ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

really highlights why ESPN is so clueless and why sports coverage lacks any depth

I cannot believe this show is on the air
it highlights how little the ESPN reporters know about sports

sporting events forum >>>>> ESPN reporters
and I don't hold a very high opinion of this forum

you can find some videos up on the net
if you know anything about sports, it will make you vomit to hear the conversations

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

ESPN is really just following the path "real" news set like 20 years ago

nobody cares about substance, it's all entertainment because that's what's good for the bottom line

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

Brutal show. How staged were the "behind the scenes" stuff in B&W? ESPN needs to realize that people don't give a [censored] about Jeremy Schaap talking to a producer.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

I hate pretty much every single thing on ESPN other than the sporting events they broadcast and even in those I hate their announcers and the stupid crap they interject into the game.

Remember the Arkansas/Alabama game a few weeks back where they kept having some US Women's Soccer player randomly appear ont he phone talking up the Women's world cup? Ugh.

Then the next week the UGA/Bama game Mike Patrick makes a fool out of himself on the game's final dramatic play

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZUB3eJOTos

Pretty much every single person I meet or talk to about ESPN feels the same way about it.

I have to wonder why ESPN hasn't felt some sort of backlash in the ratings about this yet. Clearly they would change if they felt it would bring in more people?

Who are these people who are like "Dude, 'Who's More Now' is on! Awesome".... scary

My biggest problem with ESPN is all the fluff and bullcrap they do. Do we need fuzzy lighted, piano themed sob feel good stories about some 3rd string kicker on some podunk team in North Dakota?

There is no f'ing reason ESPN should find a way to bring up Hurricane Katrina every 15 minutes, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH SPORTS. All those sports journalists try to make themselves feel so important by connecting sports to bigger, more important world events. ITS JUST A BUNCH OF GUYS RUNNING AROUND THROWING/CATCHING/KICKING BALLS, give us the scores, give us the injury updates.

We want substance, not you're stupid opinion or hype of everything.

ESPN is all flash and hype. EVERY clip is the most amazing clip, EVERY dunk is the "most insane in your face dunk ever!!!!111", EVERY player has a nickname, EVERY game this week is going to be the "Biggest game of [insert whatever you want here]"

52 reasons why ESPN sucks
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/?p=1406

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

first 'story' I saw on the show

first of all, there are huge reporting issues right now--
64% is not a verified record of Dr. Bob
he was 57% going into 2006

he had a losing year in 2006--Vegas wasn't hemoraging money
what is the scale and numbers to show Vegas was having an awful week

explain how big a one to three point movement is...easy to use stats to show how a typical person getting one point better than the line will win at sports betting

Bob is also getting crushed in 2007...come on...his 64% is total phooey...shouldn't a journalist check on that


also, 64% is higher than a .350 career--64% over a long run would be at least a .450 hitter

how is Bob's stats/regression analysis/misc any different than what thousands of other punters do? He needs to be shown as doing something different than the scores of other 'pro' pickers

what proof is there, other than Fezzik's musings, that there are over $5M being bet on Dr. Bob's picks?--is this journalism or not
FYI-Fezzik is a successful pro gambler on sports--he has some connections around Vegas, but how would he know this number?

lack of exploring the alternative path---maybe it wasn't Bob's clients making too much money, perhaps the sportsbooks were just shading v idiot bettors like they always do--myth of balanced action

Dr.Bob has consecutive losing seasons going IIRC---where is the reporting?

I mean...2 years ago I ran 75% or something
the long haul has still only been 51% publicly posted

if you watch the 'pitch' session for Rachel's idea, she has a much better original presentation than the actual story showed

How do ESPN's reporters not know the basics regarding sports gambling and stat analysis in picking winners?

How do they not realize the basics of line setting in Vegas?
Do they not realize the stat and number crunchers that Vegas hires are damn good and how they incorporate watching the game?

How does the story not follow up on Dr. Bob's verification of his record and why he doesn't bet the games himself (he's answered that in the USA today)?

