DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: snapple on March 24, 2012, 07:10:15 AM
-
Alright, there are 1,000 places for me to start. Here we go:
This is a rant on 2 hours of sleep whilst bored at work. Thank you, brother. I fucking hate your dog. The 12 pack of beer and use of your car was not enough of payment while you and your family were out of town.
ESPN sucks.
Okay, this is from the view of a baseball fan who kind of dabbles around other sports. Last summer, the NFL lockout was going on. I spent 8 hours watching ESPN a day, four days out of the week for some research (I had injured my arm, couldn't work). They spent more time talking about the lockout than they did about baseball and other sports combined. The baseball season was in full swing for God's sake! I get it, the lockout is a big deal, but come the fuck on.
With baseball, none of the commentators get it. W/L, ERA and WHIP for pitching stats. BA, HR, RBI and sb for batting (lucky if you get obp). With hitting, it's hard to get into advanced stuff. But pitching isn't that bad. MLB Network is trying to incorporate new statistics into all of their programs. They're using some still pretty unreliable measures, but fuck it. They're moving in the right direction.
Olney and Kurkjian are alright. The latter being the better of the two. I've just found that I can't stand watching this channel anymore. It's literally worse than wedding planning. It's worse than listening to Courtney talk about stupid shit in excruciating detail that I don't give two solid fucks about but, I have to listen. It's worse than listening to politicians.
ESPN, you are the worst.
-
Soccer is rarely ever acknowledged on ESPN, even when there are big games going on. All they care about is Basketball and Football. Of course this is less of a problem for me, because I think baseball is asinine.
-
Soccer is rarely ever acknowledged on ESPN, even when there are big games going on. All they care about is Basketball and Football. Of course this is less of a problem for me, because I think baseball is asinine.
You're asinine >:( but even with football, the coverage is weak at best.
-
They spent far more time this week talking about Tim Tebow than they did about Peyton Manning or about the Saints. Yes, ESPN sucks.
-
The Powers That Be cut out of local programming to show Tebow's plane landing in New York. There's no escaping it :|
-
What a shock.
Really, I blame ESPN for Tebow being as polarizing as he is. They talk about him so much that those who do not like him already like him even less because they get tired of hearing about him. Plus, it's the whole "Is he really a good enough NFL player to warrant this kind of coverage?" thing, and the answer is obviously no. Sure, he was probably one of the greatest college players ever, but do they really need to talk about him non-stop like he is the greatest thing ever? And I say that as someone who likes Tebow (I am probably one of the few who doesn't have an extreme opinion about him either way).
-
I don't even have ESPN and I know they blow.
-
I never knew how much into football ESPN was until I started hanging around the TVs at my university where there is always ESPN on at least one. It seems like they're always trying to talk about football no matter what time of the year.
-
What is really sad is, as much time as they dedicate to football, their game highlights are often pathetic now. I get that not everyone wants to see a 2-minute highlight of a meaningless Bills/Seahawks game in Week 14, but wrapping them up in 20 seconds and then having your analysts babble for 10 minutes is stupid. It is sad how much they skimp on game highlights now, given how much overall time the network dedicates to football.
-
I like football, but goddamn.
-
Not that I disagree with you all about ESPN but if you don't like it........CHANGE THE STATION!!
-
As a huge basketball fan, ESPN's NBA coverage also sucks. I'm not talking about quantity here; I'm talking about quality. Jon Barry is about the most unlikeable analyst on television, Magic Johnson is awful in front of the camera, and Jalen Rose uses arguments so simplistic you'd think he was a drunk college kid. Mark Jackson was also horrible as a color commentator.
-
Hand down, MAAAAAAAAAAN down!
-
https://deadspin.com/5875622/espn-broke-its-own-record-by-making-160-tim-tebow-references-in-one-hour-of-sportscenter-here-are-all-of-them
-
also this
https://deadspin.com/statistical-analysis-of-sportscenter/
-
Sports journalism sucks. It's just a non-stop barrage of fallacies and incredibly superficial "analysis."
-
Well I thing in general all journalism has changed for the worst. The old beat writers wouldn't post some of the shenanigans of the players and now it's a TMZ world and that goes for the New and sports.
-
Getting rid of Joe Morgan was best thing they ever did. For a HOF caliber player he sure as hell demonstrated how little he's paid attention to the evolution of the game.
-
https://deadspin.com/5875622/espn-broke-its-own-record-by-making-160-tim-tebow-references-in-one-hour-of-sportscenter-here-are-all-of-them
Thank you based Fielder avatar.
-
Sports journalism sucks. It's just a non-stop barrage of fallacies and incredibly superficial "analysis."
It's amazing how - as noted above - so many sports analysts completely reject the use of useful statistics. I'm not even talking about saber metrics here; I'm simply talking about stuff like late game FG%. Every single time the question is asked, "Who is the best clutch shooter in the NBA?", someone should cite statistics. There's no more room for answers like, "Kobe Bryant because he... uh... makes a bunch".
-
Sports journalism sucks. It's just a non-stop barrage of fallacies and incredibly superficial "analysis."
It's amazing how - as noted above - so many sports analysts completely reject the use of useful statistics. I'm not even talking about saber metrics here; I'm simply talking about stuff like late game FG%. Every single time the question is asked, "Who is the best clutch shooter in the NBA?", someone should cite statistics. There's no more room for answers like, "Kobe Bryant because he... uh... makes a bunch".
