblaw Law Blog]

Reilly spends 20 minutes or less on most of his columns based on how they read. Then there's five or six every year where he actually puts some effort into them and ... BAM! They just knock you upside the head. Goes to show what a terrific columnist he could be if he didn't mail it in 90% of the time.

 

[Boom_70]

It was an odd read. Some of the reasons for staying seemed like good reasons to go and vice-versa.

Agree- I gave up half way through trying to figure out. It made my hair hurt.