ESPN Annoyances

On my way home from work a few weeks ago, I listened in on AM 1000 which is ESPN Radio Chicago. During one of their updates, they mentioned the Heat-Thunder game starting at 7 pm CT. I thought that was kind of odd seeing how most games start at 7:30 or 8:00 CT. I should have known. There were two pre-game shows on ABC-HD before the start of the game from 8 until 10:30 pm. I guess PT Barnum is right that a sucker is born every minute.

Let’s look at this a little closer. The game did not officially commence until nearly 8:08 pm. I guess 8 pm start time means 10 or so minutes after 8 pm. This game, of standard length, did not get over until 19 minutes past 10:30 pm CT. So the schedule of 8 until 10:30 was not correct. If the game started at 8:08 and ended at 10:49, the 48 minute basketball game took 161 minutes of actual time — that’s 19 minutes less than 3 hours for a game of 48 minutes.

A typical Association football game (soccer for Americans) have 45 minute halves and typically take less than 2 hours per match. So a 90 minute game played in England or Spain will only take an extra 30 minutes to play. A 48 minute NBA game could take an extra 113-120 minutes to play. I haven’t even gotten to the fact how long it takes for an NFL game to be played! Is there anything wrong with this picture? What’s ESPN not telling us? Do they not want viewers to realize how long the coverage takes and therefore realize how more and more commercial interruptions are added to the NBA Playoff coverage?

Leave it to ESPN...

Image from

During All Star Week last Monday, I heard on Mike and Mike in the morning that certain National League players were snubbed from the All Star Team. According to general consensus of online dictionaries, snuffed could be defined as to rebuff, ignore, or spurn disdainfully. Every year, it appears ESPN mentions certain players are snubbed from the All Star Team. Is that the proper use of the term?

Perhaps the manager who was making the choices for players ran out of choices and based their decision on selection experience, last year’s performance or a given player being part of a World Series band. It’s not necessarily that a manager is ignoring, rebuffing or spurning disdainfully. It could be a numbers game.

Do we have to hear this each and every year?

Just to be fair, there are other networks and publications that use the same terminology. ESPN just happens to be the most obvious target. Is this terminology something that occurs because this term was used the year before or is it mere laziness?

From time to time, over the last few years, I hear Mike Greenberg of the Mike and Mike Show say their show is back and better than ever. Can he quantify this? By what criteria is his show judged? Is this merely that something one day rolled off his tongue and decided to stick with it? I don’t want to split hairs but it’s hard to validate this when it’s used often and it just sounds disingenuous.

Let me delve into this possibility…perhaps Greenberg thinks it’s back and better than ever because they have better guests, or they advertise less frequently or they are funnier or more entertaining. Are they? They can be entertaining or sometimes funny but better than ever before? Are their guests better than ever or is the questioning superior from before? The amount of advertising on Mike and Mike is probably something ESPN doesn’t want to discuss.  

Do beer brewers or cheese makers say that about their product? That it’s back and better than ever? Perhaps they improve their product from time to time but one of their main goals is to continue to produce a good product with a consistent taste. Consumers would be unrealistic to expect these products to improve quarterly or even yearly. How could that principle apply to Sports Radio?