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.

ESPN Owning Olympics on the horizon

According to Reuters, The International Olympic Committee has granted ESPN the South American broadcast rights to air the 2010 and 2012 broadcasting of the Winter and Summer Olympic Games.

The full disclosure of the deal has not been released and it I am actually confused as to how this will actually play out in terms of how ESPN and NBC, the sole owner of broadcasting the Olympics, will organize who gets to show what in countries like Argentina and Brazil.

My guess is that NBC will probably get all the main events, such as basketball, swimming and track, but ESPN is doing the right think in taking what they can get.

Undeniably, NBC has had a monopoly in the Olympic broadcasting arena for years, not even allowing other networks to broadcast their B-Roll of highlights from the Olympics. SportsCenter usually just gives first-hand account of events of the Olympics from reporters or shows pictures.

Sure, NBA still owns the rights in America, it is only a matter of time, I believe, that ESPN will one day rule that as well.
ESPN is already trying to take over the newspaper world with their ESPN local websites. They have done a good job with college football ( and don’t forget ABC owns ESPN) and the NBA, and they already added an additional baseball game a week besides Sunday Night Baseball.

I am here to say it now, Olympics looks to be ESPN’s one day to. Trust me, this is only the beginning.

ESPN Fantasy Football Live

I know I like to pick on ESPN a lot. Truthfully, that is my job. I have to be critical and nit pick at this wonderful company or else no one would read a blog about how much they love ESPN bla, bla, bla.

Boring.

But for the purpose of this short blog, I will have to praise the network because when props are due props are due.

Every Sunday morning I have about thee choices to gear up for my football marathon for the day; Fox's pregame show with a star cast featuring Terry Bradshaw( former super bowl quarterback), Howie Long, Michael Strahan( former Superbowl tackle), Jimmy Johnson (former coach). I also have CBS's pre game show which also features a prominant cast of ex-football legends.

But for me and I believe soon enough for many others, ESPN's pre-game show featured on ESPN 2, discusses fantasy football, unlike fox and cbs which focus on the days matchups and predictions. While the two network shows audiences highly outweigh ESPN in ratings, ESPN has come up with the perfect format to even compete with the Fox and CBS emmy award winning shows.

ESPN not only features their fantasy football show on TV, but also online, allowing fantasy football nerds to interact, look up the days sleeper players, overall rankings and injury updates an hour before they have to officially set up their lineup for the day.

While non of the hosts are past football gods, many of them are a bit more humble, down to earth football analysts as opposed to say Fox's hosts who brag about their previous accomplishments.

While ESPN Football Live may not be the present, it is certainly a product of the future, as fantasy football gets bigger and bigger each year. Tons of fans, like me, watch football to follow are players not are teams.

With the cool design of the show, fast action analysis and real live interaction, Fantasy Football Live can only be summed up in one word;

Awesome.

ESPN; the World Wide Leader for Kids????

Walt Disney is deciding to rename its sports complex in central Florida after its number one commodity, ESPN, in an attempt to appeal to younger athletes.

After reading this article I could not help but think of what a great idea this is. With some more research, I found a site that ESPN strictly dedicates to honoring high-school athletes, called espnrise.com.


In any event, it is clear that Disney is trying to appeal to younger athletes and why not, as the younger generation is always the future. In fact, I would assume that younger, aspiring athletes and sports fans probably make up a good majority of ESPN’s fan base.

But while ESPN is surely entertaining, people have been complaining for years that ESPN staple show, Sports Center, is creating a world that can be damaging for kids. While many athletes pride themselves on things like team work, Sports Center, some would argue, is creating a culture dedicated to HIGHLIGHTING the individual achievements of athletes. Even a typical highlight of Sports Center points out offensive achievement. Rarely do you see a nice block by a right guard tackle, or a good screen set by a center in basketball. As a result, kids become more vulnerable towards desiring to end up on Sports Center one day, dunking a basketball, throwing a touchdown and making a million dollars a game as opposed to concentrating on things like education and maybe trying to make their high school varsity team, for starters.

