Bedard's site starts its free trial today

[Deus Irae]

Sorry to go on about this, but I just wanted to say a bit about the economics of running a content site. (This is from personal experience -- I built and sold a content-based website that attracted a million users a month in a desirable market segment. I sold it to a larger site because there was no chance of supporting the staff I needed on ad revenues. I could barely support myself.)

A niche site for hardcore Boston sports fans with original reporting HAS to have a paid subscription model. Ad rates just aren't nearly high enough to make it work free.

One of the potential problems is that millenials have been raised to expect that almost everything will be free.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

if you want reporters with the best access and connections to be responsive and let you pick their brains; then you should root for a venture like Bedard's. I'm not saying he'll end up actually delivering on all of that, it's a long shot. But the only possibility of it comes from folks like this board's regulars giving it a chance. What the heck, I'm signing up.

I do root for ventures like Bedard's. I wish there were more.

Problem is, Bedard is running this particular venture.

I think he's disingenuous scum so he's not getting a dime of my money. He can go back to Green Bay and work on his shtick there.

 

[IllegalContact]

I will use it while free, but refuse to divert my expenditures from other football related websites in order to remain there.....in other words, I'll check it out but the moment I get told to pay, it's syonara

 

[patchick]

I will use it while free, but refuse to divert my expenditures from other football related websites in order to remain there.....in other words, I'll check it out but the moment I get told to pay, it's syonara

Hold on -- does that mean you actually know of other subscription sites already delivering high-quality football content? Care to share?

 

[IllegalContact]

Hold on -- does that mean you actually know of other subscription sites already delivering high-quality football content? Care to share?

no.........I'm just making a prediction.......though I would not exactly call it going out on a limb

 

[patchick]

no.........I'm just making a prediction.......though I would not exactly call it going out on a limb

Ah, so you so you "refuse to divert your expenditures" from purely hypothetical dream sites? Explain again how that's different from just not paying for anything?

Personally I'm fortunate enough to have the $3/month to spend, so I'm going to try paying for a real-world site in hopes that it can grow to fulfill some of my dreams. (An added bonus would be if some of the crappy outlets I currently pay $0/month for see BSJ become a success and try to emulate its more serious approach.)

 

[pats4life12]

I get that, but I also notice two frequent opinions expressed on this board:

1. Sports media totally sucks, most so-called reporters are just look-at-me yahoos willing to say anything for clicks and ratings, 99% of what's aired and published is just garbage.
2. With such comprehensive free coverage out there, why would anybody be willing to pay?

IMO the obvious answer is "you get what you pay for." If you want serious rather than sensational content; if you want coverage tailored to the (small) market of extremely well-informed fans; if you want reporters with the best access and connections to be responsive and let you pick their brains; then you should root for a venture like Bedard's. I'm not saying he'll end up actually delivering on all of that, it's a long shot. But the only possibility of it comes from folks like this board's regulars giving it a chance. What the heck, I'm signing up.

That's an interesting way of putting it. I am all for entrepreneurship and people taking a huge risk and going out on their own because they think they can do something better than the competition. I'm just not a fan of the business model they have set up.

 

[K. Dog]

I haven't seen very detailed play analysis anywhere, except maybe on a handful of plays. Something like the Do Your Job NFL video on the SB 49 interception, but for every (or at least many) plays. Basically, for each play, I'd like to see:
(1) a diagram and name
(2) presnap adjustments
(3) why the play was called
(4) similar plays by the team, and by the league, or if the play is new, why it is new
(5) any specific adjustments players on offense and defense made, both presnap and during play
(6) any audibles affecting the play
(7) any unusually great performances that made the play work or not, or any mistakes players made.
(8) what each player is doing on the play, and why, and how well.

Belichick's Breakdowns is the only place I've seen that has some of this. But it's still very superficial. For instance, Belichick might point out a good block, but he won't describe exactly what techniques the blocker used, or what techniques the rusher used to evade them. And Belichick rarely describes in detail the strategy or history of a particular play either. Obviously Belichick and the players know much more information about a play, and what he shares is extremely interesting, but he's still not saying that much.

I assume that coaches around the league have and use all this information, but it's not available to fans. Bedard's Super Bowl analysis that was cited here as an example of this reporter's great analysis is superficial. It has half a sentence about that Hogan catch at the end of regulation, when even here it's been discussed in much more detail (with still many unanswered questions). And it doesn't say anything about many other plays.

If a site wants to breakdown in detail, say, the top 20 plays after a Patriots game - take my money! But the kind of simplistic, highly superficial analyses - "he played well! he played badly! great effort! out route! good blocking! missed a block!" that I typically see leave too many unanswered questions.

By the way, everyone here always says how Belichick plays chess etc. In chess, when players make a move, commentators and analysts will in fact explain what each piece is doing, a lot of detailed information on the reasons for things, typically based on computer analysis; similar positions; and, in the opening, how this fits into a player's repertoire, into the known lines, and if it is new. Kasparov used to write a chapter on why someone would play ...Re8 not ...Rd8 in the Scheveningen. But it's rare to see detailed analysis in football.

