PDA

View Full Version : You can hate Sports Illustrated again


Fenway
10-31-2007, 02:03 PM
SI 2 years ago snubbed the White Sox winning the World Series and elected to preview the game between the Colts and Pats.....

http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2005/1107_large.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2005/1107_large.jpg)

Well once again the Pats and Colts meet in Week 9 but who gets the cover?

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/magazine/cover/images/t1_cover1105.jpg

Since 1990 the only other team that did not get the cover of SI
The 1999 and 2000 New York Yankees

2006 SI
St Louis gets their cover
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2005/1107_large.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2005/1107_large.jpg)

2003 Marlins
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2003/1103_large.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2003/1103_large.jpg)

2002 Anaheim
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2002/1104_large.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2002/1104_large.jpg)

2001 Diamondbacks
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2001/1112_large.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2001/1112_large.jpg)

Yankees 96-98
http://i.cnn.net/si//si_online/covers/images/1996/1104_thumb.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si//si_online/covers/images/1996/1104_thumb.jpg)
http://i.cnn.net/si//si_online/covers/images/1998/1102_thumb.jpg

1997 Marlins
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1997/1103_large.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1997/1103_large.jpg)

1995 Braves
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1995/1106_large.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1995/1106_large.jpg)

1993 Toronto
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1993/1101_large.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1993/1101_large.jpg)

1992 Toronto
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1992/1102_large.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1992/1102_large.jpg)

1991 Twins
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1991/1104_large.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1991/1104_large.jpg)

1990 Reds
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1990/1029_large.jpg (http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/1990/1029_large.jpg)

Of all the beefs White Sox fans have, this is the most valid...you got screwed:(:

JermaineDye05
10-31-2007, 02:06 PM
Of all the beefs White Sox fans have, this is the most valid...you got screwed:(:

I could care less what SI prints. I don't read their magazine, so it doesn't matter to me if the rest of the world hears about the White Sox world series on '05. I still got to live it, which is more then enough for me.

white sox bill
10-31-2007, 02:07 PM
Further proof that your team means nothing!! Nobody cares or likes your team, not even when they win the World Series!! Don't you know everybody loves the Cubs!

ilsox7
10-31-2007, 02:09 PM
I could care less what SI prints. I don't read their magazine, so it doesn't matter to me if the rest of the world hears about the White Sox world series on '05. I still got to live it, which is more then enough for me.

If you don't read it, then why could you care less? :cool:

JermaineDye05
10-31-2007, 02:10 PM
If you don't read it, then why could you care less? :cool:

bad wording, I don't care about SI.

ilsox7
10-31-2007, 02:15 PM
bad wording, I don't care about SI.

I know, I was just giving you a hard time. I've seen a lot of people misstate that lately and thought I'd point it out this one time.

Basically, I am kittle42 for Halloween. :D:

Lip Man 1
10-31-2007, 02:20 PM
Why am I not suprised at this?

Lip

SoxFan78
10-31-2007, 02:23 PM
Thanks for pointing this out fenway. This is the main reason why Sports llustrated will never get a penny of my money ever again.

Lip Man 1
10-31-2007, 02:28 PM
Here's my letter to Sports Illustrated:

To Whom It May Concern:

I found it very interesting that two years ago, with the White Sox winning their first World Series title in 88 years, Sports Illustrated elected to have Tom Brady and Peyton Manning on the cover for a meaningless regular season contest.

Now two years later, both the Patriots and Colts are unbeaten, many are calling it "the game of the century..." so are they on the cover of Sports Illustrated? No...that 'honor' belongs to the Boston Red Sox.

The moral of the story according to Sports Illustrated, 'if you don't play for an East Coast team we don't care.'
-----

By the way here's the e-mail address:

letters@SI.timeinc.com

Lip

Fenway
10-31-2007, 02:31 PM
Thanks for pointing this out fenway. This is the main reason why Sports llustrated will never get a penny of my money ever again.

I am surprised they omitted the Yankees in 1999 and 2000 but maybe they sensed the country was sick of them.

champagne030
10-31-2007, 02:36 PM
I am surprised they omitted the Yankees in 1999 and 2000 but maybe they sensed the country was sick of them.

I doubt it or the Sawx wouldn't have been on the cover this year.

Fenway
10-31-2007, 02:37 PM
I doubt it or the Sawx wouldn't have been on the cover this year.

