Washington State scouting/prediction thread

[gumby]

Online subscription fees ain't gonna do much to save the newspaper industry. The amount of money they used to make on print ads is absolutely staggering.

Don't know about "staggering", but enough for workers to feed and clothe a family.

[azcat49]

From a source inside practice (via DC), Wilson, TJG were all running with the 1's tonight

Caymen was not in green and took some reps so he might be available

[Irish27]

From a source inside practice (via DC), Wilson, TJG were all running with the 1's tonight

Caymen was not in green and took some reps so he might be available

Jason Scheer said the same thing on 1290AM today.

[dc4azcats]

From a source inside practice (via DC), Wilson, TJG were all running with the 1's tonight

Caymen was not in green and took some reps so he might be available

Jason Scheer said the same thing on 1290AM today.

Last night they were in green jerseys and tonight they weren't. Big difference. Scheers comments were based on last night and my comment to azcat49 was based on tonight. I'm out of the country and wasn't able to sit down and make a post so I sent azcat49 a text based on what I knew tonight not yesterday.

Having all 3 good to go for Saturday is a big deal. I wonder if dmjcat will change his prediction as he had all 3 as doubtful.

[Puerco]

DMJ's just a glass all empty kind of guy.

[azpenguin]

Online subscription fees ain't gonna do much to save the newspaper industry. The amount of money they used to make on print ads is absolutely staggering.

Don't know about "staggering", but enough for workers to feed and clothe a family.

Trust me, it was indeed a staggering amount. It takes a lot of online subscribers just to make up the revenue from one single day run of a quarter page ad. Circulation is not a big money maker; advertising is where the money is.

I was one of those workers. I saw too many of my co-workers get pink slipped and have to scramble to find some way else to feed their families, with varying degrees of success. I left for another company because the writing was on the wall for my department. But man oh man, it used to be fun there.

[gumby]

Thanks for the inside scoop on my profession.

[ghostwhitehorse]

[azpenguin]

Thanks for the inside scoop on my profession.

You a reporter, advertising, production...? I was in advertising. Well, still am, just not with the newspaper. Once we hit mid-2007, what was once a fun job started getting brutal. Stuck around for five more years because there wasn't much else out there.

[azpenguin]

Get outta here.

[gumby]

Thanks for the inside scoop on my profession.

You a reporter, advertising, production...? I was in advertising. Well, still am, just not with the newspaper. Once we hit mid-2007, what was once a fun job started getting brutal. Stuck around for five more years because there wasn't much else out there.

Newsroom ... 30 years. That "staggering" amount dwindles fast when you have to pay people to write, edit, design, photograph, etc. Or, as it's called in Accounting, "expenses."

While you might have been staggered, it was a small pile compared to what it used to be. Hence, coverage has suffered.

[gumby]

Meanwhile, it's raining again.

[Merkin]

Newsroom ... 30 years.

I bet you like spunk in a new employee.

[azpenguin]

Thanks for the inside scoop on my profession.

You a reporter, advertising, production...? I was in advertising. Well, still am, just not with the newspaper. Once we hit mid-2007, what was once a fun job started getting brutal. Stuck around for five more years because there wasn't much else out there.

Newsroom ... 30 years. That "staggering" amount dwindles fast when you have to pay people to write, edit, design, photograph, etc. Or, as it's called in Accounting, "expenses."

While you might have been staggered, it was a small pile compared to what it used to be. Hence, coverage has suffered.

Oh, I know - I'm very well aware of what's happened on the business side of things - we used to get the numbers from our department every month and overall every quarter - and how content has suffered; the first batch of layoffs was from the newsroom. But the amount of profit our operation used to turn was simply insane, as was most papers, after they paid all those people. Well into eight figures a year - not revenue, profit. This is just for one mid-size city. My point is simply that the online subscriptions isn't going to save anyone's job. As one old editor once told me, "You hope that circulation pays for itself."

[EOCT]

Newsroom 30 years and still a cubby? Just kidding, of course, bro Gumby.

[gumby]

Thanks for the inside scoop on my profession.

You a reporter, advertising, production...? I was in advertising. Well, still am, just not with the newspaper. Once we hit mid-2007, what was once a fun job started getting brutal. Stuck around for five more years because there wasn't much else out there.

Newsroom ... 30 years. That "staggering" amount dwindles fast when you have to pay people to write, edit, design, photograph, etc. Or, as it's called in Accounting, "expenses."

