Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Let me start by giving you my background: I'm currently an English professor, but many years ago I was an editor for a newspaper and I also worked as a journalist for the U.S. Air Force. I have a lot of first-hand experience with having to make tough choices about what you can fit into a print publication. Page space is one of the biggest constraints for print, and it is the enemy of long-form pieces where the writer can dive deeper into his or her subject matter.

As we all know, Coffin Corner is a print publication and the PFRA can only afford (or justify) printing newsletters up to a certain page count, due to the cost of printing but also mailing. What you might not know is that it seems our members are actually producing more content than the publication can hold.

Digital publications, on the other hand, have no space limitations. I'm not here to suggest that we move Coffin Corner to a digital-only format, but I wonder if there is "space" for a digital-only complement to Coffin Corner, either in the form of additional pages that only appear in the PDF version of each issue, or in the form of a sister publication that is digital-only but still in the PDF format. This sister publication might come out less frequently, perhaps twice a year, but it would be an outlet for content that just doesn't fit in the organization's main publication.

My background is very similar. As much as I love paper,I also have wondered why we just don't go to an entirely digital CC. It makes sense in so many ways, most importantly the ability to have no real limit on content and the opportunity to save printing & mailing costs. The money saved could be steered toward PFRA books and other one-off special publications.

For those who still would like a hard copy of their CC, it's simple enough to just print one out on your computer.

I know I am getting old, but I like my print version. It's one of the main reasons I pay my dues. Every now and then someone comes along and suggests putting an end to the paper version of the CC, but what about me and those like me? I really don't see that the paper version is contributing mightily to global warming, and perhaps we should consider that the size of the CC is relative to the quality of articles being submitted. Maybe some of the submittals are just not worthy, and the lack of space justifies their exclusion.

Anyway, if the PFRA decides to go paperless, it seems to me they would have to drastically cut their annual dues, since for many of us, the printed CC is a major perk.

I work in printing so i could be qualified to comment here. Another thing to consider when putting together a "magazine" style publication is that the number of pages must always be divisible by 4. Mark Durr and I were talking about this (amongst other printing related things) at the Buffalo convention. He called it "talking shop". So when trying to fill a newsletter that MUST be 16, 20, 24, or whatever pages, sometimes good content needs to be left out or saved for a later issue just to make the page count work.

I too prefer the digital version.

I don't work in the printing industry, so I am unsure of how it all works, the business end, etc. Is it possible to only have print versions sent to members who want them? Though I imagine, printing is only cost effective in bulk, so it is an all or nothing sort of deal?

I think it's difficult enough to find material for the CC - very rarely are any submissions ever rejected (unless that's changed in the last ten years or so) - let alone, a second publication.

A few things:

-Yes, page content is divisible by four for a print publication. That increases the complexity to put together each issue as it is a jigsaw puzzle to get it to work. Back when I was the editor, it was always a struggle to get everything to fit in each issue, while still having a variety of articles (bio versus team, different eras, different leagues, etc.). No matter what I did, people still were not happy. I remember getting a call from a member who said we did not publish enough articles on the AFL (no not that guy, a different one). I looked and we had published an AFL article in each of the last six issues. He wanted more.
-If we were to increase beyond 24 pages, that would trigger the next higher postal rate. That is why we have stuck with 24 pages. The weight is at a threshold for the rate we are paying.
-We have floated the idea in the past of an electronic-only publication and it has met with resistance. Not only is it our membership, but research institutions (libraries, etc.) like the print copy.
-The older members are not as computer savvy and prefer the print copy. Some do not have computers.
-A second publication would add more burden on an already overburdened publications department.
-As Tod mentioned, it is rare that we reject a submission. However, some require much more editing, increasing the time between submission and publication.
-Having both (print and electronic with two different membership rates) could increase the cost per issue (400 copies costs less per issue than 200 copies, for example). That does not include any impacts to the bulk postal rate for shipping less copies.

I hope that this helps.

The print copy is good. I hope it will stay.

As a retired Journeyman Lithographer with 40 years in the trade I can say "It sounds like these guys know what they're doing" regarding the printing of the Coffin Corner.

Needless to say, I am in favor of continuing the printed version of the CC.
There's nothing like the feel of paper...

I assume the CC is now printed digitally?
It seems like they used to be run on a duplicator but when the covers went four color we went digital.
At 400 copies that'd probably be the most efficient.

When I was on the Board, this topic came up and was discussed two times that I remember. I strongly support retaining the paper version for all of the reasons Ken Crippen mentioned in his reply on this string and for another reason as well. The quality of the writing improves when authors understand that space is tight. The quality of the writing in the Coffin Corner has been a source of pride for me. Not because I am a frequent contributor but because when I do get something in, it joins multiple well-written and well-researched articles.

As a former sportswriter, sports editor, magazine contributor and author of books I know the luxury of space tends to water down the quality of writing. To make my point, I remind everyone that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is 10 sentences long. Edward Everett preceded Lincoln that day and spoke for 2 hours. Nobody remembers what Everett said, but we all know the 10 sentences.

Just my opinion but I'd prefer to keep the CC moving along as is.

Lee Elder