BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Why ESPN Sucks ..

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 23, 2007

Why ESPN Sucks ..

I have always wondered why CBS doesn’t launch its own 24 hour network. It would seem like a natural.

Since sports media competition has receded, ESPN has repeatedly made disastrous programming decisions….shows like “ESPN Hollywood”, “Quite Frankly” and features like “Who’s Now” and the fake Steve Phillips press conferences are prime examples of what happens in a monopoly. When you have no competition, you have no accountability, and creative quality inevitability suffers

Because ESPN is guided by marketing and promotional considerations and regards itself as impervious to criticism, the Worldwide Leader scripts predetermined storylines and refuses to deviate from them in the face of subsequent events.

Since ESPN lacks either the self-awareness or the integrity to acknowledge its impact upon the sports it covers, the Worldwide Leader is neither adequately cognizant of nor suitably deferential to those to whom it is beholden.

Gambling Rent Czar Posted: July 23, 2007 at 03:50 PM | 79 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: media, online, television

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. John DiFool2 Posted: July 23, 2007 at 05:37 PM (#2451597)

Every single cable network goes through this syndrome (falling prey to the lowest common denominator in the quest for the largest market share), every single one, virtually without exception, no matter how highfalutin' their original conception was. Anyone remember when A&E actually had operas and such? SciFi had real, hard SF? ABC Family had good original programming like State of Grace, and not endless repeats of old B level sitcoms?

2. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: July 23, 2007 at 05:43 PM (#2451602)

Every single cable network goes through this syndrome (falling prey to the lowest common denominator in the quest for the largest market share)

There's also the matter of cash outlay. It's a lot cheaper for ESPN to throw some talking heads in a studio than it is to send a crew out to cover a live sporting event, so as long as ESPN can get away with filling hours with nonsense, they'll do it.

3. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 05:53 PM (#2451613)

The foregoing remarks regarding the observer (ESPN) changing the nature of the thing being observed (sports) were brought to you by Erwin Schrodinger and his pet cat.

I was thinking Heisenberg

(but I'm not certain)

4. Repoz

Posted: July 23, 2007 at 05:54 PM (#2451614)

Every single cable network goes through this syndrome (falling prey to the lowest common denominator in the quest for the largest market share)

DON'T SCREW WITH MY MONSTERS HD!

5. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:03 PM (#2451625)

I tire of this topic - seriously, I think a much tougher article to write would be about what's great about ESPN; what it does very well. It's stupendously easy to take whacks at a juggernaut.

6. shaftr Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:05 PM (#2451629)

DON'T SCREW WITH MY MONSTERS HD!

or my Kung Fu HD.

7. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:05 PM (#2451630)

I have always wondered why CBS doesn’t launch its own 24 hour network. It would seem like a natural.

Back in the Nineties, CNN and Sports Illustrated started an ESPNews-like network called CNN/SI. It struggled to find carriage and an audience for years before they pulled the plug - it was a complete disaster.

Wikipedia link

8. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:09 PM (#2451638)

I think a much tougher article to write would be about what's great about ESPN; what it does very well. It's stupendously easy to take whacks at a juggernaut.

I like ESPN News quite a bit.

9. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:10 PM (#2451642)

What are the ratings? I would guess they're doing better than they ever have, despite the weekly blog posts about how much they suck.

I agree with TVErik. There are plenty of things that suck about ESPN. There are plenty of things that suck about NBC too, but that doesn't lessen my experience when I watch "30 Rock" or "The Office." ESPN still delivers some of the best sports coverage in the world. They employ Ron Jaworski, Doug Gottlieb, Rob Neyer, Peter Gammons, Tim Kurkijian, Mort Zuckerman, Tim Legler, Greg Anthony, Scott Van Pelt, Brian Kenny, Jon Miller, Tony Kornheiser, Michael Wilbon, and have guests like Joe Sheehan and Jim Callis, all of whom I find entertaining and/or informative. Its really easy to change the channel once "WHO'S NOW?" comes on.

10. Cowboy Popup Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:17 PM (#2451648)

I think a much tougher article to write would be about what's great about ESPN; what it does very well.

College Football's Gameday is awesome. I think that their Sunday Night baseball coverage is excellent, I don't get why everyone here is so down on it. Their baseball draft coverage was spectacular.

