Remember When ESPN Reported on Sports

[TMC1982]

http://www.yorknewstimes.com/articles/2009/01/13/sports/doc496bf82c3a6d2612880230.txt

By SJ Munoz
Published: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:01 AM CST

Do you remember turning to ESPN for sports information?
Well maybe you still are, but I only vaguely do and can’t recall the last time I did.

The line between sports and pop culture is indeed very thin, well at least it used to be. You would be hard pressed to convince me that it even exists anymore.

The self-promoting talking heads which now grace the set of Sportscenter and other ESPN “news” programs turned me away from the network many moons ago.

Stuart “I think I got street cred” Scott, was the first to create the “sports journalist” that is now commonplace. His eyes - what’s the deal with that anyways - are enough to make you turn the channel, if you can look past those, his constant need to draw attention away from the highlights and onto himself is rather annoying. I want to see what happened in the game and could care less about a “hater in the house.”

I understand the importance of ratings and entertainment value, but who decided this is entertaining?

The rash of absurd comments that spew out of the mouth of Tony Kornheiser on Monday Night Football are about as entertaining as a Real World Reunion Show.

On the topic of ratings, am I the only one to notice the emergence of Lil’ Wayne on the various ESPN outlets? He has a blog (which reads more like a schizophrenic Christmas list) on ESPN The Magazine’s web site and was recently on “1st and 10.” In my opinion ESPN has made numerous mistakes when it comes to the selection of their on-air talent. But, even for the self-proclaimed worldwide leader in sports, I thought this was a stretch. You’d find just as qualified a person as Wayne walking down any street in the country.

What experiences or involvement with sports does Wayne have to give him the credentials to sit on that set?

He’s a sports fan! There’s millions of them in America, but since they don’t have a sick “A Millie freestyle” they aren’t qualified to debate Skip Bayless? I guess that makes sense.

If you want 16-bars or a killer hook go to Wayne (or should I say his ghostwriter). However, when it comes to the BCS and the luxury tax, if I want to hear another fans’ opinion I’ll text one of my friends, I’ve got plenty. The experts are supposed to give you some inside information or at the least a little bit of insight. You think he can do either of those, he can barely go one minute without rattling off three or four of his aliases.

No I won’t say the “baby!”

Giving someone such as Lil’ Wayne this platform is a slap in the face of any legitimate sports journalists. Especially those who have already or are currently “paying their dues” and working toward their dream job.

What’s next the Jonas Brothers on “Around the Horn?”

It’s not that I hate ESPN as much as I miss what it used to be. Watching Sportscenter on mute just isn’t the same

[Ghostvirus]

Agreed!:up:

[RAMORE]

To answer the question in the thread: No I don't i'm only 28! :D

[Immortalfire]

I remember a time when they reported on things other than Brett Farve :eek:

[ih8nyy]

I remember a time when they reported on things other than Brett Farve :eek:

I remember back in the day when Chris Berman, Charlie Steiner and Bob Ley covered the birth of Brett Favre. They followed the Brightest Southern Most Star in the sky from Bristol, CT to Gulfport, MS. There they found the future messiah of the NFL wrapped in swaddling clothes, laying in a manger and presented him with endorsements for Wrangler Jeans, Prilosec OTC and Nike.

[Raiden]

I remember back in the day when Chris Berman, Charlie Steiner and Bob Ley covered the birth of Brett Favre. They followed the Brightest Southern Most Star in the sky from Bristol, CT to Gulfport, MS. There they found the future messiah of the NFL wrapped in swaddling clothes, laying in a manger and presented him with endorsements for Wrangler Jeans, Prilosec OTC and Nike.

I thought John Madden should be part of the trio who discovered Favre in his cradle. :o

Btw, while I agree that ESPN should cover sports more than soap operas and tabloid news, I'd still rather watch it over Fox Sports or any other sports shows.