While you might have been staggered, it was a small pile compared to what it used to be. Hence, coverage has suffered.

Oh, I know - I'm very well aware of what's happened on the business side of things - we used to get the numbers from our department every month and overall every quarter - and how content has suffered; the first batch of layoffs was from the newsroom. But the amount of profit our operation used to turn was simply insane, as was most papers, after they paid all those people. Well into eight figures a year - not revenue, profit. This is just for one mid-size city. My point is simply that the online subscriptions isn't going to save anyone's job. As one old editor once told me, "You hope that circulation pays for itself."

Correct. The model is broken. I don't see it being repaired. And people got used to free, and it morphed into an expectation.

Still raining ...

[azpenguin]

Thanks for the inside scoop on my profession.

You a reporter, advertising, production...? I was in advertising. Well, still am, just not with the newspaper. Once we hit mid-2007, what was once a fun job started getting brutal. Stuck around for five more years because there wasn't much else out there.

Newsroom ... 30 years. That "staggering" amount dwindles fast when you have to pay people to write, edit, design, photograph, etc. Or, as it's called in Accounting, "expenses."

While you might have been staggered, it was a small pile compared to what it used to be. Hence, coverage has suffered.

Oh, I know - I'm very well aware of what's happened on the business side of things - we used to get the numbers from our department every month and overall every quarter - and how content has suffered; the first batch of layoffs was from the newsroom. But the amount of profit our operation used to turn was simply insane, as was most papers, after they paid all those people. Well into eight figures a year - not revenue, profit. This is just for one mid-size city. My point is simply that the online subscriptions isn't going to save anyone's job. As one old editor once told me, "You hope that circulation pays for itself."

Correct. The model is broken. I don't see it being repaired. And people got used to free, and it morphed into an expectation.

Still raining ...

They should have figured out the paywall strategy 15 years ago. A bigger problem is that they weren't investing those profits into content - you have to have something for readers to want to pick up the paper or click online. Over the last few years I had so many people mention to me how much smaller the paper was. You're seeing it correctly - It's too late to fix the model. Debt loads alone for newspaper companies are enough to guarantee that.

[Puerco]

The internet has made quality journalism hard to find. I'm sure it still exists, but it gets lost somewhere between blog and clickbait.

[PieceOfMeat]

The internet has made quality journalism hard to find. I'm sure it still exists, but it gets lost somewhere between blog and clickbait.

and porn

[EOCT]

The internet has made quality journalism hard to find. I'm sure it still exists, but it gets lost somewhere between blog and clickbait.

No, Puerco it's not lost. Go to Google News or Bloomberg News and fly through news headlines by various top publications around the world and click the stuff you feel you want/need to read. The news is organized by theme to save you time.

Stick with what you want or some new interest you notice, and forget the clickbait and ads completely. The clickbait, especially is nearly100% bullshit. It's an awful investment to stop there.

[azgreg]

FOOTBALL PEOPLE! FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!

[ANGCatFan]

Here is the latest issue of the Sports Guys for Wash St.

Jake Fischer is the best pre-game analysis available.

[gumby]

Newsroom ... 30 years.

I bet you like spunk in a new employee.

What's a new employee?

[OSUCat]

I really hope that the loss to USC teaches this team that you can't just wait till the second half, you have to start playing from the kick off. Pac-12 is too good to keep playing close games, or games from behind.

I hope Anu worked on that long pass for the past two weeks.

[gumby]

The internet has made quality journalism hard to find. I'm sure it still exists, but it gets lost somewhere between blog and clickbait.

It's hurt. No question. Blew up the advertising model that financed journalism. But it's not just journalism. Book stores, book publishing, magazines, brick and mortar businesses and on and on.

As for football, still raining.

[azgreg]

[gumby]

The internet has made quality journalism hard to find. I'm sure it still exists, but it gets lost somewhere between blog and clickbait.

No, Puerco it's not lost. Go to Google News or Bloomberg News and fly through news headlines by various top publications around the world and click the stuff you feel you want/need to read. The news is organized by theme to save you time.

Stick with what you want or some new interest you notice, and forget the clickbait and ads completely. The clickbait, especially is nearly100% bullshit. It's an awful investment to stop there.

Careful not to confuse aggregators with diminished products. Google News is a fantastic aggregator, but the ad dollars flow to Google, not news people.

