Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Featured Replies

For the few of you that cite The Athletic as an alternative, are you aware that they have engaged texags to provide them content?  Real journalistic integrity there.

28 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

For the few of you that cite The Athletic as an alternative, are you aware that they have engaged texags to provide them content?  Real journalistic integrity there.

I don't really give a shit if they make a little money off those dumbasses as long as there is quality content for sports/teams I follow.   

I'm old.....so I fondly remember going to the library on campus and catching up via Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News, followed by reading columns and looking at box scores and standings from various newspapers. 

If only I had stayed in the library afterward and actually studied ......

 



I wonder what will happen to The SI Vault; that’s a sports rabbit hole that will easily consume an afternoon. 


The SI Vault is awesome.

I just don't understand how these money-losing ideas keep getting recycled. How does bot-generated "content" actually make money for anybody?

Edited by MaybeACoordinator

Don't have to pay a bot and there's enough idiots out there to click on anything?

2 hours ago, Deej said:

Don't have to pay a bot and there's enough idiots out there to click on anything?

But how do the clicks translate to money? Seems like there is a neverending supply of olds with money who slightly less olds are able to convinced that clicks equal cash when they just don't when the content is literally gibberish. 

15 hours ago, Steamboat1874 said:

The last one I touched....

spacer.png

whoa, upper right banner potentially foreboding for OSU tomorrow

As a kid my dad got SI for the pics and the Sporting News for the stats and beat reports from all over. TSN has already gone down this path and is nothing but a fading memory now. Not even the name carries much weight now. 

7 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

But how do the clicks translate to money? Seems like there is a neverending supply of olds with money who slightly less olds are able to convinced that clicks equal cash when they just don't when the content is literally gibberish. 

Click are pitched to companies as potential advertising views. Whether or not you agree, plenty of companies will pay to get their ads on sites with high 'clicks' totals

Edited by texasjacket

And paying freelance contractors $50 to write stories like “top 9 underrated college players” or “you won’t believe what Lebron said” is highly profitable when enough people click on it.  

And they’re giving people what they want. Most people don’t want 6 page stories. They want 3-4 paragraphs or 20 second videos.

12 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I just don't understand how these money-losing ideas keep getting recycled. How does bot-generated "content" actually make money for anybody?

True, but it sounds like what SI was doing wasn't making much money, either. 

Who really buys magazines anymore?

50 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

And paying freelance contractors $50 to write stories like “top 9 underrated college players” or “you won’t believe what Lebron said” is highly profitable when enough people click on it.  

And they’re giving people what they want. Most people don’t want 6 page stories. They want 3-4 paragraphs or 20 second videos.

Don't leave me hanging. What did Lebron say?

11 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Don't leave me hanging. What did Lebron say?

Gotta click to find out.  You know it’s a trap but you can’t stay away.

On 10/3/2019 at 8:13 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Man, I don't like to see print media turning into Vaulter.

It's leaving news and information to fucking twitter.  Say all you want about convenience, something about print media made it better:  more ethical, more credible.

I should clarify on this.  It seems that most print media has maintained decent standards in its online offerings so that the product is electronic rather than paper, for the most part.

Very few organically online publications maintain too much in the way of standards and longer form reporting and essays.  There are some, like the Athletic apparently, but many never seem to make it much past twitter-level content.  See above.

Perhaps SI had fallen off so much that it needed some type of killing, but it seems like I have been referred a couple of old-school SI quality pieces lately (the Minister of Culture?).

The source of the bad journalism problem all sits with the readers or lack of them. All of us want free content so we gravitate towards free even if it’s just ok. Some may subscribe to one or two news sources but most don’t. 

That leads to clickbait articles and journalists that are expected to write 3-4 stories and 10 tweets per day.  And if they’re struggling to get eyes, the incentive is to write even more outrageous clickbait headlines. 

Everyone should subscribe to at least 1 news source to further better content. I subscribe to 1, nytimes.   For the group here, what news sites do you support or have a subscription?  

Seems like a self perpetuating downward spiral... idiocracy/ADHD/‘too busy’ culture wants short and surface level, media conforms, culture never(?) gets meaningful content so there’s less demand for the few remaining in depth media sources in general

 

 

Not to say SI was some end all be all, but they damn well had their moments/writers over the years

I should clarify on this.  It seems that most print media has maintained decent standards in its online offerings so that the product is electronic rather than paper, for the most part.
Very few organically online publications maintain too much in the way of standards and longer form reporting and essays.  There are some, like the Athletic apparently, but many never seem to make it much past twitter-level content.  See above.
Perhaps SI had fallen off so much that it needed some type of killing, but it seems like I have been referred a couple of old-school SI quality pieces lately (the Minister of Culture?).


Minister of Culture article was ESPN.com

I’m glad they waited until Dan Jenkins passed to do this.

23 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have been referred a couple of old-school SI quality pieces lately (the Minister of Culture?).

