PDA

View Full Version : A Favor


Texans_Chick
06-18-2007, 10:35 PM
One of the reasons I started blogging is that I wanted to encourage more and better Texans coverage nationally. I'm not sure how much I've done that, but at least I've got some of the things I've written out into the market place of ideas.

In any event, I wrote a FanHouse post tonight sorta related to that subject:

ESPN Guy Slags the Texans, What's New? (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/06/18/espn-guy-slags-the-texans-whats-new/)

The favor I ask is that if you have any opinion at all on this subject of the coverage of the Texans in the media, that you leave an opinion on my FanHouse post. Even if it is a one word opinion. (The site asks for your email addy, but they don't do anything with those)

It is one of my beliefs that people do not believe that Texans fans exist. So they figure they can say anything they want about them. So, how's about shouting a little? It's good practice for the season. :cool:

Texan_Bill
06-19-2007, 07:52 AM
Posted:

7. Steph,
It's BSPN, what did you expect?!? Personally, I expect no less than that type of coverage. Afterall, the NFL is just filler for BSPN, in between coverage of Yankees v. Red Sox and Clemens. We as Texans fans know that we have had the toughest expansion deal to overcome. We also know that we have to overcome the previous regime. BUT, we also know that that era is over and we have a lot to look forward to.

Whether BSPN jumps on the bandwagon over the next couple of seasons or not, I don't put much credence into their "so-called" analysis and their mental midget opinions.

Go Texans!!

TB

Texans_Chick
06-19-2007, 08:05 AM
Nice.

Please keep them comments coming. The more well thought out and reasonable the better, but even a one word comment would be fine. There's not much else going on, so we might as well tilt at windmills.

I have no illusions that ESPN will change their business model, but I'm hoping that at least some folks over there will pay attention and maybe effort a little more when covering the team.

BTW, I would be the first one cheering in the street if ESPN got rid of that horrible Insider stuff. Don't you wish you had a buck for everytime you read the words, "Does anyone have Insider?"

Specnatz
06-19-2007, 08:28 AM
Steph, I have read a lot of what you say and you are not a rah rah type of person you offer complete analysis and opinion on what you see.

As far as Dan and Vicking are concerned, last I checked there were 7 teams with a worse record than the Texans last year, including the Vickings. No one is asking for a handout but when you have an analysist saying the Texans did not draft a lineman in last years draft when they took two, and this coming from Schlereth who was a 10th round draft pick. what is wrong with wanting someone to actually do the job they are supposedly paid for?

If I want to hear bad jokes I will turn on Carlos Mecia, not eSpin. How about watching some games of all the teams, not just the preseason front runners. Instead of just the highlights put together by some intern who may or maynot even like football.

awtysst
06-19-2007, 08:36 AM
9. Steph,
Here is my take on the situation. ESPN is essentially mad at us for not taking their golden boy Reggie Bush. They were promoting Bush as the second coming of Gail Sayers-Barry Sanders- and Secretariat all rolled into one. They were practically carving his Canton bust as well. They expected us to take him and when we went against the grain, they became angry that we would dare go against their golden boy.

That kinda forwards to the whole Schaub deal. Before the Texans dealt for him, Schaub was thought of as the best backup in the league and a legit starter with lots of untapped "potential". Yet when the Texans get him he is suddenly "inexpierenced". I think this will continue until Mario has a great season and our movies turn into winning seasons and playoff appearences. Until then, we are the "Bungles" in the eyes of ESPN.
-Awtysst

Texans_Chick
06-19-2007, 10:03 AM
TC,
I tried to post on the blog as a show of support but my laptop at home is dead, so the only time that I can post on the boards is at work (which is a High school) and the server has blocked all blogs.

Is there another way to post?

Can I post it here and you post it for me?

LYB

I'm afraid not. Do it if you can, but it is okay if you don't. Nice commenting over there.

BTW, another fun feature of the blog is that you can forward the link to others. So if there is any one you want to email this entry to, you just click the email this button at the bottom.

Here's a little bit of a story behind why I am doing this. Without naming names, I trashed a writer last year in the Chronic blog for doing a really poor job with a particular story. That there were a million ways they coulda wrote the story, but he chose a way that wasn't particularly fair but was particularly shallow. And we ended up corresponding some by email.

And the funny thing is that after that, I started noticing that his coverage was a little more fair. Not saying it was always positive towards the Texans, but it didn't go out of its way to cheap shot. That's all I'm looking for.
Don't know if I had anything to do with that at all, but I figure it can't hurt to try.

dskillz
06-19-2007, 11:20 AM
The issue is that ESPN and sports journalists used to just cover sports news. Now ESPN thinks of ratings more than coverage. Remember back in the day When sportscenter used to show highlights of every single game, regardless of who it was? Whether it was Yankees/Red Sox or Pirates/Reds, we got highlights of every single game along with the boxscore. Then shortly before the ABC purchase, they shifted to doing a decent job only covering the big media teams. So no other team mattered and were a punchline.