LOL @ ESPN reporters not realizing how big a role gambling plays in sports

also, while Schapp life-tilted me (some people do win at sports betting), his complaints about enocuraging gambling has some merit. However, Nichols didn't follow up enough on how it is near impossible to follow Dr. Bob anymore and win. The lines move way too fast. The only way to win is to take the opposite side after the silly followers of Bob push the line way too far.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate pretty much every single thing on ESPN other than the sporting events they broadcast and even in those I hate their announcers and the stupid crap they interject into the game.

Remember the Arkansas/Alabama game a few weeks back where they kept having some US Women's Soccer player randomly appear ont he phone talking up the Women's world cup? Ugh.

Then the next week the UGA/Bama game Mike Patrick makes a fool out of himself on the game's final dramatic play

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZUB3eJOTos

Pretty much every single person I meet or talk to about ESPN feels the same way about it.

I have to wonder why ESPN hasn't felt some sort of backlash in the ratings about this yet. Clearly they would change if they felt it would bring in more people?

Who are these people who are like "Dude, 'Who's More Now' is on! Awesome".... scary

My biggest problem with ESPN is all the fluff and bullcrap they do. Do we need fuzzy lighted, piano themed sob feel good stories about some 3rd string kicker on some podunk team in North Dakota?

There is no f'ing reason ESPN should find a way to bring up Hurricane Katrina every 15 minutes, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH SPORTS. All those sports journalists try to make themselves feel so important by connecting sports to bigger, more important world events. ITS JUST A BUNCH OF GUYS RUNNING AROUND THROWING/CATCHING/KICKING BALLS, give us the scores, give us the injury updates.

We want substance, not you're stupid opinion or hype of everything.

ESPN is all flash and hype. EVERY clip is the most amazing clip, EVERY dunk is the "most insane in your face dunk ever!!!!111", EVERY player has a nickname, EVERY game this week is going to be the "Biggest game of [insert whatever you want here]"

52 reasons why ESPN sucks
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/?p=1406

[/ QUOTE ]

I went nuts watching the Illinois-Iowa game this past weekend
the coverage was about everything but the game

instead of deep analysis of plays and strategy, it was previews of other shows, side stories, and crap

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

i was 2 tabling and E60 came on. i didn't care for a single story, except Dr Bob which had its own problems. but my biggest problem with the show was the Bill Simmons segment.

WHO THE F CARES WHAT HE LOOKS LIKE IN A VIDEO GAME?

it's like years ago Stuart Scott went to an NFL practice. at least that had a funny ending, Scott getting hit in the face with a football.

ESPN is [censored]

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

in the upcoming weeks, I expect the absolute poker scandal to hit E:60

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

I watched it for like 2 seconds and then died inside. I am really glad ive started to like soccer so much, because ESPN is like unwatchable.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

I guess I only saw the story towards the end about the guy who played North Carolina mascot that got hit by a car just before the NCAA last march and all the people that were helped by him being an organ donor.

Touching story, but what does this have to do with sports? Should have been on a Dateline NBC or 20/20...

I guess I am glad I missed the rest.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

Was Dr. Phil or Oprah the producer for this show?

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
i was 2 tabling and E60 came on. i didn't care for a single story, except Dr Bob which had its own problems. but my biggest problem with the show was the Bill Simmons segment.

WHO THE F CARES WHAT HE LOOKS LIKE IN A VIDEO GAME?

it's like years ago Stuart Scott went to an NFL practice. at least that had a funny ending, Scott getting hit in the face with a football.

ESPN is [censored]

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people do. This segement was all over the sports blogs.

I thought it was kinda cool

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Then the next week the UGA/Bama game Mike Patrick makes a fool out of himself on the game's final dramatic play


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so sick of everyone bringing this up like it's cryptic or something. It was obviously a joke where he was pointing out how trivial something like Britney Spears' personal life feels compared to the exciting true human drama of an overtime college football game. He just butchered it a little bit and everyone got confused.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

how gay is that poetry segment i cant stand stu and besides getting hit in the face he also developed breasts

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

I've been a big ESPN basher as of late, especially with lame segments such as "Who's Now?" but apparently I'm in the minority because I liked E:60 last night. The only part I really disliked was when the reporters were all sitting around and discussing stories which was incredibly annoying and pointless.