Still, I think what they've done to Baseball Tonight is a ####### crime.

11. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:18 PM (#2451650)

What are the ratings? I would guess they're doing better than they ever have, despite the weekly blog posts about how much they suck.

A lot of people really like the "Sportswriters/analysts arguing with one another" format for some reason.

To me, nothing in that format will ever match Sportswriters on TV.

12. frannyzoo Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:19 PM (#2451651)

I hear what you're saying TVerik, but of all biz juggernauts (e.g., Microsoft, Google,Disney..oh wait, that's ESPN) the "Worldwide Leader" is by far the most irritating to me. Maybe it's because sports is far more important to me than it should be, or maybe it's the Disney thing writ sports. Whatever the reason, I can't stand to watch a second of any ESPN studio show, and only watch their baseball coverage with the sound off. I happened across the Beckham-mania telecast Saturday and it served as a microcosm of all that is wrong there. God it was awful. And I really like soccer/football.

13. The Ghost of Archi Cianfrocco Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:20 PM (#2451653)

I like ESPN News quite a bit.

ESPN News seems a lot more vital than the home network these days. I cannot watch Sportscenter or even Baseball Tonight because of the fluff, the over-the-top deliveries and distractions. 10-15 minutes of ESPN News usually gets me the scores, highlights and a top story comment or two and I'm done.

... creative quality inevitability suffers ...

ESPN's editorial vision has (rightly) grown as the years have gone on because it takes a lot of programming to keep two channels going. They've experimented and often gone back to the 'talking head' well because it's cheap, easy and gets ratings. (Am I the only one who liked Playmakers? I thought it was great stuff.) "The Bronx is Burning" is an interesting approach, as have been the various sports movies they've tinkered with.

ESPN has been responsible for absolutely re-creating the sports figure as public hero/villain. They helped shoot poker into the stratosphere it never would have done by itself. They've made money hand over fist and been a fantastic addition to the broadcast stable of ABC/Disney/ConGlomCo. I'm OK with them no longer being vital and just a part of a bigger machine.

14. Swedish Chef Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:21 PM (#2451654)

Thanks to NASN, now we Europeans can watch American sportwriters arguing 24/7 with some breaks for baseball and Canadian Football in between.

15. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:36 PM (#2451667)

And thanks to BASN, we all understand that all ethnic minorities are correct in any disputes involving members of the ethnic majority.

16. VG Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:41 PM (#2451677)

(Am I the only one who liked Playmakers? I thought it was great stuff.)

I found it a guilty pleasure -- it was so over the top -- and lamented its cancellation.

17. Shredder Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:42 PM (#2451678)

I hear they made a Flight of the Conchords reference to something Steve Phillips said the other night ("Did Steve tell you that?"), which is a positive in ESPN's favor. Too bad it's outweighed by about 30 million negatives.

10-15 minutes of ESPN News usually gets me the scores, highlights and a top story comment or two and I'm done.

I used to feel with this way too, but I don't even watch ESPN News anymore for that stuff. I can get everything I need, including highlights, online, and I don't have to sit through the highlights I don't want to see just to get to the highlights I do want to see. Unless they happen to be showing a live event that I want to watch, which is increasingly unlikely (no more hockey, and I don't think the Angels have been on Sunday night even once this season), the ESPN stable of networks has become completely worthless to me. But I'm not an NFL or NBA guy, so I'm probably not particularly representative.

18. SoSH U at work Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:50 PM (#2451687)

I think a much tougher article to write would be about what's great about ESPN; what it does very well.

I like that ESPN News usually continues the crawl when it goes to commercial. Other than that, I've got nothing.

19. Astro Logical Sign Stealer Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:50 PM (#2451688)

This is a great blog post. The points are considered and documented. More importantly, the larger issue of "The Narrative" has an import that goes beyond sports journalism and extends to journalism in general. I think it's one of the most important roles the blogosphere plays in modern media: challenging the narratives that the established media take for granted, meanwhile pushing them to admit their own biases.

Great, great stuff.

20. karkface killah Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:54 PM (#2451690)

To me, nothing in that format will ever match Sportswriters on TV.

Amen, brother. I'm still pissed Fox decided not to continue Sportswriters. That show was fantastic.

