Perhaps E$PN does listen to the criticism about their being too biased, too corny, and too out-of-touch with what today's sports fan is really looking for in their sports news network—reliable information given without their own pocket-lining spin.
Full disclosure here: I hate E$PN.
I seldom watch anything they have to offer anymore and, at this point, I am just as happy getting the the majority of my sports news from the internet or some other lower-profile sports affiliate. E$PN no longer fits the bill, in my humble opinion, and I just as soon find another network that can do the same thing with less pinheads, for less profit, and with less of an agenda than does E$PN.
That said, it's hard to get away from the "Worldwide Leader" as they are as much a brand as they are a network. So, when I discovered that they were going to make an attempt at reclaiming some of their legitimacy as a credible news network, it was a pleasant surprise.
According to this press release, E$PN has teamed up with the Poynter Institute (one of the nation's leading schools for journalists and journalistic practices) to "review ESPN content across all platforms and publicly comment on ESPN's efforts. This will include monthly essays and additional timely responses as issues arise. The group also will address fan concerns during its 18-month tenure".
In other words, E$PN is looking to the Poynter Institute to assess what they are doing right and wrong as a network.
While, again, that's admirable on the part of E$PN, they have always been privy to such a watchdog. I guess the Poynter Institute is thought to be a better equipped, more distinguished group for them to attach this task too—sort of like 'E.F. Hutton' in the 80's.
Poynter will be expected to give the network a more in-depth analysis of how they can better disseminate information to the masses without compromising their journalistic integrity (excuse me while I go laugh in a corner on that last point) or alienating entire fanbases—that last point is just speculation on my part.
Again, I applaud E$PN's attempt to return to the days when they truly were innovating and leading the way, but, in my opinion, they have concerned themselves too much with being a "brand" to actually be believable—simply too little, too late.
That tweet was, for many, the first official notice that ESPN planned to introduce a new site geared towards the female sports fan. And, while it seemed like a bold move at the time, there were a few who thought it could just as easily be viewed as a condescending—what can espnW.com offer that ESPN, FoxSports, or CBSSports.com don't already? Seriously...what are we (women) getting?
While there is no harm in launching a site that promises to cater more to women who love sports, you have to wonder why any one deems such a site necessary? Honestly, what would be the problem with simply incorporating more women's sports and "human-interest" stories into the ESPN model that is already in place?
By developing a site for women and saying, "here, look what we've done for you", it sends a mixed message.
On the one hand, it's cool that ESPN recognizes there is a market (albeit small) for such a network. But, on the other, it seems a disgrace that the only way they can justify it's presence is by relegating it to some other platform—on the outskirts of their current programming model.
Let me be clear, I don't take issue with ESPN's attempt to make money off an audience that's obviously present and growing. No one else is doing it, and they will make a financial killing if they are the first to succeed at such a venture.
That said, don't sell me crap and call it sugar. There are plenty of high-quality female bloggers on the web who have a voice worth listening to—by both men and women—and most of them aren't trying to offer beauty tips along with box scores.
Hopefully ESPN has truly done their research here, it would be a pity to see this venture fail because someone behind a desk didn't truly realize its potential.
Apparently, Georgia head coach, Mark Richt, along with current ESPN analyst (and former Oregon Duck head coach) Mike Belloti, are considered front-runners for the vacant head coach position at Colorado.
CBSSports' Dennis Dodd, as well as the "Insider" page at ESPN (which, to be honest, is just a glorified message board for anything that a troll can come up with) are both running with the possibility.
However, even the Colorado press is taking the story with a grain of sand.
According to John Henderson of The Denver Post, "Richt isn't believed to be in danger of losing his job, but a source said he may be tired of the SEC's pressure cooker and could seek a change in scenery. Richt lived in Broomfield for part of his youth."
The article goes on to say that Colorado isn't willing to go over $2 million per season, no matter who they hire—Richt makes $2.8 million in salary (not to mention the compensation he receives for his endeavors outside of coaching).
Unless Richt loses his final two games this year—particularly the one to Georgia Tech (who is likely to be without star quarterback, Josh Nesbitt, when the two teams meet on Thanksgiving weekend)—there is little reason to believe that he will be fired at the end of the 2010 season.