Some critics, like David Hinckley of the New York Daily News, wrote an article over a year ago when ESPN launched the ESPN high school site, arguing that while the site is good business, it is forcing high school athletes to concentrate on individual numbers.

But while there are critics, ESPN does not have a responsibility to anybody. Or do they?

Being that Disney is primarily a company that entertains children, shouldn’t ESPN serve a similar function, in some way or another? Or is covering kids from a young age enough?

There is a new era going on with young children and sports. There is something, what I and Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel calls “ The Woosification of America” which is a push by elementary public schools to get rid of “ dangerous” sports like dodge-ball and tag and many schools have followed suit. Some schools are even abolishing sports play for more class oriented exsersice programs like Physical Best.

And how long would it be before some parents movement decided to start a movement banning their children from watching Sports Center because it teaches kids to strive in sports as opposed to education. Imagine if high schools banned ESPN from their schools? Trust me, it could happen in the alarmist world we live in today.

But what about if ESPN altered its format or even created a new channel ( they probably could afford it) solely dedicated to educating young athletes on sports. I am talking about sports shows that could focus on good stretching techniques, useful exercise and fundamentals in an array of sports. How about a show teaching basic swimming tips or cool sports that kids should get into like Tennis and Ping Pong ( heck, maybe if I played as much Volleyball growing up as opposed to basketball I would have had a chance of making it in sports)

ESPN could even have Disney type movies that show how a young kid got into steroids which ended up ruining his life. Surely parents would want their kids watching that.

So instead of glorifying sports, why not educate young athletes about the dynamic of sports. And if ESPN wants to stick to entertainment they could even have a show that talks about professional sports in a way young kids could understand, similar to what Sports Illustrated's goals were with Sports Illustrated for Kids. Imagine, “ Hey kids, I am your host Kobe Bryant, here to show you a day in the life of a Lakers practice. And, o yeah, stay in school."

Talk about good business, even I would watch that.

Tom Cable refutes ESPN report

The Oakland Raiders seem to have a bone to pick with ESPN.

Last week, Outside the Lines, an ESPN show that tracks off the beat sports issues, ran a story accusing Tom Cable, the Raiders head coach, of also being physically abusive to his former ex-girl friend and wife, suggesting that his preseason assault on his assistant coach is not an isolated incident.

While Cable admitted to hitting his ex-wife 20 years ago with an open hand, he said he never did so again any other time in the marriage.

Since the report ran, the Raiders have accused the world’s most trusted leader is sports news of being bias against their team and that report featured many quotes that were taken out of context.

To be honest, the Raiders have been an easy target for all media outlets, considering how poorly their team stinks but my guess is they are trying to deny the facts in the report and putting the onus on ESPN.

Still, it begs the question, would ESPN ever falsely report a story, or do poor reporting in order to break some juicy gossip?

Odds are that the ESPN report was accurate, as Cable’s incidents seem to be stemming from a history of past assaults. But the accusations made by the Raiders brings up an alarming situation that could hurt the network somewhere down the line.

In the age of twitter, facebook and the instant need of breaking news, it is so easy for any news outlet to fumble a news story, or perhaps make some quick assumptions based off of poor evidence and quick reporting. Just last year Selena Roberts of Sports Illustrated was accused of doing some shady things in breaking the Alex Roriguez steroids story, thus placing a bad name and a sore thumb into SI’s reputation.

Today, websites like deadspin.com are growing high ratings because of their juicy gossip sports stories, although something tells me they do not due the most honest reporting. Hopefully, ESPN will never fall down this path. They should always strive to be the ultimate standard and last work on a sports story, regardless if they were the first to break it. While ESPN is the most respected sports news medium they are also the most trusted. I would hate if they one day succumbed to anything less.

Is it the right cards?

October is arguably the best month for sports. Baseball features the playoffs and World Series, the NBA season tips off and NFL and college football are always hot.

ESPN, which covers NBA, college football and NFL Monday Night Football games in the Fall months ( they only one they don't cover is playoff baseball or the World Series)also covers another big sport; The World Series of Poker.

