(04-24-2015 06:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:52 AM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 11:19 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:58 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Some of you people think it's still 1975. If it's not Grizz hoops , Tiger hoops and football or whichever SEC football team is hot it's not getting coverage. High school sports, golf, tennis, and American legion baseball have all taken a hit. It's got nothing to do with the paper being anti university of Memphis.

Nobody said they were "anti-university of Memphis". The problem is their assumption that our baseball program is not and never will be important. It is more important than they think and has a great deal of potential.

It's a non-revenue sport that gets zero TV ratings.

It is absolutely important to our fans and students (at least those that care about baseball), but it's not something that drives the same level of interest as BB/FB.

It is what it is.

The TAMM's defend the paper's decision. The rest of us want CA coverage of Tiger baseball games and will ask for it. Which side do you take?

I reject the premise of your question actually.

1. I don't usually divide our fan base in that binary of a manner. There are certainly some trolls on our site, but in this case, grouping all people who have little issue with the CA coverage level as trolls, agitators, etc seems like a blanket statement I can't get behind.

2. Many posters are saying their paper covered the baseball team and you were told how to access the print version online for future reference. It is very common for out of town / digital subscribers to news media to get slightly different versions of that paper (most well known case being the different regional versions of the NYTimes). So the coverage is, by those who read locally, in the paper.

If people feel like they want more coverage, they should totally email the paper (good on you actually for digging out the email address and suggesting same, that is an excellent idea). If you want something changed, telling the people in charge is always a good idea.

My own guess is that the paper (like all print media in modern times) has limited resources and feels their readers care about the baseball team, but less than other sports, including regional SEC recruiting. From what I know about the market dynamics of Memphis, that feels accurate.

So I don't support their coverage distribution so much as I acknowledge there is a reason for it. It's not like it's keeping me up at night either way.

>>>

So I guess the most accurate choice is neither (a) or (b) for me, but rather © as in, the CA's view of college basketball doesn't affect my life much.

All are entitled to their opinion however, and that is great. You think the CA coverage doesn't meet your needs, then tell them. No snark, the CA probably cares a great deal what their customers want as they want $$ and if you can convince them better college baseball coverage = more $$, they'll snap right to it.

Good luck!

I already voted with my money I subscribed for a long time. The paper just got worse and worse. Just useless really. I dgaf about their opinions just wanted to read news.

It's worthless imo

(04-24-2015 11:47 AM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 06:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:52 AM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 11:19 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:58 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Some of you people think it's still 1975. If it's not Grizz hoops , Tiger hoops and football or whichever SEC football team is hot it's not getting coverage. High school sports, golf, tennis, and American legion baseball have all taken a hit. It's got nothing to do with the paper being anti university of Memphis.

Nobody said they were "anti-university of Memphis". The problem is their assumption that our baseball program is not and never will be important. It is more important than they think and has a great deal of potential.

It's a non-revenue sport that gets zero TV ratings.

It is absolutely important to our fans and students (at least those that care about baseball), but it's not something that drives the same level of interest as BB/FB.

It is what it is.

The TAMM's defend the paper's decision. The rest of us want CA coverage of Tiger baseball games and will ask for it. Which side do you take?

I reject the premise of your question actually.

1. I don't usually divide our fan base in that binary of a manner. There are certainly some trolls on our site, but in this case, grouping all people who have little issue with the CA coverage level as trolls, agitators, etc seems like a blanket statement I can't get behind.

2. Many posters are saying their paper covered the baseball team and you were told how to access the print version online for future reference. It is very common for out of town / digital subscribers to news media to get slightly different versions of that paper (most well known case being the different regional versions of the NYTimes). So the coverage is, by those who read locally, in the paper.

If people feel like they want more coverage, they should totally email the paper (good on you actually for digging out the email address and suggesting same, that is an excellent idea). If you want something changed, telling the people in charge is always a good idea.

My own guess is that the paper (like all print media in modern times) has limited resources and feels their readers care about the baseball team, but less than other sports, including regional SEC recruiting. From what I know about the market dynamics of Memphis, that feels accurate.