[ih8nyy]

I thought John Madden should be part of the trio who discovered Favre in his cradle. :o

Madden was there. But he didn't work for ESPN. He was scouting the birth, which is the equivalent of a shepherd. He wasn't one of the 3 ESPN Wisemen.

[Immortalfire]

I remember back in the day when Chris Berman, Charlie Steiner and Bob Ley covered the birth of Brett Favre. They followed the Brightest Southern Most Star in the sky from Bristol, CT to Gulfport, MS. There they found the future messiah of the NFL wrapped in swaddling clothes, laying in a manger and presented him with endorsements for Wrangler Jeans, Prilosec OTC and Nike.

:lmao:

[RAMORE]

ditto

[Shemtov]

I remember back in the day when Chris Berman, Charlie Steiner and Bob Ley covered the birth of Brett Favre. They followed the Brightest Southern Most Star in the sky from Bristol, CT to Gulfport, MS. There they found the future messiah of the NFL wrapped in swaddling clothes, laying in a manger and presented him with endorsements for Wrangler Jeans, Prilosec OTC and Nike.
and remember in 2002 when Fox sports crucified Favre, but he came back to life. that sacrafice "saved" every NFL player from Free-agent hell. :hehe:

[huskerwebhead]

I remember a time when they reported on things other than Tim Tebow :eek:

Fixed that for you. :cmad::cmad:

[ih8nyy]

I heard Tim Tebow is going to cure cancer.

[Go Web Go!]

This is kind of a long read, but while we're on the subject of the 4 letter nework...

From the ESPN Ombudsman:

On at least four separate occasions in recent weeks, ESPN reporters, analysts and announcers became part of the stories they were covering, reinforcing the common perception that ESPN often draws more attention to itself than to the sports it covers.


The fact that, on three of those occasions, the attention was unwanted did little to dispel the impression that ESPN has become a league of its own, stocked with talent (anchors, reporters and analysts) who steal the spotlight better reserved for those on the field.

Since there is little prospect of ESPN's retreating to the shadows, or of its critics letting it do so, the issue for ESPN is how to handle the glare. The three cases of unwanted attention, presented here in reverse chronological order, all suggest it could be handled better.

Case 1: Denial
On Sunday, Jan. 4, on "NFL Countdown" and later on ESPN.com, senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen reported that the Oakland Raiders were negotiating to sell a controlling interest in the team to a billionaire investor with a known hankering to move an NFL franchise to Los Angeles.

Raiders chief executive Amy Trask issued a heated denial of Mortensen's report, saying, among other scalding things, "Chris contacted no one with the Raiders to ascertain if there was any truth to his report. There is not."

When asked for a response to Trask's statement, Mortensen sent The Associated Press an e-mail, noting "The Raiders have lost the privilege with me of running stories past them for comment. This stems from their history of denials to most stories I have reported -- as well as others in the media -- when those stories have eventually proven to be true."

My first thought upon learning of this from my usual and best source -- my mailbag -- was that it couldn't be true. Chris Mortensen wouldn't say that. He knows perfectly well that a reporter must always give the subject of his story a chance to respond, no matter how frustrating and predictably unfruitful that response is likely to be.

A quick check of ESPN.com showed that Mortensen had issued a second statement, noting that he regretted invoking the notion of it being "a privilege" to communicate with him, but he referred again to the Raiders' history of denials. It was not clear to me whether he -- and by extension, ESPN -- was scuttling the basic journalistic principle of allowing subjects the opportunity to respond.

When I e-mailed my concern to Vince Doria, ESPN senior vice president and director of news, he promptly wrote back: "A call should have been made to Raiders."

Later, I talked directly to Mortensen, who said even before I could ask, "I was wrong on both counts: one, for not soliciting comment, and two, for daring to label it a privilege. I called Amy Trask and apologized."

Whew. A one-time lapse.

But here is my unanswered question: Why didn't someone at either ESPN's television or online news desk remind Mortensen of that basic journalistic principle when he needed reminding? And just as importantly, after failing to do that, why didn't someone at ESPN elicit that straightforward "I was wrong" statement that Mortensen handed me on a platter?

