It has been more than 8 years since a review of this show was posted. In that time, things have changed.
Tony Reali is still the host. Some of the old guard still peddle their viewpoints on plasmas 1-4. But my, how things have changed.
The original idea was to present a diversity of ideas, from various columnists and sportscasters around the country. Usually featured are writers from Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Miami, Denver, Los Angeles, or Phoenix. They usually cover the professional sports teams in their city. This geographical spread assures that the opinions of "homers" will be balanced by other opinions.
In recent years, the show has apparently sought more diversity among its panelists. That is to say they represent a wider representation of the cultural diversity of America, based upon race, gender, and sexual identity. This does not mean there is greater diversity of opinion. In fact, the opposite is true.
Not just on this show, but on virtually all shows, we now hear nearly uniform views about issues that are political (and more of them are). Sponsors fear backlash from special interest groups. The network fears the loss of sponsors. The newspapers and television shows that employ the panelists fear negative publicity. As a result, you may get differences of opinion about what is going to happen on the playing field, court, or ice, but when it comes to stories about player behavior, for example, the panelists only differ in the degree of their opinions, falling over each other to condemn what ESPN wants them to condemn. And they toe the "company line" in asserting that all athletes in the news should be regarded as role models (despite Charles Barkley's view).
The only other problem I have with the show is that the panelists, like many sports writers elsewhere, tend to advocate for behavior by athletes that makes their jobs easier. This means they like athletes (or coaches) who act erratically, who give fiery opinions, who give "color" to the game by wildly celebrating, by being combative. Personally, I would rather they advocate for good sportsmanship. This means good behavior, respect for your competitors, and a respect for rules of the game.
Despite what these talking heads tell us, the athletes are not always right in their battles with team owners. And the sports leagues are not always wrong when their opinions differ from athletes. And sports can be about more than athletes getting as much money as possible in the shortest possible time period.
I happen to like most of the panelists on this show. I just wish the debates were not so homogeneous.
Tony Reali is still the host. Some of the old guard still peddle their viewpoints on plasmas 1-4. But my, how things have changed.
The original idea was to present a diversity of ideas, from various columnists and sportscasters around the country. Usually featured are writers from Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Miami, Denver, Los Angeles, or Phoenix. They usually cover the professional sports teams in their city. This geographical spread assures that the opinions of "homers" will be balanced by other opinions.
In recent years, the show has apparently sought more diversity among its panelists. That is to say they represent a wider representation of the cultural diversity of America, based upon race, gender, and sexual identity. This does not mean there is greater diversity of opinion. In fact, the opposite is true.
Not just on this show, but on virtually all shows, we now hear nearly uniform views about issues that are political (and more of them are). Sponsors fear backlash from special interest groups. The network fears the loss of sponsors. The newspapers and television shows that employ the panelists fear negative publicity. As a result, you may get differences of opinion about what is going to happen on the playing field, court, or ice, but when it comes to stories about player behavior, for example, the panelists only differ in the degree of their opinions, falling over each other to condemn what ESPN wants them to condemn. And they toe the "company line" in asserting that all athletes in the news should be regarded as role models (despite Charles Barkley's view).
The only other problem I have with the show is that the panelists, like many sports writers elsewhere, tend to advocate for behavior by athletes that makes their jobs easier. This means they like athletes (or coaches) who act erratically, who give fiery opinions, who give "color" to the game by wildly celebrating, by being combative. Personally, I would rather they advocate for good sportsmanship. This means good behavior, respect for your competitors, and a respect for rules of the game.
Despite what these talking heads tell us, the athletes are not always right in their battles with team owners. And the sports leagues are not always wrong when their opinions differ from athletes. And sports can be about more than athletes getting as much money as possible in the shortest possible time period.
I happen to like most of the panelists on this show. I just wish the debates were not so homogeneous.