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.