So I don't support their coverage distribution so much as I acknowledge there is a reason for it. It's not like it's keeping me up at night either way.

>>>

So I guess the most accurate choice is neither (a) or (b) for me, but rather © as in, the CA's view of college basketball doesn't affect my life much.

All are entitled to their opinion however, and that is great. You think the CA coverage doesn't meet your needs, then tell them. No snark, the CA probably cares a great deal what their customers want as they want $$ and if you can convince them better college baseball coverage = more $$, they'll snap right to it.

Good luck!

You can reject the premise, but it does not alter its validity. I want easily accessible and more news about Tiger baseball. The TAMM's defend the paper. There is no mealymouthed "c" option.

No offense, I am just using the standard and accepted tone and language allowed on the site.

(04-24-2015 12:43 PM)shere khan Wrote:  I already voted with my money I subscribed for a long time. The paper just got worse and worse. Just useless really. I dgaf about their opinions just wanted to read news.

It's worthless imo

Works for me. Don't like the service, don't pay for it.

(04-24-2015 12:55 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 11:47 AM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 06:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:52 AM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 11:19 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Nobody said they were "anti-university of Memphis". The problem is their assumption that our baseball program is not and never will be important. It is more important than they think and has a great deal of potential.

It's a non-revenue sport that gets zero TV ratings.

It is absolutely important to our fans and students (at least those that care about baseball), but it's not something that drives the same level of interest as BB/FB.

It is what it is.

The TAMM's defend the paper's decision. The rest of us want CA coverage of Tiger baseball games and will ask for it. Which side do you take?

I reject the premise of your question actually.

1. I don't usually divide our fan base in that binary of a manner. There are certainly some trolls on our site, but in this case, grouping all people who have little issue with the CA coverage level as trolls, agitators, etc seems like a blanket statement I can't get behind.

2. Many posters are saying their paper covered the baseball team and you were told how to access the print version online for future reference. It is very common for out of town / digital subscribers to news media to get slightly different versions of that paper (most well known case being the different regional versions of the NYTimes). So the coverage is, by those who read locally, in the paper.

If people feel like they want more coverage, they should totally email the paper (good on you actually for digging out the email address and suggesting same, that is an excellent idea). If you want something changed, telling the people in charge is always a good idea.

My own guess is that the paper (like all print media in modern times) has limited resources and feels their readers care about the baseball team, but less than other sports, including regional SEC recruiting. From what I know about the market dynamics of Memphis, that feels accurate.

So I don't support their coverage distribution so much as I acknowledge there is a reason for it. It's not like it's keeping me up at night either way.

>>>

So I guess the most accurate choice is neither (a) or (b) for me, but rather © as in, the CA's view of college basketball doesn't affect my life much.

All are entitled to their opinion however, and that is great. You think the CA coverage doesn't meet your needs, then tell them. No snark, the CA probably cares a great deal what their customers want as they want $$ and if you can convince them better college baseball coverage = more $$, they'll snap right to it.

Good luck!

You can reject the premise, but it does not alter its validity. I want easily accessible and more news about Tiger baseball. The TAMM's defend the paper. There is no mealymouthed "c" option.

No offense, I am just using the standard and accepted tone and language allowed on the site.

Whatever you want man.

(04-24-2015 12:58 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:55 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 11:47 AM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 06:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:52 AM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  It's a non-revenue sport that gets zero TV ratings.

It is absolutely important to our fans and students (at least those that care about baseball), but it's not something that drives the same level of interest as BB/FB.

It is what it is.

The TAMM's defend the paper's decision. The rest of us want CA coverage of Tiger baseball games and will ask for it. Which side do you take?

I reject the premise of your question actually.

1. I don't usually divide our fan base in that binary of a manner. There are certainly some trolls on our site, but in this case, grouping all people who have little issue with the CA coverage level as trolls, agitators, etc seems like a blanket statement I can't get behind.