It would have reduced the glare considerably.

Case 2: BAM!
I had another "this can't be true" moment when I first read this message from an ESPN Radio listener:

"It is Dec. 29 and I was driving back from visiting my folks for the holidays and was listening to ESPN Radio Shows in the morning/afternoon and I heard Cris Carter not once but incredibly TWICE describe how he would take care of the Cowboys' problems next season by SHOOTING T.O. ... and he even added a BOOM both times. Now I understand that the first time (during Mike & Mike in the Morning) probably came as a surprise, but no way should he have been able to go on the air during the Tirico and Van Pelt show and use the EXACT same language again. ... Someone should've been talking to him as soon as he got off the air after the first time."

The listener got it right, except perhaps for the "boom," which some media reports transcribed as "bam," as in, "If it was me, I'd get rid of T.O. ... I'd take one bullet and put it right in him. Bam!"

Carter later issued this clarification: "Obviously, I did not mean this literally. It was not the right choice of words. I was simply recommending a personnel decision to improve the Cowboys."

That statement prompts me to offer this rule of thumb: When an apology is issued for a gross overstatement (i.e., put a bullet in him), the apology should not be worded as a gross understatement (i.e. not the right choice of words).

To get out of the glare, better just to say, "I'm sorry. That was a really stupid thing to say."

And there might have been no glare at all if anyone at ESPN Radio had said, "Please don't say that again."

Case 3: Liar, liar
On Thursday, Dec. 11, ESPN's Dallas-based NFL reporter, Ed Werder, filed a story about conflicts in the Cowboys' locker room centered on the team's loquacious wide receiver, Terrell Owens.

The gist of the story, built upon quotes from several unnamed players as well as linebacker and team captain Bradie James, was that Owens was sowing dissension in the locker room by expressing resentment toward quarterback Tony Romo, whom he felt was throwing too many passes to tight end Jason Witten -- who happens to be Romo's close friend and roommate on the road.

Werder asked Owens for comment before the story was posted, but Owens preferred not to respond -- until the following Sunday, when he used his nationally televised postgame interview and news conference to repeatedly call Werder a "liar" who "made that stuff up."

That is precisely the kind of trash talk which, if directed at another player, fits the bill for the week's opinion cycle at ESPN and every other sports media outlet. What was ESPN to do? It couldn't feed one of its own to the ritual mauling of the opinion cycle, but neither could it miss out on what everyone else was jawing about.

First, ESPN issued a standard and, in this case, warranted, "We stand behind our reporting." Then, because Owens was still not speaking to Werder, ESPN arranged an exclusive sit-down interview between Owens and someone more agreeable to him -- Stephen A. Smith.

The interview, prominently played on Dec. 16 "SportsCenters," featured a composed, congenial Owens seated in front of a glowing Christmas tree, upholding his reputation as a fine teammate, spectacular player and good person, who gets fewer commercial endorsements than he should because of stories such as Werder's.

Smith's questions were far from hardball, but he did get Owens to concede that Werder was not a liar, but rather a conduit for lying sources. Follow-up questions that might have underscored the inconsistencies in Owens' statements were not asked.

As soon as the interview aired, my mailbag started filling with messages asking, why ESPN threw Ed Werder under the bus? Or, as one Utah viewer phrased it, "Why has ESPN abandoned Werder and filmed what appeared to be The Terrell Owens Christmas Special with Special Guest Stephen A. Smith?"

Werder said he did not feel abandoned but told me, "I wish I had been allowed to sit in that chair opposite T.O." Since Owens wouldn't sit for that, the best Werder could do was wait in a Dallas studio while the interview was being conducted.

"I was prepared to rebut him on air after the interview if he continued to attack me personally and claim I had concocted the whole story," Werder said. "But the producers thought he had toned it down, acknowledging I had sources who told me what I had reported, so there was no need for me to go on TV and rebut."