21. Sir Stamford Raffles Posted: July 23, 2007 at 06:59 PM (#2451700)

To me, nothing in that format will ever match Sports Night.

Fixed for me.

22. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 07:10 PM (#2451709)

Sports Night was awesome.

23. Dock Ellis

Posted: July 23, 2007 at 07:55 PM (#2451746)

Still, I think what they've done to Baseball Tonight is a ####### crime.

What happened to Baseball Tonight? As a starving-artist type living in NYC, I can't remotely afford cable and haven't seen BT in years.

24. The District Attorney Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:05 PM (#2451759)

It's stupendously easy to take whacks at BASN

25. .

Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:12 PM (#2451767)

Probably my biggest pet peeve is the "If our guys haven't got the story, it isn't a story" attitude inherent in such nonsense as:

"ESPN's Peter Gammons reports that sources cannot confirm claims of a failed amphetimine test by Jason Giambi."

"ESPN's Len Pasquerelli and Chris Mortensen report that Michael Vick is unlikely to be indicted in federal dogfighting investigation."

Happens. All. The. Time.

26. Jimmy P Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:15 PM (#2451772)

Probably my biggest pet peeve is the "If our guys haven't got the story, it isn't a story" attitude inherent in such nonsense as:

How about them taking credit for saying they found out which ref was being investigated when it was really the NY Times.

27. Halofan Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:18 PM (#2451777)

ESPN sees the writing on the wall with the approaching MLB cable channel - they are going toward indie productions and personalities because the holy grail of baseball games will soon be out of their reach.

28. Cowboy Popup Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:19 PM (#2451779)

What happened to Baseball Tonight?

The two main analysts on the show are John Kruk and Steve Phillips. And Ravech has gotten more full of himself. The structure of the show is fine, from what little I've seen of it in the last two years, but man, the on air talent is awful.

29. Shredder Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:24 PM (#2451787)

Probably my biggest pet peeve is the "If our guys haven't got the story, it isn't a story"

This is pretty similar to their "if we don't have a contract to televise it, it's not a sport" line of thinking. You'd think the Pac 10 was some low level division II conference from the way ESPN covers it. You'd likely never know that the Pac 10 had produced one and a half national football champions, and a number of final four teams in the last few years. And of course, hockey may as well not exist. But dammit, I don't know what I would have done without a ticker that counted down every second of the 24 hours leading up to the Women's National Championship basketball game. They run their "news" division as a promotional vehicle for their other divisions.

30. 185/456(GGC) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:26 PM (#2451790)

I thought that it was the Post. Or did they just break the original story without naming the guy?

31. Traderdave

Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:26 PM (#2451791)

I have a job and 2 small kids. I can't keep up with all the details of who's doing what, but a 30 minute highlight show in the evenings would be perfect for me and millions of other busy baseball fans.

But I just can't watch BBTN. I try. Can't do it. Such a great idea, such sucky execution.

32. SoSH U at work Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:28 PM (#2451793)

This is pretty similar to their "if we don't have a contract to televise it, it's not a sport" line of thinking. You'd think the Pac 10 was some low level division II conference from the way ESPN covers it. You'd likely never know that the Pac 10 had produced one and a half national football champions, and a number of final four teams in the last few years. And of course, hockey may as well not exist. But dammit, I don't know what I would have done without a ticker that counted down every second of the 24 hours leading up to the Women's National Championship basketball game. They run their "news" division as a promotional vehicle for their other divisions.

That's crazy talk. Everyone I know suddenly got a lot more interested in Arena Football and NASCAR this year, that's all.

33. .

Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:35 PM (#2451799)

How about them taking credit for saying they found out which ref was being investigated when it was really the NY Times.

NY Post broke it first, no credit by ESPN, who was nowhere near the scene of the story.

34. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt!

Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:39 PM (#2451804)

NY Post broke it first, no credit by ESPN, who was nowhere near the scene of the story.

I'm enjoying that ESPN broke the news that Vick was NOT going to be indicted. Good stuff!

(Dig my new screen name, y'all! I have no idea why I like that show so much.)

35. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:46 PM (#2451809)

(Dig my new screen name, y'all! I have no idea why I like that show so much.)

John Hodgman's cameo last night was outstanding.

36. Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:47 PM (#2451811)

Every single cable network goes through this syndrome (falling prey to the lowest common denominator in the quest for the largest market share)

It killed me when Fox Sports World dropped cricket and Australian Rules Football to go soccer 24/7. And I love soccer.

As for what ESPN does well, there's plenty. College Football Gameday, UEFA Champions' League, World Cup soccer, ESPN Classic, Indy Racing League, ESPN Deportes. MLS coverage has improved dramatically, though it really pisses me off that they still get less airtime on SportsCenter than the WNBA. ESPNews is good - light years better than SportsCenter.

IMO, there's nothing average about ESPN. They either do things really, really well, or they do things ridiculously badly. And if there's any way they can get the SportsCenter anchors to STOP! SCREAMING! AT! ME! DURING! THE! HIGHLIGHTS!, I'd appreciate it.

37. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt!

Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:48 PM (#2451812)

John Hodgman's cameo last night was outstanding.

Haven't seen it yet, but I'll watch it on demand tonight. I used to live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn and those two guys remind me of many, many people.

38. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 23, 2007 at 08:57 PM (#2451823)

I like that ESPN News usually continues the crawl when it goes to commercial. Other than that, I've got nothing.

I've never understood why ESPN doesn't do this. I'll intentionally watch your channel _during commercials_ if you continue the scroll. Isn't that a positive?

Maybe it has to do with some of the commercials being controlled by affiliates or whatever. They may not be able to play the Colonial Lanes commercial and still have the scroll visible. Like that matters.

39. Zonk Won the Mental Acuity Golf Trophy at his Club Posted: July 23, 2007 at 09:19 PM (#2451841)

I think it was the participants, not the format, that made 'Sportswriters on TV' great. I remember watching it religiously when I was younger on the old Sportschannel... the C grade competitor to ESPN that basically showed White Sox games and local high school sports.

Jauss, Gleason, the 'kid' - Rick Telander... they were all throwbacks - the grizzled old sportswriters puffing away on cigars, together with the young buck that idolized them.

You got the sense that it wasn't as if they were on a show about Sportswriters discussing this or that -- but rather, someone had just decided to film what they did anyway. That's what is missing from the current batch of such shows - it no longer feels real. You have a batch of writers, preening for the cameras, all trying to be the most clever. It feels plastic and contrived.

40. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: July 23, 2007 at 09:31 PM (#2451852)

Jauss, Gleason, the 'kid' - Rick Telander... they were all throwbacks - the grizzled old sportswriters puffing away on cigars, together with the young buck that idolized them.

I know Telander gets mocked around here, but I'll always respect him for the way he handled himself on that show. He was always thoughtful and articulate.

41. Voodoo Posted: July 23, 2007 at 09:32 PM (#2451853)

All ESPN Classic shows anymore is Poker and Boxing. Do they really get better ratings than old baseball/basketball/football games?

42. hankonly Posted: July 23, 2007 at 09:37 PM (#2451855)

Any sports network that would create and implement "Who's Now?" has lost its' soul.

43. Craig Calcaterra Posted: July 23, 2007 at 09:38 PM (#2451856)

The rise of sports blogs like Deadspin, KSK, and everyone else who has popped up in the past couple of years has done much to shed light on ESPN's problems. And there are problems; most notably the notion that ESPN has a conflict of interest with respect to the sports its news division covers vs. the sports with which the business people have contracts. Monopolies do suck, and it has been helpful to have voices calling out ESPN on its worst excesses.

That said, the ESPN = the Devil angle has been wildly overplayed. The valid criticisms were and continue to be voiced, but so much content of late is ESPN slamming for its own sake. It's as if you're not in the cool kids club unless you can ridicule ESPN better than the others. Funny? Occasionally. Piling on? Definitely. Insightful? Increasingly less so.

As someone who still remembers what it was like to try to follow sports before ESPN (it was late coming to my childhood cable system), I find it ludicrous to suggest that ESPN should be avoided, even if it is possible to do so via the web or other outlets. As others have said in this thead, the game programming is damn nigh essential, even if they don't have everything we want (Pac 10 football; hockey). The talent may suck on BBTN, but being able to see the highlights from every game is insanely valuable. They're a giant, and often a maddening one to be sure, but a perfect world is one in which an ESPN cured of its worst ills exists, not one in which it never existed in the first place, and to me that seems to be the place where criticism of it should start.

