Were you there when...
- Fan Since '54
- Regent's Circle
- Posts: 9409
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:28 am
- Location: Back home again...Oak Park sub division
Were you there when...
...ESPN first came on the airwaves? I thought about this because TU is on ESPN vs Houston tomorrow night. Well the first words that were uttered that night were "Are we on the air?" And YES they were. I guess you could say it was the birth of a network that eventually became a giant in televised sports programming. And aren't we glad!
Fan since '54
Fan since '54
"...a hellava Hullabaloo"
Re: Were you there when...
I was a week from turning 2 so it’s possible I was near a TV when it happened.
Tulane Greenbackers
"If you want to win you have to have good players." Vince Gibson
"If you want to win you have to have good players." Vince Gibson
- PeteRasche
- Cornerstone
- Posts: 30949
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
Re: Were you there when...
If casually tossing aside long-held sports traditions in the name of a dollar, completely and proactively ruining competitiveness in college football, and becoming a politically-correct sports-themed talk show channel - amongst many other bothersome things they've done - makes you "glad" ... then sure.
- gerryb323
- Regent's Circle
- Posts: 9661
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:18 am
- Location: There's no place like home
Re: Were you there when...
PeteRasche wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:03 pmIf casually tossing aside long-held sports traditions in the name of a dollar, completely and proactively ruining competitiveness in college football, and becoming a politically-correct sports-themed talk show channel - amongst many other bothersome things they've done - makes you "glad" ... then sure.
Wandering around somewhere in a matchup zone
Re: Were you there when...
Pete I was thinking about it the other day and once ESPN served a real puerpose in televising sports events that otherwise would not have been. However, with today's technology they aren't about openeing access, but rather they serve as a gatekeeper to watching things. They have high production values, but they are still a gatekeeper.PeteRasche wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:03 pmIf casually tossing aside long-held sports traditions in the name of a dollar, completely and proactively ruining competitiveness in college football, and becoming a politically-correct sports-themed talk show channel - amongst many other bothersome things they've done - makes you "glad" ... then sure.
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Honorable mention - Navy
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Honorable mention - Navy
- PeteRasche
- Cornerstone
- Posts: 30949
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
Re: Were you there when...
I don't think of them as a gatekeeper so much as an influencer. They want you to believe they are simply a provider ("gatekeeper") but they are actually telling you what they want you to desire. They tell the public who is good, who is bad, who you should want to watch, who is not worthy of your time, and completely drive public opinion. They tell college conferences who is worth taking and who is not (school presidents be damned). They influence the CFP voters, they influence the NCAA basketball selection committee. They have an awards show, for goodness sake, to make it perfectly clear to viewers who you should be following, what they consider "important", and most importantly, to remind viewers that "this is where you shall get all your sports".Poseidon wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:49 pmPete I was thinking about it the other day and once ESPN served a real puerpose in televising sports events that otherwise would not have been. However, with today's technology they aren't about openeing access, but rather they serve as a gatekeeper to watching things. They have high production values, but they are still a gatekeeper.PeteRasche wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:03 pmIf casually tossing aside long-held sports traditions in the name of a dollar, completely and proactively ruining competitiveness in college football, and becoming a politically-correct sports-themed talk show channel - amongst many other bothersome things they've done - makes you "glad" ... then sure.
If you have a specific reason to step back and recognize that - which happens to most fans of programs (any sport at any level) that are NOT in their chosen sphere - then you can see the "sham". It also becomes very clear when you drop the station (i.e., cord cutters) and then after some time away go back and watch something with "fresh eyes". The first time I really realized how bad ESPN was occurred after we cut the cord in 2008 and a bit later I found myself on a treadmill at the local gym in front of a wall of TVs tuned to that morning's SportsCenter. If it wasn't "let's go to X and get her thoughts on what is wrong with {team}", it was the even worse, "let's go to Y and get his thoughts on what X said." That, and the fact that slowly-but-surely their schedule is filling up with 30- or 60-minute shows featuring people TALKING about sports, rather than with actual sports.
I grew up in the early days of cable and was a sports nut. My dad was as well. In those days when you had free time (which was way more common than today), you would just turn on ESPN and watch whatever and whomever was on. It didn't matter because sports content was so hard to come by that it was a treat to get to see anything. Our local MLB and NFL team games were only on TV a few times per year, much less college sports. Now you have so many choices, and we've all become so jaded by the availability, that the "treat" has worn off and we can see the purposeful direction that ESPN chooses to force upon viewers.
Re: Were you there when...
PeteRasche wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 1:19 pmI don't think of them as a gatekeeper so much as an influencer. They want you to believe they are simply a provider ("gatekeeper") but they are actually telling you what they want you to desire. They tell the public who is good, who is bad, who you should want to watch, who is not worthy of your time, and completely drive public opinion. They tell college conferences who is worth taking and who is not (school presidents be damned). They influence the CFP voters, they influence the NCAA basketball selection committee. They have an awards show, for goodness sake, to make it perfectly clear to viewers who you should be following, what they consider "important", and most importantly, to remind viewers that "this is where you shall get all your sports".Poseidon wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:49 pmPete I was thinking about it the other day and once ESPN served a real puerpose in televising sports events that otherwise would not have been. However, with today's technology they aren't about openeing access, but rather they serve as a gatekeeper to watching things. They have high production values, but they are still a gatekeeper.PeteRasche wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:03 pmIf casually tossing aside long-held sports traditions in the name of a dollar, completely and proactively ruining competitiveness in college football, and becoming a politically-correct sports-themed talk show channel - amongst many other bothersome things they've done - makes you "glad" ... then sure.
