SpartanTailgate.com - Michigan State Spartans Forums - View Single Post

BillOGoods · 07-04-2008, 05:32 PM

All fair points, for the most part. But, the Tim Lincecum article? Ten years ago that kind of article was expected. When was the last time that SI came out with a serious discussion on a topic that takes intelligence to tackle, insight to understand, or just flat out balls to write about? I'm talking about articles

1. that explained, before most got it, what Cassius Clay was all about;

2. like why black athletes dominate sports;

3. steroids in college football and the NFL;

4. government meddling in sports;

5. Nike;

6. the overreaching NCAA (and, among other targets, how Shark Tarkanian got hosed over and then how he hosed over the NCAA);

7. Joe "Willie" Namath and why he was great; and

8. Why the NHL was screwing up big time when it began it's expansion and what it would mean.

SI was out front, insightful, and willing to say, in most cases, what needed to be said---without preaching, preening, or sucking up. That doesn't mean they were always right, but it surely did mean that it would all hang out and be credible in the process.

Now what do we get? The biggest farce I can remember in the last ten years was, what, two years ago with their "global warming and its effect on sports issue"---what a pretentious and supercilious joke of a managing editor allows that to happen? I was embarrassed for the giants that walked before these current crack pots, with few notable exceptions.

07-04-2008, 05:32 PM	#18 (permalink)
BillOGoods RCMB Donor 2,500+ posts Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Bingham Farms, Michigan Posts: 4,295	All fair points, for the most part. But, the Tim Lincecum article? Ten years ago that kind of article was expected. When was the last time that SI came out with a serious discussion on a topic that takes intelligence to tackle, insight to understand, or just flat out balls to write about? I'm talking about articles 1. that explained, before most got it, what Cassius Clay was all about; 2. like why black athletes dominate sports; 3. steroids in college football and the NFL; 4. government meddling in sports; 5. Nike; 6. the overreaching NCAA (and, among other targets, how Shark Tarkanian got hosed over and then how he hosed over the NCAA); 7. Joe "Willie" Namath and why he was great; and 8. Why the NHL was screwing up big time when it began it's expansion and what it would mean. SI was out front, insightful, and willing to say, in most cases, what needed to be said---without preaching, preening, or sucking up. That doesn't mean they were always right, but it surely did mean that it would all hang out and be credible in the process. Now what do we get? The biggest farce I can remember in the last ten years was, what, two years ago with their "global warming and its effect on sports issue"---what a pretentious and supercilious joke of a managing editor allows that to happen? I was embarrassed for the giants that walked before these current crack pots, with few notable exceptions. __________________ "Managers thinking about accounting issues should never forget one of Abraham Lincoln's favorite riddles: `How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?' The answer: `Four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg'." M Mahar, Bull! The History of the Boom, 1982-1999 at 138 (2003)(quoting Warren Buffett). Last edited by BillOGoods; 07-04-2008 at 05:36 PM.