Yeah. I left strikeouts in the pitching stuff.
But there are a few stats that aren't really indicative to a player in baseball, but are commonly used by ESPN/commentators as such:
Pitching W/L (however a loss is more accurate. Well, in the sense that if you play black jack enough, you might win a hand)
RBI (RBIs tell more of your batting order, not how good the bat is)
R (more on who is batting)
Then there are stats that have some value, but it's ignorant to think they actually are the end all stat to measure a pitcher/player:
ERA
K (I'm going to catch shit for that. How about AJ Burnett?)
BA
Well, it doesn't seem like a lot, but those are 6 statistics that are measured. And you know what? They show a complete lack of ignorance on ESPN's part. On MLB Network broadcasts, they mention things like OBP (and to SOME degree on ESPN), K/9, BB/9, BABIP (that tickled my dick when I heard a reference to that) and others. While it's hard to measure everything, there is no reason to not mention some of it. K/9 is NOT hard to explain.
-
I stopped watching ESPN a long time ago. They do suck. I hate being told who to root for. The glorification of the athletes is sickening.
Also, if they don't broadcast it, they don't promote it. Their hockey coverage is deplorable.
-
Sports journalism sucks. It's just a non-stop barrage of fallacies and incredibly superficial "analysis."
It's amazing how - as noted above - so many sports analysts completely reject the use of useful statistics. I'm not even talking about saber metrics here; I'm simply talking about stuff like late game FG%. Every single time the question is asked, "Who is the best clutch shooter in the NBA?", someone should cite statistics. There's no more room for answers like, "Kobe Bryant because he... uh... makes a bunch".
Most sports "analysis" falls into one of four categories:
1. the ecological fallacy
2. fundamental attribution error
3. confirmation bias
4. something to do with a fundamental lack of understanding about sample size, like the hot-hand fallacy
-
I think it's almost fair to say that ESPN is slowly becoming the MTV of sports television. Just need a few more reality shows.
-
(https://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ESPN-mentions-of-NFL-625x431.png)
Like something from a video game, this graphic from The New York Times shows the most mentioned NFL players and coaches this season. Players are scaled approximately by the number of mentions between August 1, 2011 to February 1, 2012 on ESPN's SportCenter and Sunday NFL Countdown. The giant on the left is Tim Tebow, with 1,450 mentions. Bar graphs on the bottom highlight mentions over time for players of interest.
-
I think it's almost fair to say that ESPN is slowly becoming the MTV of sports television. Just need a few more reality shows.
They already have those.
-
That's why he said more.
Also, it's ridiculous that Tebow got that many mentions.
-
I don't know much of anything about baseball, but it always struck me as nonsensical to talk about W/L records for pitchers. If Pitcher A has a 5 - 5 record and Pitcher B has a 9 - 1 record, but Pitcher A gives up less hits and runs, then is his worse W/L record something to be held against him? What if the offense on Pitcher A's team simply blows?
A simplistic example, but I think it illustrates my point.
-
I don't know much of anything about baseball, but it always struck me as nonsensical to talk about W/L records for pitchers. Pitcher A has a 5 - 5 record and Pitcher B has a 9 - 1 record, but Pitcher A gives up less hits and runs, then is his worse W/L record something to be held against him (as retards believe). The offense on Pitcher A's team simply blows.
A simplistic example, but I think it illustrates my point.
I changed the questions into statements that prove the point.
-
I don't know much of anything about baseball, but it always struck me as nonsensical to talk about W/L records for pitchers. If Pitcher A has a 5 - 5 record and Pitcher B has a 9 - 1 record, but Pitcher A gives up less hits and runs, then is his worse W/L record something to be held against him? What if the offense on Pitcher A's team simply blows?
A simplistic example, but I think it illustrates my point.
But winners win, and losers lose. C'mon. This is like Sports 101.
-
Unfortunately, I think teams do these kind of stats now too, (sabermetrics) and it's bleds into the TV analysis too.
-
I don't know much of anything about baseball, but it always struck me as nonsensical to talk about W/L records for pitchers. If Pitcher A has a 5 - 5 record and Pitcher B has a 9 - 1 record, but Pitcher A gives up less hits and runs, then is his worse W/L record something to be held against him? What if the offense on Pitcher A's team simply blows?
A simplistic example, but I think it illustrates my point.
But winners win, and losers lose. C'mon. This is like Sports 101.
(https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m058pnG0CY1r7uiy0o1_500.gif)
-
Unfortunately, I think teams do these kind of stats now too, (sabermetrics) and it's bleds into the TV analysis too.
Not on ESPN so much. Plus, they're pretty stupid.
-
Come on now. They have those stupid stats all over the place. Over analyzing. they do have 24 hours to talk sports you know, so they tend to have a lot of fluff on air.
-
Unfortunately, I think teams do these kind of stats now too, (sabermetrics) and it's bleds into the TV analysis too.
Some of them should because they ARE better metrics to measure a players value! WAR, OPS, FIP, xFIP, DRS, UZR/150 (to name a few) should all be use more regularly by sportscasters, not just by fantasy analysts and/or nerds.