Offset by the 4,000,000 copies sold in New England ( no teal )

Irishsox1
10-31-2007, 02:42 PM
Sports Illustrated is great....for week old news. The internet has made SI a dinosaur.

pierzynski07
10-31-2007, 02:44 PM
Here's my letter to Sports Illustrated:

To Whom It May Concern:

I found it very interesting that two years ago, with the White Sox winning their first World Series title in 88 years, Sports Illustrated elected to have Tom Brady and Peyton Manning on the cover for a meaningless regular season contest.

Now two years later, both the Patriots and Colts are unbeaten, many are calling it "the game of the century..." so are they on the cover of Sports Illustrated? No...that 'honor' belongs to the Boston Red Sox.

The moral of the story according to Sports Illustrated, 'if you don't play for an East Coast team we don't care.'
-----

By the way here's the e-mail address:

letters@SI.timeinc.com

Lip

Then why were the Cardinals, Angels and Diamondbacks given covers?

Rocky Soprano
10-31-2007, 03:12 PM
I could care less what SI prints. I don't read their magazine, so it doesn't matter to me if the rest of the world hears about the White Sox world series on '05. I still got to live it, which is more then enough for me.

Very well said.

ChiSoxFan35
10-31-2007, 03:46 PM
Zzzzzzzzzz

Anyways, I already have a SI of the Pods walkoff on the cover, that's fine with me.

And didn't they come out with some sort of commemorative edition magazine thing like they do for all the champions?

WisSoxFan
10-31-2007, 03:59 PM
I could care less what SI prints

XXX

I don't mean to be a jag, but to say you could care less implies that you care because "you could care less". I think what you mean is you couldn't care less. It's just a pet peeve. Sorry.

Chez
10-31-2007, 04:09 PM
The White Sox clinched on a Wednesday (10/26/05). Sports Illustrated usually comes out on Thursdays. Could it be that the story was too new for the issue which came out the day after the Sox clinched and too old for the issue that came out 8 days after they clinched? Isn't that explanation more plausible than a conspiracy/vendetta against the Sox?

Fenway
10-31-2007, 04:17 PM
The White Sox clinched on a Wednesday (10/26/05). Sports Illustrated usually comes out on Thursdays. Could it be that the story was too new for the issue which came out the day after the Sox clinched and too old for the issue that came out 8 days after they clinched? Isn't that explanation more plausible than a conspiracy/vendetta against the Sox?

no because they had time to make the insert

http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2005/1107_large.jpg

thomas35forever
10-31-2007, 04:23 PM
Zzzzzzzzzz

Anyways, I already have a SI of the Pods walkoff on the cover, that's fine with me.

And didn't they come out with some sort of commemorative edition magazine thing like they do for all the champions?
Yeah they did. And I like the cover of Pods' walkoff. That doesn't get much attention around here.

Chez
10-31-2007, 04:24 PM
Yeah; but Fenway, the date of that issue is 11/7/05 which kind of proves my point. The Sox victory was "old news" to SI by that date.

Fenway
10-31-2007, 04:28 PM
Yeah; but Fenway, the date of that issue is 11/7/05 which kind of proves my point. The Sox victory was "old news" to SI by that date.

One year earlier
November 8, 2004 | Volume 101, Issue 18
The world champion Red Sox face difficult decisions and the challenge to repeat.

http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2004/1108_large.jpg

ilsox7
10-31-2007, 05:11 PM
XXX

I don't mean to be a jag, but to say you could care less implies that you care because "you could care less". I think what you mean is you couldn't care less. It's just a pet peeve. Sorry.

I suggest reading the thread before posting. I already dressed up as kittle42 today and pointed this out. :cool:

Lip Man 1
10-31-2007, 07:24 PM
Pier:

Which makes my point about them "ignoring" the White Sox even more relevant don't you think?

Lip

Brian26
10-31-2007, 08:00 PM
Am I the only one who owns one of these? I can't believe people are *****ing about something like this. This takes it to an entirely new level.

http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/brian2653/White%20Sox%20Stuff/DSCN0941.jpg

anewman35
10-31-2007, 08:22 PM
As some others have mentioned, we were on the 10/31/05 issue with Pods' walkoff. It's not as if they completly ignored the Sox. This is a really silly thread.

