Rick Who????

What has happened to ESPN’s Rick Reilly?

The feature columnist for ESPN.com has gone poppy and not in a good way.

Today, Reilly came out with a new weekly column for the ESPN website. It was about how he went to a sports bar and read the closed captioning on the bottom of the screen during live games. Reilly pointed out all the hilarious misprints that were made.

Stupid!

Maybe that is a cute story from a journalism student at New York University who blogs and one day wants to be a sports writer. But for Rick Reilly?

Not only was it corny, but it is one of many consistent recent columns that reveal how different Reilly’s stories have become.

Reilly worked for Sports Illustrated for 23 years. From 1997-2007 he had a back page column called, “ Life of Reilly.” Over his span at SI, Reilly was an 11 time winner of the Associated Press National Sports Writer of the Year Award. But after 23 years with the best sports magazine in the world Reilly inked a deal with the best sports media company in the world for $17 million dollars over five years where he would continue his " Life of Reilly" column. It made him one of the highest paid sports writers in the business.

Since his ESPN debut, Reilly is not the same writer. At SI, he would write, mainly, about off the track sports stories: Stories about people, hardships, small towns and heroes that fans would not read or hear about in main stream media.

At ESPN, for the most part, Reilly writes about main stream sports. He primarily sticks to professional sports teams, players and issues, but almost always goes for a fairy tale kind of story with a warm and funny ending. True, Reilly has always written with a heavy dose of sarcasm and witty humor ( The Daily News called him the funniest man in the world) but he always had a message, a theme, something to learn and take and say “hey, that goes beyond sports.” Some Reilly articles even changed my life.

One of my favorite stories was about a poor sixth-grade basketball team that traveled to tournaments in family vans. They beat a rich sixth grade team that took private jets to games four times in one season. I could relate, being that I played on a successful high-school team that had no gym and practiced outside, sometimes in the rain.

Once, Reilly wrote about an Iowa truck driver named Mark Lemke who lost his son, an up and coming golfer, in a tragic motorcycle accident. A few months later Lemke got a call from than Indianapolis Colts head coach, Tony Dungy, who wished to offer advice. Dungy’ son hung himself two years earlier. It made me think of how coaches and athletes are ordinary people who deal with real life problems.

But at ESPN, Reilly writes fluff columns that do not carry the same weight as his SI work. Back in August, he wrote about why he hates when professional athletes and coaches gloat after winning championships. He hated how Phil Jackson wore a hat with an “ X” on it after the Lakers won the championship in June, signifying Jackson’s tenth ring. Another column wrote about tryouts for Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders. One last month spoke of athletes and their tattoos.
Enlightening.

Reilly has had some stories at ESPN that mimic the ones from SI. I really enjoyed one about kids who suffer from XP -- xeroderma pigmentosum, which means they can die from too much sunlight, and how they played ball with Yankee players at the new Yankee Stadium in the middle of the night. A few weeks ago Reilly did a great profile on the legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden, who turned 98.

I am not saying that all of Reilly’s most recent work is un-inspiring, it just seems overdone. Sure, ESPN has a different agenda than SI. ESPN is geared towards main stream sports where as SI gives fans more of a behind the scenes look. But if that is the case, than I can no longer say Reilly is the best sports writer in the game.

Others agree with me. Last week a friend of mine told me he thinks Reilly reads like a hallmark card now-a-days. A different friend said he thinks Reilly would have a better legacy if he stayed at SI.

Still, I will continue to read his work, in hopes that I will get the “ real” Reilly stories from time to time.

I remember a long time ago when Reilly was at SI and on top of his game. I was at a friend’s house whose father was a big lover of Reilly. “ You know what makes Reilly great?” he asked me. “ That at the Super Bowl he will get you the janitor’s story.”

Sadly, since he has been at ESPN, it has been more about the Super Bowl, less about the janitor.

ESPN has gone TMZ on the Woods Story

ESPN has not been bashful when covering the Tiger Woods saga the past two weeks.

They have covered everything from his affairs, his new tainted image and which new sponsors are dropping him.

But earlier this week, ESPN went a little too far. Just before an episode of SportsCenter the introduction read like so:

“New developments in the Tiger Woods case! See what happened that brought ambulances to his house!”

The real story was that an ambulance came to pick up Tiger Woods mother in law who had food poisoning from going out to dinner the night before. But still, ESPN decided it was newsworthy. Probably because they thought it may have some connection with his recent sexcapade.