With that said, the Texans haven't helped themselves at all in the way they are covered. No winning seasons, a qb that was more known more for sacks than TDs, passing on 2 ultra-hyped players for one who had one good college career. The 7-9 season was a gift and a curse. Even with all the sacks, the Texans were picked by alot of journalists to breakthrough the next season and be a playoff contender. Many eyes were on the Texans and then the 2-14 curse hit hard for everyone to see.

To change the perception and coverage, the Texans are going to have to do something on the field. It isn't like the Texans are being picked on un-fairly. Have you forgotten the 'Aints', the 'Bungles', the 'Seachickens', the 'Goats', the 'Yucs'? All nicknames for teams doing poorly. When all those teams did well, the articles turned from pointing and laughing to pointing and praising. Same thing will happen here if we can put a good product on the field.

Texans_Chick
06-19-2007, 11:55 AM
The issue is that ESPN and sports journalists used to just cover sports news. Now ESPN thinks of ratings more than coverage. Remember back in the day When sportscenter used to show highlights of every single game, regardless of who it was? Whether it was Yankees/Red Sox or Pirates/Reds, we got highlights of every single game along with the boxscore. Then shortly before the ABC purchase, they shifted to doing a decent job only covering the big media teams. So no other team mattered and were a punchline.

With that said, the Texans haven't helped themselves at all in the way they are covered. No winning seasons, a qb that was more known more for sacks than TDs, passing on 2 ultra-hyped players for one who had one good college career. The 7-9 season was a gift and a curse. Even with all the sacks, the Texans were picked by alot of journalists to breakthrough the next season and be a playoff contender. Many eyes were on the Texans and then the 2-14 curse hit hard for everyone to see.

To change the perception and coverage, the Texans are going to have to do something on the field. It isn't like the Texans are being picked on un-fairly. Have you forgotten the 'Aints', the 'Bungles', the 'Seachickens', the 'Goats', the 'Yucs'? All nicknames for teams doing poorly. When all those teams did well, the articles turned from pointing and laughing to pointing and praising. Same thing will happen here if we can put a good product on the field.

Okay, so what you are saying is journalism should be name calling? And that the only way to get a reasoned analysis of your team is to win? I'm not saying I want people to just say awesome things about the team, but is it possible for their to be more coverage than just punchlines?

One newspaper town and AP service. Not a good combination for interesting analysis of your team.

Overalls
06-19-2007, 12:35 PM
The issue is that ESPN and sports journalists used to just cover sports news. Now ESPN thinks of ratings more than coverage. Remember back in the day When sportscenter used to show highlights of every single game, regardless of who it was? Whether it was Yankees/Red Sox or Pirates/Reds, we got highlights of every single game along with the boxscore. Then shortly before the ABC purchase, they shifted to doing a decent job only covering the big media teams. So no other team mattered and were a punchline.




Way back in the day when inside the NFL started on HBO, the main reason I got that cable channel was to watch Oiler "highlights". The game may have stunk for me as a fan, but it was always good to get anything about the team. I quit watching Inside the NFL several years ago because they went to only showing the marque games. Personally I don't care about the Vickings, or whatever lower tier team you want to name, but I respect the fan of that team wanting news on that team as much as I want news on mine and am willing to watch a piece on them till they got to a piece on mine. Now though, why watch when I know that the chances of my team showing up on the show is slim. I can't post in the blog right now though. My work blocks them too.

dskillz
06-19-2007, 12:58 PM
Okay, so what you are saying is journalism should be name calling? And that the only way to get a reasoned analysis of your team is to win? I'm not saying I want people to just say awesome things about the team, but is it possible for their to be more coverage than just punchlines?

One newspaper town and AP service. Not a good combination for interesting analysis of your team.


I am not saying that journalism should be name calling, what I am saying is that NFL journalism has always been namecalling. It's just part of athletics in general. When the Oilers were doing well and people were calling the Saints the Aints, I didn't care really. I will be honest, I thought nothing of them and thought they plain sucked. The same thing about the Lions now. Unless there is an in-depth article about the Lions, I wouldn't expect anything more than a mention about Lions being the destination for under-achieving WRs and a joke about Millen's job security. In an in-depth article about a losing team is the only place you are going to get real discussion about them. Outside of that, that losing team will be a punchline. That is just the way it is, and has been that way for awhile.

