Thanks. They need to fix the feed, obviously. So that's the one game report for the season. I expect they will do something for MLS Cup, maybe even both a before and an after story but who knows. I'm also not expecting John to cover NYCFC or even MLS much. He seems to have been hired to do general soccer analytics stuff and my guess is it will have the same focus as their soccer coverage generally, which mostly is Europe.They did do a short summary of the Philly playoff game that for some reason doesn’t come up in the NYCFC feed. You can find it in the MLS feed. It mainly turned out to be a vehicle for the NYCFC haters to crawl out from under their rocks and into the comments section.
Still, there is no arguing that coverage of our Club is virtually non-existent, and that’s continued after they hired one of our forum members as a reporter.
I've heard from different places that the Athletic has really diminished itself recently. It was bought by a hedge fund and then sold to NYT. Through those investments it has gotten away from its early roots of high quality sports journalism.The Athletic recently raised the annual subscription price from $60 to $72. My sub renews on May 21. It was borderline worth it to me at $60, so today I hit the unsub button. They said please don't. I said I'm sure.
Then they offered me a renewal for $19.92 for the whole year.
I think the quality is still there.I've heard from different places that the Athletic has really diminished itself recently. It was bought by a hedge fund and then sold to NYT. Through those investments it has gotten away from its early roots of high quality sports journalism.
Have you gotten this same impression, or is that just bluster?
I've heard from different places that the Athletic has really diminished itself recently. It was bought by a hedge fund and then sold to NYT. Through those investments it has gotten away from its early roots of high quality sports journalism.
Have you gotten this same impression, or is that just bluster?
Hard to say. My issue is I really only care about MLS, and then to lesser extents CFB and NFL. I heavily relied on the Michigan FB coverage last fall when Michigan won the Big Ten because I came to that fandom and interest in CFB only recently. I thought it was very strong. As others noted MLS coverage is mostly about the league and even then only sporadic. I also have never been impressed with the USMSNT coverage.I've heard from different places that the Athletic has really diminished itself recently. It was bought by a hedge fund and then sold to NYT. Through those investments it has gotten away from its early roots of high quality sports journalism.
Have you gotten this same impression, or is that just bluster?
Hard to say. My issue is I really only care about MLS, and then to lesser extents CFB and NFL. I heavily relied on the Michigan FB coverage last fall when Michigan won the Big Ten because I came to that fandom and interest in CFB only recently. I thought it was very strong. As others noted MLS coverage is mostly about the league and even then only sporadic. I also have never been impressed with the USMSNT coverage.
But to your specific question, I have not noticed things getting worse in any of these areas.
Yes, thanks. They're good. Any team driven site can tend to be a bit suspect as to impartiality (which sometimes manifests with negative coverage), but MGoBlue is reasonably even. Reading The Athletic was a good check for me wrt what MGB was saying.Not sure if you have made it to MGoBlog yet, but that is a good resource for Michigan coverage (ad supported).