Obviously just my opinion.

44. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: July 23, 2007 at 09:52 PM (#2451865)

There are plenty of things that suck about NBC too, but that doesn't lessen my experience when I watch "30 Rock" or "The Office."

exactly.

The difference is that if you like comedy you have a myriad of choices to go for "content", particularly on tv. You're not stuck with only NBCs choices for comedy, and don't have to sit through 15 hours of "Will and Grace" to see something decent.

ESPN is great at what they do, which is why they're for all purposes the only game in town, the trouble with that is partly they grow comfortable, but more importantly that they dictate what events and stories are highlighted.
It's no exaggeration to say that public awareness and perception of events is shaped by how and if ESPN covers it.

45. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: July 23, 2007 at 09:55 PM (#2451867)

Jauss, Gleason, the 'kid' - Rick Telander... they were all throwbacks - the grizzled old sportswriters puffing away on cigars, together with the young buck that idolized them.

Don't forget your host & friendly moderator, Ben Bentley.

They were fantastic. They didn't scream at each other all the time, but talked. And LISTENED. You could tell they really got along and they had fantastic chemistry together. They were the Siskel & Ebert of sports. Around the Horn is Jeffrey Lyons & Micheal Medved. Screw those guys.

I know Telander gets mocked around here, but I'll always respect him for the way he handled himself on that show. He was always thoughtful and articulate.

He was fantastic. Generally the most articulate of the bunch. As the only conservative (though a very moderate one) he made a nice contrast to the rest. The disputes between him & Jauss were fantastic. The would hell at each other, but only when the situation called for it. And they'd still listen even when yelling.

That show's downfall was caused by two things: the rise of Lester Munson and the leaving of Telender. Munson was terrible. He was shill, and made up his mind before any facts came to him. Just a stiff-necked jerk. Telander's leaving a little later just put Munson more in the foreground, made the bunch a little too left-leaning on social issues, and cost it the Jauss-Telender rivalries.

I loved tha show.

46. Dr. Vaux Posted: July 23, 2007 at 10:04 PM (#2451879)

What? Sportswriters who aren't right-wing morons? Those were the days, all right.

47. TaySan Posted: July 23, 2007 at 10:15 PM (#2451885)

I used to love SportsCenter about 18 yrs ago. Not only do they YELL AT YOU THROUGOUT THE HIGHLIGHTS but it seems like a competition about who can be cooler and more glib than the next guy. Its not about the highlights and the games anymore. It is just unwatchable for a mature adult. Maybe all that slickness appeals to teenage boys but I've just come to find it intolerable.

48. Shredder Posted: July 23, 2007 at 10:56 PM (#2451909)

I find it ludicrous to suggest that ESPN should be avoided, even if it is possible to do so via the web or other outlets.

Did someone say they *should* be avoided? By all means, watch it if you want to. They simply don't provide me with any worthwile content that I can't get anywhere else, outside of some Big Ten football and basketball games, and the increasingly less occasional baseball game. I don't avoid ESPN as a means of some consumer backlash. I don't avoid ESPN any more than I avoid buying brussel sprouts. They simply don't provide me with a valuable product.

As others have said in this thead, the game programming is damn nigh essential, even if they don't have everything we want (Pac 10 football; hockey).

Umm, no, it's not. NFL draft coverage in January is not essential. WNBA highlights are not essential. Hell, no sports programming, outside of a live event you really want to see live, is essential.

The talent may suck on BBTN, but being able to see the highlights from every game is insanely valuable

Or at least it would be if I didn't have the ability to pick and choose exactly what highlights I wanted to see, minus the sucky talent talking over them. And even better, I can get it whenever I want it. I don't need to sit through highlights I don't want to see. And even with DVR capability, I don't need to wait for them to get to my game. I can walk right over to my computer and get it. And if I pay a little money, I can re-watch the entire game. I can even watch the parts that ESPN has decided aren't valuable enough to show me. You're talking about a particular outlet for content, one that doesn't provide that content in any meaningfully better way than other providers. It's like saying "the ability to get my prescription filled at Walgreens is insanely valuable!". Well, that might be true if there isn't a CVS right across the street. But there a plenty of places to get sports content now. I really don't see what makes ESPN particularly special in this market, other than maybe brand loyalty.