-
I don't like WAR xFIP/FIP
-
WAR is a bit... strange, since different people use different equations for it (for example: baseball-reference.com and fangraphs.com).
I like FIP/xFIP because since it only uses things the pitcher can control, I believe it's a better measure than ERA.
-
I don't trust WAR. Some people use it as the most important stat. Fuck that.
FIP I do trust.
-
I don't trust WAR. Some people use it as the most important stat. Fuck that.
FIP I do trust.
FIP is just basically what you should expect a pitcher's ERA to be.
-
ESPN is terrible. Grantland, however, is awesome.
Also, if you're in north Texas, it's great to listen to The Ticket.
-
Also, if you're in north Texas, it's great to listen to The Ticket.
:metal
I like PTI too, and sometimes Around the Horn (the format of the show sucks, but they have some good analysts). Other than that, I could do without most of ESPN's amateur analysis.
And although I feel nothing but hatred for Texas Tech, the Craig James-Mike Leach debacle and the way it was "handled" really solidified my negative opinion of the network.
-J
-
@j
good luck.
with your bottom.
-
Grantland, however, is awesome.
Word.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebvLPKsPrUM
This here is a prime example of what is wrong with ESPN. The analysts are asked to rank the top five NBA players, and LeBron James makes neither of their lists.
The rationale for Stephen's list is: There's one game. 48 minutes. I need to win that game. Who do I go with?
There are some major problems with this rationale, the most obvious one being that the NBA season is not one game long. The NBA season is an 82 game marathon plus playoffs. It doesn't matter who gives you the best chance to win one game. That's a completely useless scenario.
Both guys also mention a player's ability to close as being a major factor. This is an even bigger issue with ESPN: It's getting to the point where the criteria for evaluating basketball players is basically whether they are likely to play well with two minutes left in a close game. The importance of the regular season has turned to nothing. You can have a guy like LeBron James be clearly the best player during the season and through the first three rounds of the playoffs and then just because he plays like shit in the Finals he doesn't even rank in some analysts' top five. It's ridiculous.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebvLPKsPrUM
This here is a prime example of what is wrong with ESPN. The analysts are asked to rank the top five NBA players, and LeBron James makes neither of their lists.
The rationale for Stephen's list is: There's one game. 48 minutes. I need to win that game. Who do I go with?
There are some major problems with this rationale, the most obvious one being that the NBA season is not one game long. The NBA season is an 82 game marathon plus playoffs. It doesn't matter who gives you the best chance to win one game. That's a completely useless scenario.
Both guys also mention a player's ability to close as being a major factor. This is an even bigger issue with ESPN: It's getting to the point where the criteria for evaluating basketball players is basically whether they are likely to play well with two minutes left in a close game. The importance of the regular season has turned to nothing. You can have a guy like LeBron James be clearly the best player during the season and through the first three rounds of the playoffs and then just because he plays like shit in the Finals he doesn't even rank in some analysts' top five. It's ridiculous.
They do the exact same thing with quarterbacks, and it disgusts me.
-
The notion that points/goals/TDs/etc. are worth more in the last few minutes than at any other point in the game is another ridiculous one crafted by sports analysts.
-
But there is something about a guy that can perform when it's needed. I'm not saying it;s the end all but it sure helps in figuring out the best. Sure Lebron and Dan Marino are HOFers and many others but the finishers are a special breed to when they put up the numbers like those two and clutch when it counts.
-
I don't think clutch play exists. Or at the very least, I am skeptical of it.
-
The whole notion of clutch only exists if you really want it to. People will argue that it's a true attribute but look at how many mediocre players get hot at the right time or get a few breaks out of pure luck and are suddenly Mr. Clutch (I'm looking at you David Freese). Sports are so random in their very nature that I don't really believe something like clutch can exist because the average fan/analyst's perception of "pressure situations" is most likely wildly different than that of a player in one of those positions.
-
Well, I'm of the opinion that if someone can crack under pressure, why can't the opposite be true?
-
Statistics in sport are only as useful as statistics in business: you can use them to assess how someone/something is performing, but the future is so inherently random that they can tell you almost nothing meaningful about future performance.
This comes from a guy who makes bank on numbers/statistics.
-
If "clutch" didn't exist then there wouldn't be anything to talk about when they talk about "clutch" players. Those are players who can be counted on to make the plays to win the game. They win the big games. People remember champions.
They talk about about things like "for one game" because it always comes down to one game. Anybody can have one good game, a lot of players can have one good season, some people can have multiple good seasons, fewer still have multiple great seasons. But fewer still make the big plays to win the game when it gets down to that one game they have to win. That's what "clutch" is about. That's a relatively small pool of people.
-
I still think it's more luck than anything. Like I said, we've had two World Series in a row now where a completely below average/average player gets hot at just the right time and is celebrated like they've always been a clutch player (Cody Ross and David Freese). Yes, great players should be able to hit those big spots since they're incredibly gifted but they can't be that 100% of the time and if someone like Lebron starts crapping out in the Finals then I'd chalk it up to that small percentage of time that they've hit a cold streak just like any athlete.
-
Well, I'm of the opinion that if someone can crack under pressure, why can't the opposite be true?
But I don't think professional athletes crack under pressure (with one asterisk: very tall basketball players. I'll explain why). It's the opposite of what the media calls being "clutch"; it's just a cold streak. I think it's a fundamental attribution error to purport that cold streak's cause to psychological issues.
