Toggle sidebar

ESPN's new darling: Michael Sam

S

Shamoan

Redshirt
Jun 27, 2013
12,466
0
0
from time to time, espn hitches itself to something and through seer overexposure, drives a story through the ground....whether it be anything brett favre related, where dwight howard will sign, and now michael sams sexual orientation. i understand that its a big deal, but espn has an uncanny ability to saturate a story to the point where i just cant watch anymore.

the discussion ticker reads:

"Michael Sam Reaction"
"Insiders on Sam"
"Bill Polian Live" (thoughts on sam)
"Herm Edwards on Sam"
"Manziel's throw day"
"Sam's 2013 season"
"Kiper, McShay on Sam"

as far as his announcement goes, i got no problem with it and it takes a ton of courage to do what he did, but espn just found their mythical unicorn and they are going to squeeze every unicorn tear out of it that they can.
 
AFDawg

AFDawg

Senior
Apr 28, 2010
3,276
519
113
This is sort of what you get when you have a 24-hour news channel (nay, channels) dedicated just to sports. There's only so much you can say about sports, but they have to fill the time somehow. <-- Says guy posting on a sports message board dedicated to one team.
 
R

rabiddawg

Redshirt
Aug 19, 2010
2,017
0
0
What Sam has done is cleverly assured himself a 2nd round pick. He was slated to go 3rd round. This is all about him creating a sensational story around him and who the brave NFL owner will be who drafts him. I bet the gatriots get him.

Several teams could be looking at him as a wide receiver or tight end
 
Last edited:
aTotal360

aTotal360

Heisman
Nov 12, 2009
21,780
14,448
113
Someone on ESPN radio had a good point about this. This story is going to RUIN the NFL draft coverage. After every other pick, they are going to start ramping up the "Is this the team that is will to take a step forward and draft Micheal Sam?" or the "Could this team be brave enough to draft Micheal Sam?" story lines. Day 2 and 3 are going to suck.
 
H

Hump4Hoops

Redshirt
May 1, 2010
6,611
13
38
While I agree, this is not just an ESPN problem.

This is just a 24 hour news cycle problem. I couldn't be more tired of hearing Chris Christie getting flambed.
 
BulldogBlitz

BulldogBlitz

Heisman
Dec 11, 2008
16,218
20,408
113
since smart had been given his punishment, there's nothing else in their wheelhouse.

i suppose they could cover that minor sporting event in russia, but that wouldn't show any compassion for mr. sam.
 
MSUDawg25

MSUDawg25

Redshirt
Jan 21, 2010
2,088
1
38
Hump4Hoops said:
This is just a 24 hour news cycle problem. I couldn't be more tired of hearing Chris Christie getting flambed.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed. And totally disagree with Rabiddawg. This is news, but shouldn't be so forced upon us. However, the 24 hour news networks make that unavoidable.

To Rabiddawg: No NFL team is going to draft him a single pick higher based solely on the fact he is gay. We are talking about multi-billion dollar franchises. Publicity is valuable, but wins equal way more publicity than drafting a gay player. This guy will be major news for about three more days. Then he won't be thought of on a major scale unless he turns into a producer for an NFL team.
 
mstateglfr

mstateglfr

All-American
Feb 24, 2008
16,025
5,854
113
I get what you are saying, but wouldnt call him their darling just because they are saturating the news cycle with info on him.

If that makes a darling, then Michael Vick's dog killing made Vick their darling. And Aaron Hernandez was a darling.


You are spot on with squeezing it for everything they can get.
 
S

Shamoan

Redshirt
Jun 27, 2013
12,466
0
0
its no secret that espn is a liberal company in one of the most liberal states in the nation. a recent example of this was their refusal to play a Christian commercial a few months ago. this has a political tune to it the others do not and over the last two days, its had incessant coverage that the other examples you gave did not have. the others were too much coverage, while this is in fact nearly non-stop coverage. i agree that this isnt the first time they have done this, but its clearly a wet dream for them to exercise their political views even to a slight degree.
 
mstateglfr

mstateglfr

All-American
Feb 24, 2008
16,025
5,854
113
Wow, someone needs to stop viewing this with religious tinted glasses.

ESPN wants ratings. They are a ***** to the ratings. If they think something will give them ratings, they will go with it. Its why they paid so much for Monday Night Football. Its why they pay so much for SEC games. Its why they broadcast Big12 basketball during Big Monday instead of BigWest basketball.

