ESPN ombudsman takes on MNF, trash talk, Spygate II

But I think since the month-to-month nature of ESPN's Ombudsman has been established already by Soloman and continued by Schrieber, I don't think it feels that way.

If, like some newspapers do, there was a weekly sports media column, then you're right, the timing would be odd. But I don't think the comparison works.

 

If you read her column on ESPN's site, there's a link to it ... http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&id=3240230

 

ESPN assured Schreiber that Jacobson didn't actually say f--k Jesus, but refused to let her see a tape of roast to confirm it for herself. WTF?

 

I like the points she makes and wish ESPN's high-ups would apply some of them.

About half the length of the column would be nice, though. It seems to drag. But if you only write once every few weeks I guess it requires every little detail.

 

Maybe every other week would be preferable? It definitely seems too long.

Very strange that ESPN wouldn't let its own ombud view the tape. She doesn't seem the type to link it on youtube.

 

Again - the roast was advertised for months on the Mike and Mike radio show. You could buy tickets to it. You could win tickets to it.

Again - intriguing definition of "private," eh?

 

I work Monday nights so rarely see the MNF games as on Sunday afternoons, but doesn't it still boil down to matchups? If it's a good game, you'll watch and put up with/enjoy the commentary. Otherwise, it's a waste of time regardless of which "star" kills time in the booth.

 

I think for ratings, yes that's the case. People were going to watch that Ravens-Pats game no matter who was calling it, just like no one was going to watch that Falcons game late in the season. But as for enjoying the commentary? I don't think that has anything to do with the teams playing. Good announcers are good announcers and bad ones are bad.