Since the early 2000's ESPn has covered the World Series of Poker during the summertime, a relatively slow time for sports. But this year, for the second year in a row, ESPN covers the World Series of Poker in the summertime, than, after thousands of contestants have been eliminated and there is one table remaining, they take a two month delay to show fans the live table in the November.

To hype up the event, ESPN is showing a documentary of Phil Ivey, one of the worlds best poker players in the world, on their newest show, E60. http://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article/ivey-to-appear-on-espn-newsmagazine-show-180224

The event will be shown live on ESPN from November 7th-9th ( with a 15-minute delay so people cant call in players and tell them what cards other playeers have)"The final nine players remaining in the main event will once again go on a four-month hiatus before coming back to play out the action Nov. 7-10. After an amazing turnout to see Peter Eastgate win the 2008 championship, this year's finale will take place in front of a live audience and will receive special prime-time coverage on ESPN." http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/news/story?id=3860083)

From a scheduling standpoint, the World Series of baseball will be over by than, but November 7th-9th is a weekend, which smacks right in the middle of the pro and college football weekend. But according to last years numbers, (http://www.womanpokerplayer.com/news/index.php?/archives/175-2008-World-Series-of-Poker-Grows-in-Participants,-Prize-Pool,-Ratings-and-All-Time-Records.html)which featured an 18 percent increase since 2004, when the WSOP was shown in the summer and not shown live.

The move to live in November works for two reason; one, the event in the summer was losing ratings the past few years because people already knew who the winner was. Typically, ESPN would show the event ( which really took place in May) in August, and as the event grew bigger over the years, online sites, like ESPN.com would announce the winner of the Main Event months before it happened. Now, poker fans can watch live, not knowing who the winner is.

Secondly, showing the event live allows for to not really be able to Tive or DVR the event. If one chooses to do so, they better watch the even quickly or else any one of their friends, co-workers or news sites will tell them who has been eliminated. While cable TV, along with network TV is getting killed due to Tivo and DVR, sports events still do pretty well with advertising because most people have to watch a game live. In today's media intensified world, one cannot afford to record a game and wait to watch the results later. More time rather than not someone tells them the winner.

As with the WSOP, poker fans will be forced to watch the main event live. For ESPN, hopefully that will force them to see some adds.

Image is everything

Sorry that I stink at headlines but I really hate them. In fact, if I ever get a job at a newspaper I think the first thing I will tell my employer is that I am sorry I cannot do headlines.

But quite possibly that may be my demise because as you know, in the entertainment business industry ( which is what news is at the end of the day) its all about the image. The sensational, appealing headline is what sells the product, in my particular case, an article. Crappy headline= no readers.

ESPN knows all about image. In fact, they present don't only give fans sports information but they give them sports personalities. Think about guys like Linda Cohen, Rachel Nichols, Erin Andrews, Scott Van Pelt, Stuart Scott, all employees who are sometimes bigger than the stories they report. In fact. ESPN doesn't hide the fact that they market their guys like sports leagues market their players as opposed to teams. When I interned at ESPN radio in Los Angeles this summer one of the first things my supervisor told me was that ESPN radio is just as much about selling sports personalities as it is about selling sports analysis.

But what does this have to do with anything? On Wednesday, baseball insider for ESPN, Steve Phillips, admitted that he had an affair with a 22-year-old ESPN programming employee ( http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/espn_suspends_steve_phillips_after_BqI2i7uj46oLDZSWhxsGvK)
and as a result was given a leave of absence by ESPN.

The people at Disney, who own ESPN, were probably not happy with Philips reaction, as bad publicity = bad image, especially for a company owned by a mouse( I really meant that, just think about it) As a result, ESPN was put into a sticky situation of whether or not they should actually report on their own. In the end they did, probably because they felt it would be hypocritical to report on other athletes and coaches affairs but not their own ( http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2009/10/21/espn-addresses-steve-phillips-brooke-hundley-affair-reported-su/)

With the story out a ton of criticism came pouring in from the public media, like rumors from deadspin.com (http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2009/10/22/espn-responds-to-deadspins-despicable-rumor-mongering/) and a New York Post columnist who used his space to get back at Philips who he has an altercation with several months ago.(http://www.nypost.com/p/vac_whacks_thursday_edition_8aB048Jeie4TbN6OOnee3I)

To put it simply, after coming off of a record setting month in September, revenue wise, ESPN does not need this.