In sports, here's the new special teams coach at WSU. Previous one canned when Cal returned consecutive kickoffs for touchdowns.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sportsli ... eric-mele/

[gumby]

They should have figured out the paywall strategy 15 years ago. A bigger problem is that they weren't investing those profits into content - you have to have something for readers to want to pick up the paper or click online. Over the last few years I had so many people mention to me how much smaller the paper was. You're seeing it correctly - It's too late to fix the model. Debt loads alone for newspaper companies are enough to guarantee that.

If I had a dollar for every person who knew "the problem", I could buy the paper. Suffice it to say that people smarter than both of us couldn't have stopped this. It's simplistic (and insulting) to say there wasn't anything of value to read. Especially when you consider what they're reading instead. This is happening across the board. Content at the New York Times was insufficient? Really? Just not enough to dig into?

People have never paid full freight for news. They weren't going to suddenly start. And the price of subscriptions needed to maintain the staff needed to supply this "new and improved" content would be exorbitant.

[dmjcat]

DMJ's just a glass all empty kind of guy.

Right you are Puerco!

But at least the glass isn't half full of Kool-Aid!!

Looking at Berks latest tweet it appears that neither Wilson or Bundage may play.

[azpenguin]

They should have figured out the paywall strategy 15 years ago. A bigger problem is that they weren't investing those profits into content - you have to have something for readers to want to pick up the paper or click online. Over the last few years I had so many people mention to me how much smaller the paper was. You're seeing it correctly - It's too late to fix the model. Debt loads alone for newspaper companies are enough to guarantee that.

If I had a dollar for every person who knew "the problem", I could buy the paper. Suffice it to say that people smarter than both of us couldn't have stopped this. It's simplistic (and insulting) to say there wasn't anything of value to read. Especially when you consider what they're reading instead. This is happening across the board. Content at the New York Times was insufficient? Really? Just not enough to dig into?

People have never paid full freight for news. They weren't going to suddenly start. And the price of subscriptions needed to maintain the staff needed to supply this "new and improved" content would be exorbitant.

"Wasn't anything of value" is an oversimplification of my point. "Wasn't much of value" is more accurate. If you find that a product you use is been reduced to half its size, made to lower quality standards, and now costs you twice as much, you're going to start thinking about if it's really worth it. I'm going off my experience locally. The content got really, really sparse. Neighborhood sections - Gutted. State/Local section - shrunk so small they ended up just making it part of main. Which had shrunk big time as well. Sunday TV section - gone. Like I said, I kept hearing people ask me what had happened, why the paper was so small. I know people who dropped their subscriptions because there just wasn't much left to read.

The New York Times is alive because they've kept a ton of content. They've seen drops as well but they also have nearly a million digital subscribers. This is in addition to their print subscription base. People won't cough up $20-30 for a monthly online subscription if the content isn't there, let alone $500-$1000 a year for print subs. As the model shakes out, there's going to be cuts and refocusing of newsrooms, but the simple fact is you have to have something for people to read or people won't pay anything. Things are going to change - advertising will not be as lucrative, but costs will also go down dramatically once the physical product gets reduced. Newsprint, ink, presses, and trucks are very expensive. It will be interesting to see how things shake out.

One of the biggest threat to the survival of newspaper operations is the consistent need to keep those quarterly numbers up for stockholders. There will always be some money in the newspaper operations that survive and advertising will never completely go away. But as long as they keep having to work the numbers as good as they can for the quarterly reports, the long term prospects will get dimmer and dimmer because the profits won't be re-invested in the operation. A lot of these operations will get picked up for pennies on the dollar and become mouthpieces for the owners.

[BMalo]

But at least the glass isn't half full of Kool-Aid!!

Looking at Berks latest tweet it appears that neither Wilson or Bundage may play.

I believe he is insinuating that they will play. Past players listed as questionable have not played, thus breaking that streak and them playing even though they are listed as questionable.

Nothing wrong with being realistic, but by labeling other fans optimism as "Kool-Aid" make your realism seem overly fucking pessimistic and annoying.

[Kiyama]

With Wilson out, I am concerned about our run game... we can go out there and throw 70 times.

[azcat49]

I think Wilson plays. Did I miss something, is he out or just questionable

[UALoco]

He is questionable and they historically haven't played. Who knows for sure, though.

