Has the world turned upside down? It wasn't too long ago that the Golden State Warriors were just as much a laughingstock in the NBA as the Clippers. But then Jason Richardson came along and made the team somewhat entertaining to watch. But no matter who they had, the Pistons took care of business. Well, until this year. Back in November, Detroit traveled to Golden State and got spanked 79-111. A swift 32 point butt kicking. Lindsey Hunter led the team with 14 points on the night. So, last night the Warriors came to the Palace where the Pistons have been playing fairly well lately (unless you count that ridiculous loss to the Wade-less Heat...on their home court...after 5 days of rest). Most were expecting a bit of revenge. No. Warriors 111, Pistons 93. Yeah, only 18 point this time...AT HOME. Oh, and guess who lead the charges? Lindsey Hunter with 20 points. Look guys, if Lindsey Hunter is the only one the Warrios can't seem to stop, you're in trouble. Lindsey Hunter? Come on, he was drafted in '93 (I know because I was at the Palace when he got drafted right before Allen Houston). He's over 36 years old running around on the court. "We're pinning our hopes on Lindsey Hunter? Please tell me we have something more."
One other thing that ticked me off last night...the ESPN Bottom Ticker. I knew it was only a matter of time before this would happen, especially since you now have females talking Men's College basketball on the ESPN set, but stop trying to be Title IX and Equal Rights and women are just as knowledgable crap. The world was spinning absolutely perfect when the bottom ticker read "NCAA" for the Men and "NCAAW" for the women. But then you had to tick me off last night. What is this "NCAAM" crap? Like I can't figure out who you are talking about when it's just plain old "NCAA". Besides, anyone that follows college basketball (meaning anyone that follows Men's basketball because no one cares about Women's) knows what teams you are referring to on the bottom ticker. It's not like I'm sitting at home wondering "Was that the score for the Duke men's team or the Duke women's team?" Like I said, anyone that follows college basketball knows the Men's team sucks, so if you see the name "Duke" on the bottom ticker with a single digit ranking in front of their name, you know it's not the Men's team. So now you are saying, "Well what if there isn't a ranking in front of either teams name?" Well, then it's still obvious that was a men's score because no one cares about women's basketball scores, especially if both teams are unranked. If you want to do everything exactly the same, then you have to show all the scores of both genders. No one cares about the MAC conference and how CMU did last night in Men's basketball. But, ESPN will put the score on the bottom ticker. However, ESPN has never put a Women's MAC score on the bottom ticker because first, no one cares and second, MAC teams wouldn't be ranked in Women's basketball. But, if you are trying to all of a sudden reach a female demographic on your network, then you might as well start showing scores for all Women's teams. That means I better start seeing scores for MD Eastern Shore versus Ark Pine Bluff (yeah, they have a team).
Oh, and it was kinda cool to see Kenny Mayne doing Sportscenter Sunday night with Stuart Scott. Bring back Kilborn and Eisen!!!
3 comments:
Maybe they should just start a new network: ESPNW. It could feature the WNBA, the women's tourney, volleyball, and... well I'm sure they'd find something else to put on there. Or maybe they could just call it Lifetime Sports.
Just a note: I watched some Mike & Mike this morning and there was no mention of women's sports. Maybe the network should have Golic approve all their decisions. That would make ESPN watchable.
I realize I sounded a bit chauvinistic and pig-headed in my post, but I shouldn't be offending any women. Women, for the most part, hate ESPN because they know that is all their boyfriend, fiance, husband, etc. watch all the time...sports. So, anything assoicated with sports, they hate. Since they already hate ESPN, you could put pictures of naked male athletes and they still probably wouldn't stop on the channel just to spite Bristol, Conn. Do what you want on the set or bottom ticker, but I really don't think it's attracting any more women viewers. I hate Howard Stern, but if he started mixing in sports talk, is that all of a sudden going to get me to listen to his show? Um, no.
Also, let it be known that I do and don't have a problem with women talking men's college basketball. Trust me, that woman on the set is probably more knowledgable about the game, atmosphere, etc. than I am. However, if I was a female, would I want some male talking about women's college basketball. Would I want a guy breaking down the women's game? No! What would a guy know about playing college women's basketball? So, what would a woman know about playing men's college basketball. NOTHING!
Post a Comment