But lets get back to the main point about image. ESPN does this to themselves. They build up their employees, to the point where they are bigger than the sports news themselves. Everywhere you look on ESPN Erin Andrews is doing every sideline game ( Dont they have anyone else) and Rachel Nichols is always the one behind the scenes at mini camps and practices. All over their website they have columns with the writers face blown up, not the name and every sports center commercial tries to equate athletes to the same status as Sports Center anchors who cover them ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntglBWwjiEQ) The point is this, is ESPN does not want the scrutiny of their employees than they should probably place less emphasis on the image of everyone who writes, reports or broadcasts something for them.

In a day in age where self branding is what gets sports people like myself in the door, I understand where ESPN is coming from. Sure Steve Philips may not be a household name, but he was a former coach of the New York Mets and you can bet your Sunday ticket package that ESPN hired him, like many of their employees, because they are already big sports figures.

But if ESPN continues to hire the big name guys and promote their journalists like rock stars than instead of reporting the headlines, they will continue to be part of them. And trust me, those will be much easier to understand than mine.

Stick to Sports

Michael Wilbon, a co-host on one of ESPN's daily sports debating shows called Pardon the Interruption, was in some hot water this last week.

When controversial conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh's bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams was denied last week, Wilbon made a bad ( but understandable) mistake and missquoted, along with numerous other television cable news shows, that Limbaugh had said years ago that, "Slavery built the south, I am not saying we should bring it back I am just saying we should acknowledge its merits."

Note: When reports came out ten days ago that Limbaugh wanted to buy the Rams, The St, Louis dispatch along with USA Today and other media outlets picked this slavery quote up from Wikipedia. The quote had ended up there from a book that was published three years ago. However, Limbaugh denies the comments and there is no proof that he ever made those comments. Wilbon admits that he was given those comments minutes before he went on air.

Additionally, On his PTI show on October 9th Wilbon said, "I dont know whether Limbaugh is a straight up bigot or he simply plays one on tv and radio, but he is universally reviled by black people in this country."

In regards to his first comment pertaining to slavery, Wilbon apologized directly to Limbaugh. " That’s a journalistic no-no. What? If I had checked and found out the information that we had basic access to every day on deadline, I might have done it anyway. Still, that’s wrong and a journalistic no-no, and I said that to him."

Than, on Sunday October 18th, Wilbon went on CNN and said that he stood by his comment that many black people dispise Limbaugh. http://www.mediaite.com/print/espn-reporter-apologizes-for-slandering-limbaugh-rush-rubs-it-in-with-journal-op-ed/

Whether or not Wilbon is right or wrong and whether or not Limbaugh deserves to have a team, which is certainly debatable, Wilbon made a mistake that a 17-year Washington Post Columnist should not make, especially one that represents the most trusted brand sports media outlet in the world. Wilbon fused sports and politics, something that ESPN should try to stay far away from.

Honestly, I am not really concerned with Wilbon getting the facts wrong or misquoting someone more than I am worried about his agenda. Clearly Wilbon is not a fan of Limbaugh, but the problem lies in the fact that I know that. I am a sports fan, and when I watch ESPN I watch it because I want sports, not the bull I get on cable news.

Off course ESPN should urge Wilbon and his co-host Tony Kornheiser to comment on the Limbaugh controversy but they should make sure to stick to the perspective of the NFL.

For instance, nationally syndicated ESPN radio host, Colin Cowherd, commented on his show last Thursday that Limbaugh should not believe he is being targeted because he stands for conservative views, but rather the NFL is simply trying to protect its image. Said Cowherd, " Larry Flynt, who is liberal and owns a porno magazine would also be denied." While Cowherd is giving a somewhat heavily loaded political opinion, he is giving it from the view of the NFL, not his own personal beliefs.

