ESPN vs. SI

[Craig S.]

Growing up, I used to look forward to receiving my copy of Sports Illustrated every week. I would read Sport or Inside Sports, but nothing touched SI as the best general sports magazine. When ESPN came out with their magazine, I was unimpressed. It had all the depth of Us Weekly, and I felt it put style ahead of substance at every opportunity.

Now, though, I believe that ESPN has surpassed SI as the best sports magazine. I get both, and there's no doubt about which I look forward to every week. With SI, I'm not a big fan of Steve Rushin. He tries too hard, and fails, to be funny, while Bill Simmons at ESPN combines humor and good writing much more effectively. I know SI has Rick Reilly, but he has plenty of misses to go along with his hits. What really impresses me now about ESPN are their feature articles, which used to be an area in which I always felt SI was much better. I also believe that SI still spends too much time recapping events from the last week of which we're all well aware, instead of talking about the players, coaches, etc. And after 20 years of subscribing, I can't tell you how tired I am of Faces in the Crowd, which I find of about as much interest as an ad for Levitra.

I'm wondering what others think. Am I too hard on SI, or does it just seem to have gone stale?

[Skip]

I'm ambivalent on ESPN the Mag, but I quit even looking at SI (well, maybe once a year ) a long time ago.

[pwdennis]

I'm afraid I still regard SI as far the better magazine. ESPN Magazine has a NATIONAL ENQUIRER mentality, and a writing style that seems to be aimed squarely at 12 year old boys.

It's better now than it was when it first started (at that time I think the intended audience was 8 year old boys), but even now the only time I read it is when stuck waiting for a doctors' waiting room, and even then after exhausting the fishing, sailing, golf and diabetes publications !

[Rajah]

I don't read either regularly, but given the content of their websites, and what I notice when I see both, I'd have to say that ESPN has set the standard. Sporting News has come closer to adapting thanks to its team capsules and the like. SI still hasn't changed. Thanks to the internet, few want to read old news. ESPN has depth thanks to all its excellent feature stories and columns.

[SmedIndy]

I get both. And while I feel SI has better writing, ESPN is more entertaining. I look forward to ESPN more than SI, but am upset if SI isn't on time in my mailbox.

Does that make sense?

[Joseph]

SI has a little campus edition they give out for free each week that I read. Other than that I only read them in waiting rooms.

My problem is that by the time the magazine is published the story has already been broken, and I've read about it online. Online I can tailor the content to my interests, some I don't have to pay for 10 pages of Hockey and swimming just to read about baseball. Both magazines (Especially SI) need to realize that they don't have to report or recap the past weeks events. Yet, neither seems to provide much in-depth analysis (especially in baseball). SI has nice essays and reports, but to many personal stories and profiles. I like ESPN's writers better, but the magazine's layout and graphics are straight out of Sports Illustrated for Kids (minus Buzz Beamer).

[TimmyB]

I haven't read an issue of ESPN, but I've subscribed to SI on and off over the past 27 years.

They have changed with the times since '77 (as they had surely changed in the previous 23 years before that), but I haven't enjoyed all the changes.

I agree that Rushin tries too hard sometimes, but, he's not nearly as arrogant as Reilly, who I love to hate (but still read faithfully each week).

The writing is still excellent, but it's too "quick hit" and there are far fewer feature length articles (remember they used to end the magazine with a fairly long article about some event/person/essay). Everything now is written for a very short attention span or visit to the bathroom (I hear Jeff Goldblum in The Big Chill echoing in my head. I can count in one hand the number of feature length stories they did last year (and the shame of it is, they were very, very good).

It's a shame, too, because going to SI.com for say, the football people, you have Paul Zimmerman, Peter King and Don Banks as the big three... smart guys who can really analyze the goings on in and around the game... does any of it end up in the magazine? Hardly any of it.

Funny this thread comes up as lately I have been wondering if there's an alternative out there.

[rc3000]

I can't remember the last time I read SI outside of the dentist office, I subsrcibed for about 15 years. Although not aware of it, probably when they stopped doing the in-depth features. I will pick up ESPN magazine about 6 or 7 times a year. Someone mentioned it earlier, I find myself going to both web sites and not relying on the magazine. I tend to use ESPN.com for the breaking news, and SI I read the authors such as Peter King,Zimmerman. Maybe I don't read the specific ESPN writers because most of the stuff is on Sportscenter.

[Crash Course]

I'm with pwdennis on this one.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Skip

I'm ambivalent on ESPN the Mag, but I quit even looking at SI (well, maybe once a year ) a long time ago.

Let me clarify that I really dont have a preference for either. I have picked up 1-2 copies per year of ESPN off the newsstand (like they have actual newsstands here) and am ambivalent. I quit on SI in about 1980 and the only issues I've even since since them were somehow full of swimsuits (almost), so I can't really comment on the normal content.

I'll admit to reading Reilly online (love to hate sorta thing) and visit SI website too, though I always hit ESPN, Sportsline, and even SportingNews first. That's the main thing, that some have already brought up ... I get pretty near 100% of my sports news/entertainment/analysis/etc. from the Internet or email.

[sweaver]

I am not particularly interested in either. I subscribed to SI for a while some years ago when Gammons worked there.

[pathogan]

...read Si in awhile,but I get ESPN gratis because I subscribe to the website, and I have to tell you, its overpriced at free. I find it flattulent,insipid and calculatingly stupid.Listening to Dan Patrick and Sturat Scott is difficult enough[i turn them off],but having to read what the"wrote" is absurd,and a waste.And its huge size matches its ego, and it overstuffs my mailbox...so, I dont care for it...

[TimmyB]

Originally Posted by pathogan

...read Si in awhile,but I get ESPN gratis because I subscribe to the website, and I have to tell you, its overpriced at free. I find it flattulent,insipid and calculatingly stupid.Listening to Dan Patrick and Sturat Scott is difficult enough[i turn them off],but having to read what the"wrote" is absurd,and a waste.And its huge size matches its ego, and it overstuffs my mailbox...so, I dont care for it...

But, pat, how do you really feel?

[gyb13]

i pass on both

[rcartman28]

I get both, but I think Sports Illustrated has better writing, although I think Reilly is pretty hit and miss.