Watching SportsCenter last night, I saw two things that profoundly bothered me. One was Stuart Scott's feeble attempt at poetry and the other was Sean Salisbury's ranking of the top five teams in the NFC.
With respect to Stu Scott's poetry segment, I just think it is totally unneccesary. I would much prefer to see a straight sports report instead of all this gimmicky stuff, even if it's trying to go highbrow instead of lowbrow for a change. For one, I can't take Stuart Scott seriously since he opts to speak a language that is not English. Further, if I wanted to get culture, be it in a traditional art form or a more urban type of art, I'd rather not get it from ESPN when I'm trying to unwind and watch the day's highlights. I don't know if that segment is here to stay (I hope not) but I have to cast serious doubt on ESPN's programming executives if they thought their demographic was going to appreciate it. Let's stick to scores and stories, ok guys?
With respect to Sean Salisbury's rankings, I have no argument with the Seahawks, Bears, Panthers, Cowboys or Bucs being considered top five NFC teams. At least four of them belong there (the Bucs I'm not 100% sold on yet). I would also not argue if the Falcons appeared on that list. But the Eagles? At #5? The Eagles don't even have a winning record. They haven't even won a game in the NFC East yet. How much of this is Salisbury's opinion and how much of this is ESPN's editorial hand trying to create a storyline to talk about. Seriously, the Eagles have no chance of winning the division and next to no chance of making the playoffs. At best, they finish 9-7, assuming they lose to Seattle next Monday, then win their last four in a row against the Giants, Rams, Cardinals and Redskins. It's possible that they run the table from Week 14 on but I'd expect them to lose to the Giants and possibly Washington as well. I'm predicting that they finish 8-8 and out of the playoffs and I don't think I'm going out on a limb with that call.
Finally, and this was just an impromptu addition, I'm thrilled that Michael Irvin was busted on a drug-related charge yesterday. He's a lousy studio analyst, he's far too cushy with many of his subjects (a violation of the single most important rule in journalism) and he doesn't speak English well enough to be on television. I'm hoping against hope that ESPN fires him and replaces him with a more qualified person. Sterling Sharpe was once upon a time a great ESPN studio analyst. Now he's on the NFL Network. Too bad ESPN canned him for the flashier ex-wide receiver. It's a trend that ESPN continues, much to my chagrin. Ask yourselves who you'd rather listen to talking about your favorite sports -- David Aldridge or Stephen A. Smith? Sterling Sharpe or Michael Irvin? Tony Gwynn or John Kruk? ESPN's programming executives are horrible and ought to either be fired or subjected to sitting next to their hires on a cross-country flight sitting in coach.
With respect to Stu Scott's poetry segment, I just think it is totally unneccesary. I would much prefer to see a straight sports report instead of all this gimmicky stuff, even if it's trying to go highbrow instead of lowbrow for a change. For one, I can't take Stuart Scott seriously since he opts to speak a language that is not English. Further, if I wanted to get culture, be it in a traditional art form or a more urban type of art, I'd rather not get it from ESPN when I'm trying to unwind and watch the day's highlights. I don't know if that segment is here to stay (I hope not) but I have to cast serious doubt on ESPN's programming executives if they thought their demographic was going to appreciate it. Let's stick to scores and stories, ok guys?
With respect to Sean Salisbury's rankings, I have no argument with the Seahawks, Bears, Panthers, Cowboys or Bucs being considered top five NFC teams. At least four of them belong there (the Bucs I'm not 100% sold on yet). I would also not argue if the Falcons appeared on that list. But the Eagles? At #5? The Eagles don't even have a winning record. They haven't even won a game in the NFC East yet. How much of this is Salisbury's opinion and how much of this is ESPN's editorial hand trying to create a storyline to talk about. Seriously, the Eagles have no chance of winning the division and next to no chance of making the playoffs. At best, they finish 9-7, assuming they lose to Seattle next Monday, then win their last four in a row against the Giants, Rams, Cardinals and Redskins. It's possible that they run the table from Week 14 on but I'd expect them to lose to the Giants and possibly Washington as well. I'm predicting that they finish 8-8 and out of the playoffs and I don't think I'm going out on a limb with that call.
Finally, and this was just an impromptu addition, I'm thrilled that Michael Irvin was busted on a drug-related charge yesterday. He's a lousy studio analyst, he's far too cushy with many of his subjects (a violation of the single most important rule in journalism) and he doesn't speak English well enough to be on television. I'm hoping against hope that ESPN fires him and replaces him with a more qualified person. Sterling Sharpe was once upon a time a great ESPN studio analyst. Now he's on the NFL Network. Too bad ESPN canned him for the flashier ex-wide receiver. It's a trend that ESPN continues, much to my chagrin. Ask yourselves who you'd rather listen to talking about your favorite sports -- David Aldridge or Stephen A. Smith? Sterling Sharpe or Michael Irvin? Tony Gwynn or John Kruk? ESPN's programming executives are horrible and ought to either be fired or subjected to sitting next to their hires on a cross-country flight sitting in coach.
No comments:
Post a Comment