It's Amazing What Big Words Can Do

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue May 13, 2008 6:02 pm

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/05/ ... d-woodson/

This definitely cracked me up. It's true though, I really didn't read ESPN's draft coverage this year (which is the thing I actually bought In$ider for back in the day), because the scouting reports are almost completely useless. Anyone who's done any scouting knows that there are a few terms that sound really smart but the average person doesn't understand, and that even a good scout would have a difficult time disproving because they essentially don't mean anything (things like shows a good attitude on tape, nose for the ball, that sort of crap). ESPN's scouting reports have been filling up with that nonsense more and more over the last several years, to the point that the only enlightening information available on the site is the combine information, which as we all know isn't really that enlightening.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue May 13, 2008 6:09 pm

That's not just ESPN's scouting reports, that's ESPN in general.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue May 13, 2008 7:03 pm

But Scouts, Inc. reports should be held to a higher standard because they represent themselves as legitimate. Of course, Jeremy Green only got a job because of his dad and was fired for incompetence, Keith Law can't get a baseball job and if you saw his top 100 you know why, and if McShay couldn't see the basic flaws in Andre Woodson (which I saw when I was scouting Kentucky in 2006, I straight up wrote him off because of his accuracy and slow delivery), then he obviously can't evaluate either. No scout is perfect, but there are plenty of good scouts out there, you're telling me the worldwide leader can't find 3?

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Tue May 13, 2008 7:51 pm

Keith Law is the biggest joke of the all. Don't get me and JP started on him. The Cardinals didn't deserve or earn a single playoff victory in 2006, it was all dumb luck. Last summer I was going through some old Baseball Weekly's from around 2001 and throwing out the ones I didn't want to keep. One issue had a list of front office people on the rise and one was Law. I had a good laugh over that when, by reading his stuff you can tell that probably 75% of the IBC would be better talent evaluators than the guy

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue May 13, 2008 9:48 pm

A 7yr old with a subscription to BA is a better talent evaluator than Law.

ESPN isn't interested in finding smart and/or savvy talent evaluators. If they were, I'm sure they could get them by offering a decent salary. They want entertainers and I'm increasingly convinced that they want DUMB 'analysts' in order to make the audience feel smarter. It's an ego boost to the average sports fan to believe he's smarter than the sports commentators.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed May 14, 2008 8:54 am

They want entertainers and I'm increasingly convinced that they want DUMB 'analysts' in order to make the audience feel smarter. It's an ego boost to the average sports fan to believe he's smarter than the sports commentators.

Wow - Bren, I'm like 90% sure you're turning into Mel Gibson in 'Conspiracy Theory'...A symptom of the Napoleonic Complex isn't "batshit crazy"...

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed May 14, 2008 12:04 pm

Who's the most popular writer on ESPN.com? Simmons. As much as I used to enjoy his writing (I say "used to" because I got bored with the same old jokes), he's not insightful, not by a long shot. He's entertaining. This significance is not lost on ESPN and I know it's not lost on the other writers. I read an article on ESPN last December by Jemele Hill and called her out on blatantly ripping off Simmons. The email was "Bill Simmons called, he wants his schtick back." Her reply: "Considering that Simmons is probably the most popular writer on our network, can you blame me for stealing his schtick?

" At least she was willing to own up to it.
Intelligent, rational analysis doesn't produce ratings. Talking heads making ridiculous predictions and claims and yelling across tables gets ratings. If ESPN didn't want dumb 'analysts' in order to make the audience feel smarter, then how on earth can you explain Joe Morgan still having a job? He has to be the most ridiculed announcer in pro sports. You can't think ESPN (or more importantly, Disney) doesn't know this. How else do you explain that the overwhelming majority of the people you see on ESPN are complete idiots?

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed May 14, 2008 12:25 pm

Interesting, not quite what I was debating you on...let's try to stay on point here:

They want entertainers and I'm increasingly convinced that they want DUMB 'analysts' in order to make the audience feel smarter. It's an ego boost to the average sports fan to believe he's smarter than the sports commentators.

I promise you they aren't signing "dumb" analysts to make the audience feel smarter. They are signing the best people available to them that will come across well on TV. Did you watch Tim Hardaway and Dee Brown? Or that entire season of "Celebrity Dreamjob"? They sucked ass...

I tried out for Dreamjob right out of college and was the second alternate for the actual show - which, yes, I have used on my resume in the past. That job is f'ing hard. There are a TON of people who are smart as hell who do not come off well on TV. ESPN certainly has a delicate balance in trying to get the best people on. Do they make bad hires? For sure.

Citing Jemele Hill and Bill Simmons is just fucking stupid either way. They write for ESPN Page 2, which is about as openly and blatantly "non-official" news as sports writing can get. If ESPN wants to hire a few writers that appeal to a broader audience and give them their own space to do so while, again, openly and blatantly saying that they are entertainment - who gives a shit?

