The Worldwide Leader...

It's not just this particular game that did well. It's been week after week of blockbusters.

Who cares if the show is part entertainment? The fact is - whatever they're doing - people like it.

Of all weeks for you people to criticize a telecast - the week it breaks the hallowed record of Gore-Perot from 1993. Some of you either have bad timing, are out of touch, or both.

 

Fans have been watching Monday Night Football for 37 years. Even as a humongous money loser for ABC last year, it was an over-the-air top 10 show. If you cram an old-style over the air hit into the cable Nielsens, you have a record-breaker.
ESPN is to be congratulated for getting that audience to make the switch. I don't think the production itself and the in-game stuff have anything to do with it. That's just crap fans have learned to grit their teeth and take in order to watch the game. ABC is cramming cross-promos into the broadcast because the game HAS a large audience, not to get it one.
Anyone who says the ratings prove ESPN's broadcast "works" is basically saying millions of people watch football in order to hear the Algonquin Round Table banter of Tony Kornheiser and Joe Theismann. I find that contention hard to believe.

 

In case you all missed it, Colin Cowherd (sp?) was ripping newspaper people today for bad-mouthing ESPN. He made sure to include it re: the ratings of Espn, etc. Basically said newspaper people are just jealous because Espn employees make so much more money.

 

A heads-up: Alma is logged in. This or the Page 2/Hill thread seem like likely visiting places.

 

Yes, count me in among those who is abhored by the ESPN telecast - I don't watch the pregame, but from the announcing crew to "Jacked Up" at halftime to those insipid in-game interviews.

But, like many of you, I still had the TV on (well, I was at work. If I were home I wouldn't have been watching). And like we say, it's not me they are programming their games for.

As long as the ratings are high, they'll keep doing what they do. In psychology, they call that negative reinforcement.

Anyway, let's see how the ratings go for the Nov. 6 Oakland at Seattle game.

 

We'll how the ratings progress. Dallas is Dallas, and always a big draw. After that bizarro game in Glendale, I would have suspected a healthy bump.

ESPN does some things well on the telecast, others not.

 

Fuck Cowherd.
I'd rather have integrity than a gigantic bank account (on most days).

 

Tell us how you really feel.

 

Word.

I'm a petty man. I like success. If adding all the singers, actors, entertainers, pointless interviews, computer graphics, pundits, etc. draws the numbers and makes the big money, good for them. That's the name of the game.

I've given up on the notion that ESPN is pure sports reporting. It's infotainment. The goal is to bring sports to the masses and package it in a way to make an ass-load of money. The whole sports reporting stuff is just a by-product.

 

I just straight hate ESPN.
The only solution is to ignore it.

 

Couldn't agree more. Cowherd is a complete douchebag. I started out liking him, but he's just a USC / Notre Dame / Yankees homer who has a steel girder up his ass. Completely pompous, just an asshat. Not sure what happened to him, but he's garbage now. Maybe he was always this way and I didn't pick up on it.

ESPN knows it's audience. They are very good at putting their finger to the wind and reading it accurately. That's why it was news when ESPN Mobile fell on its face. I hate almost everything about ESPN, but I have to give them their due. They've pretty much maxed out the middle - aged white male demographic, so they hire Scoop and now Hill for .com to try to increase their African - American and Eminem wanna - be numbers. And their MNF infotainment bunk is aimed squarely at women, the largest untapped market.

I will say this, Fox Sports Radio is starting to gain on ESPN Radio. Unfortunately, much of their programming is just as bad if not worse than the ESPN Radio product. Though you might get less smarminess from the hosts, you get a lot more background bells and whistles and more crudeness. There is more caller interaction, which is a double - edged sword.

As a former radio guy, I'll just say there is a real dearth of quality national programming out there. Jim Rome is probably the best at the craft, whether you like him or not. No surprise he just got a fat extension. Mike and Mike have the whole "Laurel - and - Hardy" thing down well, and do a good job, but I think Greenberg has a limited shelf life. Golic makes that show, and if it were just Greenberg, he'd already be off the air. But they definitely have their niche.

Only other national (non - satellite) shows of note are Dan Patrick (very solid) and Chris Myers' "The Drive" (which suffers for the co - host). The rest of the landscape is pretty bare.

I'm sure a lot of us would love to see some serious, legitimate competition for ESPN in various media. Fox is doing its thing, but they have a lot of issues of their own. We all remember the CNN / SI debacle. Hopefully some viable alternatives can come along soon and ameliorate the '"Boo - Yah" - ification' of sports media.

 

Colon can take off the kneepads for a few moments, now . . .