Lip Man 1
10-31-2007, 10:04 PM
Brian:

That's a "special" issue...not the same thing as the regular weekly issue that goes out to a hell of a lot more folks.

It's the gesture or justification behind this that galls me... the fact that just about every single season since I was a kid they put the champ on the cover.

To have the Sox bumped because of a friggin REGULAR season game between New England and Indianapolis is mind boggling...that's not just a slap at the White Sox (who only went 88 years before winning!) but a slap at MLB.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
10-31-2007, 10:21 PM
Am I the only one who owns one of these? I can't believe people are *****ing about something like this. This takes it to an entirely new level.


That's a fake because it is meaningless. That wasn't SI's weekly issue. They made a special run just to cash in on souvenir-hungry fans. (Full disclosure: I admit I'm one who bought a copy, too, but I would never bother to frame it.)

This is the equivalent to Jerry Reinsdorf calling up Cracker Jack and ordering 25 championship rings to pass out to all his players. The gesture would be meaningless -- just like SI's "Sox World Champions" commemorative edition.

Brian26
11-01-2007, 12:18 AM
That's a fake because it is meaningless. That wasn't SI's weekly issue. They made a special run just to cash in on souvenir-hungry fans. (Full disclosure: I admit I'm one who bought a copy, too, but I would never bother to frame it.)

I didn't frame the issue. I bought the commemorative 11" x 17" print for framing, along with the hardcover edition, three set of championship baseballs, world series souvenier coin, and year subscription from SI. :cower:

white sox bill
11-01-2007, 07:16 AM
I've always thought of SI as the ESPN of publications. This story furthers that belief

Frontman
11-01-2007, 08:20 AM
Not only did the White Sox get hosed and no front cover, but also Tiger winning at St. Andrews had a horrid cover, Lance Armstrong's Tour de France win had a horrid cover, and if I remember correctly the week after the Manning/Brady face-off, neither of them got the cover that week.

To me, part of sports memorabilia/event that is fun is the SI cover, the Wheaties box, and the Disney World commercial at the Superbowl. Sadly, they don't do the Disney commercial anymore, the Sox got screwed on getting their cover (although I loved seeing them for close to a full year in Gatorade commercials) but I do have my Buehrle-mon Wheaties box.

chaerulez
11-01-2007, 09:45 AM
Yeah; but Fenway, the date of that issue is 11/7/05 which kind of proves my point. The Sox victory was "old news" to SI by that date.

I think that probably did have something to do with it. SI can put whatever they want on their cover, sports fans know who won the 2005 World Series.

Fenway
11-01-2007, 10:03 AM
I think that probably did have something to do with it. SI can put whatever they want on their cover, sports fans know who won the 2005 World Series.

Look the reality of this is that some editor in New York decided that Brady and Manning would sell more newsstand copies than the White Sox. This year they feel the Red Sox will...it is all about the $$$$$

VenturaFan23
11-01-2007, 10:05 AM
Let's not forget that this rag also failed to recognize Buehrle's no-hitter ANYWHERE during the week that followed, but recognized Verlander's and had a 2 page photo of Bucholz's when he had his. And no, I don't buy SI, but my friend brings it in to work every week.

spawn
11-01-2007, 11:55 AM
I found a decent article dedicated to SI. It was a pretty good read:


What's Wrong With Sports Illustrated
And how to fix it.

In August 1994, on the occasion of the magazine's 40th anniversary, Sports Illustrated ran a 22,000-word story called "How We Got Here." Steve Rushin's sprawling, multipart essay on integration, the rise of television, and the encroachment of corporate interests was the kind of story that the magazinehad built its name on—playfully written long-form journalism that pinned down where sports had been and where they were going. Thirteen years later, you would never find such a piece in Sports Illustrated. What was once the sports world's agenda setter has become passive and uncritical. Since the magazine's editors no longer seem to care about such things, it's time for a loyal reader to ask: How'd we get here?

Complete Article (http://www.slate.com/id/2177143)

Fenway
11-01-2007, 12:01 PM
Let's not forget that this rag also failed to recognize Buehrle's no-hitter ANYWHERE during the week that followed, but recognized Verlander's and had a 2 page photo of Bucholz's when he had his. And no, I don't buy SI, but my friend brings it in to work every week.

