I noticed this, and it bothered me a bit. It seemed as if the advertisement drove the content. I have no idea if this is true, but I got the sense that the article wouldn't have been in the magazine if not for the ad. The list just seemed tossed-off and familiar, and I wasn't really buying Opening Day as the purported hook for it. Perhaps I've just been reading SI too long, but I feel like I've read a lot of these writers rave about a lot of these places and events before. (I know Alexander Wolff -- whom I admire greatly -- has used the phrase "Quaker meeting house" to describe the Palestra before.) I was also reminded of the "Our Favorite Venues" package SI did in 1999; that list (of 20) also included Wrigley, Lambeau, Notre Dame and St. Andrews. (Of course, some of the things on the new list are events, rather than venues.) So if the article was just churned out to go with the ad, maybe it should have been designated a "Special Advertising Section" or something like that.