Wilbon should have been smarter. In my opinion Wilbon has a good point, but as a sports fan the last thing I want is to look at my favorite sports network, ESPN, and think of their reporters as guys with a political agenda. If Wilbon wants to advocate for what he believes in that is totally fine, but ESPN is a brand the tries to stick with the facts and provide fans with sports information, analysis and opinion from an unbiased point of view.

From such a well respected journalist and veteran of the game, Wilbon made a rookie mistake.

While one may argue that comments such as these add a sensational aspect to ESPN, which would in return add more viewers and maybe allow ESPN to matter more to the outside world, I would agree that partially that is true. But I can guarantee you that if ESPN continued to have their personality hosts allow their personal beliefs to seep in to their reporting, there would be many viewers who would turn away. Sports fans are human, and many of them have strong political opinions as is. The last thing ESPN wants is some fan saying " Aw gosh Wilbon keep your dam opinions to yourself," and than change the channel.

Just take a look at exhibit A, a comment posted on www.mediaite.com; ChrisNH says:
October 18, 2009 at 12:52 pm

Reason #344 why people hate journalists (most of them, anyway): They act all ‘high-and-mighty’ about their ‘ethics’ and ‘code of conduct.’ They act as though they sit on some throne above everyone else. I mean, they act as though a J-School degree (those who have them) is somehow on the same plane as a doctorate degree. And then! Then, they don’t even practice what they preach! They act as ”elite, professional journalists’ while breaking every tenet in the book. Next time, Wilbon, keep that in mind when someone rolls their eyes every time you say something. Don’t act as though your next act of heroism will be to cure cancer or something."

Sure it is only one person and one comment, but for ESPN's sake, and the sake of their millions of viewers who pay for their mortgages, one is too much.

They can thank Wilbon for that.

Laughter is genious

Sports and comedy are not always synonymous, and are usually never used together to make money.

In fact, I cannot really think of any two comedic products and sports products that are intertwined. Sure, sports events may throw in some humor every once in a while, ( think Kiss Me Camera on Scoreboard)and ya content may be funny now and then and broadcasters are probably to corny sometimes in an effort to create a laugh, but rarely ever do sports outlets give fans an entire product that's sole purpose is to make people crack up.

Not until ESPN began the Bill Simmons column, who is formerly known as " The Sports Guy."

A former writer for " The Jimmy Kimmel Show" Simmons has been writing a column for ESPN.com since 2002. The column, which is called " Page 2" is absolutely hilarious. While the columns themselves can be very lengthy, taking a side an hour to read it will cheer anyone up. Simmons style is very pessimistic, and he makes fun and takes stab at any athlete or owner who deserves it ( and some that don't) Check out his most recent column making Oakland Raiders Quarterback Jamarcus Russell look like a Pee Wee player.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/091009
Many times, Simmons won't even talk about sports, but things that have very little to do with actual X's and O's. In the same column linked, Simmons answers an e-mailer’s questions about what she should wear for Halloween so she could piss off her fellow New Yorkers. Simmons then gives her numerous choices of athletes and gimmicks, including dressing up like Derek Jeter with a syringe in his arm to imply he does steroids (Anyone that knows baseball knows that's not true.)

Simmons is also a native of Boston, and he usually gives hilarious anecdotes associated with his Boston’s sports passion, like how he took a four hour walk with his dog and got lost after a Celtics loss.

What was once actually on a separate link form the ESPN.com home page ( hence the name Page 2) is now and for the last year or so, on the home page of ESPN.com In fact, right next to Rick Reilly's column ( one of the greatest sports writers of all time), the only other column featured on the home page is Bill Simmons'.

But of all things, why does Simmons deserve such an honor? Wouldn't a more insightful column appear on the first page, as opposed to a comedic piece that is more entertainment than informative?

That's like movies.com putting Dumb and Dumber on its all time movies list? Good movie but not all time.

So why does ESPN believe in Simmons so much? Well, for one, The Sports Guy's column has great numbers and is the most read sports column on the site and maybe in the world.