Mixed agendas
There is no doubt that if Werder had conducted that interview, there would have been many follow-up questions put to Owens that served to validate Werder's original story; after being publicly called a liar, that validation would have been at the top of Werder's agenda. Many viewers assumed that would be ESPN's top priority as well, and so they were dumfounded by the infomercial aura of its visual style and substance.

As I see it, the confusion sown by that interview was the product of unacknowledged, mixed and conflicting agendas. Yes, ESPN wanted the liar label publicly removed from Werder, and that was achieved. ESPN also wanted a highly promotable exclusive "SportsCenter" interview with Owens, simply because he is what is called "a good get."

Owens was available to be gotten, but only on his own terms, which did not include Werder, because after a week's worth of T.O. the troublemaker stories, Owens needed some image rehab.

Enter Smith, who has indicated in several subsequent interviews that he is more sympathetic to Owens than many in the media, and so he had no particular desire to pin the liar tag removed from Werder onto Owens. Viewers who expected Smith to act as a stand-in for Werder were disappointed he didn't place more lumps of coal in Owens' Christmas stocking, but that was not Smith's agenda.

In the end, neither Werder nor Smith nor viewers were well served by the interview. Werder's own integrity was upheld, but the reliability of his sources -- a matter almost as important to a reporter as his own integrity -- was called into question. Smith's sympathy for T.O., the quality that gained him the interview, was put to use in a circumstance that undermined his credibility as a journalist.

And fans were short-changed, because between Werder and Smith, they got the hard cop/soft cop versions of Owens, but they never got anywhere near the breakthrough moment of clarity about disputed events that hard cop/soft cop techniques are meant to elicit.

ESPN would have been better off if it had stopped at, "We stand behind our reporting." If it wants to use Smith's better rapport with Owens as the starting point for an in-depth interview of an athlete with an apparently huge capacity to both charm and infuriate, fine, as long as it is not cast as the follow-up to a feud between Owens and one of its reporters.

The opinion cycle, of course, does not stand still long enough to allow for that separation.

Voracious as always, it got served hearty portions of Werder, Smith and that staple, Owens.

If the cycle ever stopped spinning, too many of us would have time to ponder the basic question: Does any of this matter? Perhaps it does, but plenty of viewers, like this one from Illinois, were left wondering:

"Why is this T.O./Romo/Witten thing even a story? ... Do we not believe that in an NFL locker room, full of 53 passionate, aggressive, competitive men there are not disagreements and arguments? This happens in all 32 locker rooms, multiple times, every year. Especially after a tough loss. This is only a story because it's T.O. and the Cowboys."

Asking for it
In the above three cases, ESPN did not intend to pull the spotlight off the field and onto its own talent. It accidentally stepped or was thrust into the spotlight, becoming the story when it meant to be the teller or interpreter.

On a fourth occasion, ESPN asked for the attention. In an attempt to spice up its Wednesday evening fare on Jan. 7, ESPN decided to have its NBA and college basketball announcing teams switch roles for a basketball doubleheader -- with the NBA trio of Mike Tirico, Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson working the Davidson-Duke college game while the college duo, Dick Vitale and Dan Schulman, worked a Heats-Nuggets game.

I received no complaints about the switch, but I was deluged with complaints about the ESPN-aggrandizing inflation of the "Announcer Swap" into a news event worthy of coverage on several "SportsCenters," and even of booth discussion during a college football bowl game.

"I'm sure a couple thousand people have already e-mailed about this," wrote a viewer from Madison, Wis., "but that 'Announcer Swap' ESPN did last night set a new low. I can't ever think of a sporting event that was more heavily billed for its announcing teams than the games themselves. You always hear from journalists that you never want to make yourself part of the story but here ESPN made themselves the entire story."

A more plaintive note was struck by this viewer from Syracuse, N.Y.: "Why does ESPN insist on making itself and its personalities into the story?"

