Latest offering from ESPN Ombudsman

Laughing my ass off at this one. Comparing MLS to NBA isn't quite what I'd have done, but when ESPN has about half of SportsCenter dominated by Boo-Yah and his crew at the finals, ya just wanna say "the name of the program is SPORTSCenter"...

 

While I more or less agree that there wasn't much worth reading here, her first few columns had been mostly pretty good (and honest) stuff. The test of her mettle will come down the road when she has to revisit certain topics -- such as how "Around The Horn" consists mostly of mindless bafoonery -- and eventually gets told by the front office to give it a rest.

For the time being, she's more of an "us" than a "them."

 

Vince Doria, John Skipper and John Walsh all have season tix to the BoSox...so go figure what 2 teams their nets will cover ad naseum.

I once was in an afternoon LA meeting with Walsh and he twice interrupted it to call back to Bristol to ask his secretary the score of the BoSox game -- despite being in an office surrounded by computers he apparently had no ability to use!

 

Get that man an ESPN phone!!!!

 

I like how LeAnne thinks.
Unfortunately, she's preaching to the choir.

 

To play devil's advocate: Given that ebbs and flows are such a big part of baseball over a looong 162-game schedule, is it really a good thing journalistically to jump on something like, let's say, the Kansas City Royals having a 9-2 stretch and reporting the hell out of it and then they return to their normal suckitude a month later? Might it be responsible to cover the heck out of a rivalry that quite often has determined a World Series berth, that contains the $252 million man, that contains the gazillion dollar Japanese import? During the 1970s (when there was no ESPN), I bet the Reds and the A's got the lion's share of the national game slots. And that was because they were the teams that consistently were going to go to the series.

And in a time when about every game is available somewhere on some digital tier, having so much sturm and drang about what one network has a lot seems like a waste of good vitriol.

 

One of the things I love so much about sports is that I don't know what is going to happen. It's an unwritten play. Tyranny of the storyline. Let the kids play. Then tell us what we saw, not the other way around. I've yet to see a Brewers game on TV this year and I hear they are pretty good. That's a story I want to know more about.

 

Not really, Dools.

Not when that one network largely sets the agenda for the sporting media universe. And not when that network has become a slave to storylines that it may not create, but beats into the ground.

This isn't always a bad situation; good sports reporting (especially on game coverage) mandate you find a storyline (either the studs or difference-makers on a given game) and beat that into the ground.

Where ESPN falls on its journalistic sword is when it forces the storyline upon the game itself -- which it has done repeatedly -- rather than let the story play out and report/react accordingly.

And I haven't gotten into the bludgeoning of stories like Terrell Owens ad infinitum and the NFL Draft upon everyone. The draft is something it has invested a ton of money into building up, so that's probably expected (and covered repeatedly on this board).

In essence, the tail wags the dog along the path of least resistance. That's where the problem lies.

 

Part of the reason you see these "storylines" is that ESPN has a few shows to fill 5 day a week slots. In NASCAR that's a lot of time without new results to chew on, same with football. The Cable news shows are guilty of the same thing, find a "story" be in Natalie Holloway, Rosie O'Donnell, Paris and beat the hell out of it and make it into a mini-series instead of a 30-minute sitcom. HOW WILL IT END?

 

Well then you're not trying. Pretty much any game, any team is available to you. And again, it's a long season, and the Brewers don't have a very good track record the past decade. Yanks and Red Sox do. What storyline is more likely to be relevant over the course of a looong season?

 

I know what you're saying but ...

Yes, the Yankees and Red Sox have determined many a World Series berth. However, the Yankees haven't been to the ALCS since that 2004 choke, and the Sox have won as many playoff games as the Royals since they won it that season. So why not share some of the coverage with the Angels (big market, recent WS champ), White Sox (big market, recent WS champ), Tigers and A's? Why not showcase them a little more, given their success compared to the Yankees and Red Sox recently? I don't think anyone's asking to see the Royals every two weeks, but a little more variety would be nice.

As for digital tiers/DirecTV, well, not everyone subscribes to get it. Not everyone can plank down that money, and so we rely on ESPN to give us what we need. Unfortunately, a lot of times, it's the same teams. Take Sunday Night Baseball; in its first 16 games this season, nine teams will be on 84.3 percent of the time -- Mets (4 appearances), Red Sox (3), Braves (3), Yankees (3), Cubs (3), Cardinals (3), Tigers (3), Phillies (3), Padres (2). Six of those teams are in the Eastern time zone, two in the Central and only one in the Pacific.

The other 21 teams? Apparently, who cares. Like anyone wants to watch the A's (who only played last year's ALCS), Angels, Twins, Indians, White Sox or Dodgers, right?

 

I would rather use that $89 toward a $250 iPod or toward saving for wedding/honeymoon purposes. It's $89 that isn't part of my basic digital cable package. I have signed up for HBO the past couple months for The Sopranos, which is roughly $15 more per month, but because the fiancee went in on that with me the cost isn't all on me. It's not like I'm paying $89.

You might find MLB.tv worth your time and money. Others like me don't. And that's where a little diversity from ESPN would be nice. Baseball fans shouldn't be forced to plunk down another $89 to avoid watching the same nine teams all season on Sunday night.

Actually, my point remains, because MLB.tv wouldn't help the Sunday night problem since there aren't any other games going on at the time.