ESPN Archive

ESPN prepares to launch 3-D channel

By
Zuri
Published: January 5, 2010Tags:
ESPN prepares to launch 3-D channel

Far be it of me to believe ESPN likes to hype gimmicks. But the professed WWL is know for its flashy graphics and flawless designs, both online and on TV. And if there’s a knock to be made about the company’s cool flashiness, is that it can be excessive.

However, today’s question is not about usage, but about what is the next step for said WWL? We’ll likely get a glimpse of that soon.

Today, ESPN announced it would be launching a 3-D network.

Here’s a bit of what was posted on the Web site today:

ESPN 3D will showcase a minimum of 85 live sporting events during its first year, beginning June 11 with the first 2010 FIFA World Cup match, featuring South Africa versus Mexico, ESPN and ABC Sports president George Bodenheimer announced.

Other events to be produced in 3-D include the 2011 BCS National Championship Game, college basketball and football contests, up to 25 World Cup matches and the Summer X Games. Additional events will be announced at a later date.

“ESPN’s commitment to 3-D is a win for fans and our business partners,” Bodenheimer said in a statement. “ESPN 3D marries great content with new technology to enhance the fan’s viewing experience and puts ESPN at the forefront of the next big advance for TV viewing.”

Read the full story here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4796555

ESPN has testing 3-D technology for the last two years, according to the report. One wonders if 3-D technology has advanced enough for viewers to actually care to tune in, whether or not separate eyewear will have to be purchased to enjoy the channel and whether or not the technology necessary to produce the broadcasts will be unobtrusive to the sports being played.

None of these questions were announced in its announcement.

I’m all for the hype if it’s possible and looks good. I mean jaw wide open good. But I’ll hesitate on those expectations, especially after watching Jame Cameron’s blockbuster movie “Avatar” in 3-D. If anything, it just made the weird alien sexual tension just all the more whack. Oh, and it was incredibly underutilized for the hype.

Can we expect the same? I’ll be sure to tune in for the South Africa-Mexico game to find out.

ESPN’s railing against Twitter makes it look stupid

By
Zuri
Published: August 5, 2009Tags:

Ric Bucher lets the world know the "world wide leader" is against free speech.Guidelines, social media policies and rules are OK. They are the nature of the corporate environment.

But simply banning reporters from using Twitter for sports purposes, which is another means of extending the “World Wide Leader’s” brand, is absolutely demented in my book.

But hey, when you become a corporate entity too huge for your own good, this is the natural progression of things. As Frank Lopez said in “Scarface”:

You know what a chazzer is? It’s a Yiddish word for “pig.” See, the guy, he wants more than what he needs. He don’t fly straight no more.

ESPN is very much a chazzer. How much are they going to be in the news as a news organization? Who is their corporate communications czar? Whoever they are, they’re doing a terrible job of keeping the “entertainment” front and center for ESPN.

Lastly, that means no more gems like this from @jemelehill and @sportsguy33:

Sad news from Comiskey Park today: the White Sox offense overdosed on Phil Coke.

ESPN gets caught in awkward position

By
Zuri
Published: July 23, 2009Tags: , , , , , ,

ESPN's Erin Andrews at the ESPY awards. (AP file photo)

ESPN's Erin Andrews at the ESPY awards. (AP file photo)

Erin Andrews has been wronged. Recent news about her being surreptitiously videotaped naked while in her hotel room, has warranted plenty of sympathy.

But not from the New York Post.

We see this thing happen pretty often, especially to celebrities. I wouldn’t call Andrews a celebrity (or any other journalist for that matter), but she’s known as a “pretty face” for the World Wide Leader. But that doesn’t take away from further sensationalizing the story, which is what the Post is accused of. The Post published three photos from the video, after it appeared on the internet in many places.

“While we understand the Post’s decision to cover this as a news story, their running photos obtained in such a fashion went well beyond the boundaries of common decency in the interest of sensationalism,” ESPN senior vice president of communications Chris LaPlaca said in a statement Wednesday night.

In response, ESPN has banned all Post writers from appearing on its network. Ouch.

Talk about bringing the hammer. Not sure how much this hurts because the WWL doesn’t share what kind of contracts it has with writers of news organizations. Are they paid like Mike Wilbon, or are they doing it out of a means to promote themselves and their newspaper’s brand? We really don’t know.

On the other end, ESPN has been taking hits this last week because they would not even mention the Ben Roethlisberger case, in which he’s been accused of raping a hotel employee in Harrah’s. (The thing is, the accuser waited a whole year to just file a civil lawsuit — that’s right, no criminal complaint — against Big Ben, Harrah’s Casino and some of its employees. This was the main cause for ESPN to hesitate.)

While the accusations looked flawed with the absence of a criminal complaint, most observers have noted that it is still newsworthy.