The fact that all four incidents, disparate as they are, drew the same fundamental complaint -- all echoing the viewer from Syracuse -- is telling. It suggests that every time ESPN becomes its own story, intentionally or not, fans feel the kingdom of sports is in ever greater danger of being usurped by its messenger.

To temper that resentment, I recommend that whenever ESPN accidentally steps into the spotlight, it find a way to get out as quickly and deftly as possible. When out of the spotlight, don't ask for it -- at least for a while. Let fans get over their ESPN fatigue.

[Shemtov]

And every October 10 they celebrate Favremas (pronounced Fav-re-Mas), complete with a Favremas tree.

[BlackLantern]

Stacey Dales has left ESPN due to "contractual conditions"

http://deadspin.com/5153172/source-confirms-stacey-dales-quit-espn-because-she-wouldnt-fly-coach

[The Incredible Hulk]

ESPN got "MTV'ed" and suddenly became more about pop culture and celebrity than the content they professed to cover. That's wny MTV now has all video channels and ESPN has ESPNEWS, which is really the only time I turn on any of their networks outside of when they show an actual game but even then their announcers are always such douches to listen to.

[BlackLantern]

Outside the Lines is still a good show, but is slowly being surpassed by Real Sports over on HBO

[Immortalfire]

I want to fire a bazooka at the tube whenever they have Dick Vitale speaking. :down

[BlackLantern]

I love Dicky V...always will...even before he went to ESPN, I liked him....well considering they are going to be cutting their staff down, you might see some familiar faces departing soon....Stacey Dales just left, they lost another female anchor about 2 months ago....

[Immortalfire]

I wanna know where Molly Qerim disappeared to...she was the only reason I watched their college football show in the afternoons

[TMC1982]

What ruined ESPN in a nutshell:
*Disney coming into the picture in the late '90s.

*Mark Shapiro and George Bodenheimer being top executives at ESPN

*The popularity of Keith Olbermann and Dan Patrick on SportsCenter. This gave virtually any and everybody carte blanche to be a damn comedian instead of a journalist

*The rise of PTI resulting in a spawn of other shows (i.e. 1st & Ten, Jim Rome is Burning, Around the Horn, etc.) involving manufactured arguements, confrontations, and controversies.

[BlackLantern]

Jim Rome had been doing his thing long before PTI...the show is basically a watered down version of his radio show....

[Excel]

around the horn/woody paige is great too

[TMC1982]

Some interesting links that I've found concerning the supposed decline of ESPN over the years (and what can be done to make things better):
The Goods on ESPN- Part 1: The Criticisms (http://sportsmediajournal.com/2007/10/02/the-goods-on-espn-part-1-the-criticisms/)
The Goods on ESPN- Part 2: Making It Better (http://sportsmediajournal.com/2007/10/03/the-goods-on-espn-part-2-making-it-better/)

Chapter One: Take Me to Your Leader (http://www.thephatphree.com/features.asp?StoryID=3658&SectionID=15)

Chapter Two: A Firm Anchor in Nonsense (http://www.thephatphree.com/features.asp?StoryID=3725&SectionID=15)

Page 2 (http://www.thephatphree.com/features.asp?StoryId=3725&SectionID=15&spage=2)

Chapter Three: Synergy Is Just Another Word for Greed (http://www.thephatphree.com/features.asp?StoryID=3763&SectionID=15)
Chapter Four: Due to Time Constraints (http://www.thephatphree.com/features.asp?StoryID=3797&SectionID=15)
Chapter Five: The Virus Spreads (http://www.thephatphree.com/features.asp?StoryID=3821&SectionID=15)
Is ESPN Forcing ABC To Get Out of the Sports Business? (http://www.fangsbites.com/2008/11/is-espn-forcing-abc-to-get-out-of.html)

NEWSWEEK DROPS A SERIOUS DIME ON BRISTOL BLUNDERS (http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/newsweek-details-reasons-for-espn-decline-13346.php)

