What if ESPN failed? What's the sporting landscape like today?

a 24-hour sports channel was an era waiting to happen.

but what if it had not been owned by Disney? how would reporting have been impacted?

remember, disney owned the angels and the ducks. would another owner have avoided buying teams and demanded tougher reporting on steroids? or a different approach on the nhl lockout?

on the other hand, what if Rupert Murdoch had owned it?

 

Yesterday, Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann were talking about the impact of SportsCenter. KO said the two of them were going to spend some time in purgatory because their use of catchphrases inspired others to the same. And those others overdo it.

So, without ESPN, you wouldn't have every sports anchor in small to mid-sized markets trying out catchphrases over highlights of the local college or high school teams.

 

it just doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

A lot of high school and small-time college bands in the last 10 years would have had to learn something else to run into the ground instead of the "SportsCenter" theme ... like maybe even more verses of "Hey Baby" ...

 

without ESPN there would be more of a focus on breaking news and actual reporting instead of regurgitation other people's leg work and then analyzing the hell out of it ... at least I hope so

 

I agree with Olberman on a lot of political things, but he's one of the most self-important blowhards I've ever seen. Keith, all trends are not started because of you, just so you know. And by the way, you were never in any sort of contention (as you shouldn't have been) for Katie Couric's job as the new CBS evening news anchor. Basically, get over yourself. You were (and are) a schmuck for years, and now we're supposed to take you all seriously as a newsman? Give me a break...

 

I would watch a lot less tv :

 

A wise colleague recently likened ESPN to "the McDonald's of sports broadcasting." Maybe all of you have heard the comparison 1,000 times before, regurgitated it, etc. I haven't. I like it. It's a better comparison than MTV. To flesh it out:

McDonald's made cheap, high-calorie foods almost infinitely available wherever you are. Much like ESPN and sports news.

The food is not good. Much like the majority of ESPN's "reporting."

As a result of McDonald's, there is a segment of this country (and world) that probably can't appreciate a good burger joint as it once could. There is likewise a segment of this country that probably can't appreciate a well-reported sports story as it once could. Which sucks for those of us whose job it is to know what a good burger/sports story tastes like.

The overuse of "catch phrases" by sportscasters annoyed viewers in local markets for years; I don't blame this phenomenon on ESPN (sorry, Keith Olbermann). They could've put an end to it, but it's no surprise they didn't.

If you're into the X Games, college basketball perhaps, definitely poker - the sporting landscape is much better today with ESPN's brand of sports broadcasting. All proof that if the network latches on to something, it turns to gold like a chicken nugget.

On the whole, the landscape is worse. Consumers will soon forget what good sports print reporting is like, and blow off a well-written story in their local paper/paper's Web site because they "saw it on SportsCenter." Perhaps it's happened already. Either way it was inevitable, and ESPN hastened it. Y'all are right, if it weren't ESPN, some either network would have made it happen. Still, I get to blame ESPN for this.

In a nutshell, now a burger/sports story in Sheboygan tastes like a burger/sports story in L.A. Kinda sucks, if you ask me.

 

Someone made the CNN analogy earlier and I think I agree. CNN changed the way we look at news, even if it didn't start pulling down the monster ratings right out of the gate. If ESPN hadn't done it, I'm willing to bet someone would have. In Houston, back in the day, we had HSE, which was a 24-hour sports network but it featured regional teams/events/athletes, etc. It was probably only a matter of time before the concept became nationwide.

 

I'm convinced Rupert Murdoch WOULD have owned it had Getty Oil not beaten them to the punch and stuck with it. One prime reason he couldn't make Fox Sports work on an ESPN-esque national scale is because ESPN had already ingrained itself in the public consciousness and locked the market up.

Out here on the West Coast, we had Prime Ticket, which was similar to Allen's HSE and the MSG's and NESN's of the Northeast. Allen's right in that someone was going to take that on a national scale.and I'm convinced -- for better or (most likely) worse -- that someone would have been Murdoch.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that really good sports writing has "suffered" because of ESPN. Are as many people reading it? Maybe not, but that doesn't reduce the quality of work produced by good reporters. However, thanks to the Internet, a much more diverse audience can get a look at good writing.

 

"Smith tickles the twine from 19'9."
Ugh.