I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

(04-23-2015 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

Coming from you that's awesome.

(04-23-2015 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

What omission?

UofMark Wrote:
In my print edition this morning the Tigers-Rebs game has a writeup on page 2, right next to the writeup of the Cards-Nationals from last night.

(04-23-2015 12:21 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

What omission?

UofMark Wrote:
In my print edition this morning the Tigers-Rebs game has a writeup on page 2, right next to the writeup of the Cards-Nationals from last night.

I'm guessing the Davidson Co edition didn't have it ?

not in the Orange County version either for the OP

(04-23-2015 12:26 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:21 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

What omission?

UofMark Wrote:
In my print edition this morning the Tigers-Rebs game has a writeup on page 2, right next to the writeup of the Cards-Nationals from last night.

I'm guessing the Davidson Co edition didn't have it ?

Can't believe The Nashville Tennessean didn't have any writeup on the Tigers-Rebs game last night. Appalling! complaints@tennessean.com

(04-23-2015 12:26 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:21 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

What omission?

UofMark Wrote:
In my print edition this morning the Tigers-Rebs game has a writeup on page 2, right next to the writeup of the Cards-Nationals from last night.

I'm guessing the Davidson Co edition didn't have it ?

I bet thar was good coverage and lots of Tiger baseball posts on 3A's bored.

The Commercial Appeal seems to be targeting a market not really interested in news....or reading.

(04-23-2015 12:32 PM)UofMark Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:26 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:21 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

What omission?

UofMark Wrote:
In my print edition this morning the Tigers-Rebs game has a writeup on page 2, right next to the writeup of the Cards-Nationals from last night.

I'm guessing the Davidson Co edition didn't have it ?

Can't believe The Nashville Tennessean didn't have any writeup on the Tigers-Rebs game last night. Appalling! complaints@tennessean.com

LMAO

(04-23-2015 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

So snarky

(04-23-2015 12:21 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

What omission?

UofMark Wrote:
In my print edition this morning the Tigers-Rebs game has a writeup on page 2, right next to the writeup of the Cards-Nationals from last night.

I did not see it in the digital edition. The CA does not delivered to my doorstep in Nashville. The story should appear here: http://www.commercialappeal.com/tigers

(04-23-2015 02:01 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:21 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

What omission?

UofMark Wrote:
In my print edition this morning the Tigers-Rebs game has a writeup on page 2, right next to the writeup of the Cards-Nationals from last night.

I did not see it in the digital edition. The CA does not delivered to my doorstep in Nashville. The story should appear here: http://www.commercialappeal.com/tigers

I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission from the digital edition.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

(04-23-2015 02:01 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:21 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

What omission?

UofMark Wrote:
In my print edition this morning the Tigers-Rebs game has a writeup on page 2, right next to the writeup of the Cards-Nationals from last night.

I did not see it in the digital edition. The CA does not delivered to my doorstep in Nashville. The story should appear here: http://www.commercialappeal.com/tigers

Click on the E-Edition link at the top of the CA page. Go to page C2. Click on the Tigers story to enlarge it. Now you have exactly what's in everyone's print edition each morning.

(04-23-2015 02:56 PM)UofMark Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:01 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:21 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:02 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I recommend contacting the CA sports editor, David Williams, to ascertain reasons for the article omission. TAMM's, although it strains your limited capacity for civility, please engage Williams in a respectful manner for better results.

Williams@commercialappeal.com

What omission?

UofMark Wrote:
In my print edition this morning the Tigers-Rebs game has a writeup on page 2, right next to the writeup of the Cards-Nationals from last night.

I did not see it in the digital edition. The CA does not delivered to my doorstep in Nashville. The story should appear here: http://www.commercialappeal.com/tigers

Click on the E-Edition link at the top of the CA page. Go to page C2. Click on the Tigers story to enlarge it. Now you have exactly what's in everyone's print edition each morning.

Thank you for the tip. I cannot find it using my iPhone, but I readily admit my technological deficiencies. I will try harder to access it later.

It doesn't matter how many people have subscriptions to the paper...I mean I know they would hope for more....but a lot of people just go to the inconvenience stores and buy the paper...or the local newspaper machine for that matter.

(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.

(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?

finally in my ca paper today (friday, in olive branch)

in the box scores, about a half inch, says late scores from wednesday

(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?

You seem to have emotional issues. The rifle team has 3 transfers coming in and the CA reported it in today's paper. I'm sure you are a big fan of that right ? Or do "TAMMS" not care about that?

Seems to be a working theory that IF they reported about baseball more people would care about baseball, this is probably true, the problem is that "more" is not enough. There is not a conspiracy from either PRINT or BROADCAST to ignore things that people care about, they are looking to get the "many". The news no longer is worried about what the audience MIGHT care about, they are worried about what they DO care about.