Jump to content

ESPN Magazine's Sports Reporters


  • Please log in to reply

294 replies to this topic

#271

Double Down

Double Down

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 17, 2011 @ 9:45 AM

It should have been more competitive a field for MVP, with Troy Polamalu, Ray Lewis, Matt Ryan, Aaron Rodgers and others in the field.


Which makes me scratch my head even more at the Brady love-a-thon. Why not spread the wealth a little? Since 2007, it seems as if Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have been co-caretakers of the MVP award ("12 months on your mantle, then 12 on mine. Deal?").

Yes, I get a vote for the NFL's most prestigious individual award, and while there are two games left in the regular season and I know that Tom Brady is playing lights-out for New England, Vick is as deserving, if not more so, particularly after he led the Eagles back from the dead against the New York Giants on Sunday.


Glad that Ashley showed Vick some love, but her "Vick is deserving" comment kinda left her a way out just in case he didn't close the deal - and the way the season ended for him shows that he didn't close the deal. And given Vick's recent history, I doubt that Ashley wanted to be the lone voice in his corner. I didn't expect a total Vick MVP voting freeze-out, but I figured the only way he would actually win MVP outright would be if he had an undeniably better season than everyone else. Strong enough to bring even the most strident dog lover to his side of the table. But as long as Brady et al were in his MVP orbit, Vick was destined to be sent to the back of the bus to continue paying for his sins.

Edited by Double Down, Feb 17, 2011 @ 9:48 AM.

  • 0

#272

Crocktacularity

Crocktacularity

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 17, 2011 @ 10:48 PM

I would argue that the unanimity isn't that surprising. Part of the 21st Century has been the nationalizing of elections for awards like the MVP, the Heisman, the Wooden / Naismith Awards, etc. Back in the day the awards were voted on by sportswriters nationwide who provided expertise on the local players. An LA sportswriter might not know about a standout player in the Big 10 for example, or someone from an NFC town might not recognize an AFC player. Now, though, all the games are broadcast nationally, and, more importantly ESPN especially seems to fix in on this player or that as the one who is clearly the best / going to win. It's no surprise that this decade has seen some of the most lopsided Heisman victories of all time. Similarly, plenty of awards, from Cy Young to NBA MVP to NFL MVP seem preordained. I mean, there are six different college basketball player of the year awards. From 2005 on, they've all gone to the same player each year, and it's not been close. How many times have you been really surprised by a postseason award lately? I think around the time of the interception streak, ESPN et. al. zeroed in on the Pats as the team to beat, Brady as the best player, etc. In the past, the Pittsburgh or Atlanta or Wisconsin writer might have seen more of and touted Polamalu, Ryan or Rodgers. Not anymore. Result, unanimous MVP.

Edited by Crocktacularity, Feb 17, 2011 @ 10:49 PM.

  • 0

#273

Double Down

Double Down

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 18, 2011 @ 11:25 AM

I agree with your nationalizing theory Crocktacularity. But I'd like to add that sportswriters tend to pay more attention to the so called "skill position players" anyway. QB's in particular. They get the lion's share of credit when thing's go right, and thus their names come up most often when MVP mentions are made. Of course they also get the lion's share of the blame when things go wrong (See: Jay Cutler). So the blade cuts both ways.

The old saying in sports goes something like; "Defense wins championships". Yet standout defensive players seem to get thrown under the bus when the national spotlight casts its beam onto the landscape. Perennial Pro Bowlers like Ray Lewis et. al. have to really play out of their minds to outshine the Brady's and Manning's of the world. And college defensive stars have only recently started winning the Heisman (on occasion). They face the same uphill battle as their NFL counterparts.

Additionally, when a Vick or Rothlesberger-level scandal breaks, those stories also gets national attention, which all but crushes the alleged offender's chances for post-season individual honors. Percieved guilt or innocence never seems to matter. Once the media gets wind of the story, your goose is cooked.
  • 0

#274

Doom

Doom

    Stalker

Posted Mar 20, 2011 @ 9:05 AM

Schaap is as substitute teachery as you can get appearing on this show. His whole aura seemed to throw the show off. This Gasper guy from the Boston Globe wasn't that great either. I'll give him a chance because at least he wasn't Michael Smith bad, plus I loved seeing Hill school him on more than one occasion.