Part of the reason I liked it may be bias because I'm a huge Carolina fan and loved the Jason Ray story. However, I also liked the story on the HS football player and on Prince/Cecil Fielder, so I think the show has a lot of potential.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

mt2r,

I don't know much about sports betting. But isn't it good for you when a bunch of ill informed folk throw down tons of cash on foolish lines because of silly information they get from ESPN? If ESPN improved to higher quality reporting and the sports competency of the average person improved would that not also hurt your bottom line?

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
mt2r,

I don't know much about sports betting. But isn't it good for you when a bunch of ill informed folk throw down tons of cash on foolish lines because of silly information they get from ESPN? If ESPN improved to higher quality reporting and the sports competency of the average person improved would that not also hurt your bottom line?

[/ QUOTE ]

considering I'm breakeven on NCAAF over the last two years, I'm not sure it makes any difference

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
first 'story' I saw on the show

first of all, there are huge reporting issues right now--
64% is not a verified record of Dr. Bob
he was 57% going into 2006

he had a losing year in 2006--Vegas wasn't hemoraging money
what is the scale and numbers to show Vegas was having an awful week

Bob is also getting crushed in 2007...come on...his 64% is total phooey...shouldn't a journalist check on that
Dr.Bob has consecutive losing seasons going IIRC---where is the reporting?


[/ QUOTE ]

If Bob continues his awful year this year, or even recovers slightly, it will be 3 losing years in last 5.

Not quite 64%.

Hell, I still haven't heard of a single person doing better than my 21-10-1 2p2 posted record in bowls last year, with the Pick of Year on the Miami Under/O. Maybe ESPN will do a segment on me??

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Brutal show. How staged were the "behind the scenes" stuff in B&W? ESPN needs to realize that people don't give a [censored] about Jeremy Schaap talking to a producer.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems several people in this forum cared enough to watch.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Remember the Arkansas/Alabama game a few weeks back where they kept having some US Women's Soccer player randomly appear ont he phone talking up the Women's world cup? Ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, but... she was FROM ALABAMA!!! it doesn't get any more relevant than that!

[ QUOTE ]
Then the next week the UGA/Bama game Mike Patrick makes a fool out of himself on the game's final dramatic play

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike Patrick is a [censored] dirtbag [censored] [censored] [censored].

ESPN jumped the shark when they demoted Ron Franklin for schooling that stupid bitch Holly Rowe when she made some retarded [censored] comment. They should have canned her ass and kept the best [censored] play-by-play guy they've got in their primetime slot. Retards.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to wonder why ESPN hasn't felt some sort of backlash in the ratings about this yet. Clearly they would change if they felt it would bring in more people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because THEY HAVE THE GAMES. ESPN motto: "We got em, you want em, so SHUT UP." They're like the phone company of college football. Generally I mute the TV and listen to the games on the radio.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

i dvr'd it only to watch the jason ray piece (unc mascot) and the piece has since played on sportscenter so i've caught it 3 times and every time i've gotten the chills and shed a tear. im a unc fan so that helps but i feel the need to at least give the show a little love. i can't comment on the rest of it, but the one piece i saw was totally worth it.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember the Arkansas/Alabama game a few weeks back where they kept having some US Women's Soccer player randomly appear ont he phone talking up the Women's world cup? Ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, but... she was FROM ALABAMA!!! it doesn't get any more relevant than that!



[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't even find out until they got her on the air that she wasn't a Bama fan. Patrick asked her something about Bama and if she was excited about the game or something and she goes "yeah, I always pull for them unless they are playing Georgia or Auburn." LOL. Nice research guys.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brutal show. How staged were the "behind the scenes" stuff in B&W? ESPN needs to realize that people don't give a [censored] about Jeremy Schaap talking to a producer.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems several people in this forum cared enough to watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Watching a show the first time it is on has 0 correlation to it being good or not.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

This show needs more naked Rachel Nichols

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
This show needs more naked Rachel Nichols

[/ QUOTE ]

SEE HERE ESPN. HIRE THIS MAN.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
demoted Ron Franklin for schooling that stupid bitch Holly Rowe when she made some retarded [censored] comment.