But to me, and some others, ESPN is venturing outside of its borders. They do not need to cover this story to the extent that they have. They are ESPN, not TMZ.

Perhaps that is the problem. Because entertainment publications like TMZ, People Magazine and especially The Post, have covered the story to the extent that they have, ESPN might be feeling pressure. They do not want those other outlets to beat them to the punch. There are too many people, sports fans and non sports fans, who care about this story.

When Tiger Woods’ mother-in-law, Barbro Holmberg, rushed to the hospital in the wee hours of the morning, I happen to be up doing some late night homework. I took a break, went on ESPN.com and saw that they had they story at about 6:00 a.m. In other words, no rest for the Tiger saga.

But doesn’t ESPN have better things to do? The NFL is heating up. College football is getting ready for bowl season and the NBA is still relevant. Yet, I can’t spend one second on ESPN radio, television or its website without being bombarded with Woods this and Woods that.

Rick Reilly has written two columns on Woods. Two. ( ok, so one was like a mini column which Reilly calls “ Go Fish, two small for a column,” but still) ESPN radio guys can’t get enough. And SportsCenter is now leading off its segments at times with this garbage.

I am not saying that ESPN shouldn’t be reporting this story. But it has to stick to the sports aspect and chill with the excessivnes of it. It’s ok to report that Woods’ mother in law went to the hospital, but do not lead off SportsCenter with it.

Colin Cowherd dedicated part of his show last week about the pressures athletes feel when they travel and women who throw themselves at them. Rick Reilly’s “ Go Fish” column said Woods should come clean to save his image. Those angles are all great but there is no need to go overboard. I do not need a second column from Reilly, that read like a hallmark greetings card. Michael Kay does not need to announce on his radio show that The Post has come out with more women that Woods slept with. And ESPN should not put an Associated Press story on its website that Jack Nicklaus, a former golf legend, said he wouldn’t comment on Woods because it is known of his business. Come on, is that even a story?

Like I said, ESPN is in this business for ratings and money. The Woods story is very juicy and it does sell viewers. But there is a limit that WE ask ESPN to abide by. Give us sports news. Give us a different angle. Give us something to think about when it comes to this whole Woods thing. But please, do not give us TMZ. We already have enough of that.

For College football Playoffs, Only ESPN Holds the Key.

We all have heard the same argument over and over again; college football needs to have a playoff system.

Even president Obama, on 60 Minutes, pushed for college football to adapt a do or die tournament.

Meanwhile, we have always blamed the same people; the people in charge of the Bowl systems who make too much money from corporate sponsors on to many to count bowl games to decide to have a four, or eight or x amount of teams for a playoff. Doing so would be great for fans but bad for business is typically the excuse that floats around.

But rarely do we blame the one network who is mainly, and in 2011, entirely the culprit for the hopes of a playoff system in college football; ESPN.

Ya, that’s right, ESPN has shot our playoff hopes down for good. It was reported on November 18th that the sports leader, which already aired 25 bowl games last year and set to air 27 in the next month, has bought the rights to the four championship bowl games beginning in 2011. ESPN out bid Fox network $125 million to $100 million.

Many of the bowl games are lame. For example, the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl, the New Mexico Bowl and the Independence Bowl will feature two bad ranked teams who are playing for nothing besides pride and some extra cash for their schools. Still, ESPN ratings for bowl games are through the roof. In 25 games last year, ESPN had over 98 million viewers, an average of over 4 million viewers each game, according to my elementary math skills. And we can bet that in 2011 the four bowl games will help rake it in for ESPN.

Outside of the most trusted brand in sports, only Fox and CBS have bowl games, but only a handful. According to Wikipedia, “In January 2010, FOX will continue to air three BCS bowl games (Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl), but ABC ( which owns ESPN) will air the BCS National Championship Game due to its contract with the Rose Bowl, who is hosting the event. Starting with the 2010-2011 season, ESPN will start airing the games after outbidding FOX for the television rights.[1]”

With this knowledge in hand, ESPN will be the outright leader of the “ Money Games.”

So let’s get back to the argument. ESPN should be blamed, solely. Not to say that their wrong, because clearly the ratings say otherwise. While I do not think ESPN should halt from covering the four bowl championship games in 2011, they should forget about covering the dumb games that mean nothing. Honestly, outside of the cities that the two teams are playing from and addicted gamblers, does anyone care who wins the Eagle Bank Bowl? And, would anyone care if that bowl game, along with numerous others, were taken away?

