On the MTVization of ESPN, and ESPN v. The Blogosphere

I'm no big fan of ESPN, but that guy thinks he (and blogs in general) is just a liiiitle too important.

Also, it was written very poorly, such that it wasn't really worth wading through, or interesting. And it talked a lot about how wonderful the blogs are and well, patting yourself on the back too much is generally not good.

Also, why did he whine about ESPN then say he wanted a explanation why Dan Patrick left. This makes me thinks he likes Dan Patrick, which kind of ruins his credibility.

About the only thing on ESPN I watch is around the horn and the occasional sports center.

http://www.dawgsports.com/story/2007/5/27/8010/48344

"Let us leave aside the almost comically ignorant vanity underlying such an assertion when made by a man who writes for a newspaper that publishes an on-line edition yet somehow seems to presume that his readers are more sophisticated if they happen to get ink on their fingers while perusing his work."

Later:

"Is it really so preposterous to suppose that intelligent readers who consume books because of an insatiable appetite for learning might be as competent to review works of literature as professional critics with personal grudges, political agendas, and ties to the publishers who provide them free copies of books to review and to the other authors who will be reviewing books of theirs?

By the same token, is it really so absurd to imagine that the fans who are in the stands because they have loved their team for as long as they can remember are as knowledgeable and capable of intelligent and insightful commentary as the reporters in the press box who are on the job, under a deadline, separated from the actual action, handcuffed by oftentimes artificial impartiality, and bound by the stylistic guidelines imposed by their corporate employers?"

Very bright, very funny. Schickel comes across as ridiculously pompous in his column.

I also learned about this little gem of an invention:

http://thebeerbelly.com/

Kind of like wheels on a suitcase, it makes you wonder why they didn't think of it sooner.

Sure, it has it's share of annoyances, but it's straight sportstalk.

I like it.

I will say it was pretty funny when Cowherd owned all the michigan fans, of which that blog writer was probably one.

Because you know, the stats obviously proved Michigan deserved the title game bot Florida.

Or, that was the PC thing, anyway.

My big problem is that they have decided to take advantage of the average fan.  I think they realize that the casual sports fan is manipulatable.  If the Boston - New York matchup is hyped up enough, the casual sports fan will watch the game, even if they weren't planning on it.  Likewise, if they hype up Ohio St. - Texas football game, they know they will get more viewers leading up to and after the game.  Thus their entire "news" division becomes nothing more than a long commercial for themselves.

I have a big problem with this.  Not the fact that they are in it for money - because that is fine.  But because they come across as trying to be unbiased, when they surely are not.  Because this putting all their eggs in some baskets means that they NEED Boston and New York to win.  This leads to things like their tools Gammons and Stark writing articles saying small team GMs like Daniels should take whatever they get for their players - an action that only feeds the teams that everyone hates, a result that incidentally leads to higher ESPN ratings....