PDA

View Full Version : did espn ruin sports?


jj45
03-29-2009, 11:11 AM
I was talking to my grandfather about football. About how the players today couldn't stand with the players from old days. How singeltary is a better backer than lewis. And how I make more playing semi pro then Sayers made back then. He said espn and nfl network ruined the players today. He said the first time they cut to a commerical during a game it was over for real football.
My question do think guys like singletary, unitas, haynes, williamson, and jim brown can play with the guys of our time?

Gay Ork Wang
03-29-2009, 11:13 AM
ESPN didnt ruin it, the people who kept on watching ESPN did

TimD
03-29-2009, 11:14 AM
I think you're trying to combine two different questions into one.

Can the players from the past compete with the modern players?

Has the media, namely ESPN, ruined football?

Thumper
03-29-2009, 11:16 AM
Hmmm.... Probably all the same things that MJD and Troy Polamalu (football is becoming a sissy game) are saying. The players still play the game the way it is supposed to be played. I would say that the NFL is ruining football not ESPN or NFL network. Being injured is a risk you take when you sign your name on the dotted line and it either happens or it doesn't, injuries are a part of the game and the NFL is making football closer and closer to a touch football league.

Shane P. Hallam
03-29-2009, 11:17 AM
I think ESPN helped sports. Massively. Without ESPN, we wouldn't be at this site right now. ESPN reports what people are interested in. As Colin Cowherd has said, people complain about all the TO talk and what not, but guess what, that gets the highest ratings.

I think, like a lot of things, when it becomes "popular" people begin to hate on it because they can complain about it. ESPN has allowed us to watch our sports team every game, and have sports 24/7. I am all for that, no matter the content.

Now, moving on, I don't think ESPN has a link to newer players not being able to hold up with older players. Heck, they may have "bigger heads" but they have as much talent TBH.

Brent
03-29-2009, 11:20 AM
If they have an uncapped year, then it's over.

As for ESPN, they dont focus on stuff that happened before they started covering sports and thus, they are biased against what happened before. So, if you dont watch ESPN, you wont let their bias enter your thinking.

jj45
03-29-2009, 11:27 AM
I don't think the some of the guys could match up. Ok due to evolution guys grow naturally taller and bigger. Tall in 1950 isn't the same as today. They had 6-2 OTs back then singletary is 5-9( I have met him he is a couple inches shorter than me) we have center we are considered short at 6-2 we have DEs at 6-7 backers that run 4.3s . I know they grew up in a different era and guys didn't really lift they just had a 9to 5 job in the offseason. But even then I still couldn't see a lot of them starting now. Look how much the game has changed how smarter the coaches and players are.

brat316
03-29-2009, 11:42 AM
TV timeouts are ***. Sports doesn't need tv timeouts.

jj45
03-29-2009, 11:52 AM
Agreed tv timeouts aren't for the fans also I hate during a bball game they show a some naked dude who is painted in the team's colors and I mis a basket

MaxV
03-29-2009, 12:23 PM
Any network executive that considers Steven A. Smith, Skip Bayless, Barry Melrose, John Kruk and Emmitt Smith as "expert analysts" needs an alternate career.

Donno
03-29-2009, 12:54 PM
The thing about ESPN is that they report the mainstream, they always talk about Kobe or Lebron and etc. Its just what people want.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
03-29-2009, 12:57 PM
I like ESPN and without it I would have to search for everything on the internet. I think ESPN blows **** up way more than needed but they surely did not ruin sports

Jvig43
03-29-2009, 01:09 PM
Goodelle has ruined Football more then ESPN has.

Gay Ork Wang
03-29-2009, 01:13 PM
Goodelle has ruined Football more then ESPN has.
yea, yea, noo no. yea nooo.

CashmoneyDrew
03-29-2009, 01:16 PM
I don't get to watch espnews a lot but when I do it seems like it is usually about what espn should be if you get what I'm saying. It's kinda like the mtv comparison. MTV stopped playing videos so they made mtv2, espn started appealing more to the common fan so they created espnews. Only thing is MTV2 stopped playing videos eventually as well.

