I'm sure there will be game articles, but ... this f'in blows. But hey, BKIASB. If you don't market Revs ... this is what you get. There's only a few of us that even care anymore.
Eh that stinks, but Cardillo wasn't a particularly good reporter for the team - I remember a lot of his stuff being riddled with errors and he did tend to support the KSG party line. Boston.com in general has supported the Revs - what the team should be doing now is courting a renewed commitment to coverage from CSN and 98.5.
Yeah, they have been pretty weak. The opening weekend of the season they posted ~5 minute videos of highlights from all the games. The last several weeks nothing, just foreign leagues and other sports. They used an AP story for the Revs result, and I really have to wonder who writes this crap! They said that the Quakes "dominated play" for the first 10 minues of the first half. Um, yeah, that's like 10% of the game... The Revs had a pretty good strech where San Jose barely got a touch, leading up to the OG. You'd think that the Globe would want to at least do something for soccer, give that this is a World Cup year and all that, but what the hail do I know....
Excellent. There's nothing bad that happens that can't somehow be pinned on the Revs. Now, how did Bob Kraft cause Putin to take Crimea? Oh, yeah. The super bowl ring! And, yet, last fall's attendance was pretty good and this year's season ticket sales continue to rise. I was a little surprised to find out that he is a college student (not that there's anything wrong with that). I'd be more than a bit surprised if they weren't planning on something to replace it. I don't think the Globe wants/plans to just ignore soccer or the Revs at this point in time.
It's sad. I used to be an avid reader of the Boston Globe sports pages online, but that was years ago. Now, I read ESPN Boston, or go directly to the source (NFL.com, for example). For the Revs, I usually start with MLSsoccer.com, and they have links to anything relevant.
Honestly, in this case, I think it's not very unfair to say. The Globe used to have good coverage of the Revs, I believe some of the best coverage by a local paper in the early years of MLS. But when newspapers started really falling off due to the advent of the internet, decisions on where to cut were obviously going to be made based on things that got the least amount of interest from the public. I have no inside knowledge, but I think it stands to reason that in the case of boston.com, if people were clamoring for more soccer coverage, there would be more, because it's a business. To me it's like the History Channel - it was never great, but it used to have a lot more shows on history, as opposed to "history", which now seems to mean reality shows and stories about aliens. The sad thing about today's news in general, in my opinion, is it's the consumers who drive what's covered, not the worthiness of story. In Boston sports news, I think it's safe to say there aren't a lot of people who are demanding more Revs coverage, and it's not boston.com's job to generate interest in the Revs, that would be the responsibility of the FO.
If any of you care to drop a comment or share any of the soccer stories Julian/the Globe published then he may have still have a blog. Barely there are any comments or appreciations for the writers, therefore what does that mean? Nobody like soccer in America, the Glove shut it down, not a surprise.
I'm not sure the Globe/Boston.com are done with soccer entirely; considering it is a World Cup year, as noted above, and the newspaper's owner also happens to own a high-profile soccer team in a title race with a notable local fanbase, I suspect this is just that particular blog being phased out. Here's hoping they'll replace it sooner (and better) rather than later. But I don't expect the Globe to swear off soccer coverage entirely.
I'm not sure why this latest development changes anything. Boston.com has been crap for soccer for ages.
I happen to agree. Anything on the Revs would garner one comment, or none. Compare that to the most trivial tidbit on the Patriots, with 40 or 50 comments. So I hate to say it, but this one's on us, partially.
The entire world is done with Boston.com - the website hasn't been relevant in a decade (if it ever really was).
I have to disagree here. First, the history channel still puts out good stuff. In fact I love their series Vikings and suggest you check it out as its neither got aliens or is reality TV, considering it's based on historical events that occurred 1200 years ago. Secondly, the fact that news is consumer driven is an exciting and innovative development over the past decade plus. I personally love the idea content is generated with me in mind rather than based some stodgy editor's opinions. If you follow soccer it's especially beneficial as clicks and shares do all the talking rather than some dinosaur's opinion of what sports should be covered. The forward thinking publications like Boston.com understand and embrace this hence why a story on the Krafts' lack of stewardship made the cover. I consider boston.com's decision the "ostrich effect." It's shuffling deck chairs on the titanic as this is a symptom of deeper issues with the paper and its media properties. If Boston.com wants to bury its head in the sand more power to ESPN Boston.com, csnne, Boston Mag and anyone else willing to realize what a poor business decision that was.
Well, first off, you can't have it both ways, saying you like it that news sources report what their readers want to hear about, and then say it's wrong when they're not reporting something that you care about, but their general readership doesn't. In general, I guess we have to agree to disagree, but my feeling is, if the news only covers things that they think consumers want, then all we get is tabloid news: sensationalist stories that are covered for a few days to a week or so, until people are bored and want to see something new and shiny, and the stories can be sanitized so to not upset people, because sometimes the real truth about things like war and such is considered just too upsetting. There are a lot of important stories about things that affect Americans and the future of the country, but which barely get covered, and then often only at the beginning, because they're considered too boring for the average American. As for the History Channel non-sequitur that I brought up, I'm glad if Vikings is decent (haven't seen it), but go to the page listing their shows, the ones featured at the moment are: Vikings, Down East Dickering, American Pickers, Swamp People, Ax Men Season, Pawn Stars, Cryptid: The Swamp Beast, No Man's Land, Counting Cars, American Restoration, The Curse of Oak Island.... Sorry, but after Vikings, that's just not history, they're pretty much all reality shows (I can't say I know all the titles, so maybe some aren't). I don't even blame those running the channel for going in this direction; if showing mostly shows about actual history isn't going to make money, they have to do what they have to do, but it just bums me out that it's the case. Though I do wish they wouldn't try to change the definition of history to include "reality TV" just to try to justify their programming choices.
Exactly - for in-depth coverage of Revs news Kyle McCarthy and Brian O'Connell are far better than Cardillo. Plus you have MLSsoccer.com for relevant Revs information and even Twitter.
Boston.com? That website is still up? It seemed every time I punched in that URL I'd get five pages of Bill Bretts "Seen in Boston" party photos. Rubbish site.
How do you know that? Have you seen some stats to support it? If it's dead, then what is the go-to site for regional news, etc.?