If "clutch" didn't exist then there wouldn't be anything to talk about when they talk about "clutch" players. Those are players who can be counted on to make the plays to win the game. They win the big games. People remember champions.
They talk about about things like "for one game" because it always comes down to one game. Anybody can have one good game, a lot of players can have one good season, some people can have multiple good seasons, fewer still have multiple great seasons. But fewer still make the big plays to win the game when it gets down to that one game they have to win. That's what "clutch" is about. That's a relatively small pool of people.
Players don't win big games. Teams win games. The nature of single games like the Super Bowl, or even seven game series, is one of complete chaos. The sample size is so small that random variation rules. If a team goes hot or cold, or a player with extreme influence (QB, pitcher, goalie) goes extremely hot or cold, that throws a big wrench into things.
I think that with a big enough sample size, playoff performance will roughly equal regular season performance. History's "clutch" players usually fall into one of two categories:
1. great players, typically on great teams
2. players who only had a very small sample size of play, but played well
I don't think either are "clutch."
Here's a great example. Hockey's most renowned "clutch player" is Patrick Roy. He holds the record for most playoff MVPs in hockey, with 3 (along with 4 Stanley Cups). He had a long history of great playoff performances. He was a great regular season goalie as well, and is certainly the 2nd best goaltender of the modern era. He played on, and was an integral part of, a series of dominant teams, first with the defensive-minded Canadiens and then the offensively gifted Avalanche.
He also was responsible for the biggest single-game playoff collapse in the last few decades, in a game 7, against his arch-rivals. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsiUJQVIV94)
I have no problem reconciling the latter statement with the former paragraph. Anyone can have a bad game. But that's a fundamental contradiction if one assumes players are "clutch."
-
Certain player are not so much clutch as a lot of other players simply gag under the late game pressure.
Also, Kobe Bryant is one of the worst shooters in the NBA in the last minute of games in the last few years, but everyone talks like he is so clutch. And why? Because everyone remembers the ones he makes and forgets the ones he misses.
Lastly, it has to be said about LeBron James: the problem with him isn't that he isn't clutch; it's just that he is not the type of player everyone wants him to be. He is by far the best player in the league, and everyone wants him to be the guy who always takes the shot at the end of the game, just like Jordan was, but he simply is not that kind of player. The sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner he stops getting crap for not supposedly being clutch.
-
ESPN's suspension of Bill Simmons illustrates once again how much they suck. Granted, Simmons all but asked for it, but for a network that allows Skip Bayless and Screaming A. Smith to spout their nonsense five days a week, to suspend Simmons for this is pathetic.
-
To be fair, they don't do expletive laden podcasts and then dare ESPN to come after them. That's just begging for a suspension, even if everything he said about Goodell we're all thinking.
-
seems very hypocritical of ESPN to do this. On the other side though, does Simmons have actual proof Goodell lied?
. . . also
@j
good luck.
with your bottom.
bottom
-
To be fair, they don't do expletive laden podcasts and then dare ESPN to come after them. That's just begging for a suspension, even if everything he said about Goodell we're all thinking.
This is the first time they've done something because of him using expletives. I've heard a few of his other podcasts and he's used profanity with no repercussion and none of the people from Grantland.com (site run by Simmons but owned by ESPN) have been reprimanded for their use of them and they used them quite liberally.
This is all about staying on the NFL's good side. Can't lose that MNF contract!!!
Anyway, it's hilarious that he was suspended for a week more than Ray Rice.
-
I wonder what Simmons is going to go public with.
-
It's weird. I agree that ESPN sucks, and I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason they suspended him was to avoid pissing off the NFL, but the reason they gave for suspending him - that he called Goodell a liar without proof - isn't something I completely disagree with. I get that Simmons isn't a journalist and part of his appeal is that he thinks like a fan, but someones I do think he goes overboard in just saying whatever comes to his mind.
-
I don't overanalyze things, I watch SportsCenter just to get the latest news, but it pissed me off when I think it was Memorial Day when live baseball was going on, and they put that at the end of the hour to focus on OFFSEASON basketball. Ignoring the current sport to talk about trades for a half hour? Stupid.
-
I stopped watching ESPN about 10 years ago. Its unwatchable for me. Besides watching live sports on the network of coarse.
-
I'll admit I still DVR Around the Horn and PTI, and I can usually get through both in about 10 minutes at night, but tonight's PTI showed how awful it is now. They dedicated a minute and a half to Mark Cuban and Kevin Durant's verbal spat, yet the Blues/Blackhawks Game 7 only gets a brief mention in the Happy Trails segment at the end, only to say Happy Trails to the defending champs. How pathetic.
-
^^ Yeah, but come on, do we really look up to ESPN to be a good standard bearer when talking about the NHL and hockey in general? I recall watching one of these shows the day after the Kings eliminated the Canucks back in 2012 (to give more context to those that do not know, the Kings were the 8th seed in the west and the Canucks was the President's trophy winner with them having the most pts in the league during the season and was a solid favorite to win the cup), and the ESPN guys just shrugged it off like it was no big deal or something like the Kings were not going to make an impact in the playoffs. And then the Kings won the cup, I don't know how those ESPN guys reacted the day after.