Iamcanadian
03-29-2009, 01:20 PM
Actually it is a 2 way street. Players from the past would certainly have to change their ways of training to play in todays game and make adjustments to the rule changes.
TV allowed the NFL a chance to study the game and the effects of certain types of blocks and they have rightly tried to limit the more serious types of hits. The old timers would have to adjust.
However, the players of today couldn't just step into the past and be effective either. OLmen would have to learn a whole new technique for blocking, as linemen in the past weren't allowed to have their hands outside their shoulders when blocking. The OLmen of today would find that the old rules which permitted head smacking by DLmen is something they are not used to. The blocking angles and techniques would all be totally different and require quite an adjustment.
Then there are the field conditions, there wasn't artificial turf or indoor stadiums, players played in the mud and sometimes it was 5 or 6 inches deep, you had to have the ability to adjust to the conditions no matter what position you played. QB's had to have the ability to throw the ball in all conditions on sloppy fields were there was no footing, not like today's game.
The fact is that old timers couldn't just step into today's games either. Nobody did weight training back then, players showed up at training camp and played themselves into condition.
Could the players of the past adjust, of course they could but it wouldn't come overnight but the same is true for the players of today if they could go back and play. The game today vs the game of the past is apples and oranges, they really cannot be compared. Just as an example, players in the past played through concussions, nobody knew how serious they were and you played or lost your job. You just cannot compare eras and it is rather silly to think you can. I've only given you the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the differences players would have to makes adjustments for on both sides.

throwback54milkman
03-29-2009, 01:37 PM
who said football was ruined? its still pretty good

Paul
03-29-2009, 01:43 PM
I'm not sure how you go about "ruining sports", but no I don't believe ESPN has ruined anything. It's definitely the 800lb gorilla when it comes to sports news, but it is not the end all and be all. Like any other blog, website or channel, it's just another source for you to get the news.

Mr. Hero
03-29-2009, 02:50 PM
Any network executive that considers Steven A. Smith, Skip Bayless, Barry Melrose, John Kruk and Emmitt Smith as "expert analysts" needs an alternate career.

How dare you mock the mullet. :mad:

BuddyCHRIST
03-29-2009, 03:06 PM
This is not just a situation in sports, people are always nostalgic about the old days. It's the same thing when people "remember" the 50's as this perfect, beaver cleaver period when it wasn't at all.

And while I love old football, you have to compare era's because physically the old guys aren't on the same level as the guys now and days. Our science of training and understanding of the body has advanced so much, these guys are such freak athletes. These guys train year round to stay able, and there's a reason that many guys decline so quickly once their body starts to break down.

The money aspect is just the way the economy works, pro athletes generate tons of money so obviously they would make lots of money.

Xonraider
03-29-2009, 03:33 PM
I personally think Inflation has ruined sports. Not that they're not fun, they're just not the same.

Whistler6
03-29-2009, 03:45 PM
ESPN and other sports networks might be to blame for many players becoming divas, but no way did it ruin sports.

ESPN is probably the most important network/website that is out there today. They provide anything and everything you want to know about any and every sport.

My life:

1.) ESPN
4.) Family
2.) My girlfriend
3.) School

jth1331
03-29-2009, 03:49 PM
ESPN has a habit of having bias towards the east coast and that sort of pisses me off at times. Case in point this basketball tournament all the talk about the Big East and little about the other teams.

Shane P. Hallam
03-29-2009, 04:18 PM
Because the Big East is the best conference ever in basketball right now :P

They don't have an east coast bias, it's all a figment of your imagination. They just talk about mainstream teams a lot, because, guess what, that gets ratings. The Cowboys, the Lakers. Not east coast, talked about PLENTY.

WMD
03-29-2009, 04:41 PM
I think ESPN led to increased showmanship in sports, but it didn't ruin them..

tjsunstein
03-29-2009, 04:59 PM
ESPN didnt ruin sports, they brainwashed a certain group of people to think everything their "experts" say is true. They pretty much took away the ability to form your own thought.

'cuse-213
03-29-2009, 05:00 PM
Players who are only good enough today to play ST, would tear it up back in the day.

rockio42
03-29-2009, 05:30 PM
Because the Big East is the best conference ever in basketball right now :P

They don't have an east coast bias, it's all a figment of your imagination. They just talk about mainstream teams a lot, because, guess what, that gets ratings. The Cowboys, the Lakers. Not east coast, talked about PLENTY.

but they consistently "convienently" forgot about certain teams that are in the midwest and other aread...A LOT...I live in St. Louis and teams around here and in STL get no respect or publicity from ESPN...which is why I hate sell out **** heads like Joe Buck

rockio42
03-29-2009, 05:31 PM
ESPN didnt ruin sports, they brainwashed a certain group of people to think everything their "experts" say is true. They pretty much took away the ability to form your own thought.

so ESPN is like a new religion?

tjsunstein
03-29-2009, 05:56 PM
so ESPN is like a new religion?

