ESPN Is Pathetic

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
27,460
Washington DC
Not "calling you out" for being anything in particular but that's a very strange thing to say about a woman whose second job in sports journalism as a 20something was doing an NHL beat in the 90s.
Not "calling you out" for being anything in particular but that's a very strange thing to say about a woman whose second job in sports journalism as a 20something was doing an NHL beat in the 90s.
She's older than me, which surprises me, but I stand by it. I have always regarded her as having this affect, and I still do when I see her today.
 

Phil Plantier

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
3,217
Athletic has a story too, that I think needed another edit for clarity:

https://theathletic.com/2798560/2021/08/30/how-the-washington-generals-of-high-school-football-conned-espn/

“It’s really sad,” Holtzclaw told The Athletic on Monday. “They have some good kids on their team that just want to play football, want to go to the next level, whatever. But the guys that run it lie and cheat. It’s terrible.”
 

Fred not Lynn

Dick Button Jr.
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,132
Alberta
This might be a thread of its own - keeps getting crazier the more layers that get peeled off.

The youth sports industry has a very seedy underbelly, but while everyone crucifies Bishop Sycamore for being outright fraudulent - maybe we should be thinking about why we even have an IMG and nationally televised high school football. This is a LONG was from Central @ West on homecoming…
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,994
One of the headlines on the front page is "Giraffe named after QB Burrow dies after illness".

Not only is that not newsworthy, but I quickly misread it as "Giraffe named starter after QB Burrow dies after illness" and I was like, holy crap I didn't even know Joe Burrow was ill!
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
2,240
The one point someone made that was reminiscent of some of the moves the Yawkey-era Sox made: Kevin Mitchell got traded because Cashen thought he was a bad influence on Strawberry and Gooden. He didn't drink or do drugs and ended up being MVP 3 years later (for the Giants). Some bad influence.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
21,849
These 30 for 30 episodes were amazing (no pun). And as much as the Sox have won and the Mets haven't in the last 35 years, that last episode was gut-wrenching. Being a strike away 16 times (16 TIMES!) is insane. ESPN could do a ten-part episode on the 1986 post season and I'd watch every second of it. All of the Mets came off as affable, good guys; even assholes like Dykstra, Backman and Strawberry. Hernandez seemed the coolest and you can tell why he was the leader of the bunch, but Kevin Mitchell seemed like a really good guy too.

I started to look into the numbers a little and how McNamara managed that team was fucking criminal, especially the pitching staff. I understand that it was a different time, but eight pitchers threw the ball in that seven-game series. Only two (Clemens and Hurst) had ERAs under 3.20. You could argue that McNamara had to manage around such a shitty staff or you could say that McNamara's staff was running on fumes due to overuse. I prefer to believe the latter. It may have been Jeff Pearlman, but someone in the documentary said for such an exciting game, Game 6 was the worst managed game ever. And I tend to agree. McNamara was clueless and Davy Johnson was just a little less clueless.

If social media was around in those days ... man.

I thought that Hernandez' theory of why Buckner was playing so far back (he was the only former NL guy on the Sox and knew how fast Mookie was) was interesting. But the more I think about it, it seems a bit counter intuitive. Like, shouldn't Buckner have been playing up more? So that he wouldn't have had far to run? IDK. This documentary brought back a lot of memories. And it's good that 2004, 07, 13 and 18 happened.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
26,725
Saskatoon Canada
This might be a thread of its own - keeps getting crazier the more layers that get peeled off.

The youth sports industry has a very seedy underbelly,
I am coaching in a league that is response to many "prep" basketball programs in Western Canada. So many kids are throwing away money for a chance to play, keep playing, or a pipe dream of college ball. Kids are playing 500 bucks or more month, then they team buys them a Y membership and tries to pratice during open gym times, etc. Lots of horror stories.

Anyway our league is new and the price tag seems crazy to me, but we have these working class kids just handing it over. We are pursuing sponsors, fundraising, etc, to lower costs, but kids and parents are asking if we need more $.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
18,938
One reason ESPN isn't completely pathetic.
View: http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=32293779
I love the show. It's a great story about how basically this is how they talked to each other when their desks were next to each other at the Washington Post and they basically just put that on television. They have great chemistry and have distinctly different personalities, it really is the perfect combo for a sports talk show.

I think people today are kind of afraid to be wrong, or they are just trolling or doling out hot takes for a reaction, when it comes to opinion-based shows. I like that clip because it shows that these guys can look back and laugh at how wrong they were, as opposed to being worried about what people are saying on social media. One of the reasons I enjoy the Simmons/Sal post-Sunday NFL podcasts is because they have a somewhat similar camaraderie as Wilbon/Kornheiser. If you want to get super hard-hitting analysis from very smart football people, you should look elsewhere. What you do get is the sense of talking football with some co-workers on Monday morning, and sometimes they are going to say things you strongly disagree with, but that is all in the fun of the relationship. The show is a window into being apart of that buddy relationship, and I think PTI really nailed that.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,871
I love the show. It's a great story about how basically this is how they talked to each other when their desks were next to each other at the Washington Post and they basically just put that on television. They have great chemistry and have distinctly different personalities, it really is the perfect combo for a sports talk show.