 

21 hours ago, C-Man said:

 


Minister of Culture article was ESPN.com

 

That was The Athletic

23 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The source of the bad journalism problem all sits with the readers or lack of them. All of us want free content so we gravitate towards free even if it’s just ok. Some may subscribe to one or two news sources but most don’t. 

That leads to clickbait articles and journalists that are expected to write 3-4 stories and 10 tweets per day.  And if they’re struggling to get eyes, the incentive is to write even more outrageous clickbait headlines. 

Everyone should subscribe to at least 1 news source to further better content. I subscribe to 1, nytimes.   For the group here, what news sites do you support or have a subscription?  

 

21 hours ago, bluto said:

Seems like a self perpetuating downward spiral... idiocracy/ADHD/‘too busy’ culture wants short and surface level, media conforms, culture never(?) gets meaningful content so there’s less demand for the few remaining in depth media sources in general

 

 

Not to say SI was some end all be all, but they damn well had their moments/writers over the years

Yep, lotta truth in both of these.  

The internet has fostered a "culture" of free.  It has also destroyed most people's attention span, including mine.

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Yep, lotta truth in both of these.  

The internet has fostered a "culture" of free.  It has also destroyed most people's attention span, including mine.

Maybe?  Possibly?  Kind of - I also think, at the end of the day we just want to know basic information about the team we support.  SI tried to thread the needle between engaging material sports enthusiasts wanted to read and advertisers trying to connect with them.  Hey SI, not EVERY article has to be sad and redemptive.  You geniuses painted yourselves into an emotional corner.  

SI never really faced a printed-based competitor before either.  SI was to sports-print as US manufacturing was to post-WWII production.  They were the only game in town.  Of course they succeeded.  Then the model changed...and they didn't.  

3 hours ago, Machinator said:

 

That was The Athletic

Thanks for correction. I don't have sub to Athletic so didn't think that's where I'd read the story.

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Maybe?  Possibly?  Kind of - I also think, at the end of the day we just want to know basic information about the team we support.  SI tried to thread the needle between engaging material sports enthusiasts wanted to read and advertisers trying to connect with them.  Hey SI, not EVERY article has to be sad and redemptive.  You geniuses painted yourselves into an emotional corner.  

SI never really faced a printed-based competitor before either.  SI was to sports-print as US manufacturing was to post-WWII production.  They were the only game in town.  Of course they succeeded.  Then the model changed...and they didn't.  

SI was a different animal. It was high-quality writing on events that were in most cases at least a week old. It dug deeper. Reporters were basically embedded and had far greater access than the beat guys who were rushing to beat daily deadlines. It was a fantastic publication forever. I was a long-time subscriber that finally gave it up when a stack would collect of issues I wanted to get to but never could. Rather than stare at the pile get bigger and bigger, I dropped it. That was probably a decade ago. Sad to see it going this route though. I wish they'd change the name but that's what they're buying. Nobody worth a shit is going to stick around.

Edited by C-Man

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Thanks for correction. I don't have sub to Athletic so didn't think that's where I'd read the story.

SI was a different animal. It was high-quality writing on events that were in most cases at least a week old. It dug deeper. Reporters were basically embedded and had far greater access than the beat guys who were rushing to beat daily deadlines. It was a fantastic publication forever. I was a long-time subscriber that finally gave it up when a stack would collect of issues I wanted to get to but never could. Rather than stare at the pile get bigger and bigger, I dropped it. That was probably a decade ago. Sad to see it going this route though. I wish they'd change the name but that's what they're buying. Nobody worth a shit is going to stick around.

Raise your hand if you had one of these....and I have a whole room full of 2005 MNC SI crap.  That I will keep forever

rs-214564-football-phone.jpg?resize=900,

14 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Raise your hand if you had one of these....and I have a whole room full of 2005 MNC SI crap.  That I will keep forever

rs-214564-football-phone.jpg?resize=900,

We were such long-time subscribers -- my dad had it long before me -- that we never got shit. I *think* we got a golf shoes bag or small duffle and the occasional windbreaker. When the Spurs won the NBA champ, I called them and said just give me the champ package with my renewal and that was a non-starter.

The source of the bad journalism problem all sits with the readers or lack of them. All of us want free content so we gravitate towards free even if it’s just ok. Some may subscribe to one or two news sources but most don’t. 
That leads to clickbait articles and journalists that are expected to write 3-4 stories and 10 tweets per day.  And if they’re struggling to get eyes, the incentive is to write even more outrageous clickbait headlines. 
Everyone should subscribe to at least 1 news source to further better content. I subscribe to 1, nytimes.   For the group here, what news sites do you support or have a subscription?  
Athletic
Dallas Morning News
Sometimes The Economist and NYT.