The thing that matters to the BCS the most is that all of their 30 some odd bowl games get covered by a brand network like ESPN or Fox. But if ESPN decided to take away, say 20 of the least exciting bowl games from their schedule, it might force the BCS to have a playoff instead. While the four BCS championship games still bring in the most revenue for the BCS, most of it comes from having all of the bowl games being aired. Take away the meaningless bowl games and having a playoff makes more sense for the BCS. With say an eight game playoff there would be just as many games, 4, but with more interest.

ESPN fans can tell you that on numerous ESPN outlets the BCS system is argued over. But Pete Fiutak of CFN.scout.com believes that now, ESPN personalities will refrain from arguing over the system. If this is true than we are screwed. ESPN is the leader in the bowl debate. If they stop the push than whom can we follow?

The BCS gets too much money from corporate sponsors to ever switch their current systems and college’s get to much money for winning for either one of them to change their minds.

That leaves ESPN to pave the way. For those of us who have seen, “ A field of Dreams” we remember the line, “ If you build it they will come.” But how about, “If you do not air it than they will succumb?”

The only bright spot is this: Now that ESPN is the sole owner of the bowl games, only they can force a playoff. J.P. Giglio of the newsobserver.com said, “Grouping the broadcast rights with one television partner might be the first step in changing the postseason format.”

The worldwide leader in sports will now be the leader when it comes to extra games that count. ESPN, let the power be with you.

Buzz is in the Air

Buzz is in the air.

ESPN knows how to create buzz. I probably have said it over and over again. But this last week I really believe they created buzz in the most unintentional way.

After their number one columnist, Bill Simmons, tweeted some obscene messages about a local Boston radio station, ESPN banned Simmons from tweeting anything beyond matters pertaining to his book for the next two weeks.

Apparently, on the day of his book signing tour, Simmons cancelled an interview with EEI radio in Boston, and as a result, the host, Glenn Ordway, crowned Simmons the “fraud of the week” and continued to rip him for several minutes after that.
The incident resulted in some bashing by Simmons on his twitter page, calling EEI employees “ deceitful scumbags.”

Unfortunately for Simmons, EEI is a recent partner with ESPN.

But while Simmons is accepting his apology and regrets his comments (http://losangeles.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2009/11/23/daily5.html) one would think that a bleak eye would be placed on ESPN’s number one writer who already has a book that is selling like hot cakes and was featured in a New York Times article last week.

Sure, ESPN is in the business of protecting its image and does not want their employees picking fights and blabbing off on their twitter pages. Even I should understand the role that Disney plays in ESPN. Last summer, I interned at ESPN Radio in Los Angeles and one of the first things my boss said was, “ At the end of the day the mouse controls all.”

Sure it does. But money also controls things as well. For ESPN, the Simmons issue is just more material for him to give fans. I would guess that fans are even more excited in anticipation of Simmons new weekly column. I could just imagine the title, “ What I did during my week off from twitter.” Something tells me it will be hilarious, if in fact Simmons does tell readers something about his suspension.

And then there is the intentional way ESPN creates buzz.

This Friday night, “The Worldwide Leader in Buzz decided to show the Milwaukee Bucks on national television for the first time since 2007, when they played the Los Angeles Lakers. While that game was more about showing the Lakers, ESPN will be showing the Bucks because they have the rookie of the year thus far, Brandon Jennings. The Bucks, who had their game set for 7:30 p.m., pushed its time an hour later in order to accommodate ESPN’s prime time showing.

Jennings is averaging 23.4 points per game, including a 55 point game last week. While teams like the Warriors and Knicks passed up on Jennings in the draft, the most surprising thing about his success is that he went to Europe after high school as opposed to college last year. One year after playing in Italy, fans, scouts and players were eager to see how Jennings would do in the NBA and so far he hasn’t disappointed. However, no one outside of Milwaukee fans have seen Jennings play all that much. What better than to showcase him on Friday night?

I cannot recall how many times ESPN has picked up a game to show at the last minute like this, but it is smart. For one, fans like me are looking forward to watching Jennings play a full game. Also, I feel like most fans are tired of watching the same five teams playing night after night on TNT and ESPN. How many times can we watch Lebron, Kobe, Wade and Howard? Sure they are fun to watch but fans also want new blood.

Overall, ESPN should continue this practice, even if it comes at the risk of moving other games, that may have been good games in hindsight when the schedule was made but not in reality, for a surprisingly good game that may have been overlooked.

