Every day, at one point or another, my TV is turned on to ESPN. Whether it's Monday Night Football, Sunday Night Baseball, or watching the latest highlights, on Sportscenter, my life revolves around mostly sports these days. Why not? I'm still looking for jobs, but the Chargers have Super Bowl aspirations, the Dodgers likely will enter the playoffs with the best record in the National League, and the Lakers will soon begin their NBA Title defense. It's hard not to pay attention to sports in Southern California right now, so what better place to catch up on everything than an all-sports network?
Incidentally, I wish there were a better place to do so on TV. These days you find more insight and analysis from your local blogger than you do on national television, especially ESPN. As an avid Dodger fan, I find myself on the LA Times' dodgerthoughts blog or SBNation's TrueBlueLA more than any other news source. But living in San Diego doesn't exactly grant you access to Los Angeles sports on TV, so ESPN is the best source with no alternative. But aside from the Red Sox-Yankees-Brett Favre-Patriots news that takes up half their Sportscenter broadcasts every night (not much of an exaggeration), one thing that really irks me about the so-called analysts on ESPN is the trendy action of making "Bold Predictions." You see them on TV, and often I will read about them on ESPN.com. These predictions are bold but not bold at the same time. One talking head will make an unlikely claim about a player or team, and sometimes back it up with some stats or facts. The problem with them is that there is absolutely no consequence if the bold prediction is wrong. But if the unlikely event they predict happens, they're heralded as a genius. It boggles the mind.
When I think bold, I can't help but think of Star Trek: "To boldly go where no man has gone before." You knew that what the Enterprise was doing was bold, because you knew that going into the unknown reaches of space is going to get Kirk in some deep shit, and in the process he'll have to seduce green women and fight giant lizard men, while Spock does some Vulcan thing and that one ensign guy nobody knows ends up dying like he always does. There were consequences. Even if you knew Kirk would survive he was still put in life-threatening situations because of his bold actions. What happens to the self-proclaimed experts if their "Bold Predictions" are wrong? Nothing. They never mention it again, no one points it out, and they're back on the air everyday. Let's just say that they have less accountability than Wall Street and Washington has during this financial crisis.
While Sportscenter and corresponding analysis shows like NFL Live and Baseball Tonight (both of which have much of the culprits) dominate the schedule on ESPN everyday, the programs on ESPN I enjoy most are on between 2 and 3 p.m. in the form of Around The Horn and Pardon The Interruption. ATH is operated like a game show between sports writers from different parts of the country. The point system involved is somewhat arbitrary and there's no real prize other than 'Face Time' where for 30 seconds the winner can freely say what's on their mind. However, it's the enigmatic host and moderator, Tony Reali, that keeps this show the best. He calls out participants when they make errors, has the power to deduct points when an argument fails and can mute someone when they contradict something they said earlier, interrupt someone else, or take too long to explain a point. And since all the writers appear on the show frequently, Reali deducts points on later dates if their bold predictions fall through. PTI is different since the structure is just two guys debating, but there is still carry-over from day to day, week to week, etc. to keep each other in check when one makes outrageous claims.
It seems a little silly to be talking about these shows like they have imminent importance on everyone's lives, but I've wrapped myself in sports knowledge the past few months. When I want to watch an ESPN program, I don't want to feel like I could be doing a better job than the 'experts' that analyze the sports, but I really could. Newspapers are in decline for more than just the fact you can get the news online. The Dodger-themed blogs I mentioned above are just a small sample of the types of sites that are making sports columns across the country obsolete. You can gather more knowledge, statistical and logical analysis to back up claims, with just as good a writing style mixed with actual passionate fandom from blogs than you can from the newspaper, TV, or their corresponding websites. As for their accountability, if they make a faulty article, you can be sure that their fellow bloggers will be quick to point it out its flaws (and then some).