Even more, if Colorado has any designs on Richt, they certainly haven't let the University of Georgia's AD, Greg McGarity, know anything about it. McGarity said the interest was news to him and, as late as this posting, no one in his office has been contacted about the possibility of speaking to coach Richt about the position—go figure.
Mark Richt isn't going anywhere—yet. And, honestly, Colorado is likely looking to lock down a head coach much sooner than Richt would be able to commit (assuming he were even interested, which is doubtful).
Bob Griese was asked—today during ESPN's broadcast of the Northwestern/Iowa game— if he would feel comfortable giving Cam Newton his Heisman vote—given the circumstances. He had this to say:
"Yeah, you know, as a voter, I'm a little bit concerned with what I'm hearing, especially on top of all this with the Reggie Bush situation and all that. My feeling right now is, there's just too much going on, and then, especially with the Auburn people coming out and saying, well we have "no comment"—where they have been commenting before. I would not vote right now and, if I had to vote, I would not vote for Cam Newton."
The controversy with the Auburn star took an interesting turn last night when, yet, another unnamed "source" came forth and confirmed that Cecil Newton did indeed solicit his son to Mississippi State in exchange for signing a letter of intent.
The story has not been confirmed or denied by any of the involved parties but, according to a story published by Mark Winne (an admitted Auburn alum) of WSB-TV, Cecil Newton admitted that he asked Mississippi State for money—without his son's or his wife's knowledge. Furthermore, Newton, allegedly, claimed that his son is clean of any wrongdoing.
All of this has led to doubts about Newton's eligibility to play in today's game.
Auburn has issued a firm "no comment" about the matter and has said nothing since the report on yesterday.
Newton, it's no secret, was going to Mississippi State. He liked Dan Mullen and felt comfortable with the Bulldogs. Many fans and boosters of the program were touting Newton as a done deal and felt secure that there was no way he would sign elsewhere.
Well, unfortunately for them, they didn't count on the influence that Newton's father, Cecil, had in the decision. In an interview given after Cam Newton decided to sign with Auburn, his father gave his reasons for why he didn't feel Mississippi State was the place for his son:
"...They (Mississippi State) just don't have all the moving parts. Cam was going to have to be the star. He'd have to do everything himself. I didn't want him to be a rented mule. Auburn has far more varsity players returning, they have more skill players, they're attracting more highly recruited players and it's right down the street."
So, location and talent level played a part but, correct if wrong, isn't Newton a "rented mule" at Auburn? Seriously, does anyone really believe that the Tigers would be 9-0 without him as their quarterback?
Yet, no need to digress.
Mr. Newton didn't bother to stop there with his comments. When asked point blank if the Bulldogs were Cam's choice, he says the following:
"Absolutely they were. Auburn came on strong at the end. A lot of people pre-supposed that (Cam) would hook up with Dan Mullen. He made an official visit around Thanksgiving and that went really well. I just wasn't sure about it. I like Dan Mullen and I think he has a very bright offensive mind. He's just having to go against the odds in Starkville. I just didn't want Cam to be blinded by an affiliation."
Daddy Newton held all the cards in this situation and Cam had very little choice in the matter. With that being said, you have to wonder if there is any validity to the rumors—especially when you start throwing in allegations about a sinking church and a pastor who is suddenly able to guarantee that all will be well within six months.
ESPN reports that "Cecil Newton said the family received a letter from the NCAA "about a month ago" asking for financial statements. He said he submitted bank statements and records for the church where he is pastor, Holy Zion Center of Deliverance in Newnan, Ga., along with other records."
The only question worth asking about the above information is how much did Mr. Newton divulge in turning over the financial statements of Holy Zion? It may seem like an ignorant question to ask, but, what if the money were received in cash or via an anonymous donor?
Better still, if he's involved with five other churches, why not siphon the money through another of his ministries? Wouldn't that make Holy Zion's financial statements irrelevant?
Hopefully this story turns out to be a whole lot of hogwash and innuendo based on a wild rumor, started by a disgruntled party. But, where the NCAA has been concerned this season—where there is smoke, there's fire.