2. Many posters are saying their paper covered the baseball team and you were told how to access the print version online for future reference. It is very common for out of town / digital subscribers to news media to get slightly different versions of that paper (most well known case being the different regional versions of the NYTimes). So the coverage is, by those who read locally, in the paper.

If people feel like they want more coverage, they should totally email the paper (good on you actually for digging out the email address and suggesting same, that is an excellent idea). If you want something changed, telling the people in charge is always a good idea.

My own guess is that the paper (like all print media in modern times) has limited resources and feels their readers care about the baseball team, but less than other sports, including regional SEC recruiting. From what I know about the market dynamics of Memphis, that feels accurate.

So I don't support their coverage distribution so much as I acknowledge there is a reason for it. It's not like it's keeping me up at night either way.

>>>

So I guess the most accurate choice is neither (a) or (b) for me, but rather © as in, the CA's view of college basketball doesn't affect my life much.

All are entitled to their opinion however, and that is great. You think the CA coverage doesn't meet your needs, then tell them. No snark, the CA probably cares a great deal what their customers want as they want $$ and if you can convince them better college baseball coverage = more $$, they'll snap right to it.

Good luck!

You can reject the premise, but it does not alter its validity. I want easily accessible and more news about Tiger baseball. The TAMM's defend the paper. There is no mealymouthed "c" option.

No offense, I am just using the standard and accepted tone and language allowed on the site.

Whatever you want man.

Some folks just gotta have an axe to grind.

(04-24-2015 01:18 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:58 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:55 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 11:47 AM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 06:43 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The TAMM's defend the paper's decision. The rest of us want CA coverage of Tiger baseball games and will ask for it. Which side do you take?

I reject the premise of your question actually.

1. I don't usually divide our fan base in that binary of a manner. There are certainly some trolls on our site, but in this case, grouping all people who have little issue with the CA coverage level as trolls, agitators, etc seems like a blanket statement I can't get behind.

2. Many posters are saying their paper covered the baseball team and you were told how to access the print version online for future reference. It is very common for out of town / digital subscribers to news media to get slightly different versions of that paper (most well known case being the different regional versions of the NYTimes). So the coverage is, by those who read locally, in the paper.

If people feel like they want more coverage, they should totally email the paper (good on you actually for digging out the email address and suggesting same, that is an excellent idea). If you want something changed, telling the people in charge is always a good idea.

My own guess is that the paper (like all print media in modern times) has limited resources and feels their readers care about the baseball team, but less than other sports, including regional SEC recruiting. From what I know about the market dynamics of Memphis, that feels accurate.

So I don't support their coverage distribution so much as I acknowledge there is a reason for it. It's not like it's keeping me up at night either way.

>>>

So I guess the most accurate choice is neither (a) or (b) for me, but rather © as in, the CA's view of college basketball doesn't affect my life much.

All are entitled to their opinion however, and that is great. You think the CA coverage doesn't meet your needs, then tell them. No snark, the CA probably cares a great deal what their customers want as they want $$ and if you can convince them better college baseball coverage = more $$, they'll snap right to it.

Good luck!

You can reject the premise, but it does not alter its validity. I want easily accessible and more news about Tiger baseball. The TAMM's defend the paper. There is no mealymouthed "c" option.

No offense, I am just using the standard and accepted tone and language allowed on the site.

Whatever you want man.

Some folks just gotta have an axe to grind.

Doesn't that make '83 a MMAT?

Let's call a truce for one day out of the week. I just wanna see what it would be like.

(04-24-2015 01:46 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  Let's call a truce for one day out of the week. I just wanna see what it would be like.

Jim Dandy to the rescue ?

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:08 AM)MuchLuck Wrote:  I would imagine the circulation of the Commercial Appeal is about that of the Press Scimitar by now.

According to Wikipedia:
94,775 Daily
133,788 Sunday
(March 2013) - an additional web search seems this is the latest data found.

Also according to Wikipedia the Press-Scimitar at its end was down to 80,000 copies sold per day.

So not too far off.