The quality of Sportscenter now in comparison to 5-10 years ago is a joke - I agree. It hasn't changed for the better - I agree.

Back when Sportscenter was at its best they really kept opinions to a bare minimum to keep the news and highlights as the most relevant and important topics. And they showed a lot more bowling, fly fishing, weightlifting, and curling. In pushing the latter to ESPN2, they wanted to keep ESPN more edgy and topical - which necessitated the hiring of actual analysts. Some of them have been good (Mortensen, Jaworski, Gammons, Greg Anthony, Jay Bilas, Digger Phelps), most have been horrific trainwrecks (too many to mention - though I will always mention Joe Morgan).

To summarize, anyone who thinks ESPN is hiring the biggest helmet off the short bus certainly has no idea what they are talking about.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed May 14, 2008 3:15 pm

The hiring of dumb analysts to make the average fan feel smarter concept developed while watching football with some friends this past fall. The guys calling the game weren't just making mistakes, it was increasingly clear that they didn't know what they were talking about
Is being on TV tough? Sure, in its way. Is it so tough that they can't find insightful announcers to call and talk about the games? Absolutely not. The average local radio announcer for the individual teams could do a better job with the games than the bozos on network (and cable) tv. So why keep the same bozos on tv? So we came up with the theory I mentioned. It's not a conspiracy by any means. In a way, it's actually kind of a brilliant concept. The average fan always thinks he knows better than the manager or general manager of his team and wishes he had the chance to prove it. By providing substandard announcers and analysts, the networks can feed that belief.
Have you ever seen the show "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" it's amazing how dumb most of the contestants on that show are. Now, either that's an accurate representation of Americans or it's not. I believe (or at least hope) that it's not. But, seeing adults outsmarted by 10yr olds makes for better TV (and ratings) and seeing the adult contestants struggle with questions that the viewers at home are able to answer gives the audience at home a sense of superiority which in turn results in more people tuning in regularly. It's the same concept.
You've got six guys listed from ESPN that don't suck out of the entire network of 24/7 sports (and I'd argue against at least one of them). That leaves, as you yourself observed a whole load of horrific trainwrecks who still have jobs. That's not because they can't find intelligent people to do the work, it's because they NEED the dumbasses to satisfy a large portion of the populace.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed May 14, 2008 3:36 pm

So we came up with the theory I mentioned. It's not a conspiracy by any means.

It's not a conspiracy theory? That large networks are attempting to make us feel smarter by putting on dumb people? That these people held high ranking or playing or coaching jobs with actual teams? The worked through entire portfolios of these people to find the dumbest high ranking people in the league?

The vast majority of people when they retire, retire. A handful of these people want to get into tv/radio. Most of those people have proven to be terrible. It's not like the stations truly get to choose from the cream of the crop. And when that's said and done, the best of the rest can sign with either online, radio, ABC/ESPN, NBC, CBS, TNT, FOX, YES, NESN, FOXSport Upper Southern Midwest Florida, etc.

Some people, for example Donny Marshall, who was surprisingly halfway decent for the Celts as their studio host this year, have said they would never sign with ESPN just because of the number of dates they asked them to work.

Yea, I followed the Giants all season because the FOX TV announcers make me feel better about myself. I also watch the Yanks because their announcers make me feel better about myself. And I follow the Celts and UCONN religiously because their announcers make me feel better about myself.

And I choose to flip on a Spurs/Hornets game, or a Buccaneers/Jets game on a rainy Sunday because I'm usually feeling dumb and want the TV announcers to make me feel smarter about myself.

And how on earth does this not fall into a "conspiracy theory"? Did I miss the press release where the networks said they were hiring dumb people?

The freaking definition of a "conspiracy theory" is:

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

Doesn't that sound exactly like what you are talking about?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed May 14, 2008 4:59 pm

Who is the secret group? What's the plot? Dictionary definitions are usually very broad. Take a look at the definition for cult some time. If you follow the strict definition, half the people in the US will fall into some sort of 'cult'.
Networks aren't concerned about bringing in loyal fans, you can't actually be dumb enough to be using that argument can you? Sox/Yankees fans would watch the Sox/Yankees no matter who is calling the game, there's no competition along that type of line. There is, however, competition among national networks to try to get you to watch one game v. another in which you have no vested interest.
And if you actually think most people are conscious of all (or even most) the reasons they make the decisions they do, then you're really a damn fool. That's not a conspiracy, it's savvy marketing and product management. The kind of saviness that you expect from a company as large and sophisticated as the largest entertainment company on the planet (Disney).