I wouldn't say its new.

BlindSite
03-29-2009, 06:20 PM
It sucks how on 45 mins of NFL coverage they'll talk for ten minutes about something happening with:

The patriots
The Cowboys
Brett Favre
The New York Giants

While the rest of the NFL has very little said and then a few teams, even very successful ones get little to no coverage.

This might sound like homer grapes, but I can't remember much in the way of coverage for Carolina during the regular season even though they had one of the best records in the NFL last year and a great offense until the sunday night game against the Giants and then nothing until the Cardinals game.

I mean wtf, why do they show more about TO crying or Romo ******* a now fat pop star than they do about a break out running back on a team no one expected to do anything

tjsunstein
03-29-2009, 06:29 PM
It sucks how on 45 mins of NFL coverage they'll talk for ten minutes about something happening with:

The patriots
The Cowboys
Brett Favre
The New York Giants

While the rest of the NFL has very little said and then a few teams, even very successful ones get little to no coverage.

This might sound like homer grapes, but I can't remember much in the way of coverage for Carolina during the regular season even though they had one of the best records in the NFL last year and a great offense until the sunday night game against the Giants and then nothing until the Cardinals game.

I mean wtf, why do they show more about TO crying or Romo ******* a now fat pop star than they do about a break out running back on a team no one expected to do anything

You would think its nice from a Green Bay fan standpoint that they talk about us even if its only about Favre and how Rodgers is getting compared in every way to him but honestly it sucks and i dont feel like watching most of the time

scottyboy
03-29-2009, 06:30 PM
It sucks how on 45 mins of NFL coverage they'll talk for ten minutes about something happening with:

The patriots
The Cowboys
Brett Favre
The New York Giants

While the rest of the NFL has very little said and then a few teams, even very successful ones get little to no coverage.

This might sound like homer grapes, but I can't remember much in the way of coverage for Carolina during the regular season even though they had one of the best records in the NFL last year and a great offense until the sunday night game against the Giants and then nothing until the Cardinals game.

I mean wtf, why do they show more about TO crying or Romo ******* a now fat pop star than they do about a break out running back on a team no one expected to do anything

putting the Giants in the same sentence as the pats, cowboys and Favre love is totally asinine and total bitterness after not getting the #1 seed.

scottyboy
03-29-2009, 06:37 PM
My standpoint on this:

espn is keeping more fans around, which is great. It gives us sports news and scores, which is awesome. We all watch it, especially for scores and highlights. THe terrible thing which angers me and probably shoudn't is how much it makes sports popular, kids who watch it and just live and breathe espn and repeat that trash who think they've know more than they know, or worse, more than me.

Example: my friend is going into sports management for college, like I am. the thing is, he always tries to show off and say how he knows more than me. I mean, as sad as it is, I look forward to the NFL draft way too much. He doesn't even know when it is. And he's a guy applying for sports management programs in college, which could take spots from guys like me who are pretty damn serious about this. I sound very concieted, but this is how I feel. ok holmes?

The Legend
03-29-2009, 10:59 PM
Without commercials NFL wouldn't make money for being on TV. So why would they not have commercials? And who cares it's not like anything happens.

PACKmanN
03-29-2009, 11:03 PM
My standpoint on this:

espn is keeping more fans around, which is great. It gives us sports news and scores, which is awesome. We all watch it, especially for scores and highlights. THe terrible thing which angers me and probably shoudn't is how much it makes sports popular, kids who watch it and just live and breathe espn and repeat that trash who think they've know more than they know, or worse, more than me.

Example: my friend is going into sports management for college, like I am. the thing is, he always tries to show off and say how he knows more than me. I mean, as sad as it is, I look forward to the NFL draft way too much. He doesn't even know when it is. And he's a guy applying for sports management programs in college, which could take spots from guys like me who are pretty damn serious about this. I sound very concieted, but this is how I feel. ok holmes?

I doubt any Rutgers fan knows more about Rutgers than you would.

ESPN is made for the causal fan. They can find better, and much cheaper annalists, who will do a better job then the guys they have right now, but instead they feel like they have to have all of these NFL guys talk about "their opinion"

jj45
03-29-2009, 11:17 PM
I doubt any Rutgers fan knows more about Rutgers than you would.

