ESPN used to be about reporting sports news to people who were not satisfied with the normal two-minute segment on their local news broadcast. They had great reporting and some of the funniest commercials you will ever see.
ESPN was a welcome change for the die-hard sports fan. That said, what the heck happened?
Now, I haven't been around long enough to remember the network from its infancy, but I do recall the days of Kenny Mayne, Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick, and Stuart Scott, before he became the hack and suck-up that he is now. Those guys not only reported the news but they made watching those broadcasts fun. It wasn't about being politically correct, it was about calling a spade a spade and letting it go at that.
These days I have a hard time recognizing the network at all between the numerous pop culture references and the endless butt-kissing of popular athletes and coaches.
Further, it seems that since ESPN has broadcast deals with the big boys (NFL, MLB, and NBA), they find it prudent to stomp and lobby for those who they feel will best boost their revenue.
Call me crazy, but the whole Shaq-Kobe co-MVP thing seems a bit staged, especially when you consider the trade rumors about Shaquille. I mean, give me a break.
Think I'm reaching? The poll question on ESPN today concerns whether or not Kobe and Shaq should be reunited again. Coincidence? I don't think so.
ESPN has begun to pledge their allegiance to whomever best suits their causes. Their college football rankings skew toward the Big 12, Pac-10, and the Big Ten. Particularly, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and USC.
Every year, they seem more and more enamored of the pretty-boy coaches with the flashy big-time programs.
You can tell who their favorites are because they get the most airtime.
Baseball is the same way. It's all Yankees. All the time.
The last time the Yankees made it to a World Series was 2003, but that's hard to tell based on the coverage they receive. Granted, they did spend some major money this offseason, as they seem to do every offseason, but that's all they do is spend money. They aren't adding anything positive to the perception of the game, and they aren't producing the next big phenom. No, they spend money.
B/R Ticket Guide Masters - Four Day Hospitality with Badge
on Thu, Apr 9 TBATickets from
$1025
Find TicketsStagecoach Country Music Festival RV Pass
on Thu, Apr 23 at 10:00AMTickets from
$214
Find TicketsRicky Hatton vs Manny Pacquiao
on Sat, May 2 at 1:00PMTickets from
$327
Find TicketsPowered by FanSnap.comQuick, without thinking hard, tell me the two teams who were in the World Series last year? Did you have to pause for a second? I did.
The Yankees make other teams irrelevant even when they themselves should be irrelevant.
If it's not A-Rod with his positive test from 2003, then it's Joe Torre and his scathing book about his time with the big-time franchise. There's always something. I mean, are there no other teams in MLB?
Why haven't we heard more about the Mets, Braves, Phillies, Angels, etc? I venture a guess that the only reason we have heard about the Dodgers at all is because Joe Torre, former Yankees skipper, is their coach. Otherwise, they may also be back-page fodder.
Better still, let's talk about how ESPN made a big deal out of the AFL, the Arena Football League, which is thankfully unable to field this year thanks to the economy. I hate to say it, but honestly, the Arena League is for guys who were not good enough to make it in the NFL.
I don't consider it a watchable sport, at least not on TV, but ESPN bought into it and did nothing but try and shove it down our throats every year since 2006.
I'm aware that ESPN has historically shown odd ball sports on its network. They have shown Arena League games for a very long time, but the agreement in 2006 gave them a minority stake of 10 percent and therefore it became a profitable agreement for ESPN if the AFL did well.
So, what does ESPN do? They try to make the AFL appear more attractive by playing up its owners. Three of the teams had very high-profile names behind them, most notably Jon Bon Jovi, John Elway, and Mike Ditka.
Fans of the AFL felt that ESPN played favorites by allowing these teams to benefit from their owners and thereby gave them more airtime, an allegation that would be hard to dispute due to the fact that each of those respective teams appeared on the air three times more than any other team in the league.
ESPN has injected itself into every part of mainstream America. If it's not a board game or a movie, then it's a television special or a magazine.
The network has their hands in so many pots that it seems to have forgotten what it was meant to be: a sports NEWS network.
I liken it to MTV in a lot of ways because where MTV used to be about music videos but has now relegated the video to small blips between its next reality show, ESPN has become less about good reporting and more about entertainment.
Just look at the number of programs you find on the network: PTI, Around The Horn, Outside The Lines, Rome Is Burning, The Best of Mike and Mike, NFL Live, Hot List, etc.
In some ways it's a good thing to have so many options, but when all of them are talking about the same topics, it gets old. Again, where is the NEWS?
Few choices exist beyond ESPN. Fox Sports has better options with its local coverage. I tend to watch Fox Sports South for my Braves news because I would not see anything about them otherwise. But, beyond that, who is really pushing ESPN to do better?
Scott and Bill Rasmussen started out with one goal: to develop a 24-hour sports news network. They wanted to fill a void that was certainly there 30-years ago. They are responsible for there being an ESPN. But, that network has lost its way. It has gone Hollywood, and I don't know if it will ever be what it once was.
Don't get me wrong, I still watch ESPN; for sports I don't have much of a choice. However, I have found that these days I am satisfied returning to print media for my real sports information.
You can't fault a network for wanting to enhance its product and broaden its audience appeal, but at some point you have to ask the question.
How much is too much?