Side note, ESPN has also had friction with Simmons. Remember Disney owns ESPN, and Simmons sometimes can say too much of what is on his mind, so there is not the biggest love relationship there.
( http://deadspin.com/248853/bill-simmons-isnt-going-anywhere)

So why than did ESPN sign Simmons until 2010?

Or better question, why do so many people read Simmons?

The meaning is in the humor. Listen, I am not a Psychologist, but I am a really smart sports person who knows when content is good and why it is good.

Simmons is great not only because he makes you laugh but he makes fans think. How many times have you seen a movie that really makes you laugh but also has a profound effect on you? ( I.e. Sideways)

Simmons anecdotes are so easy to relate to as a sports fan, and many of his pieces are extremely insightful. Sometimes, humor columns make me think more than serious opinion’s one can.

The best quality of Simmons is that he says what is on his mind, putting the reader inside his head. All the negative things that writers hold back from writing, or perhaps just say in a politically correct way, Simmons never refrains from saying. As a reader, you are always wondering what he is going to say next.

To prove that Simmons is not all about fun and games, he once had a forty page debate with media scholar Malcolm Galdwell ( http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090513/part1) debating topics such as the role of leadership in sports. To keep it simple, Simmons proved he could THINK about sports as well.

Listen, ESPN knows what it is doing. Humor and sports is great, if it is done well.

And hey, its sports, lighten up and laugh, even if you think Simmons is a jerk.

SELLING SEX THE RIGHT WAY

I thought about it and thought about it some more until I realized that ESPN has done it better than Sports Illustrated, at least for this time.

Long competing rivals for sports fans, or maybe just two companies who sell a similar product who actually help each other out, ( remember good things come in pairs from "Knocked up?") do, like all magazines, create "special issues" in order to create more buzz and really to sell more ad's to companies who love magazine specials because they typically get the most amount of readers. All this according to a recent New York Times Article

( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12adco.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=espn%20body%20issue&st=cse)

While ESPN the Magazine can never compete with Sports Illustrated Magazine, mainly because SI specializes in their magazine and ESPN specializes in television ( for those of you who do not know SI has a website as well)However, ESPN did something last week that I find to be more upstanding then SI; It created the annual Body Issue, the answer to SI's annual Swim Suit Special.

The Swim Suit Special, which has been SI's number one rated issue for over twenty years, features beautiful models in some remote, tropical Island in sexy swimsuits and some of them are only left with body paint on. The only connection SI makes to sports is that they have a section featuring athletes beautiful wives. But for the most part, the issue is about sex, beautiful models and very little connection to sports. It sells, by all means I love it, and it is great for college dorm rooms and for the old man to peer through when the wife is not around.

But ESPN the magazine, from an intellectual stand point, maybe not so much from a business stand point, has picked a different angle to sell sex and grab advertisers attention; they feature athletes themselves. ESPN the Body Issue, (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4526351) while showing athletes huge physiques these days, also has stories analyzing how far women athletes should go when advertising their bodies. They have another section showing off athletes scars, which makes one have an appreciation for how far athletes go today towards success. There is even a column by the famous Rick Reilly, who describes the reality that reporters go through when having to report players when they are nude in the locker room. In all, the issue gives fans an inside depth of how art, beauty and the body contributes to the shaping of athlete, especially in today's society.

Sure, the women may not be as sexy, and ya, most of my buddies and yours will probably prefer Si's Swim Suit edition. But if you really want to see some cool pics of your favorite athletes, and maybe even think a little bit, than ESPN The Body Issue is the way to go.

SEX SELLS, EVEN IN SPORTS

Last week ESPN the Magazine came out with the body issue, which features semi-nude pictures of half-naked athletes, although none of the pictures are to revealing.

An article from the New York Times points out that the reason ESPN decides to come out with an issue as risque as as " The Body Issue" is because advertisers are usually prone

ESPN's obsession with Favre

ESPN has done it again. They have created enough buzz around one guy and one game to attract enough viewers to support an entire country.