So there you have it. Throwing curve-balls can certainly help ratings, I believe. And while suspending one of your own may not seem like the best image move, I would not be surprised if Simmons readership went up in the next few weeks because fans will be trying to guess what he will say next.

Sounds exciting.

ESPN vs. Comcast- Let's Get it On

The Thrilla in Manila, Ali vs. Frazier III,may have been the biggest boxing fight ever.

But when it comes to media outlet’s battling it out, nothing can get bigger than this.

Yesterday, Comcast, a cable, internet and telephone provider, that has also jumped into the content world ,has decided to add more local sports content to its website by adding more reporters and coverage of local sports teams in Chicago, San Francisco and Washington. "Comcast also plans to fully staff two Web sites, one for CSNWashington.com and one for CSNBaltimore.com."

While certainly a bold move it is safe to guess that Comcast is punching back against ESPN who recently launched three local online content websites, ESPNchicago.com,ESPNboston.com and espndallas.com, with espnnewyork.com and espnlosangeles.com set to launch in the next year. In short, ESPN wants to dominate the local sports media landscape, putting local newspapers sports sections out of business and ruling sports media content on a national as well as local level.

But now it looks as if ESPN will be challenged for the title by Comcast trying to out-duel them; and from the looks of things, they may not be as big as underdog as you think ( more on that later)

Just to point out, Comcast already has third party programming. In fact, they already have stakes in the Chicago White Sox and San Francisco Giants. But never have they gone as full scale as this, especially when it comes to digital print ( or as other people call it, print online)

According to the Washington Business Journal , Comcast's launch of CSNphilly.com,(which covers Philadelphia professional sports teams), which it launched eight months ago, has had double the amount of viewers to its website since.

While this seems like a significant move for Comcast, for the sake of intentions of the blog, I must analyze how this move can/will affect ESPN.

Google Search:

Today, advertising companies are spending millions of dollars trying to find out which websites produce the biggest search results on Google. For example, if I type " Yankees" into the search box in Google, an ESPN article about the Yankees is about the 10th selection down on the Google page. Basically, the higher up it is, the better and the way you get higher up is by producing quality content and obtaining a good readership base, among other things. Now, if the Comcast continues to grow, than it can rise up higher on the Google list, pushing ESPN out of the way. For the sake of the " Yankees" search example, ESPN has to compete with The New York local papers like, The Daily News and New York Times, and other media Giants like AOL fanhouse.com and Yahoo sports. But adding another media giant won't help ESPN in the Google arena. Bottom line, the less competition on Google search for a company means more money from advertisers. With the rise of Comcast, that may change for ESPN.

Also, the great thing about local content is that the more specific a search is the more hits it will get in that area. Say, for example, that one would want to find out about Kobe Bryant's knee injury and how long he will be out for( heaven forbid)than one would type something into Google like, " Kobe Bryant knee injury" and as a result more specific news about his injury will pop up and that will probably mean more local publications, like the Los Angeles Times, would be higher up on the Google page than ESPN. ( Note, I just tried this experiment using Luke Walton, Lakers forward who really is injured, and the LA Times article regarding the injury is on the first Google page and ESPN coverage has not even shown up yet and I am on the 8th page so I just gave up looking) What I am getting at here is that if Comcast has better and more extensive coverage on an issue than ESPN regarding a local sports team, than that means more and earlier hits for Comcast on Google. And we all know that means more money baby. Which leads me to my next point?

Content:

In terms of content, I have never been a big fan of the ESPN local sites. Take ESPNboston for example. The reporting is flat, the articles and sourcing is limited, and many of the reports come from the Associated Press. Additionally, much of the reporting is done by ESPN's national reporters who I don't believe have much of a relationship with those cities teams and may not even live there. In other words, they do more of their reporting over the phone than in person. On the other hand, I do have to admit that ESPNboston.com columnists are well versed in Boston sports and certainly are far superior writers than other sports providers. But in terms of actual reporting, which could help out the Google search more than a column can, I think Comcast, at least from what we see from CSN Philly, is vastly better.

Take this article from CSNphilly.com. The article is clearly well sourced, the reporting is done well, and there is even some full length analysis. Overall, if Comcast puts the same amount of local reporters in their local cities, than they will quickly take over ESPN local websites. Bottom line, Comcast is training hard and fast. ESPN needs to throw away its title belt, get off the couch and the pile of green underneath it and hit the weight room.