49. Srul Itza Posted: July 23, 2007 at 11:26 PM (#2451979)

When ESPN first came on, it really was nigh irreplaceable.

Now -- eh.

When I want to see the highlights of a game, I go to the wrap article on MLB.com. Every play really worth seeing is available, at my leisure, as many times as I want to see it, for free.

I watch ESPN when it has a game on that I want to watch.

I am watching "The Bronx is Burning" because I lived in NY in the summer of 1977 (it was the summer before my first year of law school), and there is an awful fascination with that time for me.

I do not watch SportsCenter. I cannot bring myself to watch BBTN. Frankly, there are better things to watch when those are on.

I like that ESPN News usually continues the crawl when it goes to commercial. Other than that, I've got nothing.

I've never understood why ESPN doesn't do this. I'll intentionally watch your channel _during commercials_ if you continue the scroll. Isn't that a positive?

We don't get ESPNews out here, so this was the first I had heard of that, and my reaction was: that is frickin' brilliant. Hell yes, we'll stay around and listen to the commercials if we can continue to watch the scroll. I am shocked other channels have not picked up on that.

50. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 11:35 PM (#2452003)

All ESPN Classic shows anymore is Poker and Boxing. Do they really get better ratings than old baseball/basketball/football games?

No, but MLB/NFL/NBA won't allow ESPN to show them anymore.

51. Voodoo Posted: July 24, 2007 at 12:06 AM (#2452066)

No, but MLB/NFL/NBA won't allow ESPN to show them anymore.

That's what I figured. They want to save those games for their own TV channels. Still, though, what about the NCAA? If there were classic college football or especially basketball games on every night and I would tune in often.

52. AndrewJ Posted: July 24, 2007 at 12:16 AM (#2452086)

The Sports Reporters went downhill when Dick Schaap died. Nothing against John Saunders, but Schaap kept the show interesting.

53. The Original SJ Posted: July 24, 2007 at 12:23 AM (#2452104)

ESPN still delivers some of the best sports coverage in the world. They employ Ron Jaworski, Doug Gottlieb, Rob Neyer, Peter Gammons, Tim Kurkijian, Mort Zuckerman, Tim Legler, Greg Anthony, Scott Van Pelt, Brian Kenny, Jon Miller, Tony Kornheiser, Michael Wilbon...

Doug Gottleib does not belong in that company. The man is a criminal.

54. Sparkles Peterson Posted: July 24, 2007 at 12:33 AM (#2452137)

For all of the flak that Joe Morgan takes on the internet, and deservedly so, the Morgan/Miller team may be the best broadcast team that ESPN employs. Morgan is a pompous idiot who is willfully ignorant of a large portion of the game, but he does occasionally have an insight to offer. Their NFL coverage is every bit as obnoxious and offers no insight whatsoever. Their poker coverage is by far the worst on TV (Norman Chad is basically Stuart Scott with fewer idiotic catch-phrases to choose from, and he talks for 30 minutes straight).

I feel like I owe some of my love for baseball, and my introduction to sabermetrics, to ESPN. I'm grateful for ESPN's role in popularizing poker (I don't care if it's a sport, it's a beautiful game to play or to watch). I don't suppose they could have helped shape the entertainment world as they have without pandering to the lowest common denominator, but count me among the group that finds the channels nigh unwatchable for the past few years.

55. BDC

Posted: July 24, 2007 at 12:34 AM (#2452138)

If I can throw in a complaint about ESPN while were at it, it seems that nearly every Sunday or Wednesday night baseball game on ESPN features the Atlanta Braves, who you can watch on TBS constantly anyway. What on earth is the point of that?

56. baudib Posted: July 24, 2007 at 12:39 AM (#2452156)

Their poker coverage is by far the worst on TV (Norman Chad is basically Stuart Scott with fewer idiotic catch-phrases to choose from, and he talks for 30 minutes straight).

The Poker After Dark coverage is worse.

