ESPN: Topics Too Big for Just One Show (Thread)
Posted Jun 22, 2011 @ 6:33 PM
If you are just going to read one section at the bookstore (shhh, I won't tell) or if you're in a rush, besides the first part on the beginnings of ESPN, I would go with "2009 and beyond" part. You would think because it involves so many people still employed by ESPN that everyone would play nice and not want to name names and air their grievances so publicly, but it's really just the opposite. The Kornheiser on MNF discussion was really interesting especially with the entire backstory on the "You're with me, leather" story. I would pay to see those two locked in a boardroom for an hour!
Posted Jun 24, 2011 @ 11:06 PM
I know of know no other book that details in such a frank and in depth manner the detailed origins of such a large, worldwide company from so many different perspectives and with such a "no holds barred" manner of storytelling from those interviewed. There is no downplaying or softening of opinions, stories or events in the least bit, even when it makes the company, or the employees, look bad in restrospect, which it quite often does. The retelling of the sexual harassment episodes in the 1980s sounds quite literally like the movie Anchorman.
Edited by HickoryColt, Jun 24, 2011 @ 11:06 PM.
Posted Sep 20, 2011 @ 10:15 AM
Posted Jan 19, 2012 @ 12:53 PM
Not the first time he's used it, but it's just hilarious because I have a friend who can't stand that commercial, and even when the commercial isn't airing, it pops up on SC. Awesome.
Posted Feb 2, 2012 @ 1:40 PM
Posted Feb 4, 2012 @ 6:43 PM
I have watched CBS College Sports, but only rarely. I don't think CBS has enough in the way of contracts to have a sports-only channel. They have some college contracts, which makes CBS College Sports feasible. I still watch very little of it, because they're focused primarily on the SEC, and I just couldn't care less. Their only other contact is the NFL, and there's no way they're shunting any of that coverage off to cable.
I think ESPN is safe. These challenges will go the way of CNN/SI and Fox Sports' attempts to have a truly national presence.
Edited by BDArizona, Feb 4, 2012 @ 6:44 PM.
Posted Feb 5, 2012 @ 11:20 AM
The NBC Sports channel has had quite a bit of NFL talk since the switch from Versus, probably because of their Sunday Night Football connection. They can't outbid espn for actual sports but I could see them competing with sports talk shows like espn's Sportsnation, PTI, Around the Horn, Jim Rome show, etc.
Right now, they have the rebranded Versus/NBC Sports. That essentially is their NHL channel, so I have very little interest in it most of the year
Posted Feb 10, 2012 @ 6:57 PM
While I might watch NBC Sports Talk instead of SportsCenter, I don't see a large number of people doing so. I just think ESPN has too much of a head start. People aren't going to change the channel to watch NBC Sports Talk after watching the game on ESPN. It just isn't doing anything different. They're just going to stay there and watch SportsCenter, whatever faults it might have. ESPN already offers studio shows for the NFL, MLB, the NBA, college football, college basketball, etc. They also offer most of the actual games. Not having any really popular league contracts will keep this channel from presenting any kind of danger to ESPN.
Edited by BDArizona, Feb 10, 2012 @ 6:58 PM.
Posted Aug 20, 2012 @ 5:26 PM
Posted Aug 23, 2012 @ 12:16 AM
Posted Aug 25, 2012 @ 3:06 PM
Posted Aug 26, 2012 @ 12:05 AM
Skip "Leatherface" Bayless is just a hack. His only job is to be a prick and say things to upset people. Everyone should ignore the guy and he will eventually go away.
I like Stephen Smith. At least he is intelligent.
Posted Sep 20, 2012 @ 9:32 AM
Posted Dec 18, 2012 @ 2:36 PM
Posted Jan 19, 2013 @ 12:34 PM
Posted Jan 19, 2013 @ 4:01 PM
Edited by bulldawgtownie, Jan 19, 2013 @ 4:03 PM.
Posted Feb 9, 2013 @ 1:53 PM
And I love Dick Vitale but even he does it. STOP IT ESPN. For the love of god, haha. I'm just a little upset.
Posted Feb 9, 2013 @ 2:01 PM
Posted Feb 10, 2013 @ 9:59 AM
Meanwhile, Notre Dame and Louisville got into a five-overtime marathon last night! What a great day of hoops it was. Plus we get Indiana at Ohio State today, which should be crazy good if this week's Big Ten games were any indication.
Posted Feb 17, 2013 @ 6:40 PM
Beilein said that this was the intent. So, yeah, some coaches do go with this strategy.
And I'm guessing Michigan wanted to foul Brust, just didn't have time before he got the shot off.
There's also a reason for fouling late in the game that doesn't hold early in the game. It's a very good reason--the time left on the clock. If you're down to just a couple of seconds or a few tenths, the foul-when-up-by-3 strategy is sound. It's if it's done too early that it doesn't make sense. Besides, it's not like giving fouls on purpose hasn't long been part of the strategy of basketball. It's as much part of the game as shooting the ball into the hoop.
Posted Feb 18, 2013 @ 10:04 AM
So I guess they're just bad at executing it, or guess the refs won't call it, or the refs won't call it. I don't know what is happening at the ends of games, but the end result is that players aren't getting foul calls to shoot 2 free throws when the other team is up by 3.
So, yeah, some coaches do go with this strategy.
Yeah I was a little heated at that moment. It's just frustrating to hear this same thing being brought out by the commentators and it almost never occurs. Instead, we get 5-overtime gems. I'd rather have that. It would even be fine if they mentioned it as a possible option. Instead, they repeat it over one another in a tone of scolding and warning. They get fixated on it and just keep saying it.
Besides, it's not like giving fouls on purpose hasn't long been part of the strategy of basketball. It's as much part of the game as shooting the ball into the hoop.
Posted Mar 5, 2013 @ 7:14 PM
Unlike NBCSports and CBSSports, which seem like half-hearted efforts at best, this seems like a real attempt to wrest the crown from you-know-who. Whether or not they're successful is another matter.
Edited by AimingforYoko, Mar 5, 2013 @ 7:15 PM.
Posted Mar 5, 2013 @ 8:00 PM
The money for televising live sports has absolutely exploded within the last few years, mostly because live sports is DVR-proof and can engage a young male demographic.
Posted Mar 5, 2013 @ 10:21 PM
Posted Mar 6, 2013 @ 9:49 AM
Wasn't there a Fox Sports channel thing about 10-15 years ago? Keith Olbermann ended up there after he parted ways with MSNBC and did a nightly sports news show.
ESPN could use a serious challenge from a rival network.
Edited by Dejana, Mar 6, 2013 @ 12:16 PM.