I can't even say the NBC Sports Network guys like ...... Pierre Mcguire is a golden standard, but at least, they cover the basis well.
-
It's going to suck less with Skip Bayless leaving. Can't stand him.
-
Nah, pretty sure it's still going to suck.
-
Nah, pretty sure it's still going to suck.
Didn't say it wasn't going To suck. I said it would suck less. ;)
-
I think I already mentioned in this thread the first time around, but my major beef with ESPN is they are too reliant on talking heads and analysts running their mouths. I mean, they have like 22 channels now, yet the highlights for most games on a normal Sunday of football, the sport they cover the most BY FAR, are a joke. Highlight packages used to do a great job of making the 2-3 minute clips of them similar to the pace and flow of the game, to where it was like watching the game at warp speed with the highlights punctuated, but now they plow through most games in less than 30 seconds, just so their 598 talking heads can run their mouths.
And they are too reliant of drama and crap that doesn't really mean a lot. In general, they ignore hockey, unless something bad happens. ATH and PTI barely mentioned hockey for weeks, but the minute Duncan Keith slashed someone in the face, they couldn't wait to talk about. On the flip side, the Blues/Hawks Game 7 got a mention in passing at the end of Tuesday's PTI, while in the same episode, the Duncan/Cuban spat got 140 seconds. And hey, I get it, ESPN doesn't have rights to hockey games anymore, so they don't give a shit about it, but their TMZ approach to journalism and sports talk now is sad.
-
https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/espn-conveniently-edits-curt-schilling-out-of-red-sox-documentary-024028785.html
Whatever your opinion is of Curt, this is lame as hell by ESPN. And I'm not buying the "time restraint" excuse. This was without a doubt one of the biggest moments of that playoff run and to exclude it is inexcusable.
-
I will likely hate ESPN to no end once the Eurocup comes around. They have the TV rights for it in the US, and as such they will try to revive their dying cable subscriptions by not providing an online-only package. You will HAVE to have their TV subscription package to see any game. Oh well, Univision and Spocast/Acestream it will be.
-
https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/espn-conveniently-edits-curt-schilling-out-of-red-sox-documentary-024028785.html
Whatever your opinion is of Curt, this is lame as hell by ESPN. And I'm not buying the "time restraint" excuse. This was without a doubt one of the biggest moments of that playoff run and to exclude it is inexcusable.
Yup. Embarrassing.
-
They have no coverage of hockey. I remember watching the Coney Island hot dog eating contest on ESPN a few years ago and coming to the sudden realization that this, a gluttony competition and basically the exact opposite of a sport, was covered by the country's biggest sports network but one of the big four sports leagues in America wasn't.
-
Not to be mean, but who does Ramona Shelburne have pictures of? I still watch PTI and Around the Horn on occasion (DVR both every day and flip through them probably half the time), and she is on ATH all the time now. And with HD being so awesome, it hurts the eyes. :lol :lol
-
I don't watch ESPN much nowadays, and have never seen that guy before.
It's almost a shame PTI is so good, and Wilbon and Kornheiser have the chemistry that they do, because it spawned a thousand clones.
-
I don't watch ESPN much nowadays,
Hardly ever.
-
Like Kev I like the roundtable shows but I rarely watch sportscenter.
-
I don't watch ESPN much nowadays,
Hardly ever.
Ditto.
-
What a shock.
Really, I blame ESPN for Tebow being as polarizing as he is. They talk about him so much that those who do not like him already like him even less because they get tired of hearing about him.
I think they should change the network name to "The Tebow Channel" All Tebow, all the time!
Tebow is the man! Lets go Mets!
-
This thread should be renamed "The official SHIT all over ESPN thread"
I would officially like to throw my hat in for President of said thread.
Only 3 things will tune me in: Masters coverage, the occasional Gator football game, the occasional Jags football game.
-
I think they should change the network name to "The Tebow Channel" All Tebow, all the time!
Tebow is the man! Lets go Mets!
Actually it's Lets Go Fireflies! They're my minor league team and I'm glad he's on it. He's giving the team some exposure and drawing crowds, but he's not doing so great on the field.
Anyway, back on topic, I like Sportscenter from L.A. at night, especially the top 10. The anchors get a bit goofy as the night goes on.
-
Not to be mean, but who does Ramona Shelburne have pictures of? I still watch PTI and Around the Horn on occasion (DVR both every day and flip through them probably half the time), and she is on ATH all the time now. And with HD being so awesome, it hurts the eyes. :lol :lol
If They Mated: Brendan Fraser and Rosie O'Donnell version.
-
Fuck...
-
I enjoy seeing "unattractive" people on television. Makes me think that they got there due to their passion, talent and commitment.
-
I enjoy seeing "unattractive" people on television. Makes me think that they got there due to their passion, talent and commitment.
Yup.
-
If there's a correlation, then she must have those in spades.
-
:lol :lol :lol
-
:lol
And I don't think her takes are that good.
-
Right, she never says anything remotely interesting or thought-provoking. For my money, the best ones for that on Around the Horn are Tim Cowlishaw, Bob Ryan, Jackie MacMullan, Bomani Jones and Frank Isola. And Woody Paige is there for comic relief. :lol :lol
-
Bob Ryan and Jackie McMullen were always 2 must reads here in Boston years ago.
