ESPN has become a gateway for retired athletes to still be a part of the game.
What started as a way for fans to catch up on the latest highlights and news of their favorite sports teams is now almost a reality TV channel for sports. Founders Bill and Scott Rasmussen created this channel in 1979, with one 24-hour sports channel, now there are several.
Sunday NFL Countdown hosted by Chris Berman is a three-hour program that just focuses on football. Some fans may feel like even though Berman is a well-known and respected sports commentator, three hours of him is a bit too much. His show is all over the place. It covers multiple facets of the past games, upcoming games, coaches’ lives, and random nonsense.
His panel of retired athletes does lighten up the show, but sometimes it appears as if they just want to hear themselves talk.
The show is helpful and covers all bases of football, players, coaches but it almost makes you think, could I do without this information?
This program shouldn’t be three hours long. It should focus only on upcoming games of the day and past games of the week. Other things like a coaches new sports car, isn’t really that important to the game.
SportsCenter, which usually appears after games, is very entertaining and helpful. It is clean cut and gets straight to the point. It tackles all angles of sports that were played in the week and only focuses on the highlights.
Shows like that are entertaining for fans. It allows them to relive the excitement of the game. Since it only focuses on highlights, the hour goes by quicker than the NFL Countdown.
With NFL Countdown being three hours, it affords the time to spend on interviews and other random things. However, some of the things they focus on seem more like TMZ rather than sports news. They show how a coach just went on a new diet, or gossip about past problems. Most people watch sports to get away from gossip, not engage in it.
ESPN now has several sister networks like ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPN Classics and many more. Are these channels are way to spread more stories about news or about sports? They cover all sports and angles but they also cover news and entertainment, sometimes a break from something can be helpful.
Some old athletes are interesting to hear speak from a critical point of view but is it ever a time to say no to them? Fans that follow sports know the ins and outs of the game and the history behind their favorite players. Is it really necessary for a retired athlete to repeat facts that you already know? Even when receiving new information, why can’t athletes let sports commentators do their job and the athletes actually retire from the game?
ESPN has changed in the recent years. Some may look at it as more entertaining and interactive; others may view it as a waste of time and a gossip channel. It’s okay to get off topic sometimes, but all the time gets repetitive and tiring to the audience.
Not all shows on ESPN have retired athletes as a host or part on the panel; does having an athlete on board give the show credibility? Sometimes it does, fans may argue, they know the game better because they actually played it.
ESPN should only focus on one thing, which are sports. Highlights, new trades, injured players, are what the fans care about.
People may argue that ESPN has lost its spunk and they are just adding shows so retired athletes can stay paid. However, ESPN still has its way of keeping the fans informed.
Would sports be the same without ESPN, probably not?
Watched: Sports Center 12am-1am with Jay Harris & John Anderson
Sunday NFL countdown – 10am – 1pm
fallintocreativity 