In today's New York Times

[bags27]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/s...&gwh=3652A962673C2934E3E105AEF2E36C74&gwt=pay

not a great article, really: lacks soul and a deeper appreciation of basketball. more a glib piece about not getting UConn stirred up. typical Times superfisciality.

 

[Lynx23]

Agree about the piece in general but I will say that the NY Times is one of the few newspapers outside of Connecticut that appears to be genuinely interested in the UCONN women's accomplishments and will report on their successes on a fairly regular basis. I wonder what, if anything, Sports Illustrated has planned. Another "sorry, the WCBB NCAA Finals missed the reporting deadline for this week's issue but here's a brief belated summary".

 

[iamcbs]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/s...&gwh=3652A962673C2934E3E105AEF2E36C74&gwt=pay

not a great article, really: lacks soul and a deeper appreciation of basketball. more a glib piece about not getting UConn stirred up. typical Times superfisciality.

It's a newspaper article, not "The Great Gatsby." What do you want the writer to say? This same subject has been discussed on CBS Sports, Yahoo Sports, SB Nation, et. al and the conclusion is always the same. NYT, the nation's preeminent print news publication, does an extremely complimentary article on UConn WBB and you complain, really?

 

[bags27]

It's a newspaper article, not "The Great Gatsby." What do you want the writer to say? This same subject has been discussed on CBS Sports, Yahoo Sports, SB Nation, et. al and the conclusion is always the same. NYT, the nation's preeminent print news publication, does an extremely complimentary article on UConn WBB and you complain, really?

Actually, it is precisely like The Great Gatsby: a story about an entirely superficial subject. I think it's fair to expect that the article discuss basketball rather than the highly superficial question of bulletin-board material--as if that were really a provable motivator.

I've subscribed to the Times now for nearly half a century, and in the last 20 years I've grown increasingly impatient with its declining standards. It is no longer even the paper of record. At one point that was defensible, as the cost of newsprint became too expensivee to print entire speeches and official documents, but now with the web that's no longer true. It's just not the paper it was.

 

[JordyG]

Agree about the piece in general but I will say that the NY Times is one of the few newspapers outside of Connecticut that appears to be genuinely interested in the UCONN women's accomplishments and will report on their successes on a fairly regular basis. I wonder what, if anything, Sports Illustrated has planned. Another "sorry, the WCBB NCAA Finals missed the reporting deadline for this week's issue but here's a brief belated summary".

I agree. I'm not as cynical as some here. Any positive article about WBB is a good article. Any positive article (as opposed to UConn bad for WBB blah blah) is even more a plus. Our game is at a critical junction y'all. It's under attack from a lot of corners and these attacks are heterogeneous.

 

[iamcbs]

Actually, it is precisely like The Great Gatsby: a story about an entirely superficial subject. I think it's fair to expect that the article discuss basketball rather than the highly superficial question of bulletin-board material--as if that were really a provable motivator.

I've subscribed to the Times now for nearly half a century, and in the last 20 years I've grown increasingly impatient with its declining standards. It is no longer even the paper of record. At one point that was defensible, as the cost of newsprint became too expensivee to print entire speeches and official documents, but now with the web that's no longer true. It's just not the paper it was.

Sports is superficial, so your problem if I'm inferring correctly is with the NYT and not the particulars of the article. As to your statement that "bulletin board material" as a motivating factor isn't provable I simply refer you to the statement made by Kia Nurse in response to the comment fro Deva'Nyar Workman's comment about Uconn being beatable. As for your opinion of the NYT, subscription is optional.

 

[bags27]

Sports is superficial, so your problem if I'm inferring correctly is with the NYT and not the particulars of the article. As to your statement that "bulletin board material" as a motivating factor isn't provable I simply refer you to the statement made by Kia Nurse in response to the comment fro Deva'Nyar Workman's comment about Uconn being beatable. As for your opinion of the NYT, subscription is optional.

My wife will tell you that subscription to the Times is NOT optional (and anyway, there's nothing nearly as good: journalism is a race to the bottom). Truthfully, I didn't really mind the article (despite my initial points): I was just warning BYers not to expect much.

But I don't agree with you that sports are superficial. I think sports can be just as "intellectual" as anything else in this world; there is important scholarship on sports because, since the time of the ancient Greeks (maybe earlier, but evidence is scanty), society has at times been organized around it. And I don't deny that bulletin board material might serve as motivation. But it's simply anecdotal and accepted without being questioned (if there is research on the subject--and I don't know if there is--the reporter didn't bother to make that claim). My point wasn't that it shouldn't be discussed, but that it was really the only thing in that article. Just lazy framing of the question, IMO. Again, I was just trying to point out the article's limitations, but my frustrations with the Times got the better of me.