They are a media conglomerate. They want ratings/clicks/views/whatever measure of viewership there is.

They were obsessed with Vick killing dogs. They were obsessed with Tebow. They were obsessed with Hernandez. Its because of ratings.
 
seshomoru

seshomoru

Junior
Apr 24, 2006
5,601
289
83
Ratings are a liberal socialist bogey man to push gay stuff on you.**

I can't imagine what it feels like to have your sexual orientation, something you have no control over, tossed around as a political issue. No ** for that part.
 
S

Shamoan

Redshirt
Jun 27, 2013
12,466
0
0
religious tinted glasses? child please. they are a liberal corporation and i merely gave a current example of that ideology.

im in no way arguing they arent obsessed with the big stories, quite the contrary actually, as i have already alluded to that fact in my op. you questioned the term darling and i elaborated on why i used that term. clearly, they are about getting ratings. you are sorely mistaken if you think i am arguing that fact in any way.
 
Philly Dawg

Philly Dawg

All-American
Oct 6, 2012
12,338
6,891
113
I have this problem with all news channels, whether sports or not, and whatever the story of the day happens to be.
 
K

KurtRambis4

Redshirt
Aug 30, 2006
15,926
0
36
While our

friend may have not fully explained himself, his overall assertion that they are a liberal organization is correct.
 
D

DerHntr

All-Conference
Sep 18, 2007
15,819
2,741
113
It only has to do with $

If people start changing the channel, stop clicking on the articles, etc., then they will stop putting it out there.

Remember when Tiger got caught for his wild ways? People were bitching because it was non-stop. Others were bitching because the same company had been non-stop reporting good things about Tiger (their darling) when he was winning and now they seemingly were turning their backs on him. The thing is they weren't turning their backs on him. They were riding his back to a giant paycheck no matter the story. His womanizing was not news for me so I didn't watch much of it and didn't read many articles online. I like watching him win tournaments and don't care what he does at home. I'll react the same way with this "news" about Sam.
 
D

DerHntr

All-Conference
Sep 18, 2007
15,819
2,741
113
Because they would have been the first place to go to if it had taken off. Once they didn't get the ratings and they were able to deal with it being a sunk cost, it was dropped.

A first mover advantage can be one hell of a thing to have and it isn't replicable.
 
T

Tin Cup Cowboy

Redshirt
Sep 14, 2012
964
0
0
My guess would be that had it caught on it would have given them another platform during a valuable time of year that doesn't' have much to watch. Plus probably had hopes of attracting a larger female audience which would equal more viewership equaling more ad dollars....

or as it has been suggested, they are just bleeding heart liberals hell bent on seeing America burn, men knocked off their podium and gays running wildly in the streets of Sochi.
 
D

DerHntr

All-Conference
Sep 18, 2007
15,819
2,741
113
"or as it has been suggested, they are just bleeding heart liberals hell bent on seeing America burn, men knocked off their podium and gays running wildly in the streets of Sochi."

I laughed
 
aspendawg

aspendawg

Sophomore
Sep 10, 2009
402
138
43
AMERICA!!!

Shamoan said:
its no secret that espn is a liberal company in one of the most liberal states in the nation. a recent example of this was their refusal to play a Christian commercial a few months ago. this has a political tune to it the others do not and over the last two days, its had incessant coverage that the other examples you gave did not have. the others were too much coverage, while this is in fact nearly non-stop coverage. i agree that this isnt the first time they have done this, but its clearly a wet dream for them to exercise their political views even to a slight degree.
Click to expand...

I love the country we live in. Regardless of if the company is liberal, progressive, conservative, or moderate isn't it their right to refuse to air a commercial because it doesn't align with their values. Also it's their right to beat a drum as loud as possible for days on end. Also...let's not downplay this as much. It's quite a big deal and not part of the norm just yet. I'm sure we can find examples of the "other side" of media doing the same thing. If it bothers you then do what I do..don't watch tv for a while.
 
P

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
56,861
26,260
113
They signed a 6-year deal in 2003, extended it another 6 years and now have extended it through 2022. ESPN keeps pouring money down a black hole, even though the ratings are horrible.
 
S

Statedog101

Redshirt
Jan 30, 2014
264
0
0
Apparently he's on the cover of sports illustrated this week, so the media is all in ..the dirty little secret is the sports media is every bit as liberal as the news media, not just espn.
 