-
Bob Ryan and Jackie McMullen were always 2 must reads here in Boston years ago.
Peter Gammons too. I had a Globe subscription only because of his Sunday Notes column.
-
What exactly is the point of this annual softcore porn "Body Issue" ESPN the rag does?
-
Like, just in case you didn't know, these professional athletes that have worked most of their lives to physically better themselves for competition COINCIDENTALLY have terrifically fit bodies. BIG surprise!
-
Yea, I think it's meant to show off the uniqueness of the bodies of some of the most talented athletes. See their muscles in poses that are somewhat typical of whatever they may be doing in their sport.
-
What exactly is the point of this annual softcore porn "Body Issue" ESPN the rag does?
I think you know.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/jemele-hill-responds-to-controversy-over-trump-white-supremacist-comments/ar-AArU8Qw?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/jemele-hill-responds-to-controversy-over-trump-white-supremacist-comments/ar-AArU8Qw?li=BBnb7Kz)
Absolute horse shit! Not only does she get to keep her job after this (which is to only point out the hypocrisy, although it would be easy to land on this being a fireable offense), but then some fucking tool bag from NFL network is gonna "apologize for conservatives playing double standard". :facepalm:
-
They suspended Cohn for talking out about ESPN. Hill should be suspended but ESPN agrees with her. Double standard.
-
They suspended Cohn for talking out about ESPN. Hill should be suspended but ESPN agrees with her. Double standard.
I totally agree, but in fairness, the employer (ESPN) has the right to discipline their employees how ever they see appropriate. It's clearly a double standard, but it's their right to do or not do exactly how they have done.
-
Oh I get it but that does decay moral in the ranks as well hurts their brand as it is public.
-
Oh I get it but that does decay moral in the ranks as well hurts their brand as it is public.
For sure, ESPN has already been doing a horrible job at staying neutral in politics before this whole situation, and comes out the other side of it looking worse.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/jemele-hill-responds-to-controversy-over-trump-white-supremacist-comments/ar-AArU8Qw?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/jemele-hill-responds-to-controversy-over-trump-white-supremacist-comments/ar-AArU8Qw?li=BBnb7Kz)
Absolute horse shit! Not only does she get to keep her job after this (which is to only point out the hypocrisy, although it would be easy to land on this being a fireable offense), but then some fucking tool bag from NFL network is gonna "apologize for conservatives playing double standard". :facepalm:
She absolutely does not deserve to be fired for those comments. A suspension is warranted, though.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/jemele-hill-responds-to-controversy-over-trump-white-supremacist-comments/ar-AArU8Qw?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/jemele-hill-responds-to-controversy-over-trump-white-supremacist-comments/ar-AArU8Qw?li=BBnb7Kz)
Absolute horse shit! Not only does she get to keep her job after this (which is to only point out the hypocrisy, although it would be easy to land on this being a fireable offense), but then some fucking tool bag from NFL network is gonna "apologize for conservatives playing double standard". :facepalm:
She absolutely does not deserve to be fired for those comments. A suspension is warranted, though.
Eh, maybe, maybe not. I could totally understand if she got fired for that, she essentially is pissing off a significant portion of ESPN's potential viewership. They need all the viewership they can get right now, plus she's not very good at her job in the first place.
Regardless, because it aligns politically with ESPN I doubt she will get fired or get suspended. Once again, it's ESPN's right to do either but there are optics and brand perception that need taken into account here, like King mentioned.
-
Oh I get it but that does decay moral in the ranks as well hurts their brand as it is public.
For sure, ESPN has already been doing a horrible job at staying neutral in politics before this whole situation, and comes out the other side of it looking worse.
Yup, ESPN has some political issues from their fan base who wants them to just stick to sports, but they can't seem to help themselves by showing off their political leanings.
-
ESPN hasn't been about "sticking to sports" for a while. Turn on ESPN for an hour, and you'll see a few minutes of sports clips spliced in between talking heads spewing hot takes. Repeat every hour. Jemele Hill made those comments on her personal twitter account, not on espn. She met with executives, and they came to a consensus that she should not have done that. Which IMO is why she deserves at most a suspension.
-
Yup, ESPN has some political issues from their fan base who wants them to just stick to sports, but they can't seem to help themselves by showing off their political leanings.
For sure. Sports used to be an escape from politics and political issues, I wish it still was.
ESPN hasn't been about "sticking to sports" for a while. Turn on ESPN for an hour, and you'll see a few minutes of sports clips spliced in between talking heads spewing hot takes. Repeat every hour. Jemele Hill made those comments on her personal twitter account, not on espn. She met with executives, and they came to a consensus that she should not have done that. Which IMO is why she deserves at most a suspension.
Agreed that they haven't been "sticking to sports" for a while. Hill did make those statements on her personal twitter account, but that doesn't really make a difference. If I went on my personal twitter account and made bold, off the wall statements that my clients saw and could cost my company money or at the very least become bad PR for my company - my employer could totally fire me in a reasonable manner. Heck, they can at any time, At Will and whatnot, I'm sure the same applies on a different scale to Hill.
-
I have been trying to get out of going to ESPN.com every time I want an update on the sports world. It is always a headline or two, then clips of what Stephen A. thinks about something, then some article about racial issues. It does have some great reporting, it can just be buried in the muck. And I can't find a good alternative resource for sports news.