No doubt more information will be forthcoming but for Auburn, and Cam Newton, this little distraction can't be fun to have with an undefeated season, a Heisman Trophy, and a potential spot in the BCS Championship all, seemingly, on the line.
Is it possible to say that without someone wanting to place me on a skewer, hang me over a blazing fire, and roast me until I reach maximum temperature?...Is it?
Showboats and attention-seekers are a turn-off. Some fans find a playful attitude towards the game of football to be charming or good entertainment—but it's not. Football can be entertaining minus the circus, minus the drama, and minus the arrogance that many of its players seem to exhibit today.
Back when the game was only about "wins" and "losses", players often played with more purpose and a whole lot more discipline on the field. There was respect for the beauty of the game—the fundamentals—no one was trying to pull the attention to the name or the number stitched across the back of his jersey.
Individual recognition ran a distant second to winning championships and playing for Super Bowls. Nowadays, a guy has one good year and decides to hold-out for more money. Or, better still, rookies who have never played a down look to be treated like veteran pro bowlers—expecting a big paycheck before they even bother to grace a pro field.
It's a "screw you, pay me" mentality and it ruins the game for the purists who just want to see good football played on Sunday.
Of course, the natural argument against this thinking is to say that there weren't as many opportunities for individual recognition back then because there was no free agency, no internet, no Twitter, and no ESPN—guys played with anonymity back then because they were...well...anonymous.
During that era, one could probably list on one hand, possibly two, the number of players they would recognize minus their helmet, and most of them were quarterbacks. There simply wasn't as much of an opportunity to take advantage of ones own popularity as there is now.
Fair enough, but, even so, can you imagine former Washington Redskins great, Art Monk, wearing an Ochocinco jersey in the place of his No. 85?
Is it reasonable to argue that even the old school players would have liked a shot at the money that players of today make. After all, they weren't all just hoping to play for free—right. Of course, many of those guys will tell you they played for pennies back then and never could have dreamed of making as much money as even a veteran bench player does now—just ask Gale Sayers.
That said, can you think of a player today who would even bother to pick up a football if they didn't think it would net them a large paycheck in the future? Make no mistake, the mentality is different—no matter the era.
Is there anything wrong with a man making a living off his name? Of course not, Chad Ochocinco should feel free to do so for as long as he can. If he wants to go "Dancing With The Stars", find "The Ultimate Catch", or run around naked in public places (well, assuming he was given the clearance), then that's his business.
That said, changing his jersey to Ochocinco, tweeting during a preseason football game, and blowing off a voluntary conditioning program to enhance his popularity—popularity he wouldn't have without the game of football—seems like too much.
All of it is out of line.
Now, before the Ochocinco fans point out his great play and consecutive 1,000 yard seasons, please understand that the issue isn't his contribution to the Cincinnati Bengals but rather his need to always be maximizing his "brand". It's all Chad...all the time. That's a problem.
He has every right to remain Chad Ochocinco. He has every right to build his brand. He has every right to maximize his bottom line—in any way that he can. But, sometimes, it would be nice to look on the back of that No. 85 jersey and just see the name "Johnson" again and feel confident that his reason for scoring a touchdown was to get his team to the next level and not his face on the camera.
In the end, no one will likely care what he does this season because they, again, think it's entertaining and not hurting anybody. If anything, he's probably adored even more by his fans for the stunts he pulls.
However, if his numbers falter, if he gets an injury, or if his team doesn't do as well as most are hoping...what will you think of him then?
I have to give some props to Senator Blutarsky over at Get The Picture for queuing me into this little video. I particularly love the part at the end where Hairy knocks the remote out of the guy's hand—classic!
According to ESPN's Joe Schad, the University of Mississippi has decided to allow Jeremiah Masoli to enroll in one of their graduate programs this fall. Masoli would not be granted a scholarship to the Ole Miss football team, but he would be granted access as a walk-on.
That said, there is the possibility that Masoli, who is a good student, could receive financial aid in the form of reduced tuition or grant money to assist in covering the cost of out-of-state tuition at Ole Miss. If Masoli does enroll, it would be the second time in as many seasons that coach Houston Nutt has taken a chance on a player with a history of legal troubles.