K

KurtRambis4

Redshirt
Aug 30, 2006
15,926
0
36
I guess you

didn't understand my point. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him on his other points, just stating that espn is owned by a liberal-leaning organization. I personally don't care because I don't rely on other's to tell me what I should believe in (especially some Walt Disney subsidiary). I'm not sure if you can describe that as adorable, but whatever floats your boat chief.
 
C

CookieMonster.sixpack

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2012
2,761
1
31
patdog said:
They signed a 6-year deal in 2003, extended it another 6 years and now have extended it through 2022. ESPN keeps pouring money down a black hole, even though the ratings are horrible.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed how many NBA games ESPN gets? If you don't think the NBA didn't shoehorn some WNBA coverage into that deal, you don't know much about how David Stern and Adam Silver operate.
 
mstateglfr

mstateglfr

All-American
Feb 24, 2008
16,025
5,854
113
patdog said:
So why did they push the WNBA so hard for so long? Just playing Devil's Advocate.
Click to expand...

I think this is a great question and love these sort of counters as it gets me to learn about something totally useless, but interesting to me.
I now know some basics about the WNBA media deals that have been made.

Apparently when ESPN bid on the NBA and got games from '07 thru '16, the WNBA was included in that deal. So that explains ESPN getting it for that time period. It only makes sense that if you have a product, you should push it. I personally havent ever thought they pushed the WNBA 'so hard for so long', but maybe our levels of annoyance are different on this.

As for the ESPN deal with the WNBA from spring of last year, that is for a whopping 12million per year. ESPN pays 12million and gets the rights to something like 30 regular season games and the playoffs. The games can be put on ABC and ESPN3 too.
I dont know anything about media deals in terms of owning multiple platforms of distribution and all, but it seems to me like this is a good financial deal. Its only 12million per year. Its only basically 1 million per team per year.

Regular season games draw 200,000 viewers and the finals drew almost 350,000 per game.

I would think that is worth 12million in buying rights. But that is just a guess.
 
C

CookieMonster.sixpack

Redshirt
Aug 22, 2012
2,761
1
31
What's not liberal about it?

It's been proven to be an inferior product, yet it's propped up by the NBA because of a poor understanding of what "equality" really means. The essence of American liberalism is to take two unequal entities and by verbal fiat or political will declare them equal.
 
K

KurtRambis4

Redshirt
Aug 30, 2006
15,926
0
36
Oh, I see.

Well then please correct us on our statement that Walt Disney Co. is an, overall, liberal-leaning company.

In the current cycle, they've donated nearly 80% of all contributions to candidates supporting liberal-minded agendas.

Again, to prevent this from turning into a political post, I don't give a **** what they do. I'm just describing who they (Walt Disney Co.) are. Please elighten me on how this is not so. I enjoy learning. Especially when it seems one's belief, in which I am in a disagreement over, goes against all data out there in the public domain.
 
S

Shamoan

Redshirt
Jun 27, 2013
12,466
0
0
women watch television? im learning all kinds of stuff today.

add espn to the list of misunderstood media outlets....pretty good company with msnbc, the new york times, san fran chronicle, huffington post...all misunderstood well-meaning bastions of neutrality.

holy ****....sps never fails to entertain.
 
S

Shamoan

Redshirt
Jun 27, 2013
12,466
0
0
hey, im 100% fine with their right to refuse to run the commercial as well. this isnt soviet russia after all. i got zero problem with that...nor would i have a fundamental problem with them airing pro choice ads. thats what makes america great.

as far as it bothering me, thats exactly what i have done...just change the channel, but i think that goes without saying...same with brett favre and the numerous other examples that were given. the op was originally a commentary on how they drive stories through the ground, but one would be misguided to say that there is nothing more at play than giving people what they want to watch. i have zero problem with sam coming out...actually, im happy for him if it makes his life better, but this has turned into a multi-day cycle of saying the same **** over and over again. its a commentary on espn doing what espn does best...saturate.
 
aspendawg

aspendawg

Sophomore
Sep 10, 2009
402
138
43
I get what you're saying, but it's not just ESPN who does it. It's the fabric of the entire media blanket that covers the USA. I mean I quit watching the news during Christmas because there was a "war on Christmas". I was expecting a drive-by at Nordstroms nationwide from all the talk. It's the world we live in. The internet is even worse.

Case and point. We're ramming this one home.....see what I did there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.