 

[K. Dog]

I dig a little digging in the old threads and Bedard had some pretty dumb comments at the time.

One was a theory that he pulled out of thin air and somehow thought it made sense: Bedard believed if you took away the highest and lowest PSI readings from the Patriots and Colts footballs, the remaining readings for the Patriots couldn't be explained by science, thus, they were guilty. How he came up with that approach is beyond me, but it made Rob0729 want to vomit with rage at it's stupidity.

On the topic of science, when the AEI report came out in the summer of 2015, he was critical of their actions, tweeting that they shouldn't have sent out any press releases or leaked any information. Instead, they should have provided their study to the NFLPA privately. With all the leaks that happened associated with that story, somehow the AEI stuff was the only bad one.

Probably his biggest misstep was stating that the science of the case was a "toss up." That is, Exponent said one thing, every other scientist not paid by the NFL said another, so all of those analyses cancel each other out. What was not a "toss up" to Bedard were the text messages. Those could only be interpreted the way the NFL viewed them. In short: Science? Who can really say? Toss up. Texts? Crystal clear, no gray area or wiggle room there. At all.


Having said all that, I'm not saying don't subscribe to Bedard's site. We give players who made mistakes in the past second chances and Bedard's not the only writer there. What I am saying is that we know Bedard's view on this topic in the past. If he ever starts writing opinion based articles, we have some historical markers on what direction he could go in.

I've never understood why reporters feel compelled to opine on scientific reports they haven't read or don't understand (presumably, if Bedard took the Exponent analysis seriously, he hadn't read it, since its flaws are obvious to any scientist who reads it). Why don't they just hire their own independent scientist to explain the analysis? Or just say, "there's a report that claims this, but I haven't read it carefully". And when, as here, they start to realize their comments were wrong, why don't they ever retract them? It's always astonishing to me how many people - sadly, even judges and politicians - have opinions about technical analyses that they haven't actually read, and when it's a reporter trying to get money out of readers, it's even more surprising.

 

[Ring 6]

I haven't seen very detailed play analysis anywhere, except maybe on a handful of plays. Something like the Do Your Job NFL video on the SB 49 interception, but for every (or at least many) plays. Basically, for each play, I'd like to see:
(1) a diagram and name
(2) presnap adjustments
(3) why the play was called
(4) similar plays by the team, and by the league, or if the play is new, why it is new
(5) any specific adjustments players on offense and defense made, both presnap and during play
(6) any audibles affecting the play
(7) any unusually great performances that made the play work or not, or any mistakes players made.
(8) what each player is doing on the play, and why, and how well.

Belichick's Breakdowns is the only place I've seen that has some of this. But it's still very superficial. For instance, Belichick might point out a good block, but he won't describe exactly what techniques the blocker used, or what techniques the rusher used to evade them. And Belichick rarely describes in detail the strategy or history of a particular play either. Obviously Belichick and the players know much more information about a play, and what he shares is extremely interesting, but he's still not saying that much.

I assume that coaches around the league have and use all this information, but it's not available to fans. Bedard's Super Bowl analysis that was cited here as an example of this reporter's great analysis is superficial. It has half a sentence about that Hogan catch at the end of regulation, when even here it's been discussed in much more detail (with still many unanswered questions). And it doesn't say anything about many other plays.

If a site wants to breakdown in detail, say, the top 20 plays after a Patriots game - take my money! But the kind of simplistic, highly superficial analyses - "he played well! he played badly! great effort! out route! good blocking! missed a block!" that I typically see leave too many unanswered questions.

By the way, everyone here always says how Belichick plays chess etc. In chess, when players make a move, commentators and analysts will in fact explain what each piece is doing, a lot of detailed information on the reasons for things, typically based on computer analysis; similar positions; and, in the opening, how this fits into a player's repertoire, into the known lines, and if it is new. Kasparov used to write a chapter on why someone would play ...Re8 not ...Rd8 in the Scheveningen. But it's rare to see detailed analysis in football.

Who in the world do you expect to do this?

 

[borg]

I have to ask:
After reading Boston Sports Journal's free articles the past week, have the writers provided unique insight and info offered no where else?

 

[patchick]

That's an interesting way of putting it. I am all for entrepreneurship and people taking a huge risk and going out on their own because they think they can do something better than the competition. I'm just not a fan of the business model they have set up.

Fair enough! I'm curious what you don't like about their business model. (As I mentioned earlier, a free ad-supported site simply isn't an option for what they're producing. The money isn't there.)

 

[long distance]

I haven't seen very detailed play analysis anywhere, except maybe on a handful of plays. Something like the Do Your Job NFL video on the SB 49 interception, but for every (or at least many) plays. Basically, for each play, I'd like to see:
(1) a diagram and name
(2) presnap adjustments
(3) why the play was called
(4) similar plays by the team, and by the league, or if the play is new, why it is new
(5) any specific adjustments players on offense and defense made, both presnap and during play
(6) any audibles affecting the play
(7) any unusually great performances that made the play work or not, or any mistakes players made.
(8) what each player is doing on the play, and why, and how well.