57. Sparkles Peterson Posted: July 24, 2007 at 01:02 AM (#2452224)

No, it definitely isn't. Nejad basically just provides simple play-by-play and stays out of the way, and though the sideline reporting by Shana Hiatt is remarkably inept, it is absolutely inconceivable that anyone would find a hot woman bumbling through an interview more objectionable than Norman Chad.

58. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: July 24, 2007 at 01:16 AM (#2452249)

LTheir NFL coverage is every bit as obnoxious and offers no insight whatsoever.

Isn't John Clayton still around? I also like Jaworski.

59. Sparkles Peterson Posted: July 24, 2007 at 01:25 AM (#2452266)

I'm talking about the broadcast teams. ESPN has a good analyst or two for every sport that they bring in for about two minutes on the pre-game and post-game shows.

60. Voodoo Posted: July 24, 2007 at 02:01 AM (#2452384)

Doug Gottleib is good, as long as the discussion is about college basketball. Now that he has his own radio show he's forced to talk about sports he has no idea about. That phenomenon is often observed at ESPN; Bill Simmons is out of his element when writing about baseball, Mike Golic sounds like a clown when he talks about basketball, etc.

61. baudib Posted: July 24, 2007 at 02:06 AM (#2452403)

No, it definitely isn't. Nejad basically just provides simple play-by-play and stays out of the way, and though the sideline reporting by Shana Hiatt is remarkably inept, it is absolutely inconceivable that anyone would find a hot woman bumbling through an interview more objectionable than Norman Chad.

Well, Chad has a much more difficult job because for the most part, he is broadcasting players no one knows anything about. Since most viewers presumably don't need to be told who Phil Hellmuth or Doyle Brunson is, there's no need to really talk too much about them. I'd rather get some basic analysis and personal history and even bad humor than dry play-by-play.

62. AJMcCringleberry Posted: July 24, 2007 at 02:23 AM (#2452461)

The WPT guys, Sexton and Van Patten, are pretty bad.

63. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: July 24, 2007 at 02:29 AM (#2452489)

Full disclosure: I LOVE BBTN, the goofier the better.
And Morgan can be infuriating, but despite it, he and Miller are great together.

64. Jeff K. Posted: July 24, 2007 at 02:36 AM (#2452506)

Put me on board as liking Chad and McEachern. I think there are a number that are worse. That one that's in the glass box with the audience watching (I forget which site promotes it) is dreadful.

65. Harris Posted: July 24, 2007 at 03:21 AM (#2452584)

The Sports Reporters went downhill when Dick Schaap died. Nothing against John Saunders, but Schaap kept the show interesting.

If I could mute Mike Lupica it's possible I could watch this show.

66. JMM Posted: July 24, 2007 at 03:55 AM (#2452636)

The Sports Reporters went downhill when Dick Schaap died. Nothing against John Saunders, but Schaap kept the show interesting.

I think the subtle, subconsious need to impress Schaap bring out the best in the other guys (or in Lupica's case, the least terrible). Saunders is too much of a collegue than someone everyone else desparately wants to impress, and for the most part the other panelists end up acting accordingly.

I haven't watched in at least a year, so it may have gotten worse.

67. karkface killah Posted: July 24, 2007 at 04:44 AM (#2452687)

The WPT guys, Sexton and Van Patten, are pretty bad.

I disagree. I think these guys feed right into the abusurdity of televised poker. . . I love the whispering and elbowing they engage in. It's not Shakespeare, but it beats ESPN's canned BS from Chad and McEachern.

Chad would be better without the obvious one-liners.

68. The Ghost of Archi Cianfrocco Posted: July 24, 2007 at 05:12 AM (#2452712)

The WPT guys, Sexton and Van Patten, are pretty bad.

What kills me is that Sexton is a very good player who could give a lot more insight but monkeys around with Van Patten way too much.

A while back there was a tournament on some network where they showed every... single... hand. They had Howard Lederer doing commentary and it really illustrated the grind of a tournament and how players changed gears as the blinds went up, etc. It was boring in parts and you really needed to pay attention but it was the best damn poker I've ever seen. Most of these shows are edited so you start a commercial break with Player X up, say, a million, then come back and they've lost half their stack to the rest of the table... SHOW THE DAMN HANDS.