I agree.

The Associated Press had reported on the issue when it arose, getting a quote from NFL commissioner Roger Gooddell and Roethlisberger’s lawyer. So it was very weird to not see ESPN even mention it.

Talk about burying the news. Would Michael Vick, Pacman Jones or Terrell Owens have received such restraint from the WWL? I don’t think so.

So on two different, totally separate fronts, ESPN is caught in these awkward positions to 1) do their journalistic duty as the WWL and 2) protect their own and uphold journalistic integrity.

Batting 1-for-2 when it comes to ethics, isn’t exactly admirable.

–
Here’s another good read on Erin Andrews being “pretty” from Viv Bernstein.

Men’s Health ranked Sac 95 out of 100

By
Zuri
Published: July 18, 2009Tags: , , , , ,

A screenshot of Men's Health Magazine's graphic of Sacramento's rankings.

A screenshot of Men's Health Magazine's graphic of Sacramento's rankings.

A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from a person representing Men’s Health Magazine about their July/August issue in which the magazine ranked America’s top sports towns.

My hometown of San Francisco was No. 39 on the 100-city list, with a grade of C+. But the whopper I noticed on the list was Sacramento, which was a dismal No. 95, getting a grade of F. Other, probably more notable, cities to get that grade were Orlando, Fla., Miami, Fla., and Newark, N.J.

The list was based on a couple of factors: Who’s looking to purchase tickets to games and sporting events, who is buying team apparel and who responded to calling themselves a “fanatic” in a survey done by Scarborough Sports Marketing.

The No. 1 city on the list was Arlington, Texas. Shocking, I know.

This kind of reminds me of ESPN’s Title Town campaign, where Valdosta, Georgia won for its “high school tradition, young but powerful Division II college football and overwhelming spirit.”

It’s hard to argue these things when you know towns like Valdosta just had everyone jam ESPN’s servers and vote the crap out of it. But Men’s Health is different in this regard. It actually did some evaluating and selected the cities and towns on its own. Which leads me to a very simple question: How can anyone argue for Sacramento to be any higher than 95th?

Let’s take a look at reasons why Sacramento is probably so low:

  1. The Sacramento Kings suck. With a stadium that seats one of the NBA’s lowest figures (17,317), there were many nights when the purple and black barely touched 5,000 because of an 88-158 over the last three seasons and an atrocious 17-65 season last year. All is quiet on the fandom front, with the faithful holding it down for next season hopes.. Rocking a Kings jersey right now, is not cool. Not cool, man.
  2. A lack of a second major franchise. How can Sacramento compete with the only major franchise in town of the four professional sports leagues is the Kings? There’s just no way possible. Add on to the fact…
  3. There’s no major Division I schools in the area. Sacramento State ain’t cutting it. Neither is UC Davis, which is down I-80. Although they do make for interesting Division-II fodder. (Yes, UC Davis is Division I, but how many people realize this?)
  4. People don’t respect Triple-A baseball. Maybe this is a personal opinion here … OK, they’re all personal opinions. But who gives a crap if Sacramento has a championship-winning Triple-A baseball team. The Sacramento Rivercats get their due in Sacramento, but nowhere else. Because no one pays attention to minor league baseball except “fanatics” and baseball writers. It’s surprising — really, shocking — that they’re affiliates of the Oakland Athletics which continue to suck in their own right.

Below is the full list from Men’s Health, as sent to me. Click on the link here for the article.

Read the rest of this entry »

ESPN still not paying attention to MMA

By
Zuri
Published: July 1, 2009Tags:

I’m curious to see how much time and space ESPN and ESPN.com will dedicate to next weekend’s UFC 100. It’s just a number, after all, but ESPN loves to make a big deal out of those nice round numbers. And why not? It is a milestone and is being presented as such, with two titles on the line and a stacked card.

I’m curious because I’ve heard ESPN voices say several times that they failed to give the sport, in particular the UFC, the coverage it deserved. They didn’t predict it’s rising popularity. Fair enough. Most didn’t. But I haven’t seen too much of a change in coverage. Little time is dedicated to the sport on TV, and ESPN.com hides it on a back page, which gets its content primarily from Sherdog.com.

Horse racing, I would imagine, is not a sport on the rise. Yet today there is a horse racing headline on ESPN’s home page. I won’t bore you with the headline. We all know what the story says.

“Some horse ran faster than some other horse. The slower horse was shot in the head.”

I don’t really have anything against horse racing. It’s fun to watch a big race, or a small race that you have big money riding on, and the horses are impressive athletes. I just want ESPN to up their game a bit. There’s no avoiding ESPN if you’re a sports fan. It would be nice to not have to look past them all the time to hear about MMA. The sports nation needs to have high standards for the sports leaders.