There is no question in my mind that ESPN knows exactly what it is doing. There like con artists who suck the viewer in, plant a ticking time bomb in fans heads and before it is too late they pull the lever.
This Monday night the buzz created by ESPN over Brett Favre will allow them to cash in on their over extensive coverage of Favre, proving that they are no different than any other media business in the world.

Some stories are worthy enough to give extensive coverage to, such as Kobe Bryant being accused of rape in Colorado, or Alex Rodriguez, one of the best baseball players of all time, being caught for taking steroids. But extensive coverage, for two summers in-a row of a 40-year-old quarterback, half way over the hill who keeps retiring and un-retiring to join other teams can only mean one thing; ESPN knows how to lay out its cards.

Sure the Brett Favre saga was something worth noting, covering and analyzing but ESPN spent the last two summers covering Favre's drama with his old team, the Packers, to his new team, The Jets, to another retirement to un retiring to his new, new team, the Vikings, as much as cable news network’s covered 9/11 on 9/12.

For two summers Favre's latest tweet, most recent text, recent flight plans and even what he ate for lunch was reported on ESPN radio, magazine and was constantly the headline on ESPN.com and Sports Center.

Summer time is never a big time for sports fans. Plenty of golf and summer baseball, but certainly not enough action to get fans watching, listening, and reading ESPN as much as they do during the most of the year.

So, ESPN has to find a way to suck fans in, attract viewers and keep the advertisers coming.

Three summers ago it was the Michael Vick dog fighting story and every summer there will always be some story that ESPN will blow up.

Sometimes, it is hard to differentiate between whether or not fans think a story is a big deal or the story itself receives a lot of attention simply because it is blown up by ESPN; think, what came first the chicken or the egg?

I once learned that TV tells viewers what topics they should care about, not the other way around.

If ESPN gave little attention to Favre this off-season would fans complain? Sports Illustrated obviously got sick of the Favre attention, coming out with an issue in August that had a headline on the top right that said “Favre-free issue."

Whether or not the Favre saga received enough attention or not is debatable, but what can be concluded is that ESPN, while promising to " Serve sports fans wherever sports is read, heard or watched," is also in the business of making fans become obsessed with a certain story, thus increasing their ratings. Yes, my friend, even sports can get twisted, biased and unfair.

Let's not simply blame ESPN, however. Cable news coverage will also hope on the train of a certain story and ride it as long as it has legs in hopes of sucking in viewers and driving up ratings, especially during slow news months. Think; famous kidnappings, Michael Jackson and Bill Clinton.

But ESPN? You betcha.

This Monday night, ESPN will cash in on its Favre Coverage (by the way I forgot to mention that ESPN had a bottom ticker in the summer called " Favre.")
This Monday night ESPN will feature the Vikings ( Favre’s new team) against the Packers ( his old team that he played for, for over fifteen years, won a Super Bowl and three MVP's with).
So why is this a big game? Note: Favre was probably more known in Green Bay in his playing days there than the governor of Wisconsin.

The game will be nationally televised on Monday Night Football on ESPN, and advertisers have probably payed millions of dollars for spots during the game. There will probably be about 30 million people watching the game and maybe even more.

What ESPN does so well is create " Buzz." Throughout this week ESPN has had reporters at both teams’ practice facilities, asking players on both sides how Favre's first match against his former team will affect the overall game.

Through all this ESPN successfully creates buzz, as if they needed to anymore. While a fan may even be sickened by the amount of Favre coverage, they can’t help but watch on Monday night. Even my mom, who barely watches sports, knows the significance of Monday night’s game.

What ESPN has the luxury of, as opposed to regular news, is that the story they are covering has longevity. Sometimes in news a story dies and the network has to pick another news story to give extensive coverage to. For instance once a crazy murder happens if the killer is not captured than eventually the news has to stop covering it.

But with ESPN, coverage of a story almost always turns into reality. ESPN can talk about Michael Vick going to jail for several months, and then when he gets out of jail for several more and then spend several weeks talking about his first game. Sometimes, a story like that can last for years.