In 2009, Nutt decided to take a chance on former Florida Gator, Jamar Hornsby. Hornsby was dismissed from the Gators after the 2007 season when it was discovered he used the credit card of a deceased student—a young lady who died in a motorcycle accident—to charge items amounting to more than $3000. The student turned out to be the girlfriend of his teammate, Joe Haden.
Horsnby never played a down in Oxford. He was charged with assault and, subsequentially, released by Nutt before the start of the season.
Masoli will be Nutt's second attempt at trying on a troubled player. If it works out for him, he will be lauded for having the foresight to give a guy another chance to make good on his skills. However, if the plan backfires, Nutt could see his seat in Oxford become a lot less comfortable.
Nothing is set in stone yet, so this deal could falter and fail, but if it doesn't, the only issue Nutt will hope to face is how to fit Masoli into his pro-style offense. Masoli worked out of a spread-option system at Oregon and, at 5'11" isn't exactly the ideal height for a pro-style QB.
Either way, Nutt appears to be rolling the dice on this one. Hopefully, second times the charm.
That's just so T.O., ain't it? Let's pass the buck on to the next man because, clearly, he's free of any wrongdoing in this scenario. Give me a break, Mr. Owens, you are a 36-year old receiver with a history of being a distraction to your team and an achilles heel to its quarterback.
Honestly, it shouldn't surprise people that he's pulling out the victim card again, he's done it before—early on in his career. He blamed the media for painting him as being "classless" after he celebrated a touchdown in Dallas by standing on their symbol—located at the 50-yard mark of the field.
Owens later explained that the gesture was not meant as a slap to the Dallas fans or their organization, but rather just his way of expressing glory to God—he was praying not taunting (uh huh, yeah, and I can fly and do magic tricks like Tinkerbell)—give me a break.
He's done nothing but seek attention his entire career—I blame that other "Catch" for his introduction into sports infamy. If he wasn't insinuating that his quarterback was gay (as with Garcia in San Francisco), then he was doing bare-chested sit-ups on his front lawn (as in Philadelphia).
His antics are well-known and well-documented by media and fans alike and his lengthy stay on the unemployment line is just him finally reaping what he's sown.
The truth is, no team needs a questionably-handed receiver with an attitude—T.O. is a diva and everyone knows it.
My advice to Mr. Owens, deal with it, you made this bed—now get comfy.
That last point gave me such a laugh that I found it hard not to give a point to both Derek Dooley and the Vols for being able to exact a little revenge on ol' Kiffy—that was a good one.
Well, not to be outdone, Kiffin decided to let it leak that the Vols were offered the opportunity to play the Trojans in the 2011 Chick-fil-A Kickoff game—they declined the challenge. The hidden message: Tennessee is afraid of USC—end of story—Lane Kiffin wins again, right? Well...not exactly.
Tennessee's 2011 schedule is already top-heavy with quality opponents and if they replaced their current opening opponent, North Texas, with USC they could stand to have one of the toughest out of conference schedules in the nation.
Here is how 2011 would looks with USC added:
vs USC vs Cincinnati at Florida at North Carolina, vs Georgia vs LSU
That would be brutal. There would be zero need for the Vols to play the Trojans and I think that Derek Dooley would agree. It's a lose-lose for the Vols.
Sure, it would prove to some that AD Mike Hamilton has faith in the Tennessee football program and, if the Vols won, it would do wonders for the tradition that Kiffin stepped on when he slithered away late last winter. However, other than proving whose band is bigger, the game has absolutely no purpose for Tennessee.
The Vols aren't looking to establish a strong west coast presence in recruiting nor do they have to buoy the strength of the SEC by playing a Pac-10 power. The game would be nice from an ESPN hype standpoint but, in every other facet, it has zero meaning.
Honestly, it wouldn't even be that great a deal if USC's head coach wasn't named Lane Kiffin.
By contrast, Kiffin always feels a need to be in the spotlight and he knows that giving his old team a royal beating, on southern soil, would go a long way towards establishing good public relations for not only his conference but his team.