Really no matter who subs for Saunders the show just never seems to be the same production. There is a noticeable dropoff.
  • 0

#275

Simbas Uncle

Simbas Uncle

    Fanatic

Posted Mar 20, 2011 @ 11:24 AM

Three words which make me like Schaap and Gasper a great deal: No Mike Lupica.
  • 0

#276

bumblehare74

bumblehare74

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 12, 2011 @ 8:49 AM

Ugh, Dana Jacobson on the Sports Reporters. Couldn't they find a panelist with actual talent to put on the show instead of her? Skip Bayless would have been a better choice to put on the show, and I find Skip Bayless annoying.
  • 0

#277

Simbas Uncle

Simbas Uncle

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 12, 2011 @ 9:57 AM

As long as the two-word, ten-letter synonym for "entitled jackass" is on the show, Dana is, in no way, the most annoying panelist in SR history. Still, I'd love to see Michelle Beadle on the show.
  • 0

#278

BDArizona

BDArizona

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 12, 2011 @ 2:52 PM

Still, I'd love to see Michelle Beadle on the show

I'll second that. Anything to take the stink of Colin Cowherd off of her.
  • 0

#279

getawayjordan

getawayjordan

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 22, 2011 @ 10:18 AM

Well..... looks like it's Miami University's turn in the barrel. I agree with the general tone of the panel who agree that the supposed amateur college sports system is a sham. They need to stop pretending that college athletes are amateurs, that notion is badly outdated.

My feeling is that they need to allow the "student-athletes" to control and sell their own images to the Nike and Reeboks of the world while still in college. They should also work to de-criminalize the under the table payments and perks they recieve from program boosters.

Your thoughts?

Edited by getawayjordan, Aug 22, 2011 @ 10:18 AM.

  • 0

#280

BDArizona

BDArizona

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 23, 2011 @ 1:04 AM

My thoughts are not no, but hell no. If they want to pay athletes a regular paycheck, get them out of institutions of higher learning and go the sports club route that they use in Europe. As it stands, athletes are paid a shit load by having their educational expenses covered. I work at a PAC-12 university and have seen the differences. Offer me the life of an "exploited" athlete or that of a student working 2 jobs and going to school, and I'd take that of the jock any day of the week. All educational expenses, food, extra tutoring, the best coaching, travel, lodging, trainers, exposure in my chosen field--all for free. You bet, I'd take that deal.
  • 0

#281

Doom

Doom

    Stalker

Posted Aug 23, 2011 @ 8:48 AM

You bet, I'd take that deal.

Yeah but you have to take the whole deal. The likely lower ses background, the focus on athletics by parents and coaches while your academics suffer, the chance of injury that ends or shortens your career, and the pretty good chance that after you graduate your prospects are much weaker than your fellow collegians.

I am to the point where I watch the Sports Reporters talking about these issues and it just seems like nothing is going to change. Related to the show, I think Jemele Hill makes some really great points but her appearance and delivery hinders her somewhat. I don't want to see your butt cheeks, and the Jim Carrey eyebrow movements kinda weird me out. I'm sure the zombie apocalypse would happen first, but it would be interesting to see the sports reporters be all female (in their rotating lineup thing). I don't even think I've seen two females on there at once. Anyway, as long as Michael Smith stays away, I'm good.
  • 0

#282

getawayjordan

getawayjordan

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 24, 2011 @ 9:17 AM

If they want to pay athletes a regular paycheck, get them out of institutions of higher learning and go the sports club route that they use in Europe.


I have no problem with that. That would cut out the hypocrisy, but they would never change the system in that way because we (we, in the general sense) want to have our cake and eat it too. We want to enjoy The Final Four, The BCS Championship Bowl Series and all the pomp and circumstance that comes along with the college sports phenomenon. We want all that so much that we are willing to turn a blind eye to how it all happens behind the scenes. The big money exchanging hands, the exploitation of college athletes, etc.

The system is badly corrupted, but no one seems willing to fix it. So (IMO) to give the appearance that something is being done to repair the problem, the NCAA picks a patsy-of-the-year and busts them for violating the "rules of amateur athletics". This year, it happens to be Miami's turn to take one for the team.

I still contend that college athletes should be able to control their images and sign endorsement deals. Coaches do it. Why not the athletes too? And if a booster wants to slip some of his own money into an athlete's pocket, what's wrong with that? And how can you stop them from doing it anyway? They need to stop pretending that college sports is not a business. Put the cash on top of the table and stop the charade.

Edited by getawayjordan, Aug 24, 2011 @ 9:32 AM.