On Monday night the Favre saga will once again come to fruition for ESPN. All of it’s over obsessive coverage will pay off, as millions of viewers will stay tuned.

No matter what the outcome, ESPN has created enough buzz to make sure that it always wins just like a bad movie can create enough buzz that people will show up and see it anyways. Think Transformers 2.

So next time you see a story on the number one network for sports, just realize that ESPN is no different than Fox News, CNN or your local news outlet.

While they all may be serving us, in the end, they're just making sure their wallets get fatter.

Maybe ESPN should send a thank you card to Favre after Monday’s game.

ALLESPN.com

ESPN has a game on their website which it started back in April called "ESPN Streak for Cash." I found this game to be quite interesting and relevant in terms of recent readings for my Business and Media class.

Last week, I read two readings which each argued a different point. The first reading, by Chris Anderson, argued that media outlets should continue the trend of offering free content in order to attract readers to see ad's and eventually buy into their product. The other reading, by Malcolm Gladwell, revealed that media companies would best be served by charging for their services because people find more value in things when they pay for it.

While I tend to fall on the side of Gladwell, because I believe that there is immense value in paying for higher quality, I understand Anderson's point as well.

ESPN.com, which is one of the most celebrated and well respected sports content providers in the world, has gone an extra step in the “Free for all Media World" by giving access to a service that is not typically free; gambling.

In the ESPN.com game called “Streak for The Cash" contestants can gamble for free and win up to a million dollars in cash. The games rules are simple; place one bet from a given list of games or head-to-head player match-up's once a day, and build a streak with the right picks. Lose once and you start back at the beginning. The top seven contestants with the longest streaks between April 1st 2009 to December 6th 2009 will be flown out to Bristol Connecticut, (ESPN headquarters) for a pick-off competition, where the winner will receive $1,000,000 in cash.

With this free betting concept ESPN has managed to give one of the most expensive leisure activities and offer it for free. Imagine if the New York State lottery gave out free lotto tickets, surely everyone in their right mind would play for free, right?

What works so great with “Streak for Cash" is that the consumer can actually have an impact on winning and now sports gamblers can bet without ever having to leave their couch or pay a dollar.

The only set back to the consumer is the occasional annoyance of having to look at the "Progressive, Car insurance" ad's placed neatly around the web page as well as within the content. For example, showcased right above the "game of the day" the headline reads "Progressive game of the day."

The reason that makes this ad so efficient is that it is the only ad that is seen on the Streak for Cash web page. With that being said, the consumer could either subconsciously or even consciously be focusing on one ad. The gambler may even be forced to eventually click on the ad just to finally know what it is all about. If one goes to the site, which seems like one would have to go every day to keep their streak alive, than they will probably stumble upon clicking the Progressive ad sooner or later.

Secondly, what makes the ESPN Streak for Cash so interesting is that it is using gambling, which sometimes goes synonymous with sports, as a device in attracting readers to their website. In fact, I would even think that they could put advertisements for casinos on this game. Betting on a game and looking up to see an advertisement for Caesar’s Palace seems to go together nicely.

Additionally, using one leisure activity (gambling) to promote another leisure activity (reading about sports) is something that ESPN is excelling at with this betting on sports games concept. Maybe in some way, none that I can think of, other websites will follow a similar model.

But what is certain is that giving away free access to gambling on sports surely works. If ESPN.com were to charge for “Streak for Cash" I do not think that they would get as many hits to their site, thus swatting away ad companies. Nothing sounds better than allowing one to enjoy in a leisure activity for free. Sure stealing movies online is cool, and getting to read the New York Times online without getting a cent is great, but paying for these mediums would not be the worst thing in the world nor would it take a bite out of anyone' wallet. But being able to gamble for free is another story. Gambling can get pricey, thus forcing people to stop (i.e. Vegas hurts in a recession) but gambling for free sounds too good to be true. In the end, people gamble to make money anyways, not to lose it.

I wonder if the gambling people would ever consider this concept. How about an ad on top of a free scratcher?

Whatever the case, I can surely say that free gambling on sports is a win-win.