We get the point... ESPN no likey MMA
"When is Carson Daly going to get a clue?? TRL sucks!! No one wants to see this Brittney Spears, Christina Aguilera garbage. The streets want to see that new Dead Pres joint. Where's the new MosDef/Talib Kweli video??"
- That annoying underground hiphop dude who lived down the hall from you in college that would never shut up about how/why underground hiphop should be the next big thing
Is there really any difference here between the 2 situations?? A large network that has a proven formula for success is not going to bend over backwards to bring in a new subset that while it may bring in a small community of fans, it very well could ostracize just as many (if not more). So short of some major marketing miracle the next sportscenter you see will not have an update on the ShoXC event and can anyone really blame them?
MMA is a sport that has always lived by the words "If you dont like it, change the channel". Its a sport, organized or not, that is based on violence and no matter how much you or I love it, MMA is not cut out for everyone. As big as this sport has gotten I would say its still a 50/50 split between people who would look forward to seeing MMA highlights and people who are going to change the channel out of fear for what they are going to see. As boring as royals/orioles highlights are from a 2-0, 3 hit snoozer its not going to make someone actively get up and search for new (less bloody) programming.
ESPN has, in my opinion rightfully, been slow to accept a sport that at this point still hasnt even proven it can succeed on network TV. If I was an executive at ESPN I would not be in a huge rush to relocate a team of new analysts from their current homes to Bristol, Conneticut. Does anyone think it is a coincidence the one legit commentator they have, Kenny Florian, is based out of nearby Boston, Massachutes? Face it, MMA Live is a perfect show for the internet. I dont know any MMA fan that isnt internet saavy and has a problem/issue with watching a news program on their laptop. It also is much more accessible there then being buried in ESPNs schedule playing thursdays at 330PM and Tuesdays at 2AM.
The newest program to come under attack (and the basis of my writing this article) is everyones after work favorite, PTI. Admonishing them that they should be ashamed of the poor, remedial interview job they did with Kimbo Slice. Remember... it is Tony who should be ashamed, not Kimbo, the ambassadorof the sport, who could not get through a 5 minute interview without having to be censored 3 times. Tony came at Kimbo like any neophite to the sport would; asking about his image, his name, his newfound celebrity. If you expected Tony (or Mike, or Dan) to come at Kimbo with questions about how he was planning on defending shamrocks heel hook that is your fault, not theirs.
PTI, a program that is undoubtedly based on sports, is an entertainment program just as much as anything else. Its amusing to watch two older sports reporters bicker back and forth about the days topics (normally limited to 30 second exchanges). Saying that Kornheiser and the rest of the crew should be well versed on Slice already is foolish. How/where should they have gotten this info? Can you picture Tony going online to try and find a street fight of kimbo versus someone known as "afro puff" (anyone who is a fan of tony and knows about his fear of technology will find that extra amusing). (Dont want to get off topic about tony and PTI but...) Can you picture the late, great Dick Schaap seeing any relevance to what he does in a replay of the kimbo/tank abbott fiasco??
ESPN does not/will not give us the up to date MMA news that many of us want. Attacking them each and every time they miss a story some of us view as newsworthy isnt going to do any of us any good. If half the energy that is used towards attacking ESPN could be redirected into new projects (blogs, our own video podcasts) we would all be that much better off. I leave you with a (condensed) list of questions for those who missed the video and a very interesting quote showing that some of us should probably worry more about educating those in their own house rather than trying to belittle the worldwide leader in sports.
how important is it for you to beat shamrock - Tony Kornheiser
did your aura take a hit for having problems with thompson - Dan Lebetard (BAM!)
you have rose to stardom quickly, do you think of yourself as a celebrity - tk
how much does your look/image have to do with your rise to stardom - dl
jokes about beard, how did you get the name kimbo - tk
is there anything kimbo is afraid of - dl
did you hit blaine as hard as you could - dl
did you think baout hitting blaine in the face - tk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who is the smelliest fighter you have ever faced"
-JP Flaim of the (Sports) Junkies questioning quiton "rampage" jackson
106.7wjfk (the same station where chad and luke broadcast)
Now thats something to be fucking embarassed over
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
1 recs |
5 comments
Comments
“Who is the smelliest fighter you have ever faced”
-JP Flaim of the (Sports) Junkies questioning quiton “rampage” jackson
He said Lindland, right? I mean, Rampage said Lindland smelled like a “stinky skunk.”
by Brett Jones on Sep 26, 2008 1:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Interesting read. I thought the interview was pointless, but I can see why ESPN did it. All my roommates are familiar with Kimbo Slice and his street fighting videos, but they were all ignorant as to Kimbo’s mma career. Unfortunately for hardcore fans that’s the sort of audience ESPN is geared towards. It doesn’t excuse the quality of the interview, but I think it offers a glimpse of how mma is viewed among mainstream sports fans.
by Andy R on Sep 26, 2008 4:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldnt understand why.
They have no problem humping non-sports, known as ‘Nascar’, and the likes.
by Slica on Sep 27, 2008 8:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
non sport or not i am willing to bet that dale jr alone has more fans (and marketing power) then the UFC.
by dt3 on Sep 30, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One five-minute segment does not represent ESPN's attitude to MMA
There are three avenues for coverage by ESPN
1. The broadcast channels
2. The magazine
3. The website
Now believe it or not, all three of the above are run as separate business entities. Sometimes there’s some content crossover e.g. an article by Ryan Hockensmith (the Mag) might get a mention on the website, and Hockensmith is often featured via phone on MMA Live.
At the moment ESPN’s key MMA reporting outlet is their website; the Mag has featured fighters such as Chuck Liddell on the cover and often has sidebars reporting on MMA issues and news and, as the sport becomes more mainstream, they’ll expand their column inches as and when it becomes familiar to their readership. They’re not going to alienate their subscribers by devoting space to a “minority” sport in lieu of the reporting on their core sports of football, basketball, baseball etc.
As for broadcast – it will evolve and we’ll see a slow but steady increase in the amount of airtime that MMA issues get; obviously the Kimbo phenomenon is a decent hook at the moment since there are many viewers in the 18 – 34 demographic that will know his name, whereas they might have heard of Randy Couture, Tito Ortiz and even Ken Shamrock in passing. The primary objective of broadcast is ratings and/or advertising revenue – so programming and features will always be geared towards that.
by VikingPhotography on Sep 30, 2008 3:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 