ESPN is made for the causal fan. They can find better, and much cheaper annalists, who will do a better job then the guys they have right now, but instead they feel like they have to have all of these NFL guys talk about "their opinion"



Dude +rep for the sig funny as hell

sweetness34
03-30-2009, 12:40 AM
I think there's two types of people, well ok 3;

Ones who watch ESPN and believe what they say, ones who watch ESPN for highlight purposes and are not influenced by their "expert analysis," and ones who refuse to watch the channel at all.

I'm under the 2nd one. I watch ESPN because I only have the basic cable package at my apartment and really it's the only thing on television I want to watch because I'm a sports geek. If I had the NFL Network or Fox Soccer Channel my ESPN viewing would go significantly down but since I can't get those channels it makes it kind of hard.

I don't like ESPN much anymore because it has become a victim of its own success. Instead of actually covering what is going on they make it a soap opera in order to get ratings. But a lot of this falls on the viewer as well (like myself). ESPN can be good if you take it for what it is and don't actually listen to what "experts" like Bayless, Keyshawn, Reggie Miller, Hodge, Kornheiser (although he and Wilbon are more for discussion purposes), Hill, Emmitt,, Dilfer, etc have to say seriously.

ESPN is a ratings driven station, they will talk about what people want to hear. I don't think it's that ESPN has "ruined sports" I just think that people need to do actual research on the topics they cover before they believe what their "experts" say. Most of the people on this board know sports pretty well so they can cut through the fat that ESPN throws at you and are not that influenced by what they say, but for a casual sports observer ESPN can form arguments and opinions and that is what I do not like.

So to answer the question, no I don't think ESPN has ruined sports, I just think they have way too big of an influence on what people's opinions are. But on the other hand I do think that ESPN skews their arguments and statistics and that is wrong. They do not give balanced reporting and that is one thing that bothers me. If they want to be taken more seriously by the die hard sports fans out there they need to start actually covering sports, not the drama within sports and also they should get people on there who actually know what they are talking about, excuse me if I don't really pay attention to what Trent Dilfer says, get some guys in there with credibility. They also milk things way past the point that they should.

With the amount of resources that ESPN has they are severely underachieving and are putting out what I believe to be as a mediocre product. ESPN has so much potential but when you have marketing people who have no experience in sports running the show up top, you're not going to get the right coverage you should from the "world wide leader in sports." I'd equate ESPN to being the CNN of politics. There's just not much substance there when you take a step back and look at it.

BlindSite
03-30-2009, 04:11 PM
putting the Giants in the same sentence as the pats, cowboys and Favre love is totally asinine and total bitterness after not getting the #1 seed.

Yeah dude, it didn't help either of our team's being the #1 and #2 seed, so it doesn't bother me one bit.

I'm pointing out the Giants get around the same amount of coverage as the Pats, Cowboys and brett favre do on ESPN, there's no "hate" there.

jj45
03-30-2009, 06:26 PM
My standpoint on this:

espn is keeping more fans around, which is great. It gives us sports news and scores, which is awesome. We all watch it, especially for scores and highlights. THe terrible thing which angers me and probably shoudn't is how much it makes sports popular, kids who watch it and just live and breathe espn and repeat that trash who think they've know more than they know, or worse, more than me.

Example: my friend is going into sports management for college, like I am. the thing is, he always tries to show off and say how he knows more than me. I mean, as sad as it is, I look forward to the NFL draft way too much. He doesn't even know when it is. And he's a guy applying for sports management programs in college, which could take spots from guys like me who are pretty damn serious about this. I sound very concieted, but this is how I feel. ok holmes?

I feel u bro ( im a physical education/sports management major also) I hate when people who talk about sports and don't know a thing about them. My buddy debated me about joe namth was a better Qb then akiman and Joe montana.

Fogartynyy2789
03-30-2009, 06:45 PM
Yeah dude, it didn't help either of our team's being the #1 and #2 seed, so it doesn't bother me one bit.

I'm pointing out the Giants get around the same amount of coverage as the Pats, Cowboys and brett favre do on ESPN, there's no "hate" there.

Well when Steve Smith shoots himself in the leg, the coverage will come.

FlyingElvis
03-31-2009, 11:53 AM
Damn - I must have missed the memo. I didn't realize sports had been ruined. In fact, I'm so clueless I thought the record revenues and player contracts we see each year was an indicator of the massive success of our professional sports leagues.