-
I have been trying to get out of going to ESPN.com every time I want an update on the sports world. It is always a headline or two, then clips of what Stephen A. thinks about something, then some article about racial issues. It does have some great reporting, it can just be buried in the muck. And I can't find a good alternative resource for sports news.
And they laid off some of the good writers. I only use the website to check live scores, just like I only use the tv channel to watch live sports. It's not necessarily about political leanings for me, it's more about:
ESPN hasn't been about "sticking to sports" for a while. Turn on ESPN for an hour, and you'll see a few minutes of sports clips spliced in between talking heads spewing hot takes. Repeat every hour.
And those talking heads are just annoying too, I really don't like most ESPN personalities anymore.
-
I have been trying to get out of going to ESPN.com every time I want an update on the sports world. It is always a headline or two, then clips of what Stephen A. thinks about something, then some article about racial issues. It does have some great reporting, it can just be buried in the muck. And I can't find a good alternative resource for sports news.
And they laid off some of the good writers. I only use the website to check live scores, just like I only use the tv channel to watch live sports. It's not necessarily about political leanings for me, it's more about:
ESPN hasn't been about "sticking to sports" for a while. Turn on ESPN for an hour, and you'll see a few minutes of sports clips spliced in between talking heads spewing hot takes. Repeat every hour.
And those talking heads are just annoying too, I really don't like most ESPN personalities anymore.
Yup, I pretty much never watch the actual flagship channel on TV anymore, they lost what I considered to be a lot of their best personalities. I basically just use the ESPN app to check scores and that's about it at this point.
-
She called a white supremacist a white supremacist. Anyone bothered by that is probably harboring some questionable beliefs.
-
She called a white supremacist a white supremacist. Anyone bothered by that is probably harboring some questionable beliefs.
I disagree. I'm not going to stand up for him as a decent human, but I don't believe he is a white supremacist.
-
Everyone's entitled to their opinion but imo he took any tiny shred of eligibility he had to not be considered one and doused it in kerosene and set it on fire the way he "handled" Charlottesville.
-
She called a white supremacist a white supremacist. Anyone bothered by that is probably harboring some questionable beliefs.
:rollin :rollin :rollin
:|
-
I have been trying to get out of going to ESPN.com every time I want an update on the sports world. It is always a headline or two, then clips of what Stephen A. thinks about something, then some article about racial issues. It does have some great reporting, it can just be buried in the muck. And I can't find a good alternative resource for sports news.
It's sports talk, not news, but I like Cowherd's show on FS1. He always talk sports, sports and more sports, without all of the other crap 99% of the time.
-
ESPN hasn't been about "sticking to sports" for a while. Turn on ESPN for an hour, and you'll see a few minutes of sports clips spliced in between talking heads spewing hot takes. Repeat every hour. Jemele Hill made those comments on her personal twitter account, not on espn. She met with executives, and they came to a consensus that she should not have done that. Which IMO is why she deserves at most a suspension.
Right. I think people are calling a double standard because Curt Schilling was fired for political tweeting. But he was clearly warned and ignored it. THAT'S why he was fired. If she received a warning for violating a company policy, fine. If she also ignores it, then if she's not fired, it becomes an issue.
-
It's not her first time tweeting like that.
I'm of the mindset that these words, these tweets are not what's going to bring us together. It separates us and in this day and age of the internet we need to stop this. We need better our communication and work things out not throw barbs at each other.
-
It's not her first time tweeting like that.
I did not know that. I pay ZERO attention to ESPN.
-
I pay ZERO attention to ESPN.
With the exception being the opening segment of PTI, which I DVR and sometimes watch a little of still, the same applies to me. I didn't even know about this Jemele Hill nonsense until I saw a blurb about it on FB last night.
-
I did not know that. I pay ZERO attention to ESPN.
The rock I live under is way, way bigger than yours. Before this story broke, I'd never even heard of this woman.
My last job was for a major cruise line. They told all of us, from the CEO to the lowliest serf (me): If you represent yourself on social media as employee of this company, we expect your presence on the internet to be respectful and mindful of this. You may not be speaking on behalf of the company, but you are affiliated with this company, and (they said it nicer than this) we don't want any PR nightmares because of your bullcrap.
-
Maybe it's because I've seen so many of her Boston is racist tweets. Maybe it's because I'm on Twitter. But I've seen too much of her dialogue say that this kind of dialogue is not healthy. I believe there is racism in America I know it. But this dialogue will not help fix that.
-
She's awful. They used to trot her out on Sports Reporters (which was one of the few ESPN shows I still watched in recent years, before it was cancelled), and it was glaring how bad she was compared to the others on there. Her opinions were so simple-minded and she is one of the least articulate people I have ever seen on television. She might be a fine sportswriter (that's what I've heard), but she is a terrible TV personality (similar to Bill Simmons).
-
I'm just tired of the Boston is racist narrative. That was the 60's narrative, not today.
Racism is everywhere. When's the last time you saw an outbreak and vandalism in Boston? if it's hired narrative she perpetuates it. Racism is all over, it's not isolated in one area
-
I'm just tired of the Boston is racist narrative. That was the 60's narrative, not today.