Well they have to keep you on their product some how. In a world of nearly umlimited media choices influencers serve a purpose, but by doing that they themselves become a brand and quasi-end procduct.
If you have a specific reason to step back and recognize that - which happens to most fans of programs (any sport at any level) that are NOT in their chosen sphere - then you can see the "sham". It also becomes very clear when you drop the station (i.e., cord cutters) and then after some time away go back and watch something with "fresh eyes". The first time I really realized how bad ESPN was occurred after we cut the cord in 2008 and a bit later I found myself on a treadmill at the local gym in front of a wall of TVs tuned to that morning's SportsCenter. If it wasn't "let's go to X and get her thoughts on what is wrong with {team}", it was the even worse, "let's go to Y and get his thoughts on what X said." That, and the fact that slowly-but-surely their schedule is filling up with 30- or 60-minute shows featuring people TALKING about sports, rather than with actual sports.
I noticed much the same, PTI wen from a nice little change of pace to basically the entire lineup of viewing. Gone is NFL Primetime(except for streaming espn plus), Baseball tonight, and ESPN now ignores hockey alsmost entirely. They would rather have talking heads talk about "if justin fields should start?24/7 as opposed to showing well arranged highlights. Pesronally I think this really suckd for kids who have no interest watching adults debate that crap. I remember being a kid 7-12 watching reairs baseball tonight beacuse I got to see all the highlights and the commentary was simply supplementing the highlight. How are our kids supposed to experience that now?? The only time people went full talking head gaga was leading up to the superbowl. It was exceptional. So I am right there with you bemoaing what is lost.
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Honorable mention - Navy
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Honorable mention - Navy
- PeteRasche
- Cornerstone
- Posts: 30949
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
Re: Were you there when...
Completely agree with all of this.Poseidon wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 1:48 pmI noticed much the same, PTI wen from a nice little change of pace to basically the entire lineup of viewing. Gone is NFL Primetime(except for streaming espn plus), Baseball tonight, and ESPN now ignores hockey alsmost entirely. They would rather have talking heads talk about "if justin fields should start?24/7 as opposed to showing well arranged highlights. Pesronally I think this really suckd for kids who have no interest watching adults debate that crap. I remember being a kid 7-12 watching reairs baseball tonight beacuse I got to see all the highlights and the commentary was simply supplementing the highlight. How are our kids supposed to experience that now?? The only time people went full talking head gaga was leading up to the superbowl. It was exceptional. So I am right there with you bemoaing what is lost.
I had not really thought about the role that the current trend of "talking head TV" plays in killing children's interest in sports. I am sure it was a function of ESPN "growing with its audience" (the same way that MTV changed as its first generation of kids grew up). So as the kids who grew up on ESPN (like me) became money-spending adults, they wanted to direct programming at adults instead of just "sports for everyone". But you are correct... while there are a multitude of reasons why kids are not into sports the way they once were, one of them is likely the fact that you no longer can just turn on ESPN any old time and watch a game of some sort (or highlights sans endless analysis). And if there's one thing I've learned as a parent it's that "adults talking" is probably the biggest turn-off there is to kids!
-
- Regent's Circle
- Posts: 5771
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:40 pm
- Location: Chattanooga area and part time in western NC
Re: Were you there when...
I was there. To answer the original question. And loved espn for the fact they broadcast sports, teams not usually shown on network. But Pete hit the nail on the head. espn now is more talk and the bias shows. Their award show is worse than the academies.
MOVING ON UP!
The only thing even in this world is the number of hours in a day.
The difference between winning or losing is what you do with those hours.
The only thing even in this world is the number of hours in a day.
The difference between winning or losing is what you do with those hours.
Re: Were you there when...
Hockey is back on ESPNPoseidon wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 1:48 pm
I noticed much the same, PTI wen from a nice little change of pace to basically the entire lineup of viewing. Gone is NFL Primetime(except for streaming espn plus), Baseball tonight, and ESPN now ignores hockey alsmost entirely. They would rather have talking heads talk about "if justin fields should start?24/7 as opposed to showing well arranged highlights. Pesronally I think this really suckd for kids who have no interest watching adults debate that crap. I remember being a kid 7-12 watching reairs baseball tonight beacuse I got to see all the highlights and the commentary was simply supplementing the highlight. How are our kids supposed to experience that now?? The only time people went full talking head gaga was leading up to the superbowl. It was exceptional. So I am right there with you bemoaing what is lost.
They've done their purge. Only Behrman part-time, Greenberg and Buster Olney in effect remain from the the old guard and Greeny has since come across as a whiny, tired schtick after he broke up with Golic. The current radio shows are horrendous. Their handling of their talent, such as Sage Steele and Rachel Nichols is shameful. I much rather listen to Mad Dog radio and Fox Sports (except Undisputed).
Bring home da Wave!