My favorite qoute was in my sig for a while but is not atm. (duh)

"I think that that's kind of the environment right now. I think that's the way that guys make it, you know? They just say the craziest things. I think that's what ESPN has become. ESPN to me is like MTV without the videos – ESPN without the highlights" - Tom Brady

E-Man
04-01-2009, 02:19 PM
Football has not been ruined. Sure I hate how some of the rules are geared towards offense, but it's still not ruined. Just take a look at the NBA. Now that's ruined. I still love watching them play, but the things that get called for fouls are ridiculous. My brother and I were watching the NCAA tournament the other day(we don't watch much college), and at the end of the Texas/Duke game there was a mad scramble for the ball. Those guys got downright physical. We looked at each other asking why the NBA can't do that. If a guy get's bumped it's a foul. That's just ludicrous. At least the refs in the NFL aren't that extreme with calling penalties. Sure some crews call things too soft, but it doesn't get so far out of hand to give the game away like I've seen in the NBA.

If you want to talk about someone ruining things, it's the old guard that ruins some aspects of the sport. What's wrong with a grown man having an elaborate celebration after he scores? As long as he doesn't go overboard it's fine by me. Football is not some sacred religion that we must appease the gods with. It's just entertainment. So why take away an entertaining aspect of the game based on some kind of "sanctity" of the sport? Chad Johnson making a false snow angel does not somehow ruin what's sacred about football. He just gave the fans another reason to come to the game on Sunday.

Where does ESPN come in this? They had a huge role in growing sports as a whole. They gave sports more exposure, which brought in more fans. They also gave people a reason to keep up with the sports they love through consistent updates and breaking news. I hate ESPN like nobody's business, but you best believe that everyday I'm checking ESPNews for scores of games I missed. I don't tune into the analysis shows. I don't care what Trey Wingo and Sean Salisbury have to say about whatever. I just want to know the scores and news(injuries, FA signings, etc.). Where is the best place to get that? ESPN.

Oh and down with commercial timeouts after kickoffs. Seriously I don't want to go right back to a commercial after 2-3 minutes of seeing them 18 seconds ago. On the bright side, it does give the players a few more minutes of rest.

Gay Ork Wang
04-01-2009, 02:21 PM
Sure some crews call things too soft, but it doesn't get so far out of hand to give the game away like I've seen in the NBA.


*cough*Hochuli*cough*

E-Man
04-01-2009, 02:27 PM
*cough*Hochuli*cough*

lol I stand corrected.

someone447
04-03-2009, 08:55 PM
I don't think the some of the guys could match up. Ok due to evolution guys grow naturally taller and bigger. Tall in 1950 isn't the same as today. They had 6-2 OTs back then singletary is 5-9( I have met him he is a couple inches shorter than me) we have center we are considered short at 6-2 we have DEs at 6-7 backers that run 4.3s . I know they grew up in a different era and guys didn't really lift they just had a 9to 5 job in the offseason. But even then I still couldn't see a lot of them starting now. Look how much the game has changed how smarter the coaches and players are.

Evolution doesn't happen over a period of 50 years. It is better nutrition, weight lifting, and supplements, not evolution.

BlindSite
04-04-2009, 08:59 PM
I doubt coaches or players could come from a past era as they were then and thrive today. I think there's some players from the past who given today's programs could flourish in today's NFL, and a lot of coaches have that aptitude and attitude to be successful running what are now far more complicated schemes than they ever were before but taking a guy from then as was and putting them in now, they wouldn't stand a chance.

BamaFalcon59
04-04-2009, 09:07 PM
For what it's worth, I don't think many of today's players would succeed back then, either. Not without growing up playing football under those circumstances.

Union
04-04-2009, 09:14 PM
For what it's worth, I don't think many of today's players would succeed back then, either. Not without growing up playing football under those circumstances.

You don't think a players like Peyton Manning, Adrian Peterson, Randy Moss, Mario Williams, etc. would excel throughout history? What couldn't they do back then that they do now?

scottyboy
04-04-2009, 09:28 PM
For what it's worth, I don't think many of today's players would succeed back then, either. Not without growing up playing football under those circumstances.

Michael Strahan, who kicked ass while playing amongst guys like LT and also Osi, begs to differ.

boo generalizations and totally vague blanket statements