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed May 14, 2008 5:55 pm

Look, ESPN and the other networks aren't going out there trying to sign morons, they are trying to sign the biggest names possible to increase ratings, because name recognition is more important to increasing ratings than talent. Everyone knows that Joe Buck is a schmuck who only is where he is because of his dad, but he's got a big name. Joe Morgan is a hall of famer, Emmitt Smith is the all-time NFL rushing leader, Bryant Gumbel is the black guy most palatable to white people in the world not named Wayne Brady (one of the best Chappelle bits ever). It's no secret, they've figured out that the quality of the broadcast doesn't really influence ratings in the way that big names do so that's the direction they go.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed May 14, 2008 6:28 pm

The average joe doesn't want to hear about BAPIP and other analytical stats so why should they hire an analyst that would speak a language foreign to them?

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed May 14, 2008 7:38 pm

Networks should just hire the most entertaining person as long as they are knowledgable. I used to love NBC's baseball broadcasts because they had Bob Uecker. I enjoyed the season of Monday Night Football that had Dennis Miller because he did get the true fan aspect of the game down, like what MNF is trying with Kornheiser right now and not getting, IMO. I watch quite a few Reds games and think Jeff Brantley is an entertaining guy to listen to, mainly when there's nothing going on in the game and he and Brennaman just play off each other or he starts telling Mississippi State stories about Will Clark. Dizzy Dean was the most popular analyist of the radio era because of how entertaining he was, not because of how much he knew about the game.

As for Simmons, I used to read everything he wrote, going back to the old digital city website. Then he started writing the same column over and over and wouldn't take Brady's dick out of his mouth and it just got old. The only guys on espn.com worth reading regularly, IMO are Wright Thompson, DJ Gallo and Pat Forde

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Wed May 14, 2008 8:22 pm

Brantley is the worst!@

Brennaman is good.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed May 14, 2008 10:11 pm

I never said Brantley was a great analyst, because he's not. But I do find him entertaining. I think he'll get better with time. He's much better suited for this than he was for BBTN

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:09 am

Who is the secret group? What's the plot?

The secret group is the networks. Most proven conspiracies, or just any crazy conspiracy is of a public group or individual that is acting secretive.

The plot, you moron, is to hire dumb announcers to make people feel better. You were the one who brought up the dumbass plot to begin with.

Jake hit the hammer on the head - it's the name. Did anyone listen to Emmitt this year? He can't put two sentences together without saying something ridiculous. And he was BETTER then Eric Dickerson. The hire has to be a name, or have a good TV presence. An example of the latter is Steve Phillips and Orestes Destrade. Only die-hard baseball fans know those names from before, but both of them come across very well on TV. I'd say Destrade is pretty decent and Steve Phillips is an idiot.

JP makes another good point - a lot of time play-by-play and color announcers are told to speak to the lowest common denominator of fan. Hence stupid shit like "Mr. Splitee." Hardcore fans will watch their teams or big games regardless - announcers are trying to hook the casual fan.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:56 pm

THere's nothing secretive about the Walt Disney Company, Z. Except perhaps where they're storing Walt's cryogenically frozen body.

Mr. Splitee was what Roger Clemens called his splitter when he was younger. It's not a surprise that caught on elsewhere.

Do you know what dumbing down the game means? Guess what, it's the same thing as I've been talking about. Competent discussion at the level at or above that of the average hardcore fan would be over the head of the casual fan. This confuses and frustrates them (i.e. makes them feel dumb). It's the same principle, the difference being one of degrees. You dumb the broadcast down to make the average viewer not feel stupid. Dumb it down a little bit more and the viewer feels like an expert compared to the 'analyst'. Especially if the analyst is someone who should know what he's talking about, like a former player. No conspiracy, just smart market management.

Angels · Post by **Angels** » Fri May 16, 2008 1:34 am

"a lot of time play-by-play and color announcers are told to speak to the lowest common denominator of fan."

True that. Any Mariner fan who went through the Ron Fairley era would agree. He had all the baseball knowledge but obviously dumbed it down for the viewers. I kept waiting for him to say something ridiculous along the lines of "Hit the the ball over the fence, and it's a home run" or "Swing and miss in a 2-strike court, well, that's called a strikeout and, well, that's an out." He knew his shit but it never showed over the air.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Fri May 16, 2008 8:49 am

THere's nothing secretive about the Walt Disney Company, Z. Except perhaps where they're storing Walt's cryogenically frozen body.

Are you serious? You don't think the people at Disney have secrets they aren't sharing with us? Honestly? Can you show me the press release where they came out and said they were hiring dumb announcers?

Mr. Splitee was what Roger Clemens called his splitter when he was younger. It's not a surprise that caught on elsewhere.

Right, I was talking about the stupid fucking cartoon baseball Fox made for that playoffs to show the pitch to 3 year olds - and then how McCarver couldn't go two sentences with out saying "Mr. Splitee."

Do you know what dumbing down the game means? Guess what, it's the same thing as I've been talking about.

No, no, no, no, HELL no. Now chance poopy pants - not letting you get away with this one. You said FOX hired dumb people - not that they dumbed down their broadcasts. Nice try...

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:35 am

Sorry - totally hungover - that's "no chance" and "networks" not just Fox.