Dan Patrick is a characture of himself. Nothing is as painful as watching him host the NBA show. He couldn't look any stiffer or any whiter. Barry and Wilbon probably laugh behind his back.
Didn't realize that... I know I might be in the minority about Dan patrick, but I love his radio show. Once ESPN radio came back to Austin, I haven't turned on Jim Rome since. I'll be really disappointed to lose his show, but he has to do what is right for him. He has said many times on his show that he can't stand what he's forced to cover. I'm not sure where he'd end up. It's not like Fox is any better and I'm sure his buddy Olberman will quickly talk him out of that. Maybe he is taking The Price is Right gig. I wonder who would take over for him on the radio should he leave. Valvano is terrible. Would they bump Cowherd? I did like the few shows that Patrick McEnroe filled in. He was suprisingly good.
Great article. ESPN: Worldwide Cheerleader? As its empire grows, has ESPN become the worldwide cheerleader in sports? By Devin Gordon Newsweek July 23, 2007 issue - Throughout July, ESPN's award-winning flagship news hour "SportsCenter" is devoting a chunk of every broadcast to a segment called "Who's Now." It's an elimination tournament, purely theoretical, to determine which current athlete is the most "now"—although two weeks into the competition, it's still anyone's guess what exactly "now" means. A panel of experts, including ex-NFL diva Keyshawn Johnson, debate whether, say, the NBA's Dwyane Wade or snowboarder Shaun White is more "now." Viewers vote online, and the winner moves on to face Tiger Woods in the next round. And so on. Everything about the segment is so artificial, from concept to execution, that watching it is like chewing Styrofoam. Lots of people in the sports world took shots at "Who's Now" last week, including ESPN's own star columnist Bill Simmons. It was just another wound in what turned out be an unexpectedly untriumphant stretch for "the worldwide leader in sports." Monday's Home Run Derby on ESPN, minus slugger Barry Bonds, who declined to participate because he's old, was a bit of a dud. Later that evening, the network's much-hyped miniseries, "The Bronx Is Burning," premiered to lukewarm reviews and luker-warm ratings. And on Wednesday, one of ESPN's brightest nights of the year—the taping of its annual sports awards show, the Espys—was dimmed by the news that longtime "SportsCenter" anchor Dan Patrick, arguably ESPN's most cherished on-air personality, was leaving the network. ESPN still has plenty of big names on the payroll; its TV dominion is secure. But Patrick's departure is a watershed moment, not least because it epitomizes a battle for the soul of ESPN. As an anchor, Patrick struck the perfect balance between wit and gravitas; he had the funniest one-liners and he asked the toughest questions. But in recent years, networkwide, that balance has begun to tip unmistakably toward the kind of athlete-centric idol worship that seems more like the province of Us Weekly than ESPN. Some of this is inevitable. ESPN's lucrative partnerships with the NFL, the NBA, MLB and NASCAR, among others, have put its news operation, and "SportsCenter" in particular, in a unique bind. "Imagine The New York Times owning half of the Broadway theaters whose plays it reviews. Or imagine CNN paying billions of dollars for exclusive ... rights to cover the War in Iraq," wrote ESPN's own ombudsman, Le Anne Schreiber, in a May 10 Web column titled "At ESPN, Conflict of Interest Is Business as Usual." It has led to the occasional gaffe, like ESPN's decision to cancel its well-regarded drama "Playmakers" after the NFL complained about the show. And many influential sports bloggers, such as The Big Lead and Deadspin, have accused the network of ignoring sports, especially pro hockey, that ESPN doesn't have deals with. Then again, ESPN has ramped up its coverage of ultimate fighting even though the network has no financial stake in it—and does have a stake in its rival, boxing. And while it's true that ESPN's hockey coverage has declined lately, hockey has also declined lately. Is that ESPN's fault, or the NHL's? What's more troubling is how frequently ESPN's boosterism leads to bad television. Another regular "SportsCenter" segment called "A Day in the Life" (think "ESPN Cribs") recently featured star NFL linebacker Shawne Merriman, who was suspended last year after he flunked a steroid test. "SportsCenter" duly noted the suspension early on, but it only underscored the exercise in image rehabilitation that came next: Merriman eating breakfast, Merriman lifting weights, Merriman volunteering at a soup kitchen. How convenient that ESPN's cameras showed up for that day in his life. ESPN remains peerless at reporting, and breaking, news—there's a reason so many of us still mainline hour after hour of "SportsCenter." And it has covered the year's biggest story, Bonds's tainted pursuit of Hank Aaron's hallowed home-run record, with a fittingly ambivalent mix of awe and skepticism. But too often, the network seems hellbent on sanctifying athletes, rather than merely covering them, because it's good business for both. (ESPN's overreliance on underqualified ex-jocks to fill its analyst ranks is a grating example.) In a way, the Espys have become an apt metaphor for ESPN. It's a party the network throws for itself and its closest friends. Everyone sits together, news anchors rubbing elbows with All-Stars. It's more business as usual—two crowds that should probably keep their distance, getting a little too cozy instead. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19734725/site/newsweek/
ESPN is a bad monopoly, kind of like Microsoft. Without competition, the monopoly stagnates, the theory holds, and someone rises to the occasion. CNNSI failed miserably. So did Foxsports. ESPN is very entrenched and thus, very, very sucky. I think if I here "Boo-yah" one more time, I'll scream. My new radio show competes head-to-head against Dan Patrick Pugh (his real name) on our competitor, an ESPN Radio affliate and we kick their ass every time in the ratings. But then again, I should, since we focuse on the ATL area angle. I hate the East Coast bias exhibited by those folks. I'm sick and tired of hearing about the Red Sox and Spankees. The Spankees need big-eye binoculars just to even see the light at the end of the tunnel, as miserable as their pitching is.
They recently canned that great columnist from Kansas who was making fun of the NBA All-Star game. That was a shame, that guy can write.
Good ESPN - Bob Ley, its NFL coverage, Baseball tonight (although its much worse since they got rid of Harold Reynolds), Outside the Lines, Jeremy Shapp, The Sports Reporters, PTI, espn.com. Bad ESPN - EVERYTHING ELSE!!! I did this list a couple of years ago, and there was definitely more I could think of for the "good". Now, I'm sorta reaching when I have to resort to Bob Ley as their best current anchor (which he is... and has been there the longest, along with Berman).
Ho hum. Another day, another leading story on the Yankees on espn.com. Business as usual for the East Sports Programming Network.
Agreed...They are trying to be more pop entertainment than anything else...And who gives a crap about the who's now...All that does is cut time out of "real" sports stories... And another thing , that stupid story tracker or whatever its called...All that does is shrink the size of the screen...
Oye, mateo, do you recall where you saw that article or have a link to it? I'd like to read it for a quick laugh. If you please?
Who's Now is the answer to 'What's a horrible piece of **** television?' I can't stand when I see this thing come on. I know we're in the U.S., but the lack of respect for any athlete that's not a basketball/football/baseball player is ridiculous. That's what happens when it's a slow sports period and you try to make up new crap to take up some time. The fact that any NFL player will win over any soccer player makes me want to break my tv. Comparing a star who plays a sport that only one country plays vs THE most popular sport in the world fielding players from countries I didn't know existed? Not to mention 2 out of the 3 are Kirk Herbstreit and Keyshawn Johnson? These guys don't know **** about sports except for football, and even then Herbstreit is lousy. And no offense but Keyshawn doesn't look like a genius. The only decent guy is Wilbon (one of the few sports journalists I respect) but it feels like he's following the company's line. Kobe over Ronaldinho? @#&*% Tony Parker over Federer? WTF???? Tony Parker is nowhere near the best player in the NBA over possible THE greatest tennis player of all time? #@%^ I need a drink. /rant
We all just need to be patient. NFL Network's getting bigger, TNT still has great NBA coveraged, and in 2009 we'll have the MLB Channel. ESPNEWS is still okay, if you get it. I've more or less given up on SportsCenter and most ESPN programming, for that matter. Even BBTN's gotten terrible. Tim Kurkjian and Orel Herschiser (and occasionally Gammons and Olney) are really the only decent analysts, and Sutcliffe's the only color guy I can stand. Kruk, Eric Young, Joe Morgan, Orestes Destrade, and former-RH'd-pinch-hitting-specialist-whose-name-escapes-me all need to be fired immediately.
Its more of a Who' Now (USA). They sit there trying to act like Danica Patrick or Ronaldinho can actually win. Then 14 year olds sitting at home go online and vote for LT or Dwade because they are so cool. They don't even know who Ronaldinho is. There is NO point in doing the segment anyway because the kids at home will always vote for their favorite person, which in this case I can see Kobe or Wade winning.