Newsweek Puts ESPN Under the Microscope (http://thebiglead.com/?p=2730)
As its empire grows, has ESPN become the worldwide cheerleader in sports? (http://web.archive.org/web/20070715212953/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19734725/site/newsweek/)

52 REASONS ESPN/ABC/DISNEY SUCKS (http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2005/11/29/50-reasons-espnabcdisney-sucks/)

10 reasons ESPN/ABC sucks (http://www.bevosports.com/?p=382)

Why Do You Hate ESPN, Bloggers? (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2007/07/why_do_you_hate_espn_bloggers.html)
SELF-LOVING ESPN IS NO LONGER IN THE NOW (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07222007/sports/self_loving_espn_is_no_longer_in_the_now_sports_ph il_mushnick.htm?page=0)

ESPN Has Jumped The Shark (http://www.armchairgm.com/ESPN_Has_Jumped_The_Shark)
The Day ESPN Died (http://deadspin.com/sports/the-day-espn-died/trying-to-track-the-exact-moment-when-espn-imploded-285731.php)

ESPN's Gimmicks Just Keep Getting Worse (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/TheSportingBlog/135878/)
Top 5 Reasons Why I Hate ESPN (http://www.protrade.com/content/DisplayArticle.html?sp=S46a8fa3e-ca38-11db-bd62-657f60fbe801)

[BlackLantern]

I read the Part 2 Making it Better....and yea whoever wrote that doesn't have a clue as to how actual business runs....you can't just have fences up around parts...ESPN is still a small network and in this economy you are going to see people wearing different hats...Im hearing rumbings that Dana Jacobson, Jay Crawford and 2 other ESPN personalities might be gone within the next 6 months....

[3dman27]

speaking os sorts reporting if this qualifies, why is the herd, a call in show about PRO sports from espn RADIO being simulcast on espnu the college sports network wouldn't espn or espn2 be more apropriate to air the herd?

[Go Web Go!]

The Herd is awful. The local station picked up a few weeks ago from 10-1. Cannot listen to that show - or any ESPN radio show for that matter.

[Ghostvirus]

I know it is wrong, but I would watch Rachel Nichols talk about paint drying.:csad:

[Go Web Go!]

She's all yours.

I'd do the same with Erin Andrews. Who wouldn't?

[Immortalfire]

Molly Qerim FTW :heart:



I turned on the tube this morning..and ESPN is covering a damn spelling bee

:facepalm

[Go Web Go!]

My reaction exactly. Same applies when they broadcast 4 straight hours of poker, bowling, and billiards.

[3dman27]

molly qerim ftw :heart:



I turned on the tube this morning..and espn is covering a damn spelling bee

:facepalm

talk about using the term sports loosely

[Ghostvirus]

Billiards is oddly entrancing.

[Go Web Go!]

Not for me. I can barely watch a baseball game in its entirety, so billiards is out of the question.

[Darthphere]

So ESPNFavre is slowly turning into ESPNLebron.

[BlackLantern]

Molly Qerim FTW :heart:



I turned on the tube this morning..and ESPN is covering a damn spelling bee

:facepalm

but they've been covering it for years now....they covered it when I was a kid and I think its a big thrill for the kids that ESPN is there....one kid practically fainted when Erin Andrews was talking to him

[El_Citrus]

Did anyone else see the atrocity that was the Jonas Brothers taking over Sportscenter this morning? I've lost all hope for ESPN.

[enterthemadness]

Did anyone else see the atrocity that was the Jonas Brothers taking over Sportscenter this morning? I've lost all hope for ESPN.

Nope, didn't see that. That sucks.

I think ESPN still reports on sports, but more towards bigger markets and superstars. Which is ******** in a way.

[Go Web Go!]

ESPN is turning into WWE

[enterthemadness]

ESPN is turning into WWE

Ouch...that sucks.