He could become the new ambassador of the Pac-10—a la Pete Carroll—and could, potentially, set his team up for a slew of big name prospects in 2012.
Even more, it might make the way easier for him when recruiting against the true big boys of the SEC, Urban Meyer and Nick Saban.
Meyer, in particular, gets under Kiffin's skin and he would love nothing better than to keep the Gators from stealing away any more of California's best talent (i.e. Ronald Powell in 2010). Playing, and beating, Tennessee could open doors on the southern recruiting trail—particularly in Georgia and Florida—where the talent is plentiful.
There's always a motive with Kiffin—always.
In the end, it's just a good story about two programs that suddenly have a very ugly cross-country rivalry. One that, at some point, could find it's end on the football field. For now, the score stands tied—we'll see who casts the next stone.
The NCAA needs to decide what is and isn't okay where Facebook is concerned. According to Kyle Veazey of the ClarionLedger.com, Ole Miss may be in line for a "secondary" recruiting violation after assistant coach, Chris Vaughn, commented on the public wall of Mississippi State commit, Jermaine Whitehead—the NCAA does not allow this.
However, here's the kicker:
“Our members are concerned about the level of intrusion in a young person’s life related to recruiting, and the celebrity culture that can develop around the recruitment process, which is why limits are placed on how often coaches can contact recruits,” NCAA spokesperson Stacey Osburn said. (ClarionLedger.com, 6/26/10).
Huh?
Let me explain my perplexed state, the NCAAdoes allow a coach to send private messages to a potential prospect. How is that not intrusion? After all, the NCAA would have zero knowledge of what's said or sent in that message.
So a coach can decide to compile a video presentation featuring an ESPN highlight reel of the prospect's future accomplishments and opportunities if he chose to sign with their school, link that video as a part of the private message, and the NCAA would have no idea—how is that okay?
Of course, one might say that the same can be done in a recruits living room or on their official visit—the NCAA won't be present in those situations either.
That's a point well-taken but as stated above, limits are imposed on the amount of contact a program can make with a potential recruit. Visits to the home and/or the school are set in advance. There are specific guidelines one fact-to face contact and telephone calls. This is not the same thing as being allowed to send a private message on a social medium.
Social mediums provide the added bonus of being able to attach video messages that can, indirectly, be considered face-to-face contact. A coach could video himself talking one-to-one with a recruit and no one would be the wiser—including the NCAA.
Again...I am perplexed.
A "secondary violation" amounts to nothing so Ole Miss is likely willing to take a calculated risk if it nets them a player—assuming that they truly did anything at all. If nothing else, Facebook has proven to be a place where you can be anyone you wish to be—identities are rarely verified unless a barrage of complaints are levied against a particular user. So this whole thing could be a whole lot of nothing.
If not, the NCAA needs to consider the legitimacy of this rule altogether because at the simplest level it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Here's the thing, who doesn't believe that the Longhorns were simply angling for more money and a better shot at getting their own network all along?
Think about it, not only did the money pot get bigger with the exodus of both Colorado and Nebraska, who will be forced to pay $17 million each for their transgressions, but the introduction of the league's intent to allow institutions to pursue their own separate television deal had to be the cherry on top for the Longhorns.
It's no secret that the Longhorns wanted to pursue their own network—a la the YES Network of the New York Yankees—but the Big 12 didn't seem open to that possibility. Dan Beebe skirted the issue time and again while, all the time, Texas was fuming and trying to figure out how to make it happen.
Enter the rumors of a Big Ten or Pac-10 raid of the Big 12 and VOILA!, there's enough leverage to make the Big 12 and Dan Beebe rethink their stance on how revenue is distributed and how much liberality they will give each team in pursuing their own method of making money.
As an added bonus, both Nebraska and Colorado got scared silly enough to leave altogether. By doing so, the Big 12 North just got a lot less competitive and the money to be gained from any deals struck hence forward just got sweeter.
All of this led me to wonder, if Texas wasn’t just playing a very deceptive game of poker with Dan Beebe from the start?