[/ QUOTE ]


what????? when was this?

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
This show needs more naked Rachel Nichols

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness, this could be said about any show. In fact it could be said about anything.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brutal show. How staged were the "behind the scenes" stuff in B&W? ESPN needs to realize that people don't give a [censored] about Jeremy Schaap talking to a producer.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems several people in this forum cared enough to watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Watching a show the first time it is on has 0 correlation to it being good or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice my comment wasn't about the show being "good" or not. A poster said nobody gives a [censored] about Jeremy Schaap talking to a producer, but people tuned in to watch it. If you didn't know that E:60 was going to involve Jeremy Schaap talking to a producer (and lots of similar stupid [censored]), you've been living under a rock.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
demoted Ron Franklin for schooling that stupid bitch Holly Rowe when she made some retarded [censored] comment.

[/ QUOTE ]


what????? when was this?

[/ QUOTE ]

2005. Holly Rowe made some comment about a team "giving up" because they weren't using their timeouts, even though they were down by like 50 points with two minutes left. Ron said "It's not 'giving up' when it's 200-0, sweetheart." There may have been some subtle scoffing. Next year, Ron was dumped to ESPN2.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
demoted Ron Franklin for schooling that stupid bitch Holly Rowe when she made some retarded [censored] comment.

[/ QUOTE ]


what????? when was this?

[/ QUOTE ]

2005. Holly Rowe made some comment about a team "giving up" because they weren't using their timeouts, even though they were down by like 50 points with two minutes left. Ron said "It's not 'giving up' when it's 200-0, sweetheart." There may have been some subtle scoffing. Next year, Ron was dumped to ESPN2.

[/ QUOTE ]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Franklin

"On October 1, 2005, according to the Chicago Tribune, during a game between Notre Dame and Purdue that Franklin was calling, sideline reporter Holly Rowe lauded Purdue defensive coordinator Brock Spack for using all three timeouts on defense despite trailing by four touchdowns late in the game. "If the coaches are giving up," Rowe added, "what does that say to the players?" Franklin responded: "Holly, it's not giving up. It's 49-21, sweetheart."

In response to that, Mo Davenport, senior coordinating producer for college football said, "It was an inappropriate comment, and we've communicated that to Ron. There's never a reason to say something so mean-spirited. Ron apologized. We dealt with it internally.""

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

It must be utter hell being a knowledgable, well informed sports broadcaster, knowing you have to sit there and listen to these bubble headed "attractive" women spout utter crap and not being able to call them on any of it or you'll be demoted or fired, like YOU'RE the problem, not the ignorant [censored] they hired for no other reason than her being a [censored].

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"On October 1, 2005, according to the Chicago Tribune, during a game between Notre Dame and Purdue that Franklin was calling, sideline reporter Holly Rowe lauded Purdue defensive coordinator Brock Spack for using all three timeouts on defense despite trailing by four touchdowns late in the game. "If the coaches are giving up," Rowe added, "what does that say to the players?" Franklin responded: "Holly, it's not giving up. It's 49-21, sweetheart."

In response to that, Mo Davenport, senior coordinating producer for college football said, "It was an inappropriate comment, and we've communicated that to Ron. There's never a reason to say something so mean-spirited. Ron apologized. We dealt with it internally.""

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Franklin's the best.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]


However, Nichols didn't follow up enough on how it is near impossible to follow Dr. Bob anymore and win. The lines move way too fast. The only way to win is to take the opposite side after the silly followers of Bob push the line way too far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fwiw, this isn't true. While it may be impossible to get Bob's picks at a good line with online sites, I have never heard of any local books changing their lines to specifically counter Dr. Bob. Virtually all local books set their lines and send out their sheets before Bob's picks are public. It's not uncommon at all for many local books to not make any changes to their lines on Sat/Sun. Usually if there are games in question, they won't put out a # until the day of the game.