  • 0

#283

RedZoneTuba

RedZoneTuba

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Aug 30, 2011 @ 10:08 AM

Any strong opinion on Jeremy Schaap as host? He seems competent and informed, but just doesn't have the charisma or humor of his dad (RIP).

Having seen occasional guest hosts over recent years, I think ESPN made the right choice in going with John Saunders as regular host.
  • 0

#284

getawayjordan

getawayjordan

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 30, 2011 @ 11:27 AM

Any strong opinion on Jeremy Schaap as host? He seems competent and informed, but just doesn't have the charisma or humor of his dad (RIP).

Having seen occasional guest hosts over recent years, I think ESPN made the right choice in going with John Saunders as regular host.


I agee about Schaap Jr. He doesn't have the same qualities as his dad and would forever have to deal with the comparisons. John Saunders is the better choices of the two men. He brings a fresh, different style to the table without forever inviting the Schaap Sr. comparisons.
  • 0

#285

Doom

Doom

    Stalker

Posted Aug 30, 2011 @ 12:40 PM

Jeremy Schaap is annoying. His journalistic presence comes off as heavily manufactured on this show. Send him to 60 minutes type stuff and he doesn't grate as much. Plus his stature hinders him in this setup and he just seems like a 12 year old in an overgrown suit whose feet don't touch the floor. Some of the other panelists are small too, but their presence carries.
  • 0

#286

RedZoneTuba

RedZoneTuba

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Dec 21, 2011 @ 9:12 AM

I wonder if they will discuss the Bill Conlin molestation accusations on the next show, given that he used to be a semi-regular?
  • 0

#287

Simbas Uncle

Simbas Uncle

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 22, 2011 @ 8:08 PM

I doubt they'll discuss Conlin at all, since he's not been on the show for years.
  • 0

#288

DollEyes

DollEyes

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 30, 2012 @ 1:17 PM

Delurking to bump it up with some comments from a couple of the reporters on last week's episode re the Jerry Sandusky verdict. According to host Mike Lupica, in an ironic turn of events, Sandusky was convicted on the same day as the Archbishop of Philadelphia was convicted of child endangerment and the New York Times' William C. Rhoden said that when the most powerful person on the college campus is the football coach, there's a problem.

Rhoden hit the nail on the head re Sandusky. Fortunately, Sandusky was convicted on almost every count. However, while he's by far the most guilty party, he's not the only one, by a long shot. There were the adults, including Joe Paterno and even Sandusky's own wife, who enabled Sandusky's abuse for years, if not decades and did nothing to stop it or him. The survivors aren't to blame because they weren't the adults at the time; Sandusky and Company were, then and now. If the survivors wanted to file civil suits, I think they would be totally justified. While it won't make all the pain go away, maybe paying at least a few million bucks in damages will make Penn State think twice about covering for sociopathic pedophiles. Another reporter on last week's show said that the bright side to the scandal is that it would encourage other abuse victims to tell their stories, which is long overdue.
  • 0

#289

Fairpoint

Fairpoint

    Channel Surfer

Posted Sep 25, 2012 @ 2:43 PM

Apparently Lupica is now the co-anchor, taking over for when Saunders is busy/on vacation. Which SUCKS DICK. NO ONE DENIES THIS IS TRUE.

He started talking about the Patriots and how according to Lupica, Tom Brady is now 'definitely in decline and only has 1 or 2 more years left in the league.'

Wait, what?

The same Tom Brady who was named MVP two seasons ago?

The same Tom Brady who last season passed for the second most yards in a season in the history of the NFL?

The same Tom Brady who led his team to it's fifth Super Bowl while he was the starting qb, tying Staubach and Elway for most SB appearances by a starting qb?

That Tom Brady?

Look, Lupica we get that you were a shrimp back in high school who got the fucked kicked and punched out of you every day by the popular crowd and jocks, but try not to redefine reality to fit your demented little worldview.
  • 1

#290

natalie wood

natalie wood

    Couch Potato

Posted Oct 22, 2012 @ 10:50 PM

I never listen to a word that comes out of Lupica's mouth. He"s a sanctimonious know it all except he doesn't know it all. Bill Rhoden, Israel Gutierrez, Mitch Albom, and Bob Ryan are far better than he is. I intensely dislike his attitude. He's very confrontational and you know what? I'm just a woman who follows sports but I could take him on and win more often than not. Truthfully, as much as I love this show (it is programmed on my DVR) I truly miss Dick Schapp - RIP. That was a man who knew his sports. Lupica needs to take off a year, write another book, then shamelessly promote it when he gets back. Gah, I really dislike that man. Sometimes the shit he pulls out his ass has me SMDH.

