Since I spent the weekend through Tuesday at the Mouse House in Orlando for my day job, I've only had sporadic contact with reality, such as it is, so I'm going to take the opportunity to clean out the junk drawer of quotes and links and such. Hold on to your hats.
Here's Gregg Easterbrook (Tuesday Morning QB) on the problems with the NFL Network:
Today, ESPN and its established-channel competitors present NFL games on independent networks organized under journalism standards. That makes the games both more credible to viewers and more exciting. It's exciting to watch a game on ESPN or CBS in a way that will never happen with NFLN. The NFL Network does some things well for a project that's only in the third year, but it's always clear you are viewing an in-house corporate promotion channel. If in the future the NFL was broadcast entirely on an in-house corporate promotion channel, viewer interest would decline. Specifically, the NFL seems insufficiently appreciative of how much value has been added to its product by ESPN. There's a zany energy about ESPN no in-house broadcasting will ever offer. ESPN made it OK to be a total sports nut, OK to obsess about fantasy stats and the draft, OK to watch sports news during breakfast, OK to tape an hour of NFL highlights and review them slo-mo, OK to say to yourself "I live in the sports artificial universe, and I like it there." At the same time, ESPN made it OK to make fun of sports — you can only enjoy the sports ecosphere if you admit to yourself it's fundamentally silly. (In literary terms, you need "ironic detachment.") The NFL never would have reached its current position of popularity and income without ESPN or something very much like ESPN.
I think I disagree with just about every sentence in that paragraph. I cannot imagine anything being further from my mind while watch a game, than the fact that the networks are independent from the league. Does Gregg suppose the networks are broadcasting something that the league would hide if they had control? Not likely if they have dreams of want to re-up their contract next time around.
But not only that, networks wouldn't have to end coverage if they had no games. If anything, their total independence would encourage them to go after stories harder.
It is true that ESPN bought a new level of fun to sports, but that was in their early days when they didn't televise games. ESPN is now the establishment. They are not particularly innovative or interesting anymore. The next innovation in sports journalism will not come from a network that carries games. It will be another brash outsider.
Article comments
1 - Matthew T. Sussman
So do you actually watch games with Tinkerbell? If so, how?
That is to say, how do you restrain yourself from smothering her with a pillow?
2 - david mazzotta
I regularly watch games with Tinkerbell. She is vastly more entertaining than, say, Bryant Gumbel.
If I tried to smother her, I would have to find a proctologist to remove the leopard print boot from my ass.
3 - Tinkerbell
Sussman--bite me.
Fondly,
Tink
4 - Matthew T. Sussman
Er, I meant smother with a pillow in a good way.
5 - RJ Elliott
"If yards per carry are equal, a running back who consistently gains yardage on every play is more valuable than a boom-and-bust running back who is frequently stuffed at the line but occasionally breaks a long highlight-worthy run. (Common historical misconception: This does not mean FO believes that Barry Sanders was overrated.)"
Thank you for that qualification! ;-)
Great article as always.
6 - RJ Elliott
So, how'd you do?
7 - david mazzotta
Par for the course v. the spread: 3-3.
Massive return on the Money line, profit well over $1000. Sweet Fancy Moses!
Just a note: Column likely won't be out until Friday this week. I'm way way behind thanks Jesus being born a couple of millenia ago.