Belichick's Breakdowns is the only place I've seen that has some of this. But it's still very superficial. For instance, Belichick might point out a good block, but he won't describe exactly what techniques the blocker used, or what techniques the rusher used to evade them. And Belichick rarely describes in detail the strategy or history of a particular play either. Obviously Belichick and the players know much more information about a play, and what he shares is extremely interesting, but he's still not saying that much.

I assume that coaches around the league have and use all this information, but it's not available to fans. Bedard's Super Bowl analysis that was cited here as an example of this reporter's great analysis is superficial. It has half a sentence about that Hogan catch at the end of regulation, when even here it's been discussed in much more detail (with still many unanswered questions). And it doesn't say anything about many other plays.

If a site wants to breakdown in detail, say, the top 20 plays after a Patriots game - take my money! But the kind of simplistic, highly superficial analyses - "he played well! he played badly! great effort! out route! good blocking! missed a block!" that I typically see leave too many unanswered questions.

By the way, everyone here always says how Belichick plays chess etc. In chess, when players make a move, commentators and analysts will in fact explain what each piece is doing, a lot of detailed information on the reasons for things, typically based on computer analysis; similar positions; and, in the opening, how this fits into a player's repertoire, into the known lines, and if it is new. Kasparov used to write a chapter on why someone would play ...Re8 not ...Rd8 in the Scheveningen. But it's rare to see detailed analysis in football.

you should start filing applications for the job with football team .
on-the-field job

 

[patfanken]

The inspiration of Bedard's site came from a Penguins beat guy who got pissed at his paper and quit his 100K/yr job to start his own subscription based sports site dedicated to covering the Pittsburgh sports scene. (Penguins, Steelers, Pirates, and Pitt).

He started by himself covering primarily the very popular Penguins. 3 years later he has 40,000 subscribers and a full time staff of 8 covering all things sports in Pittsburgh and adding PennState to the mix.

He did this in a city that has a smaller market than Boston, fewer pro sports teams, and a less rabid sports audience. He also made 2 years worth of mistakes, and technical discoveries that he passed on to Bedard, including his platform.

There was a great article about the Pittsburgh site (I think I clicked link from among the twitter section) that we should read. It's a great story about a guy who risked it all and made it work.

 

[BradyFTW!]

He expects people to pay for his perspective? That's... ambitious. The model could absolutely work, but goddamn, Bedard has spent the last half-decade being a hack that alienates the Boston market pretty much by design.

Hiring Price was a good first move, though. Bedard could learn something from him about putting substance over hot takes.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Who in the world do you expect to do this?

You raise a good point, and therein lies the dilemma. Anything short of that you can get for free online. If people want me to pay for their perspectives, they have to be bringing something unique and interesting to the table, and I'm skeptical that Bedard can do that.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

He expects people to pay for his perspective? That's... ambitious. The model could absolutely work, but goddamn, Bedard has spent the last half-decade being a hack that alienates the Boston market pretty much by design.

Bingo. That's why I'm not giving him a dime and want to see him go down in flames.

(Wish Price could have hooked up with a better class of person.)

 

[AtomicDawg]

Belichick's Breakdowns is the only place I've seen that has some of this. But it's still very superficial. For instance, Belichick might point out a good block, but he won't describe exactly what techniques the blocker used, or what techniques the rusher used to evade them. And Belichick rarely describes in detail the strategy or history of a particular play either. Obviously Belichick and the players know much more information about a play, and what he shares is extremely interesting, but he's still not saying that much.

But those Breakdowns are pressed for time anyway since they are a part of Patriots All Access. So they are heavily edited due to time constraints and the segment only runs about 3 or 4 minutes, so obviously that isn't nearly enough time to go into all the nuances and strategy for a particular matchup.

 

[K. Dog]

Who in the world do you expect to do this?

Most of it I'd expect would be known by a football coach who is familiar with the Patriots. Maybe 20 plays is too ambitious, but detailed analysis of 10 plays a game would be nice.

I strongly feel that someone should write a detailed analysis of SBLI that discusses in detail the top 20 plays of that game. I, and I'm sure many others, would pay for a book like that. I'd pay a 20% surcharge if it avoided any discussion of heart, choking, family members, narratives, or anything at all except play on the field.

 

[Joker]

Most of it I'd expect would be known by a football coach who is familiar with the Patriots. Maybe 20 plays is too ambitious, but detailed analysis of 10 plays a game would be nice.

I strongly feel that someone should write a detailed analysis of SBLI that discusses in detail the top 20 plays of that game. I, and I'm sure many others, would pay for a book like that. I'd pay a 20% surcharge if it avoided any discussion of heart, choking, family members, narratives, or anything at all except play on the field.

Here's the friggin' Cliff Notes version...the Patriots won. They are the WORLD CHAMPIONS. Patriots fans are very pleased and moving on to THIS season.