Edited by natalie wood, Oct 22, 2012 @ 10:52 PM.

  • 1

#291

SeattleStorm

SeattleStorm

    Video Archivist

Posted Oct 24, 2012 @ 8:16 AM

natalie wood, I agree with everything you said about Lupica.

And I'd like to add two more things that bug the hell out of me. He stammers so much it's annoying. It's like he's got this important point that he has to make, so he's going to talk over every other panelist and just keeps repeating the same words over and over again.

The other thing is how John Saunders is always asking for viewers to respond, via "Ask The Sports Reporters"---and they almost never get any. But when they do, which member of the panel is certain to mock the question. Yup, you got it. It's almost as if Lupica is saying, you viewers are so beneath me. Somebody should really talk to him about his attitude.

Bill Rhoden, Israel Gutierrez, Mitch Albom, and Bob Ryan are far better than he is.


I love Mitch Albom. I just got his latest book for my birthday. I wish he was on this show a lot more than he is.

Edited by SeattleStorm, Oct 24, 2012 @ 8:17 AM.

  • 0

#292

natalie wood

natalie wood

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 9, 2012 @ 2:42 PM

So I wanted to knock Mike Lupica's head off like with the toy Rock'Em, Sock'Em Robots. Please spare us your holier than thou tone and opinions and STFU. I'm just a lady who likes sports and I think I could debate you and your mostly stupid opinions. Love Mitch Albom. He really does need to be on more. It's no wonder he is such a terrific writer. I want to see more writers like him. I still cry when I think about Tuesday's with Morrie. I have never even wanted to look at one of Lupica's books. Oh, just STFU Lupica.

Edited by natalie wood, Dec 9, 2012 @ 2:42 PM.

  • 1

#293

QuePasa

QuePasa

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Dec 10, 2012 @ 2:47 PM

I turn this show on every Sunday. If Mitch Albom is on, I watch; if he isn't, I don't. And lately it seems he hasn't been on very much.
  • 0

#294

SeattleStorm

SeattleStorm

    Video Archivist

Posted May 29, 2013 @ 2:23 PM

On this past Sunday's edition, Bill Rhoden's parting shot was a commentary on how some records may never be broken.  His point was that we will never have another Triple Crown winner in horse racing, since the last one was in 1978, and I suspect he may be correct.  However, I didn't like his logic in getting there.

 

He said that he does expect these records to be broken---

 

Wilt Chamberlain's 100-points in one NBA game

Joe DiMaggio's MLB 56-game hitting streak

Miami Dolphins perfect NFL season

 

I think he is crazy beyond belief on the first two topics.  These days, it's hard enough for an entire NBA team to score 100 points, much less one individual.  It may happen in a Division III college game, where some coach and some player make a mockery of the game, but I feel secure in my belief that nobody will ever match Wilt.  Simply put, it was a different era.

 

DiMaggio's streak may be even more incredible than Wilt's.  Never see anybody ever getting closer than Pete Rose did, when he hit safely in 44 games.  No way will this record ever be approached.

 

I can see the Dolphins record being broken, but it would take a lot of rare favorable events.  First you need a dominant team.  Then you need an organization that feels comfortable in going for it, even after they've clinched everything.  In one sense, the Patriots did actually break the record back in 2007.  Remember that Miami went 14-0 in the regular season, then 3-0 in the post season, for a perfect 17-0 record.  New England played two more games, so they topped 14-0 with a 16-0 regular season.  They went on to win two post season games, to extend to 18-0, before losing to my NY Giants in the Super Bowl.

 

Will any NFL team ever go 19-0, to break the all-time record.  It's unlikely, but of the three Rhoden mentioned, this would happen before the other two, in my opinion.

 

What do you think?


  • 0

#295

Da23rdBuchan

Da23rdBuchan

    Couch Potato

Posted Oct 6, 2013 @ 10:52 AM

I've watched Sports Reporters for the better part of 20 years and it's sad to see how irrelevant it gets with each passing season. Whether it's due to the death of Dick Schaap, the rise of ESPN daily opinion and personality driven sports shows, or the noxious presence of Mike Lupica -- this show has become almost unwatchable. 


  • 0