Newspapers:

For print lovers like myself, I am always optimistic that newspapers will still be the leading source for in depth team analysis and investigative reporting. In a nut shell, I still believe that a player, coach or owner will always be more apt to talk to a local newspaper about an important issue rather than speak with a reporter from a media powerhouse like ESPN, Yahoo, or AOL. The reporters that have been working for say, The Philadelphia Inquirer, have been working there for years and have established a relationship with teams that will take ESPN reporters years to establish. Therefore, all the more reason to continue putting more money into local coverage. Furthermore, despite the rise of Comcast, ESPN will always lead the way is in its opinion/ column writing with guys like Peter Gammons, J.A. Adande Buster Olney and Skip Bayless. For the moment, no sports fan identifies more with their writers than they do with ESPN. However, it is my belief that ESPN will soon need to invest more money and effort into natural reporting and news in local cities because really, how far can they rely on their columnists to lead the way?

With all that being said, ESPN's biggest opponent in the ring may not be Comcast; in the end, it may be themselves.

ESPN Knows Who They Are Dealing With

What the heck is going with ESPN?

Sure they want to create some buzz for college basketball, but is showing 24 hours of college basketball straight on it's main network the smartest idea?

From Monday at midnight until Tuesday at midnight ESPN decided to show 24 hours of college hoops, terminating its regular programs for the day such as Pardon the Interruption and Around the Horn.

While this week is the first week of college basketball play, it seems a bit awkward that ESPN would go out on such a limb and post 24-hours of hoop, straight.

Universities, on the other hand, relished at the opportunity, including ones that hardly ever get exposure. On Tuesday morning, St. Peters College played against Monmouth at 6 am.

Both coaches thought it would be great exposure for its schools; St. Peters coach, John Dunne, thought it would be a great idea because so many people who work out in the early morning before work could watch the game. Monmouth coach Dave Calloway did not seemed to be fazed either, saying his team had played scrimmages at 8 am.

In addition to ESPN’s 24 consecutive hours, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN360.com and ESPN Mobile will offer an extensive lineup of action. Combined, the networks will televise at least 38 total hours of coverage with 19 games -- 17 men’s and two women’s – in a minimum of 25 ½ hours.


This is the second year that ESPN has done this marathon and I can say with confidence that the idea works. According to ESPN.com/mediakit, 66 percent of the people who watch ESPN are between the age of 18-34 and I we can assume that a big chunk of them are college students who want to see there team play. ESPN is so in tune to who watches them that they even show games several times a week from the Mountain West Conference,( a weaker conference with teams in the mid-west, west coast like Colorado and Utah University) even at late hours of the night, because they know that those students will stay up to watch those games.

In all ESPN knows how to create buzz for the college basketball season and most importantly they know who is watching them; an understanding that so many other cable companies would love to acquire.

Monday Night Football Gaining Yards on Cable TV

Interesting article from Bnet.com I read today.

The writer of the post, media critic Catharine P. Taylor, asked why ESPN decided to move its Monday night football show from ABC to ESPN? ESPN made the move prior to the 2008 season, at a time when Monday night football was the most watched show on television.

I looked on Nielsen ratings and tried to see if Taylor’s hypothesis coincided with drops in ratings for Monday night football? In turns out that Taylor is way off.

According to Nielsen TV ratings, MNF is still kicking but when it comes to TV ratings, despite being on cable. In fact, while the numbers are pretty comparable from the past ABC ratings to the present ESPN ones, ESPN has had some of the biggest nights ever, including one back in October.

While cable may not be as highly watched as network television, mainly because network television is free and cable is vastly expensive, ESPN Monday Night Football is still able to compete with the best of them.

When it comes to cable TV shows, advertisers are hesitant in knowing that consumers these days, especially younger adults, are either watching the game on TIVO or DVR, or simply watching it on their HUKU accounts.

Still, Monday Night Football, like all sports events, works well because it is almost imperative that it is watched live. No one really has the opportunity these days to tape a game and watch it the next day, like a TV show, because they will almost always be told the score instantly by a friend or an accidental glance at their computer.

Additionally, MNF can be shown in bars, airports and hotel lobbies where as no bar is going to show an episode of the office. So, even if a guy like me cannot afford cable, he can still run over to the nearest bar showing the game.

Point in all this is that ESPN, despite Taylor’s concerns, is still flourishing in cable TV ratings, and nothing rakes it in more for them that MNF. It is not only a wave of the future but MNF has been putting up these big numbers for years. In 2006 alone ESPN had 92.2 million subscribers.

So while cable companies may be frightened by devices such as DVR, HULU of driving away advertisers, just look at what ESPN has continued to do for years; The numbers simply do not lie.