69. baudib Posted: July 24, 2007 at 05:15 AM (#2452716)

yeah it really affects how the donks online play, as well. They see every hand on ESPN as raise, reraise, all-in and then play like that is what you're supposed to do on every hand.

70. Repoz

Posted: July 24, 2007 at 05:21 AM (#2452718)

If I could mute Mike Lupica it's possible I could watch this show.

Would you stoop so low?

71. TFTIO was writing C programs in the '90s Posted: July 24, 2007 at 06:48 AM (#2452749)

yeah it really affects how the donks online play, as well. They see every hand on ESPN as raise, reraise, all-in and then play like that is what you're supposed to do on every hand.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

I've given up on ESPN, save for live events. I will say the following good about The Worldwide Leader: they have an excellent production crew, at least for the high-profile events; their international footie broadcasts are good; and they are instrumental in the Morgan/Miller pairing which, setting aside Joe Morgan's many irritating mannerisms, is the best broadcast team going.

72. kamatoa Posted: July 24, 2007 at 06:54 AM (#2452750)

Have always enjoyed PTI. Wilbon & Kornheiser make a good pair. The Kornheiser show was the only thing worth listening to on ESPN radio.

73. Sparkles Peterson Posted: July 24, 2007 at 07:16 AM (#2452754)

ESPN's live telecast of the WSOP final table was pretty good, this year and last. I find Phil Gordon a little irritatingly self-righteous and I don't think the style of play he advocates is always mathematically correct (Which is odd given his background), but he goes out of his way to explain the nuances of poker. The only downside this year is that the actual play at the final table was infuriatingly bad. On top of Norman Chad's stream of retard-speak, now I have to deal with the production team going out of their way to hide the fact that an utterly incompetent player lucked into a win while over half of the final table played for finishing position, not to win. I may just skip the telecasts altogether.

74. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: July 24, 2007 at 08:21 AM (#2452763)

It is just unwatchable for a mature adult. Maybe all that slickness appeals to teenage boys but I've just come to find it intolerable.

My guys I know (I'm 19) hate what Baseball Tonight's become. Quite frankly I'm at a loss as to who watches it, to be honest. My friends and I were hanging out tonight doing nothing in particular, and we watched FSN's Final Score over BBTN, and it was really pretty refreshing. The production value's low and the host has no personality, but what it offered, highlights and, really, nothing else, was nice to see for once.

75. Phil Coorey. Posted: July 24, 2007 at 08:55 AM (#2452767)

Any mention of 'Around the Horn'?

That show makes me sick. Those clowns think they are superstars, and it comes on before PTI which blows it out of the water.

76. Rafael Bellylard: The Grinch of Orlando. Posted: July 24, 2007 at 12:17 PM (#2452785)

To me, ESPN has gone full circle. When they first started, they had to fill air-time with whatever they could find, and some of it was good (Australian Rules Football was fun) but a lot of it was pure crap (old AWA wrestling matches). Now, with so many channels, they have gotten back to having to do the same thing. Anyone who can sit through 4 hours of Mike and Mike (who I like, as long as I stick to an hour or less),and then Cold Pizza (someone needs to drive a stake through Skip Bayless' heart) needs both a lobotomy and a life.

For the most part, ESPN has become the Talking-Head station from sun-up to sundown, and all they do is repeat each other.

There's an occasional jewel out there, like PTI, but for every half-hour of that, there's hours of pure fertilizer like Around The Horn, Cold Pizza and sadly, BBTN.

77. . . . . . . Posted: July 24, 2007 at 12:52 PM (#2452805)

ESPN's broadcast of Louisville-Rutgers back in the Fall was awesome...

78. villainx Posted: July 24, 2007 at 01:47 PM (#2452839)

The part that isn't Skip Bayless in Cold Pizza/First Take, I find good. The two main host really dig sports, and aren't too obnoxious.

Maybe my standards are lower, but Jay, Jana, and Sage are good host. Could be a little more hard core, but compare to ESPN, it's hard hitting news/entertainment.

79. KronicFatigue Posted: July 24, 2007 at 02:04 PM (#2452857)

ESPN's broadcast of Louisville-Rutgers back in the Fall was awesome...

As a RU grad, i was surprised to learn that the campus was located right outside of times square.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, July 23, 2007

Why ESPN Sucks ..

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics