Arena ESPN Discussion Thread

ESPN bills itself as the World Wide Leader in Sports.

This was once true. They had great features, good exclusive content, hip and cutting edge shows. Great ideas.

But ...

It's become apparent to me that ESPN and ESPN.com are grasping at straws to try to stay relevant, be hip and smart and intelligent, and are failing miserably. From their desire to do a different type of ranking almost weekly of NFL teams in various areas, to the pathetic "Who's Now", it seems they just keep throwing crap against the wall and seeing what sticks.


And now, ESPN.com has given us another glimpse of their genius.

Projection of the fifty current players that will make the NFL Hall of Fame

Such a list, in and of itself, is not a bad idea. It's alright to start debating, however prematurely, if someone is Hall of Fame material. However, this list is just a complete and total farce. Nothing else to say about it. The biggest question, in my opinion, is the biggest gaff. Is it:

--Randy Moss as a Hall of Fame lock?
--Reggie Bush, after one season of not being a featured back, as a Hall of Fame lock?
--Vince Young, after less than one season as a starter, as a Hall of Fame lock?
--Calvin Johnson, without ever signing an NFL contract, as a Hall of Fame lock?
--Matt Leinhart, without a full season of starting or a winning record, as a Hall of Fame lock?
--Adrian Peterson, without a single game played, as a Hall of Fame lock?
--Steve McNair on the Hall of Fame "bubble", while Vince Young is already a lock?
--Brady Quinn and JaMarcus Russell already declared out of the Hall of Fame before signing a contract?

This, to me, is just the latest in a long line of ESPN gaffes, errors, and lapses in judgment. I sometimes think if it weren't for PTI and ATH I would never even tune into ESPN outside of when they have a game on, and that if it weren't for Bill Simmons, I'd probably never go to espn.com.

 

I have to agree that ESPN is going the way of MTV - moving away from what people actually tuned in for in the first place. Who's Now is quite possibly one of the lamest features ever created for that network. It is really sad that they feel the need to use all this filler when perhaps it just shines the light on the fact that their field reporters really don't have much access and their anchors are well on the way to becoming parodies of themselves. ESPN (and pretty much any sports reporter) at this point suffers from the same affliction as entertainment reporters - they think they deserve to be famous because they cover famous people. Note: Not because they do a good job of being sports journalist, but because they're buddies with athletes, or do the ESPY's with athletes, or do commercials and promos with athletes, etc. Once you become that friendly and/or social with who you are supposed to be reporting on, your credibility and objectivity go out the window. ESPN has long since quit being a news organization and is more like a public relations firm for athletes (and themselves).

 

Back in their prime, ESPN was first and foremost a news source that happened to have anchors and reporters who were funny. Over the years, quality news reporting has become completely secondary except for a few holdovers from the old days (guys like Chris Mortensen). Now its all about the catch-phrases and being hip. Unfortunately, that's true of sports reporting generally, both in broadcast and print media. The quality of writing at SI has plummeted since the 80s. Half the supposed experts spouting their opinions on sports radio stations are not only not experts, but can barely string together two grammatically correct sentences.

In a nutshell, Grantland Rice has been replaced by Mike and the Madog. Or to put it better, in the immortal words of Don mus, Fatso and Fruitloops.

 

Wow. I don't just have the same opinion. I even phrase it the same way. Are we two socks on the same foot?

The list was a very good idea, but it was extremely flawed. Here are some other gripes I have:

1. Adam Vinatieri - I can live with this (even though he became famous only after a positively ridiculous video replay), but I'll never feel it's just for kickers and punters to get in until Ray Guy, the great Raider punter, gets his spot. Relative to his position, you could make the case he was the all-time greatest. Google Ray Guy and you'll find some fascinating stories.

2. Hines Ward - Good player (though i thought Randle El should have won the Super Bowl MVP), but his statistics are not going to be all that tremendous when compared to other top contemporaries, many of whom are far from shoo ins,

3. Tom Nalen - On the bubble! This guy is one of the main reasons the Denver Broncos have dominated so much on the ground. You'd be hard pressed to come up with three lineman, let alone three centers better than Nalen. This is just further proof that a spot in Canton is as much a matter of popularity as it is about your play.

I have many other gripesm but I'll stop there.

I think the article would have been better if instead of judging what may or may not happen in the future (though as an Oklahoam Sooner fan, I liked how somebody finally acknowledged that AD's injury last season was a fluke and that he is a fantastic player), the writer limited himself to current credentials only. Far more relevant, and mroe interesting than reading more praise for players that are very young and very famous.

The style they did it in wasn't bad, and there is something to be said for predicting ten years down the road. I just feel that the selections should have been made more carefully and that a different approach might've produced better results.

 

LOL!

I saw that HoF list and was cracking up. You right, it is sooo stupid. Guys that haven't even played are out (Russel, Quinn) and yet other guys who haven't played are in (Johnson, Peterson).

They should have at least put a minimum of 5 yrs Exp (or 50 games or something) on it.

Why not put Ryan Leaf in the HoF before he signed his contract. LOL! Or not put in Tom Brady cause he was a 6 or 7th rd pick. Double LOL!

And I have to agree again, that "Who's Now", was absolutely cringeworthy and unwatchable. I had to change the channel everytime it came on.

To add to some of the good stuff besides ATH, PTI, and Simmons (love the Pod cast idea), theres TMQ during the football season that is always a great read.

 

Part of me wonders if ESPN has become its own parody before someone else got the chance.


The analysts and experts don't seem to be there for their knowledge, but instead to be hip and/or controversial. The fact that anyone pays Stephen A. Smith a salary just boggles my mind.


As a fan of NASCAR, I was disappointed several years ago when ESPN lost the rights to broadcast races. When the networks took over, there was a noticeable decline in quality from the standard ESPN had set for years.

Now all these years later, with ESPN back in the picture for race broadcasts, I'm not sure I'm excited to see 'em back.

 

I still like ESPN for the most part... though I have to agree with this line in particular: "The fact that anyone pays Stephen A. Smith a salary just boggles my mind."

That list does seem pretty bad, though, and someone really did need to establish a limit - as someone said, 5 years or so many games played (I'd probably say 60 or 70 games at the least, given that 5 years is 80 regular season games) That would weed out a lot of the decisions on the players who haven't played or even signed a contract yet.

 

You win the thread, good sir.

Look, I'm not saying I don't watch ESPN, and I don't visit ESPN.com frequently. I'm an insider and an ESPN the mag subscriber. There are good nuggets there. They just seem to get buried beneath layers and layers of pure crap. And those layers are getting thicker and thicker as the years go bye. And there could very easily come a day when I simply say there isn't reason enough to sort through the crap.

But ... we need a good alternative. I want a one-stop that can replace ESPN. I don't get FSN on my Satellite package, and NFL Network coverage of news and analysis is good, but (obviously) football only. And I haven't found a good website that mixes news, analysis, and humor (which Bill Simmons and TMQ provide at ESPN.com).

 

Same here. It's definitely not like the ESPN Speedworld telecasts we used to love.

One thing the network has to do for sure, is get rid of Stuart Scott. Man, this guy is so annoying and his act got old years ago.

One thing that got my blood boiling was the immediate decline of Monday Night Football. Joe Theisman is a smartass know-it-all who apparently is never wrong, and Tony Kornheiser is nothing more than a reason for deaf people to consider themselves lucky. And they always have to have a celebrity in the booth every week? And why do they kiss the ass of one player the whole game? I love the Packers and Brett Favre, but even if he's having a bad game during their telecasts they still want to make love to him. It's annoying. MNF used to be great. Good job ESPN.

And this is really irritating. When I'm not at the computer and I want to check scores on the bottom line. They have to show every possible stat from every game before they show the next score. It takes like 30 seconds for it to switch to the next score. I understand people have fantasy teams, but this is going too far. And of course it always comes off the screen when they go to commercial. I think ESPN News keeps their bottom line on all the time, but like Sportscenter, it takes 30 seconds for each score to rotate.

And can someone please tell them that there is more to baseball than Barry Bonds, the Yankees and the Red Sox? Nothing against Boston or New York, but there are more than 2 teams out there.

One more reason they suck: T.O. We hear about him every time he sneezes, and the attention is exactly what he wants. Can't we just ignore this scumbag?

The only good things about ESPN:

1. The bathrooms at their restaurants. They have TVs in there. You can watch Sportscenter while you piss. Pretty innovative.

2. Erin Andrews: [image=http://www.redsoxtimes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/erinandrews.jpg]

 

Replace NASCAR with NHL, and networks with Versus and NBC, and I completely agree. The coverage of hockey since then has been practically nil.

 

ESPN's a joke...but I still watch sportscenter.

 

The NHL I believe lost its broadcasting rights from ESPN. Now the only hockey you'll ever get on ESPN is on their top 10 plays.

ESPN as already said used to be decent; now its gone downhill.

 

If I see one more damn World Series of Poker episode I swear to god I'm gonna fly to Seattle and have sex with Kendra. SRSLY!!!!

 

Knowing them, I don't need a TV Guide to tell me I should take the day off from work and do my stretches.

 

The WSOP is a great example of what is wrong with ESPN. They took a product that was popular (Poker) because of what it was (something we all can do, and enjoy watching others do for bigger money than we ever play for), and then kept showing more, and more, and more, and more, and more of it until the people who originally loved it stopped tuning it.

It's gotten to the point where you see WSOP on the guide, and you don't know what it is. A satellite? A highlight? A main event show? A specialty show? A flashback show?

Just go back to showing us what we wanted to watch originally! And stop trying to slam every ESPN personality down our throats by having them cover it.

 

Note to ESPN, while it's fun to lol at mullets, you do NOT have to rerun the entire PBA tour from 1990.

 

I also Erin Andrews.


What I find the most insipid thing about sports reporting is that they devote time to fantasy leagues. Am I the only person who thinks fantasy baseball/football/basketweaving/etc. is pointless?

I can see people who are into stats getting enjoyment out of following along, but I'm sick and tired of visiting team forums and seeing the usual: "Well my favorite team lost today but I kicked ass in the fantasy league!!!"


If you enjoy fantasy leagues, that's fantastic. Follow along every week and enjoy watching the season unfold. Just a bit of advice, though: "Nobody else cares how your fantasy team did!"

Just because ESPN talks about it, doesn't make it newsworthy.

 

I personally enjoy fantasy football.

BUT, I do NOT wish to hear these reports.
I agree with you.
This is a hobby we created.
Stop stealing our thunder and trying to cash in or try an appeal to a growing trend/fad.

 

So true.
I used to love watching the main event of the WSOP. I remember watching the 2002 one and then the 2003 one, Then it started to go down hill. The 2004 coverage sucked with he way they set it up, 2005 was okay, but by 2006 there was already too much Texas Holdem everywhere (not really ESPN's fault) and I barely watched any of it and this year I just skipped the whole thing.

I could really care less if joe shmoe clebrity is playing, I really enjoyed seeing the "professional" players play with the occasional Moneymaker type guy, but that ended after 2003 and it is just ridiculous now.

 

[image=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1189/533744559_f5106f426e_o.jpg]

She looks as bored as us with this now too.

 

So did anyone catch the World Championships of Roshambo on ESPN a couple of weeks ago? And no, not the charity tournament that happens during the WSOP - but an actual full telecast hosted by Mike Greenburg and some Roshambo "legend" that followed a tournament complete with profiles of Roshambo players down to the championship. I actually felt dirty after watching some of it.

 

uhmm, not to defend espn or anything... but you guys obviously didn't read the 50 players for the hall of fame thing very well.

They weren't saying that all 50 were a lock to get in.

here's a few paragraphs from the opening part of the article:

After extensive research, fact-checking, educated guessing and hunch playing, here are 50 active NFL players we predict will someday be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, listed in order of predicted Hall of Fame probability. Perhaps not everyone on this list will appear to be Hall of Fame material at first glance. Some might have to wait a few years to gain entry -- one of this year's inductees, Hickerson, last played in 1973.

We rated players on a 20-point scale in five categories. Details are found in the ratings key on the right side of the page.

Before you post a snarky comment at the bottom of this page ? understand that these are predictions. Very few active players would be locks for the Hall of Fame if they retired today. That leaves the door open to interpretation on who else will fill the field of 50 -- even a couple players who have yet to take a regular-season snap.



The top few guys are locks, the whole bottom bunch, they talk about what they need to do to become locks. They're just predicting, they're not saying these guys are all making the hall of fame tomorrow.



learn how to read.

 

The Human Torch was denied a bank loan.

 

anchorman?!

 

It really doesn't matter whether or not they're just predictions or locks - the mere idea of putting someone on a Hall of Fame list before they've even signed a contract is ludicrous. Besides which, if they haven't signed a contract, they aren't really active players yet, are they? Thats why they still need a minimum years experience/games played for a list like that.