In truth, most of what any of us heard about the expansion deals came from one of a few random sources, none of whom were in a position to make a decision on the fate of Texas or the Big 12.
Orangebloods.com set off this firestorm early on and by last Friday it was at a full blaze as the sports world essentially jumped on the story and ran.
Seriously, think long and hard about it, what did any of us read about Texas, the Big 12, or the Pac-10's invitation to the Longhorns that did not originate from Orangeblood's, Chip Brown? He was the primary source in just about every breaking news story regarding this situation and he is, of course, the source of the most recent news that Texas will stay in the Big 12 today.
Despite a conflicting report offered by ESPN's Joe Schad, that Texas will bolt for the Pac-10 for the academic prestige over the money, it makes sense that the Big 12 stay configured as a ten team league than go to a 16 team Pac-10 where their financial options would be somewhat restrained.
The Pac-10 is looking to expand their market share in hopes of securing more revenue from television. However, there is no deal in place yet, and any team joining the Pac-10 is doing so on good faith—nothing more.
Further, the Pac-10 is not going to allow Texas to pursue a Longhorn Network if they come over which—in my opinion—is what they truly want to do.
So, why join and split the money 16 ways, deny your program the option of netting an additional$3-5 million in television revenue through developing your own network, and risk disrupting your fanbase, just to join with the Pac-10 for academic reasons?
It just doesn’t make sense.
Now, I admit, all of this conjecture could be proved wrong a day or so from now, but for the moment, it makes more sense for the Big 12 to stay together than break apart.
David Hale of Bulldogs Blogwonders if size will really be a factor for QB Murray. Most are saying that his diminutive stature will prove to be his undoing but, honestly, there have been QB's with less height than Murray—Drew Brees, D.J. Shockley, Pat White, Charlie Ward, and Chase Daniel—all managed to lead their teams to victory.
Thanks to Nick Saban, indirectly of course, the Georgia State Panthers have secured the services of Star Jackson. Even more, Bill Curry may have a couple of offensive lineman to help protect his blindside—he'll have the Georgia Tech program to thank for that good fortune.
From the man who brought you the Oklahoma Sooners as the No. 1 team for 2010—Phil Steele—I have this little nugget lifted from an ESPN radio interview.
“If I was going to pick another one out of the stack there,” Steele said Friday on ESPN’s College Football Live, “I would have to say the Georgia Bulldogs. I think they’ve got a shot of even winning the SEC East and could very well run the table.” (courtesy of Tim Tucker, AJC, 5/31/10).
You have to love Phil's optimism but I'm going to wait and see how the season plays out all the same. I think too many people may be buying into the idea that the schedule will be "easy" this season and that's dangerous when you consider the fact that Georgia will have a freshman starting at quarterback and a new defensive scheme to break in.
Anything is possible and I wouldn't count the Georgia Bulldogs or Mark Richt out for a second, many outside the program smell blood in the water and have already started writing Georgia off this season and are already lining up prospects for the next head coach (Will Muschamp and Kirby Smart have been bantied about).
However, I am still of the firm belief that it is not yet Mark Richt's time to go and until I see what his changes in staff will bring to the table in 2010, I will reserve all judgment on where the program is going.
I like Steele's optimism, though, it's a welcome change from the doom and gloom I've been hearing since the end of the 2009 season. For more on what Phil Steele had to say and for a nice take on his No. 19 preseason ranking for Georgia, you need look no further than Get The Picture.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uQgQ4KvmOTKHZHLXZFWf9V4u42QKWbyvrksS1iGd7nLFzXop-1PNW5EM0Qm8BdFonUn5nhcSE7zSWKvjvLBBCY17R5hCuPUBBHz13VeA44rpXhXAtNKrIg3rk7ueo1hJCDo22WfiobTLbTF_Ryn-0=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tjBT-7XYlZXs4m5MI8td6_1lboGZW1cSLjRwwC-wLIwKMMeZ2B6ygHjc-5UvyhA3LY7ZbmXyw1chnlJmigTw0ov69vcmw42xbHWFmRMAycoiChu6QZmWG7pnGLwHkLzcNHnp-YIfzmTkQVE2FVaT9O=s0-d)
