For better or worse, ESPN drives the conversation in sports

FOr 'cac and country: It’s time for student-athletes to receive their due compensation

The legitimacy and authority of the NCAA is under attack, but it’s going unnoticed. Two Saturdays ago, 28 football players from Northwestern, Georgia Tech and Georgia protested against the NCAA during their games by writing APU on their wristbands and towels. The National Collegiate Players Association (NCPA) orchestrated this demonstration, known as the All Players United campaign. Its stated goals are to “demonstrate unity among college athletes and fans...stand behind individual players being harmed by NCAA rules...direct a portion of over $1 billion in new TV revenue to guarantee basic protections.”
Although casual fans of college football may not know the 28 protestors, they have certainly heard of the reigning Heisman Trophy winner, Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel. The outgoing quarterback allegedly breached his amateur status this summer by signing autographs in exchange for cash. The NCAA was unable to confirm the allegations, but still deemed that he violated NCAA bylaw 12.5.2.1, which forbids “the use of his or her name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind” and suspended the quarterback for the first half of Texas A&M’s opening game.
Amateurism prohibits college athletes from being in contact with professional teams or receiving any type of benefits. In other words, the student-athlete is not allowed to earn money. This policy is in place “to ensure the students’ priority remains on obtaining a quality educational experience and that all of student-athletes are competing equitably.”

FOr 'cac and country: Tanking in the NBA: lose now to win big later?

News came out recently that an NBA general manager easily convinced his entire organization to tank—to lose intentionally.
“The ownership didn’t want to tread water any more than I did,” said the anonymous GM in an interview with ESPN. “They’d rather go down to the bottom with the hope of coming up, so they signed off on it. It wasn’t a fight at all. In a different season, it might not make sense, but this draft certainly makes it more appealing.”
The organization developed a three-pronged strategy to tank effectively: play young players, sit starters and trade stars. It will result in more losses, bringing the team closer to a high draft pick, while also developing the youth.

FOr 'cac and country

For better or worse, ESPN drives the conversation in sports

October 25, 2013

ESPN is a monopoly. It has a stronghold on sports and there is nowhere else to turn. Fans have no comparable product. The other options on television specialize in one sport (such as NHL Network, MLB Network), treat sports as secondary (such as CNN or local news) or offer an alternate brand that is ultimately an unsuccessful replication of ESPN.

This summer, Fox introduced the new channel Fox Sports 1 (FS1) as a rival for ESPN. Fox Sports co-presidents and Chief Operating Officers Randy Freer and Eric Shanks confidently pointed to it as “the biggest sports network launch in history...the most-watched sports event of the summer.” It showed 16.5 hours of live sports coverage to 476,000 viewers when it launched on August 17.

Over the past two months, its ratings have dropped significantly. Fox Sports Live, the equivalent of SportsCenter, receives 167,000 viewers on the most popular Saturday night slot. During that same segment, 2,934,000 people tune into SportsCenter. ESPN’s most-watched show—Saturday Night Football games—brings in four times as many viewers as Fox Sports 1’s most popular show, The Ultimate Fighter.

I spent a week watching FS1. They brought in big-name analysts like Donovan McNabb, Andy Roddick, Gary Payton and Ephraim Salaam. The ex-athletes come together in the Fox Sports Live segment that airs every night at 11 p.m., but they do not mesh well. When they sit around a table for the debate piece, I immediately wonder how these individuals would ever find themselves debating each other.

Dan O’Toole and Jay Onrait also have a lead segment in which their goal is humor. I laughed at a few sport jokes and liked some of their sport reports, but neither is funny enough or knowledgeable enough in sports to convert someone raised on ESPN. Fox Sports Live did successfully place Charissa Thompson in the good-looking blonde lead anchor role, a position she once filled on ESPN’s SportsNation.

There is still hope for Fox Sports 1. It can fill a niche by offering sports that aren’t covered elsewhere. All UFC mixed martial arts events, many soccer matches—including the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and CONCACAF Champions League—the lesser football conferences (Pac-12, Big 12 and Big East) and even motorsports find a home on FS1. If the network continues to bring in big-name former athletes and experiment with different combinations of show hosts, an entertaining duo or team is sure to emerge. A variety of talented female hosts and the experience of former greats can be a successful formula that appeals to a younger generation of viewers that isn’t, as some may think, entirely male.

With Fox Sports 1’s failure to topple ESPN, “The Worldwide Leader” stands without a rival. Its employees always manage to get the best shot or the most coveted interview, so you can’t blame viewers for flocking to the top coverage. Because of this, other sports networks often end up responding to the news that ESPN rolls out. The consumer is left with an entirely ESPN-driven sports world. It’s the place that my friends and I always go for the most up-to-date and comprehensive information. Unfortunately, this means ESPN can present an idea and have it reverberate through the sporting world. Currently, the company is echoing different sounds on the same topic—LeBron James.

ESPN the Magazine has centered him on their covers over a dozen times. The title for the October 28 edition is “LeBron: The Only Player Worthy of an Entire NBA Preview.” But it wasn’t long ago when ESPN was singing a different tune. The way ESPN told it, LeBron had an inadequate work ethic, betrayed his hometown and was either too selfish or not selfish enough, depending on the night.

If this were politics, ESPN’s position regarding LeBron would be called flip-flopping. If ESPN had a smaller platform for spreading news, one wonders how LeBron would be perceived. It would be different, undoubtedly, but who’s to say that it would be better or worse? To put it in terms familiar to Bowdoin students, ESPN shapes our understanding of the sports world. In a perfect world, other media entities would have an equal say in things. But it sure doesn’t look like anyone will rival ESPN anytime soon. Multiple opinions will still exist and can certainly be disseminated to those who dig into sporting news. But these alternative ideas won’t reach the masses.

Comments are permanently closed.