Master Index of Archived Threads


ESPN shows its bias towards business partners!

SteveJRogers Aug 20 2006 09:29 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 20 2006 09:46 PM

The title of "Pro-Football" might suggest a global approach, much in the way it's (unmentioned) predecssor Total Football did, and much like various like tomes of baseball, basketball and hockey have done through the years. Not so much here! Any pre-NFL history? And by NFL I mean 1920 as the start. No. Any other leagues that tried to call themselves "majors" like two failed one-and-done AFLs in the pre-WWII era? The WFL? The USFL? XFL? Canadian? WLAF that became NFLEurope? Nope. Except for mentions of the USFL War in the early-mid 80's in the prolouge its nothing but the NFL and leagues that would give the NFL member teams. That means just the AAFC of the 1940's (Cleveland Browns I, Baltimore Colts I (not the current franchise in Indy) and the 49ners) and of course the AFL that merged with the NFL in 1970 Is that a bad thing? No, not really, but then why not call the book "The NFL Encyclopedia" then if you only are covering NFL related seasons and such. BTW, the other sign of bias is the fact that the only special regular season games mentioned, despite the fact that the NFL's own record book now highlights Thanksgiving, Sunday Nights and assorted other non-Sunday afternoon games, is Monday Night Football. Guess where MNF will be airing starting this fall? ESPN. And not only that, they give you a breakdown of all the broadcasters in the show's history (uneccessary really in a book of this form) as well as full and complete breakdown of team records, and even coaches records! Nice and you do get that (without the coaches and broadcasters) in the NFL's record book, but along with the other non-Sunday afternoon specials. Hell singular night football games did NOT start with MNF's debut for crying out loud (and I'm not talking Turkey here) the NFL had experimented with a Thursday night game prior to Roone Arledge jumping at the MNF oppertunity Its a good reference tool though, great for argument and bet settlements

SteveJRogers Aug 20 2006 09:42 PM

Oh and one more thing about the MNF section, just as I mentioned Roone Arledge, if you are going to do a section like that, listing all the commentators, broadcasters, sideline reporters, ect, give some love to the directors like Chet Forte and producers like Roone who truely were the heart and soul of every broadcast, probably more so than Howard, Frank and Don themselves! CHET FORTE! He was a big reason MNF was so damn compelling and entertaining back in the 70's. Not just Cosell, not just Meredith, and not just because they had good games and the NFL had "more personality" (quotes for sarcasm) back then. The camera work, and production values set by Forte and Arledge have become staples of how to do a sports television broadcast to this day. If you are going to do a special section dedicated to Monday Night Football that includes a listing of everyone behind the mikes, you gotta add the guys directing traffic back in that truck week after week, year after year. Chet and Roone deserve the love And not for nothing, but what about CBS Radio/Westwood One through the years? National radio just doesn't count? And again, there is a special Super Bowl section, but no listing of yearly broadcasters there? ESPN can not stop its self promotion and trying to convince itself that the broadcasters are the ONLY stars of the telecast

MFS62 Aug 21 2006 10:12 AM

Steve, a couple of thoughts. You are right about Forte and Arledge. When they were in charge of the original AFL telecasts, they brought true innovation to football telecasting. They were the first to show an end zone view of the field. It was the first time viewers could get a feel for pass patterns and line spacing. They added sideline cameras and "miked up" coaches. If they did not get some words about their contribution to football telecasting, it is a shame. That is especially strange since ABC and ESPN are parts of the same company. As for coverage of prior leagues, the official NFL books do include some of them. And, unlike the NBA official record books, the NFL books include records of players who had played in other leagues and count those stats toward a player's lifetime totals. The omission, and non-recognition, of ABA records by the NBA still bothers me. (Maybe I'll post more about that in the future.) Later

SteveJRogers Aug 21 2006 07:42 PM

="MFS62"]Steve, a couple of thoughts. You are right about Forte and Arledge. When they were in charge of the original AFL telecasts, they brought true innovation to football telecasting. They were the first to show an end zone view of the field. It was the first time viewers could get a feel for pass patterns and line spacing. They added sideline cameras and "miked up" coaches. If they did not get some words about their contribution to football telecasting, it is a shame. That is especially strange since ABC and ESPN are parts of the same company. I stand corrected somewhat, Chet and Roone do get justly mentioned in the summary leading off the section. But my point still stands, don't list the broadcasters without listing the directors and executive producers as if the broadcasters are the main reason for the broadcast. Actually what makes it even more confounding is that MNF for all intent purpose died the day ABC decided to get out of the pro-football game. MNF as a franchise is now airing Sunday Nights on NBC. What ESPN has is the old Sunday package! I'd say that even if Ebersol decided to forge an NBC brand, but then again maybe the old MNF staff is Ebersol's "Stengel & Weiss" where the first year out of the box Ebersol goes old as he tries to rebuild NBC's football franchise. But thats another story for another thread! ]As for coverage of prior leagues, the official NFL books do include some of them. And, unlike the NBA official record books, the NFL books include records of players who had played in other leagues and count those stats toward a player's lifetime totals. The omission, and non-recognition, of ABA records by the NBA still bothers me. (Maybe I'll post more about that in the future.) Later Yup. BTW, the MLB books do give you the one-and-done Players and Union Leagues. Incredibly since those two leagues were from the 90's. Uh the 1890's! as well as the NL's main rivals in the 1880's (the original homes of the Cardinals and Dodgers actuall) American Association and the 1914-1915 Federal League! The only quivel is that it took untill recent years for MLB to acknowledge the NL's predecessor, the National Association as part of the history Speaking of that, and the NBA's lack of ABA history, how about the NBL (I think offhand) that existed before the BAA (NBA before the merger) which was mostly across the midwest and whose legacy is the Lakers! Hard to find ANYTHING on that league expect for a run down of the franchises in some books I think it wouldn't bother me so much (not saying it really nothers me a great deal, just more of an example of ESPN's NFL bias) if ESPN just called the book The NFL Encyclopedia, Pro-Football implies that you will spend a section on non-NFL related leagues. And all I really ask is maybe a half a page each with yearly standings and/or just a listing of championship game results and/or major awards. Probably do more than a few pages on the very current NFLEurope, Arena League and Canadian Football, especially considering the CFL and USFL representation in this years HOF class, Reggie White and Warren Moon!

metirish Sep 29 2006 03:39 PM

I'll stick this here..... [url=http://hotfoot.metsblog.com/]Jason Witlock Fired Over ESPN Critique[/url]

Johnny Dickshot Sep 29 2006 04:17 PM

Fascinating. He makes a great point about the laziness of so many writers to prop up Barry as the face of the steroid scandal as if he were caught the problem would have never happened. I'd never heard of Scoop Jackson till today