BTW I should note here that in the World Series program Buehrle's no-hitter was pictured in "Moments of 2007" but Buchholtz was not. :smile:

TDog
11-01-2007, 01:33 PM
The only time I ever notice a Sports Illustrated cover is when it's mentioned here.

anewman35
11-01-2007, 06:30 PM
Look the reality of this is that some editor in New York decided that Brady and Manning would sell more newsstand copies than the White Sox. This year they feel the Red Sox will...it is all about the $$$$$

A publishing company is INTERESTED IN MAKING MONEY!?!?!??!

:o:

I just don't believe it! I thought they were in the buisness of not caring at all about money and just making people in this thread happy. Guess not.

Brian26
11-01-2007, 09:16 PM
This discussion is sort of like arguiing about who has the highest World Series ratings.

jenn2080
11-02-2007, 12:57 PM
Yeah, SI hates Chicago. It's such a shame that that Michael Jordan guy was never on the cover.

Fenway
11-02-2007, 01:01 PM
Yeah, SI hates Chicago. It's such a shame that that Michael Jordan guy was never on the cover.


Your search for michael jordan found 49 covers :o:
http://dynamic.si.cnn.com/covers/search

Lip Man 1
11-02-2007, 04:13 PM
I do find it interesting though that The Sporting News which is based in St. Louis had the Sox winning the title on their cover right after the series ended.

I guess they don't have 'deadline' issues.

:rolleyes:

Lip

TommyJohn
11-02-2007, 11:30 PM
You know, I am just getting really tired of the sneerers coming in here and
sneering and looking down their noses at those who feel the slightest
sensitivity to this issue. It doesn't matter if it was money or whatever.
EVERY SINGLE ****ing World Series Champion was given the cover after
their World Series win since Toronto, was it? Even Florida and Anaheim.
The White Sox were SNUBBED and it is insulting. Even more insulting is the
lame excuse about deadlines. Puh-leeze. Of course, I do realize that life
goes on, sneerers. I just happen to think that it was wrong.

Brian26
11-02-2007, 11:54 PM
You know, I am just getting really tired of the sneerers coming in here and
sneering and looking down their noses at those who feel the slightest
sensitivity to this issue. It doesn't matter if it was money or whatever.
EVERY SINGLE ****ing World Series Champion was given the cover after
their World Series win since Toronto, was it? Even Florida and Anaheim.
The White Sox were SNUBBED and it is insulting. Even more insulting is the
lame excuse about deadlines. Puh-leeze. Of course, I do realize that life
goes on, sneerers. I just happen to think that it was wrong.

I know for a fact that the 1930 World Champion Philadelphia A's didn't get the cover of SI either. :angry:

pudge
11-03-2007, 10:03 PM
no because they had time to make the insert



Actually, that insert proves the point that they probably didn't have time. That looks like a rushed, oh crap gotta throw it on the cover type of addition. I am the first to jump on the media but this seems like a stretch to me, especially if you're saying Pods was on the cover 10/31. Now look, if it had been the Cubs or BoSox, I bet they would have made a last-second switch simply because the number of issues sold would have went through the roof, but I'm guessing we got the same treatment that 29 other MLB teams would get based on the timing.

RadioheadRocks
11-03-2007, 10:12 PM
I'm quite content with the 10/31 cover with Pods' walkoff home run off Lidge, plus the commemorative Champions issue.

Plus, with a rather loud faction concerned about the "SI Cover Jinx", this whole issue seems to be a no-win situation.

RadioheadRocks
11-03-2007, 10:18 PM
I do find it interesting though that The Sporting News which is based in St. Louis had the Sox winning the title on their cover right after the series ended.

I guess they don't have 'deadline' issues.

:rolleyes:

Lip


True, but that Sporting News cover was regional, NOT national. I know for a fact that here in the southwestern US we got Matt Leinart on that week's cover, along with the "second half of the college football season".

Lip Man 1
11-04-2007, 12:46 PM
Radio:

To me that actually complicates the issue (i.e. having one then one cover for an area). They had to do more work to make it happen then an entity (S.I.) that only has to be concerned (95% of the time) with one cover.

Bottom line, TSN got it done and gave credit where it belonged. S.I. basically said 'no one cares,' and had on the cover the quarterbacks of a meaningless REGULAR season game.

Then with the 'game of the century' at hand, they blow off BOTH of their precious quarterbacks only two years later in favor of a team from the East Coast. (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, SAY no more!)

Lip