The circulation for the CA around 1977 was over 300,000. So that gives you an idea of how much of a decline they have had.

(04-24-2015 04:35 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:08 AM)MuchLuck Wrote:  I would imagine the circulation of the Commercial Appeal is about that of the Press Scimitar by now.

According to Wikipedia:
94,775 Daily
133,788 Sunday
(March 2013) - an additional web search seems this is the latest data found.

Also according to Wikipedia the Press-Scimitar at its end was down to 80,000 copies sold per day.

So not too far off.

The circulation for the CA around 1977 was over 300,000. So that gives you an idea of how much of a decline they have had.

Internet killed the newspaper star.

Does Miss Stakes' band have any soul?

(04-24-2015 04:37 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 04:35 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:08 AM)MuchLuck Wrote:  I would imagine the circulation of the Commercial Appeal is about that of the Press Scimitar by now.

According to Wikipedia:
94,775 Daily
133,788 Sunday
(March 2013) - an additional web search seems this is the latest data found.

Also according to Wikipedia the Press-Scimitar at its end was down to 80,000 copies sold per day.

So not too far off.

The circulation for the CA around 1977 was over 300,000. So that gives you an idea of how much of a decline they have had.

Internet killed the newspaper star.

The CA gives great coverage....at the bottom of bird cages.

Chewbacca was at the game. he gave the pregame pep talk

Didn't help them. The empire struck back

Morons

(04-24-2015 08:03 PM)ChapelHillTiger Wrote:  Does Miss Stakes' band have any soul?

(04-24-2015 04:37 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 04:35 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:08 AM)MuchLuck Wrote:  I would imagine the circulation of the Commercial Appeal is about that of the Press Scimitar by now.

According to Wikipedia:
94,775 Daily
133,788 Sunday
(March 2013) - an additional web search seems this is the latest data found.

Also according to Wikipedia the Press-Scimitar at its end was down to 80,000 copies sold per day.

So not too far off.

The circulation for the CA around 1977 was over 300,000. So that gives you an idea of how much of a decline they have had.

Internet killed the newspaper star.

Band smack?

I think the Famous Maroon Band is junk. I think the Mighty Sound of the South is junk and small.

Best college band I've ever seen is Alabama's Million Dollar Band.

The U of M band has 250 members. That is the same size as the NC State and UNC marching band. Why do you consider that small?

(04-25-2015 03:02 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 08:03 PM)ChapelHillTiger Wrote:  Does Miss Stakes' band have any soul?

(04-24-2015 04:37 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 04:35 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  According to Wikipedia:
94,775 Daily
133,788 Sunday
(March 2013) - an additional web search seems this is the latest data found.

Also according to Wikipedia the Press-Scimitar at its end was down to 80,000 copies sold per day.

So not too far off.

The circulation for the CA around 1977 was over 300,000. So that gives you an idea of how much of a decline they have had.

Internet killed the newspaper star.

Band smack?

I think the Famous Maroon Band is junk. I think the Mighty Sound of the South is junk and small.

Best college band I've ever seen is Alabama's Million Dollar Band.

(04-25-2015 03:02 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 08:03 PM)ChapelHillTiger Wrote:  Does Miss Stakes' band have any soul?

(04-24-2015 04:37 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 04:35 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  According to Wikipedia:
94,775 Daily
133,788 Sunday
(March 2013) - an additional web search seems this is the latest data found.

Also according to Wikipedia the Press-Scimitar at its end was down to 80,000 copies sold per day.

So not too far off.

The circulation for the CA around 1977 was over 300,000. So that gives you an idea of how much of a decline they have had.

Internet killed the newspaper star.

Band smack?

I think the Famous Maroon Band is junk. I think the Mighty Sound of the South is junk and small.

Best college band I've ever seen is Alabama's Million Dollar Band.

I remember mss state having a big good band. Well fed.

Million Dollar band pretty good too

Auburn has a good big band.

Yall a gonna hates me doe. Utk has the best band in the sec. They are a holes but they are good

Stanford Band is always good for something.