I think people today are kind of afraid to be wrong, or they are just trolling or doling out hot takes for a reaction, when it comes to opinion-based shows. I like that clip because it shows that these guys can look back and laugh at how wrong they were, as opposed to being worried about what people are saying on social media. One of the reasons I enjoy the Simmons/Sal post-Sunday NFL podcasts is because they have a somewhat similar camaraderie as Wilbon/Kornheiser. If you want to get super hard-hitting analysis from very smart football people, you should look elsewhere. What you do get is the sense of talking football with some co-workers on Monday morning, and sometimes they are going to say things you strongly disagree with, but that is all in the fun of the relationship. The show is a window into being apart of that buddy relationship, and I think PTI really nailed that.
Yeah, they just want their show to be entertaining. Entertaining in a way way all other ESPN programing isn't. Although ATH isn't bad and has its moments.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
56,108
Rotten Apple
Malika Andrews should have that job. Greenberg has like 20 jobs there already but he also has no particular connection to the NBA or the culture.
I noted the 'for the biggest games' caveat which likely means some weekends and playoffs only.
I get that he's the face of ESPN but this isn't a good fit.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
32,280
Maui

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
56,108
Rotten Apple
View: https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1445489496896598023

ESPN’s Sage Steele Pulled Off Air After Controversial Podcast Comments, Positive COVID Test

During the podcast, Steele took aim at Disney’s requirement that most employees get vaccinated against the coronavirus, calling it “sick,” and noting that she “didn’t want to” get a shot, though she did. She also indicated she was surprised that President Obama identifies as Black.

Steele is also off the air because she recently tested positive for coronavirus, according to a person familiar with the matter. The anchor will not take part in ESPN’s espnW summit, which focuses on women in sports, and is expected to return to full duty sometime next week.

“I know my recent comments created controversy for the company, and I apologize. We are in the midst of an extremely challenging time that impacts all of us, and it’s more critical than ever that we communicate constructively and thoughtfully,” Steele said in a statement provided by ESPN.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
21,849
He's as milquetoast as it gets. Not offensive, but peppy and engaging. Plus, he's willing to do 40 jobs.

But, yes, Greenberg has succeeded far beyond where he should be.
I've never heard anyone say anything positive about Mike Greenberg. I've never heard anyone say anything too negative about him either, he's just there. I never really liked Stuart Scott, but people loved him and I could see the appeal. I was just an Patrick/Olberman disciple that anyone who came after them, I wasn't going to like. Berman has that same either love him/hate him type thing. Stephen A. Smith provokes a reaction.

But Mike Greenberg is just ... there. He knows how to kick it to a commercial, but other than that; he's boring. And he's not boring in a way that Joe Buck is boring. I don't mind Buck because aside from some examples, I think he's a good broadcaster. And I also think he's gotten better in the last 20 years, but I don't see that happening to Greenberg. He's going to be the same bland, inoffensive, middle of the road dude today as he will be in 30 years.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,495
New York City
I've never heard anyone say anything positive about Mike Greenberg. I've never heard anyone say anything too negative about him either, he's just there. I never really liked Stuart Scott, but people loved him and I could see the appeal. I was just an Patrick/Olberman disciple that anyone who came after them, I wasn't going to like. Berman has that same either love him/hate him type thing. Stephen A. Smith provokes a reaction.

But Mike Greenberg is just ... there. He knows how to kick it to a commercial, but other than that; he's boring. And he's not boring in a way that Joe Buck is boring. I don't mind Buck because aside from some examples, I think he's a good broadcaster. And I also think he's gotten better in the last 20 years, but I don't see that happening to Greenberg. He's going to be the same bland, inoffensive, middle of the road dude today as he will be in 30 years.
We are in agreement.

Back in the day, I listened to (endured?) Mike and Mike in the morning. I hated it, but it was there.

Now I don't have any relationship with Greenie. I will have ESPN on in the background sometimes, with no volume, so he's on my screen occasionally. But I don't think I've heard him in over a decade. He's just a face and a body.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
28,054
Greenberg is roughly the modern version of Brent Musberger. Technically competent at the role, not especially controversial or all that full of personality, but (from a network perspective) both reliable and versatile.

I'll give him this: he's made an awfully nice living out of that skillset
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
18,938
I mean, it's Greenberg on a show with Smith, Wilbon, Rose and Magic. I think Greenberg just being a boring professional and letting the personalities be themselves is kind of the point for that show.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
9,287
Greenberg is roughly the modern version of Brent Musberger. Technically competent at the role, not especially controversial or all that full of personality, but (from a network perspective) both reliable and versatile.

I'll give him this: he's made an awfully nice living out of that skillset
You have this often in art/entertainment. The person who shows up on time, does a competent job, makes things pleasant for the ones they work with, and is completely, utterly uninteresting. You do that and ask a competitive rate, and you'll stick around a long time without anybody ever liking you.