[Raiden]

ESPN does stupid, moronic things ever so often, but I'd still watch it over Fox Sports or CNN/SI, hands down. However, I got my news from the 'net mostly anyway, and if I do watch I like to check out ESPNews over regular ESPN.

[Poetic Chaos]

I get my daily dose of Skip every morning at 7.

[El_Citrus]

I get my daily dose of Skip every morning at 7.

I will admit that is incredibly entertaining to watch, especially when he gets one of his Skipiracies going.

[3dman27]

ESPN is turning into WWE

at least we've still gotf riday night fights

[TMC1982]

ESPN is turning into WWE

ESPN in its current state is the sports equivalent to MTV right now (in my estimation at least). Both started off as niche cable channels in the late 1970s-early 1980s. As the years went on, and they got more and more cultural power or influence, they slowly started to drift away from their initial fundation. Thus, MTV shifted from musical centric programming/videos to a streamline of game shows (a la Remote Control and Singled Out), animation (a la Beavis & Butt-head, which I'm admittedly, a fan off andDaria), and most signficant, faux reality shows like The Hills and The Real World.

ESPN initally, showed stuff that ABC, CBS and NBC typically didn't air at the time (and for 24/7 mind you). They also of course, had SportsCenter to keep you in tuned to daily highlights. But now, ESPN considers themselves beyond simply presenting highlights. Now, they want to be in tuned with popular culture (hence all of the segments on SportsCenter now like the Budweiser Hot Set for instance or the "Who's Now" tournament), by bluring the lines between actual sports journalism and tabloids. It especially got bad once folks like Disney and Mark Shaprio got involved by the late '90s-early 2000s.

[TMC1982]

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/62719 (http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/62719)

By JOHN OURAND
Staff writer

Published June 08, 2009 : Page 01
George Bodenheimer will continue guiding the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" for
the next few years.

The 28-year ESPN employee who is one of the most powerful executives in all of
sports quietly renewed his agreement with the Walt Disney Co., inking a
three-year extension last fall that will keep him presiding over ESPN through
most of 2011, according to several sources.

ESPN spokesman Chris LaPlaca confirmed Bodenheimer extended his agreement months
ago, but would not elaborate on the terms or details.

It is not a surprise that Bodenheimer signed a deal to remain co-chairman of
Disney Media Networks and president of ESPN Inc. and ABC Sports. The well-liked
executive has led ESPN since 1998, during which time the company has experienced
exponential growth and has become by far the most profitable division of the
Walt Disney Co.

Still, in the months preceding the renewal, there had been rumors that top
executives at Disney were looking to promote Bodenheimer to a position that
would move him away from day-to-day oversight and into more of a corporate role.

Obviously, those rumors proved to be unfounded, as Bodenheimer signed his new
deal in October, coinciding with the end of Disney's fiscal year.

The story of Bodenheimer's rise from ESPN's mail room to its corner office is
widely known. Bodenheimer is believed to be happy at ESPN and in no hurry to
move up the corporate ladder.

At the Sports Business Awards in New York City late last month, NBC Universal
Sports & Olympics Chairman Dick Ebersol said of Bodenheimer, "He is probably in
the history of American sports the most powerful man who has ever existed. He
sits on an awful lot of power and an awful lot of money, but he does it with
great grace."

Since signing the extension, Bodenheimer directed ESPN to a market-moving $495
million deal to bring the entire BCS to cable for the first time through 2014.
He also oversaw a significant deal that gained ESPNU and ESPN360 carriage on
Comcast systems.

Bodenheimer was inducted into cable's Hall of Fame in November.

The news hasn't been all positive, though. Just last month, ESPN laid off about
100 of its employees, and Bodenheimer said the company would leave an additional
100 open positions unfilled.

[LastSunrise1981]

ESPN has some interesting stuff from time to time. I only watch ESPN during the NFL and NBA season honestly.

At least ESPN is a lot better than TNT when it comes to talking about basketball. But to be quite honest I haven't really noticed a huge change in ESPN and their quality. Is it that drastic of a difference now?