During the day, I manage catch a few minutes of sports talk radio, either on my whopping five-minute drive to the office or during the day on my work computer if I decide I need a break from music. Amazingly in the past few days, I've noticed a trend that makes absolutely no sense and is the complete antithesis of what their jobs are supposed to entail: analysts not analyzing.
Example 1: Steve Young. The Hall-of-Fame quarterback has been a football analyst for ESPN for a few seasons now and tends to be, in my opinion, a bit indignant when it comes to dealing with his fellow analysts. (If you saw the absymal ESPN Fantasy Football draft special this season, his awkward exchange with Nick Bakay was enough to make you cringe just a bit.)
With the New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts both undefeated and heading toward a showdown in just a few weeks, the questions are being asked as to who is better: Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? It's a valid question and something that sports fans talk about around the country. Why? It's natural. People like to debate topics like this, especially when there are vast allegiances for both.
However, Young doesn't think so. On the Monday night edition of SportsCenter, Mike Greenberg posed the question to Young as to who his preference was. Young refused to answer the question and basically discounted the notion that people are debating this, telling Greenberg to "stop it" in such a b*tch-slap fashion that it made me a bit upset listening to it. (If you're an ESPN Insider, click here and go to the 10/24 edition of Mike/Mike to hear part of this.)
Example 2: Phil Simms. Simply swap out ESPN for CBS and Pro Football Hall of Fame for New Jersey Sports Hall of Fame in the above references and you have Simms. (Yes, there is a NJ Sports Hall of Fame.) The next day, coincedentally on Mike and Mike, Simms came on for his regular segment and did the same thing that Young did the day before, disimissing the notion that people are even debating this! Simms mentioned that he travels all over the country, talks to a lot of people and has never heard anyone bring it up. At point, he said it was even "beneath him" to answer it. Sigh. (Use that link above to listen to Simms. Two for the price of one!)
According to Greenberg, Mike Ditka, Bill Parcells and even Ron Jaworski have refused to make a choice. The question from the sports public is why? If you make a choice, it doesn't mean you dislike the other QB but rather you have a preference. Guess what, guys? That's ok! That is what you are paid to do: analyze games, personnel, situations and matchups, giving us insight into the other side of the business based on your knowledge. To refuse to comment or make a pick shouldn't be allowed, plain and simple. Do I expect the higher-ups at ESPN to do so? No, but it would be nice.
One more analyst to, well, analyze and that would be ESPN writer Jayson Stark. (Sorry to seem like I'm picking on ESPN, but seriously, they are the definitive leader in sports coverage and to look other places seems foolhardy to me.) Normally a great baseball reporter, Stark was the lone dissenting voice on who would win the Red Sox/Rockies World Series, claiming the latter would win in six games. I have no problem with that because if that's truly your opinion, you should be free to say it, no matter how crazy it might sound. The manner in which Stark defended his choice was a bit strange, essentially saying that Colorado was just as good as the Sox if not better in some categories.
A day after the Sox annihilated the Rockies 13-1 in Game 1, Stark posted this piece on how amazing the Sox were. For me and others I've connected with today, it seems strange. It got me to thinking that if Stark is wrong, will he a) admit it and b) do another column explaining just what happened and where he went askew? Often, we have these "chosen ones" telling what they think and why. More often than not, we never hear about what went into their analysis and what they were wrong on. Instead, they move onto the matter at hand and just move on with no regard for what they said to the past.
As a fan and viewer, shouldn't I expect my sports coverage to be held to some sort of accountability? Shouldn't there be some sort of tally or background somewhere where we can gauge the validity of their comments to their past results? As sports fans, we are deluged with opinions all the time. I'd like to think that the people we expect to get the pertinent information from are giving us their best efforts.
Josh Nason is the Director of Marketing for Pro Sports Media and can also be read at Small White Ball, Nason's Deal and at Notes From The Lab.
Do you have a viable business but lack the necessary finances to get it off it’s feet?
Posted by: RamonGustav | August 24, 2010 at 05:09 AM