Racism is everywhere. When's the last time you saw an outbreak and vandalism in Boston? if it's hired narrative she perpetuates it. Racism is all over, it's not isolated in one area
I've never personally seen an outbreak or vandalism in Boston...I try to stay out of racist cities.
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
-
:lol
Someday we will ban each other over many beers and man hug in public.
Search your feelings. :lol
-
I don't drink beer. :hat
-
When's the last time you saw an outbreak and vandalism in Boston?
According the the American history classes that I had to take when I was a kid, that's what Boston is most famous for. Granted, it was a long damn time ago, but... :biggrin:
-
I don't drink beer. :hat
I'd backhand you but food works as well.
-
When's the last time you saw an outbreak and vandalism in Boston?
According the the American history classes that I had to take when I was a kid, that's what Boston is most famous for. Granted, it was a long damn time ago, but... :biggrin:
I was a young child in the seventies where segregation was a thing of the past. We went to school together I had friends that were Hispanic Dominican and Puerto Rican. Ecuadorian I had friends from Canada I live in a tough town of Lawrence Massachusetts. They were all my friends so the history of for the seventies is a thing of the past.
Obviously there still racism in Boston in the America it is nothing like the past. I reach out to all my friends of the past no matter what their skin color is and give him a big hug. Good people are good people skin doesn't matter.
-
When's the last time you saw an outbreak and vandalism in Boston?
According the the American history classes that I had to take when I was a kid, that's what Boston is most famous for. Granted, it was a long damn time ago, but... :biggrin:
I was a young child in the seventies where segregation was a thing of the past. We went to school together I had friends that were Hispanic Dominican and Puerto Rican. Ecuadorian I had friends from Canada I live in a tough town of Lawrence Massachusetts. They were all my friends so the history of for the seventies is a thing of the past.
Obviously there still racism in Boston in the America it is nothing like the past. I reach out to all my friends of the past no matter what their skin color is and give him a big hug. Good people are good people skin doesn't matter.
I was actually making an obscure reference to the Boston Tea Party as far as an outbreak of vandalism goes, but I was being too vague. Every place in this fine country of ours, whether it be North or South, has some tale of racism tied to it if you dig deep enough. The people that are singling out Boston are doing so just to try to validate their point.
-
Right over my head. :lol
-
I did not know that. I pay ZERO attention to ESPN.
The rock I live under is way, way bigger than yours. Before this story broke, I'd never even heard of this woman.
My last job was for a major cruise line. They told all of us, from the CEO to the lowliest serf (me): If you represent yourself on social media as employee of this company, we expect your presence on the internet to be respectful and mindful of this. You may not be speaking on behalf of the company, but you are affiliated with this company, and (they said it nicer than this) we don't want any PR nightmares because of your bullcrap.
This is a good point CoolChris. I personally don't put my employers on my Facebook, which is tied the most privately to me. One of the many reasons is just this; I don't want anything I say in my private life so to speak to be associated with my professional career. But it goes beyond that too- even the questionable personal photos people post may not reflect well.
-
https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/10/09/jemele-hill-espn-suspension-legal-analysis
-
I did not know that. I pay ZERO attention to ESPN.
The rock I live under is way, way bigger than yours. Before this story broke, I'd never even heard of this woman.
My last job was for a major cruise line. They told all of us, from the CEO to the lowliest serf (me): If you represent yourself on social media as employee of this company, we expect your presence on the internet to be respectful and mindful of this. You may not be speaking on behalf of the company, but you are affiliated with this company, and (they said it nicer than this) we don't want any PR nightmares because of your bullcrap.
This is a good point CoolChris. I personally don't put my employers on my Facebook, which is tied the most privately to me. One of the many reasons is just this; I don't want anything I say in my private life so to speak to be associated with my professional career. But it goes beyond that too- even the questionable personal photos people post may not reflect well.
This is why DTF IS my facebook.
-
I'm just tired of the Boston is racist narrative. That was the 60's narrative, not today.
Racism is everywhere. When's the last time you saw an outbreak and vandalism in Boston? if it's hired narrative she perpetuates it. Racism is all over, it's not isolated in one area
I want to second this. I have spent and now spend a shit ton of time in Boston, and while there are meatheads there, I can tell you from first hand experience, the "simmering" racism is at least as bad, if not worse, in other cities (including my beloved Philly), and the "scene" at places like Murphy's in Chicago (by Wrigley Field) are as bad as anything I've experienced in Boston.
-
It just goes to show what assholes Michael Smith and Howard Bryant are. They have no career if they don't perpetuate that belief. Even when Smith was doing a little talk radio here, I just never understood his appeal.
Chris Gaspar is far more thoughtful, and Michael Holley, who has been all over, is easily the most reasonable.
-
https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/10/09/jemele-hill-espn-suspension-legal-analysis
Her new tweets weren't nearly as bad as calling the President a White Supremacist. I kind of thought these were tame, but Trump is already jumping all over this. This whole thing feels like a reality TV show.
-
ESPN host calls for a boycott of NFL advertisers.
ESPN and the NFL work together.
Brilliant. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
ESPN host calls for a boycott of NFL advertisers.
ESPN and the NFL work together.
Brilliant. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
Don't forget she was warned all ready. You and I do this at our work, we are fired.
-
Exactly.
-
The true irony would be if advertisers started abandoning ESPN due to Jemele's comments.