What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Rise and Fall of ESPN (1 Viewer)

I think I'll just leave this here.

"I have no desire to be a politician. My life is pretty well."


In all seriousness, this guy thinks that the Democratic Party wants him to run and he will do so depending on whether or not he thinks the Democrats have come up with anybody acceptable. He actually went on to say that he didn't know all the issues cold yet but that he could get up to snuff and wipe the debate floor with the other candidates with a "couple of months" (paraphrased because he might have said "three months" but I'm not going back to watch that garbage) preparation. :/

He was dead serious the whole time. This man doesn't have an ironic of humorous bone in his body, and he's not very bright. Oof.
 
I'm basically at the point where I'm scrawling "Garfield" or "Odie" in thick orange magic marker on election ballots anyway, so I welcome SAS's entry to the rapid fight to the bottom. How much worse can it get? (SAS - "Hold my beer.")
 
I watched the very first episode of Sportscenter in 1979. Even though it was kind of hokey back then, it’s turned into something sad today. I can’t watch the programming with its political injections.
 
Last edited:
I can understand not liking Stephen A. Smith's style or delivery.

But I think he's very bright.

I'm not really willing to give him the benefit of the doubt considering he's been yelling some not-well-thought-out takes on sports in my ear whenever I hit the ESPN website or mistakenly leave the channel on. Has he ever discussed a high-level analytical concept during his show? Has he ever said anything you've heard where you nodded your head and said "good point"? It's not necessarily the style or delivery at all. It's that his points are always reductive and emotional, lowest common denominator. He bleats hot, bad, emotionally overwrought takes in one's ear.

How about this? I'll succinctly analyze the three minutes I spent watching that interview. First of all, he didn't use the adverb "well" correctly, and it was an egregious grammatical mistake. Second, anybody who thinks they can study for three months and be prepared for the presidency is naive at best. Then to say that you'd "wipe the floor" with the other candidates in a debate is grossly hubristic. Bad combination.

So in three minutes his three main statements were all wrong in some way. Wrong with respect to the English language and its usage; wrong about the nature of the office he claims that he might seek to hold; and wrong about his own prowess as a debater.
 
I'm basically at the point where I'm scrawling "Garfield" or "Odie" in thick orange magic marker on election ballots anyway, so I welcome SAS's entry to the rapid fight to the bottom. How much worse can it get? (SAS - "Hold my beer.")

This time, I voted for Epictetus, a deceased Greek slave and stoic philosopher.
I remember him from my freshman year Ancient and Medieval Political Theory course.

I liked Epicurus better.
 
I can understand not liking Stephen A. Smith's style or delivery.

But I think he's very bright.

I'm not really willing to give him the benefit of the doubt considering he's been yelling some not-well-thought-out takes on sports in my ear whenever I hit the ESPN website or mistakenly leave the channel on. Has he ever discussed a high-level analytical concept during his show? Has he ever said anything you've heard where you nodded your head and said "good point"? It's not necessarily the style or delivery at all. It's that his points are always reductive and emotional, lowest common denominator. He bleats hot, bad, emotionally overwrought takes in one's ear.

How about this? I'll succinctly analyze the three minutes I spent watching that interview. First of all, he didn't use the adverb "well" correctly, and it was an egregious grammatical mistake. Second, anybody who thinks they can study for three months and be prepared for the presidency is naive at best. Then to say that you'd "wipe the floor" with the other candidates in a debate is grossly hubristic. Bad combination.

So in three minutes his three main statements were all wrong in some way. Wrong with respect to the English language and its usage; wrong about the nature of the office he claims that he might seek to hold; and wrong about his own prowess as a debater.

We'll disagree that "he's not very bright". No worries there.
 
At this point, why not just have that smarmy clown Joe Fortenbaugh and the female version of Stephen A. in Chiney Ogwumike on EVERY SINGLE show that ESPN airs?
 
I can understand not liking Stephen A. Smith's style or delivery.

But I think he's very bright.
In the sense that Smith is now the highest paid clown in America, I agree that he is very bright. No one should ever listen to him for real analysis of anything, though. He is a clown show, and he is banking big off it, so props to him.
Agree with this completely. He's a television personality, bright in ways that the Kardashians are bright. Occasionally substantive, but mostly a loudmouth who needlessly uses too many words to get his point across. Why? To suck the air out of the room and to come across as "smarter" than he really is and to even intimidate fellow panelists. I've come across people like this in my life. There's not much to them. He's a helluva opportunist though. I'll give him that.

I remember years ago when he was just the basketball guy for ESPN. I'd pray that he wouldn't get folded into football. That stayed true for maybe two years or so.

Relatedly, I turned off DirecTV two or three months ago. I don't miss ESPN outside of PTI, and even that is just an occasional thought. At 52 though, I'm not the target audience. Guess how much ESPN my 12 year old sport-loving son watches? Yep. Zero.
 
is everyone still watching this dying station like always or what take that to the bank brohans
I have ESPN+ so I can get college baseball games that are not on our local channel. I don't have a service that has the actual ESPN channels.

ESPN is owned by Disney. ESPN is in bed with the SEC. Lots of $$$. I think they are doing fine. People take it in differently. The days of Sportscenter being must see tv are over
 
is everyone still watching this dying station like always or what take that to the bank brohans
The only time I ever watch is live sports
Same here or 30 for 30

That’s it.

Everything else is hot garbage.

ESPNU
ACC
SEC
Big 10
Big 12

Have a sports package (not ESPN Plus) and watch a ton of NCAA Baseball on those ESPN networks.
I used to love pti. Haven’t watched in quite awhile
 
is everyone still watching this dying station like always or what take that to the bank brohans
The only time I ever watch is live sports
Same here or 30 for 30

That’s it.

Everything else is hot garbage.

ESPNU
ACC
SEC
Big 10
Big 12

Have a sports package (not ESPN Plus) and watch a ton of NCAA Baseball on those ESPN networks.
I used to love pti. Haven’t watched in quite awhile
Yeah that was a good show …..been a decade for me since I watched it.

NFL Primetime was required viewing when it was Berman and Jackson…..the good ol days.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top