[Puerco]

The internet has made quality journalism hard to find. I'm sure it still exists, but it gets lost somewhere between blog and clickbait.

No, Puerco it's not lost. Go to Google News or Bloomberg News and fly through news headlines by various top publications around the world and click the stuff you feel you want/need to read. The news is organized by theme to save you time.

Stick with what you want or some new interest you notice, and forget the clickbait and ads completely. The clickbait, especially is nearly100% bullshit. It's an awful investment to stop there.

I'd multi-quote if I could... Gumby's got it right.mmthere are aggregators which find good content from top publications. I don't need them, because I'd rather give my clicks to the NYT directly. This works for me unless I am looking for high quality news on a more local level.

UA sports for example: you've got the best writer in Tucson, Gimino, rattling around the edges of various online services. You've got Berk and Pascoe. And that is all. The rest are amateurs, by the standards of twenty years ago. And don't get me started on the quality of editing!

[Puerco]

I think Wilson plays. Did I miss something, is he out or just questionable

If he doesn't play, my RAP team overpaid.

[azgreg]

Looks like the betting world thinks this thing is going to be close. Line went to -2.5 quick and has stayed there all week.

[gumby]

They should have figured out the paywall strategy 15 years ago. A bigger problem is that they weren't investing those profits into content - you have to have something for readers to want to pick up the paper or click online. Over the last few years I had so many people mention to me how much smaller the paper was. You're seeing it correctly - It's too late to fix the model. Debt loads alone for newspaper companies are enough to guarantee that.

If I had a dollar for every person who knew "the problem", I could buy the paper. Suffice it to say that people smarter than both of us couldn't have stopped this. It's simplistic (and insulting) to say there wasn't anything of value to read. Especially when you consider what they're reading instead. This is happening across the board. Content at the New York Times was insufficient? Really? Just not enough to dig into?

People have never paid full freight for news. They weren't going to suddenly start. And the price of subscriptions needed to maintain the staff needed to supply this "new and improved" content would be exorbitant.

"Wasn't anything of value" is an oversimplification of my point. "Wasn't much of value" is more accurate. If you find that a product you use is been reduced to half its size, made to lower quality standards, and now costs you twice as much, you're going to start thinking about if it's really worth it. I'm going off my experience locally. The content got really, really sparse. Neighborhood sections - Gutted. State/Local section - shrunk so small they ended up just making it part of main. Which had shrunk big time as well. Sunday TV section - gone. Like I said, I kept hearing people ask me what had happened, why the paper was so small. I know people who dropped their subscriptions because there just wasn't much left to read.

The New York Times is alive because they've kept a ton of content. They've seen drops as well but they also have nearly a million digital subscribers. This is in addition to their print subscription base. People won't cough up $20-30 for a monthly online subscription if the content isn't there, let alone $500-$1000 a year for print subs. As the model shakes out, there's going to be cuts and refocusing of newsrooms, but the simple fact is you have to have something for people to read or people won't pay anything. Things are going to change - advertising will not be as lucrative, but costs will also go down dramatically once the physical product gets reduced. Newsprint, ink, presses, and trucks are very expensive. It will be interesting to see how things shake out.

One of the biggest threat to the survival of newspaper operations is the consistent need to keep those quarterly numbers up for stockholders. There will always be some money in the newspaper operations that survive and advertising will never completely go away. But as long as they keep having to work the numbers as good as they can for the quarterly reports, the long term prospects will get dimmer and dimmer because the profits won't be re-invested in the operation. A lot of these operations will get picked up for pennies on the dollar and become mouthpieces for the owners.

Yes, people cancel because content has shrunk, but that occurred AFTER the "staggering" amounts dwindled and the model broke. Not during. Of course people don't want to pay more for less. They were barely paying in the first place relative to what it takes to produce a newspaper. It was a nice model while it lasted (though there were plenty of complaints of too many ads --- ah, those were the days).

Ninety to 95 percent of profits still come from the print product. What the NYT has done digitally is a drop in the bucket. Despite having abundant content "of value", they have struggled. Closed bureaus. Laid off people. Leased back the building. If 1 million digital subscribers can't head that off, then how many would it take? How large would the staff have to be? How much more investment would you prescribe for them and based on what marketing information?

You can't really believe that with thousands of newspapers and magazines across the country, that nobody thought of what you said. Oh, more content of value! Who knew?