Now if a bunch of people with the same local book are consistently betting the same tout's picks heavy, and that particular tout goes on an extended heater for several weeks, then you'll see the local book move the lines against them, once he figures out which teams all the heavy action is going to be on. If moving the lines doesn't stop the bleeding, then the next move is to stop taking the players' bets, and referring them to another local book.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
It must be utter hell being a knowledgable, well informed sports broadcaster, knowing you have to sit there and listen to these bubble headed "attractive" women spout utter crap and not being able to call them on any of it or you'll be demoted or fired, like YOU'RE the problem, not the ignorant [censored] they hired for no other reason than her being a [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also your job not to be condescending or demeaning to other analysts. It was a stupid and inappropriate thing to say, made worse by the abysmal history of gender relations among sports media and fans.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
It must be utter hell being a knowledgable, well informed sports broadcaster, knowing you have to sit there and listen to these bubble headed "attractive" women spout utter crap and not being able to call them on any of it or you'll be demoted or fired, like YOU'RE the problem, not the ignorant [censored] they hired for no other reason than her being a [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa whoa whoa settle down for a minute.

Did you just call Holly Rowe attractive?

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

I agree, you shouldn't be condescending or demeaning to other analysts, but these fools they trot out there and hand a microphone aren't analysts and well deserve to be called out on their incompetence and lack of qualifications.

The mid 30's female tart sideline reporter is one of the worst abonimations of sports broadcasting in the last 10 years.

There's a reason they all fit this very specific mold. They can't be too young and too hot, or that would be too "obvious" to the public they are just eye candy (they think we are all MORANS apparently), but they also can't be too old or ugly or they fail their purpose.

So you get these middle aged, semi-attractive women wearing very professional outfits but way too much make up trying to disguise themselves as both serious and important broadcasters and also female fluff eye candy at the same time. They fail at both miserably.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

She's bad, and ESPN has some people where I just don't get how they stay employed, but that's irrelevant. If you can't stay professional in the face of incompetence, then maybe you get props on 2+2, but you don't get to be a commentator for the biggest sport in America for the colossus of sports media. There were different ways for him to make his point forcefully.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This show needs more naked Rachel Nichols

[/ QUOTE ]

SEE HERE ESPN. HIRE THIS MAN.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


However, Nichols didn't follow up enough on how it is near impossible to follow Dr. Bob anymore and win. The lines move way too fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fwiw, this isn't true. While it may be impossible to get Bob's picks at a good line with online sites



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is true.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not uncommon at all for many local books to not make any changes to their lines on Sat/Sun.

[/ QUOTE ]

The picks are released on Thursday noon or so. They've moved the lines by then. I think you are confused.

Lines that only exist for 10 seconds after release, are not widely-available. Online of brick mortar.

They also demonstrated this live in Las Vegas. A subscriber walked from the back of the sports book once a key game was 'released' got in line behind 2 others, and they had already moved it a full point.

If a line moves faster than you can get in line, it's useless.

Re: ESPN\'s new show E:60 (2 thumbs down!)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


However, Nichols didn't follow up enough on how it is near impossible to follow Dr. Bob anymore and win. The lines move way too fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fwiw, this isn't true. While it may be impossible to get Bob's picks at a good line with online sites



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is true.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not uncommon at all for many local books to not make any changes to their lines on Sat/Sun.

[/ QUOTE ]

The picks are released on Thursday noon or so. They've moved the lines by then. I think you are confused.

Lines that only exist for 10 seconds after release, are not widely-available. Online of brick mortar.

They also demonstrated this live in Las Vegas. A subscriber walked from the back of the sports book once a key game was 'released' got in line behind 2 others, and they had already moved it a full point.

If a line moves faster than you can get in line, it's useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like we're talking past each other. I'm not talking about the sports betting books in vegas, where I understand this is true. I'm talking about "underground" local books in every other city/college town outside of Vegas.

For example, early last week I was planning on playing OU @ -10. Dr. Bob releases them as a 4star on Thursday. One of my guy's original lines was OU -10, and it didn't change after Dr. Bob released his picks - it was still OU -10 on Saturday. Neither did the Texas Tech line, or any of his other plays.