I remember when I got my renewal notice in 1995. They offered me the "1994 Video Yearbook" for my favorite NFL team. Seeing as I am a 49er fan and they won the super bowl for the 94-95 season, I was stoked to get a recap video. So I paid the money. Then I got the video. It was the 1994 yearbook alright - that detailed the fucking 1993 season. It was 2 years behind! I called and complained, so they sent me a free hat. The hat sucked too. For some stupid reason, I didn't cancel for another 5 years. 

Edited by Sandman

I gotz dis....all that matters!

*I think it was from SI?  

s-l640.jpg

On 10/6/2019 at 8:40 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The source of the bad journalism problem all sits with the readers or lack of them. All of us want free content so we gravitate towards free even if it’s just ok. Some may subscribe to one or two news sources but most don’t. 

That leads to clickbait articles and journalists that are expected to write 3-4 stories and 10 tweets per day.  And if they’re struggling to get eyes, the incentive is to write even more outrageous clickbait headlines. 

Everyone should subscribe to at least 1 news source to further better content. I subscribe to 1, nytimes.   For the group here, what news sites do you support or have a subscription?  

I have a subscription to surlyhorns.com, thank you very much.

And I actually was going to subscribe to The Athletic for this season but then they got in bed with TexAgs, so nope.

SI was worth it just for the collectible covers.  Speaking of SI covers, I wonder if the curse goes away too.  I have yet to see an online "journalist" that knew the barest minimum with respect to spelling and grammar.  It's like they all write English as a second or third language.  It makes that shit unreadable to me, just like every newspaper website is unreadable because of all the fucking popup ads and shit.  A part of me will die when I can no longer get ink on my fingers from reading my morning paper while drinking my coffee.  Of course, I just recently had to give up coffee anyway, so maybe life just isn't worth living anymore.

Edited by NeverMarryAStripper

Yep, lotta truth in both of these.  

The internet has fostered a "culture" of free.  It has also destroyed most people's attention span, including mine.

TLDR

 

If they eventually go under will they be spinning off their overweight swim suit issue? Asking for Vic.

On 10/4/2019 at 10:19 PM, mulletpelini said:

whoa, upper right banner potentially foreboding for OSU tomorrow

That article on HS dying was a decent read, and I still remember some of the arguments they were making. 
 

However, I cancelled my subscription after this 2001 cover.  It pissed me off because it’s as though Texas players and coaches were claiming publicly that they would thrash OU.

!B9u(OOw!mk~$(KGrHqF,!g8EzeNlEHFqBM6o1T3

I purchased a 2006 BCSCG edition off the stands so I could frame the VY Superman cover. Other than that, it’s just been an occasional, only half-finished look in the doctor’s office 

Edited by ImissWallyPryor

in many ways, SI died a long time ago. I think people are mourning the nostalgia about what SI was at some point in the past and not what it was 2 weeks ago.

News organizations like SI aren't necessarily required any more. There is a still a need for long form journalism but there's nothing stopping a writer from pursuing it independently .

1 hour ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

However, I cancelled my subscription after this 2001 cover.  It pissed me off because it’s as though Texas players and coaches were claiming publicly that they would thrash OU.

they loved them some TX-OU back when OU was winning the game every fucking year. It was the cover story in 2001, 2002, and 2003, and then 2004 had a cover story preview with Adrian Peterson. 2005, 2006? Nah brah. We finally got one in 2008. 

On 10/6/2019 at 8:40 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The source of the bad journalism problem all sits with the readers or lack of them. All of us want free content so we gravitate towards free even if it’s just ok. Some may subscribe to one or two news sources but most don’t. 

That leads to clickbait articles and journalists that are expected to write 3-4 stories and 10 tweets per day.  And if they’re struggling to get eyes, the incentive is to write even more outrageous clickbait headlines. 

Everyone should subscribe to at least 1 news source to further better content. I subscribe to 1, nytimes.   For the group here, what news sites do you support or have a subscription?  

The Athletic is excellent for Texas Ranger's. I also subscribe to the Dallas Morning News & Ft. Worth Star Telegram.

What shall I read while sitting in front of the radio, listening to my mystery programs?

On 10/4/2019 at 7:15 AM, Grippe said:

I think this is the only cover in SI history that doesn't have any words - didn't need it imo:

1980-cover2.jpg

There are words on this cover.

I haven't looked at an issue of SI in years.  It wouldn't affect me at all if they disappeared completely.

On 10/4/2019 at 6:54 PM, Deej said:

Don't have to pay a bot and there's enough idiots out there to click on anything?

Works for the recruiting thread!

  • Author
34 minutes ago, Nolacycling said:

Is Leroy Neiman out of a job or is he even alive?

Died: June 20, 2012

SI was a must read for me in the teen years in the early 90s.

A random article I remember to this day was a reporter covering the midwest NFL training camps in small college towns. Driving between locations he meets an old man who was a train hopping hobo. Old man is a Joe Montana fan. It was Joe's first year with the Chiefs so he lets the writer let the old man tag along with him to the Chiefs camp.

I've always wondered if it was a made up story.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.