For three decades we were told we needed to compete with TV. Shown marketing studies that people spend 15-20 minutes with a paper. Watched USA Today rise to the top in circulation. So ... shorter stories, more color, more photos, more graphics. Cut back on in-depth coverage. Quit "jumping" stories from page to page.

Now the problem is: Where's the content and depth? I truly love such readers, but they are sadly in the minority. We get more complaints about messing up the Crossword Puzzle or leaving out The Jumble. We're in a time where people will pay more for high school recruiting tidbits than the news. I don't have the answers. Point is, you don't either.

So let's talk football. I'm sure some coaches with far more experience than us can benefit from our insights.

[azthrillhouse]

I think Wilson plays. Did I miss something, is he out or just questionable

If he doesn't play, my RAP team overpaid.

Berk tweeted out something that Wilson might be the first "Questionable" on an RR injury report that actually plays. Hope so, we need this game desperately.

BTW though it's a bizarre tangent on this thread, I have enjoyed reading azpenguin & gumby go back and forth. Reminds me of a book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" - the consolidation of media into a few corporate hands is not good for our democracy, because investigative journalism that uncovers corruption etc and keeps governments & corporations honest isn't profitable compared to regurgitating press releases. Maybe our best bet (sadly) is for media outlets to become like pro sports teams - vanity projects that rich guys buy for the notoriety, not to run it as a big moneymaking business (ala Bezos with WaPo).

[catgrad97]

I'm one of gumby's minority of those readers, and I guess that's why I'm a writer for a newspaper now.

I love to talk football, but I also know that there's no answer for the free press in allowing under-literate audiences decide what the news is. Of course they'll gravitate to TV and the pictures, what mind resistant to any challenge wouldn't?

What the print media--us--need to establish is that we're more important. More important to people's daily lives, more important to issues affecting them. And we are.

Chomsky correctly pointed out that when print gets lazy and just runs stories from "official" sources that never investigate those sources independently--or, worse, frame their narrative to protect those sources--relevance is lost.

You want to understand your life and your world in the information age, you need to be a reader. That's how we can truly compete with other "news" sources, by proceeding from that philosophy IMHO.

[ANGCatFan]

FOOTBALL PEOPLE! FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!

We have a very active Non Sports Talk board for Non Sports Talk.

[Merkin]

Wilson and TJG are both listed as probable as of yesterday, Bundage is questionable as of the 19th.

[azgreg]

Wilson and TJG are both listed as probable as of yesterday, Bundage is questionable as of the 19th.

Wilson was listed as questionable as well per Berk.

[Merkin]

Wilson and TJG are both listed as probable as of yesterday, Bundage is questionable as of the 19th.

Wilson was listed as questionable as well per Berk.

No doubt Berk has better info, but Wilson is listed as probably on every site listing sports injuries. Of course the websites probably get it from one source and just repeat it.

[azgreg]

Arizona football injury report: Nick Wilson, Cayman Bundage listed as questionable for the Wildcats

http://www.azdesertswarm.com/football/2 ... es-grigsby

The official Arizona Wildcats injury report is out, and there are several names on it. Here's a quick look at how everyone is officially listed:

PROBABLE: Terris Jones-Grigsby (concussion), Jonathan McKnight (concussion), Parker Zellers (foot)

QUESTIONABLE: Nick Wilson (ankle), Cayman Bundage (knee)

OUT: DeAndre' Miller (shoulder)

So far in 2014, no player listed as questionable has played that week, which does not bode well for Wilson and Bundage, who both missed the USC game.

On the Rich Rodriguez Radio Show Wednesday night, coach told Brian Jefferies that Wilson appeared to be good to go, but I would take this info with a grain of salt, because RichRod never talks injuries publicly on a game week. In general, he is never truly forthcoming ever when it comes to the status of his players when it comes to an injury.

[azthrillhouse]

Here's Berk's tweet.....signs seem to point to Nick playing:
EDIT: Greg already posted this, I am an idiot

[azgreg]

I hope you're right Merk and ath.

[ANGCatFan]

Nice statistical comparison at the CougCenter.

[dc4azcats]

Wilson will play. As will Bundage. No, I'm not stealing this info from any other site or any other person from any other web site.

[catgrad97]

RichRod does not want to give Wazzu an ounce of game prep for either Wilson or Bundage.

So no, he's not going to say anything until we see them rotate in the first series.