Houston having one paper doesn't help the situation at all. You have some of the biggest bandwagoner writers I have ever read at the Chronicle. People who get so much information and access and totally squander it in favor of personal agendas and notoriety. Chronicle needs some competition badly.

Texan_Bill
06-19-2007, 01:49 PM
Chronicle needs some competition badly.

Amen... While I chose the Chronicle over the Post, at least they kept each other honest..

Texans_Chick
06-19-2007, 01:51 PM
I am not saying that journalism should be name calling, what I am saying is that NFL journalism has always been namecalling. It's just part of athletics in general. When the Oilers were doing well and people were calling the Saints the Aints, I didn't care really. I will be honest, I thought nothing of them and thought they plain sucked. The same thing about the Lions now. Unless there is an in-depth article about the Lions, I wouldn't expect anything more than a mention about Lions being the destination for under-achieving WRs and a joke about Millen's job security. In an in-depth article about a losing team is the only place you are going to get real discussion about them. Outside of that, that losing team will be a punchline. That is just the way it is, and has been that way for awhile.

Houston having one paper doesn't help the situation at all. You have some of the biggest bandwagoner writers I have ever read at the Chronicle. People who get so much information and access and totally squander it in favor of personal agendas and notoriety. Chronicle needs some competition badly.


Should we only aspire to what things are? Does it help you for your fantasy league to read another Millen joke? Journalists are the only folks who have access to the team, so why shouldn't we hold their feet to the fire for more better coverage?

Oliver Twist asked for more gruel, and got a beating for it. I recognize that I'm tilting at windmills, but it isn't like sportswriters are going to demand better sportswriting.

It's June.

Specnatz
06-19-2007, 01:59 PM
I am not saying that journalism should be name calling, what I am saying is that NFL journalism has always been namecalling. It's just part of athletics in general. When the Oilers were doing well and people were calling the Saints the Aints, I didn't care really. I will be honest, I thought nothing of them and thought they plain sucked. The same thing about the Lions now. Unless there is an in-depth article about the Lions, I wouldn't expect anything more than a mention about Lions being the destination for under-achieving WRs and a joke about Millen's job security. In an in-depth article about a losing team is the only place you are going to get real discussion about them. Outside of that, that losing team will be a punchline. That is just the way it is, and has been that way for awhile.

Houston having one paper doesn't help the situation at all. You have some of the biggest bandwagoner writers I have ever read at the Chronicle. People who get so much information and access and totally squander it in favor of personal agendas and notoriety. Chronicle needs some competition badly.

So just because it has been that way for a while we should just bend over and say thank you? I do not get this logic. The New York Times and CBS are very leberal news outlets and slant their views accordingly so you really donot get a fair reporting of government and Fox is conservative, if they all covered one way or the other we would not get the trth and since it has been this way for a while it is ok.is that what you are saying.

As a broadcast journalism mahjor in college, reporters were just that, they were suppossed to report the facts and let individuals make their own conclusions, not manipulate the facts so a person interupts the news my way of thinking based on my beliefs. I do not care if it sports, politics or the weather I want it reported without a slant to it and then I can make up my own mind.

This should not be to hard to ask, but to many people with agendas report only what they want to report, ala Mark May and Matt Mosley.

:bat:

dskillz
06-19-2007, 02:45 PM
Should we only aspire to what things are? Does it help you for your fantasy league to read another Millen joke? Journalists are the only folks who have access to the team, so why shouldn't we hold their feet to the fire for more better coverage?

Oliver Twist asked for more gruel, and got a beating for it. I recognize that I'm tilting at windmills, but it isn't like sportswriters are going to demand better sportswriting.

It's June.

If I want an in-depth Lions article I will go to the Detriot newspaper website. If I want an in-depth Cardinals article, I will hit the Arizona Republic. These days there are fansites that do better than any newspaper. Good coverage of any team I want to read about is out there. Thanks to the net, the coverage is out there. So to beg and plead for national coverage to do the Texans better or other teams without winning traditions better is akin to asking for the impossible. It has never happened it it never will. But in 2007, there are many more options out there to get that information. So why should your or anyone else waste time trying to change a media that has worked in the same way forever? No national columnist is going to give me the type of coverage that a local beat writer or a writer on a fansite can give me. No matter how hard they try, there simply isn't enough time.

So you can demand to get something from a national source, but why do that when local and fan-based sources are doing just fine? Will it make you feel better to hear it come from a national voice? Do you live in some fantasy world that the majority of the country actually cares about the Texans and think they are chomping at the bit for better coverage? They are sitting back and shaking their heads just like we used to do about the Saints.

Texans_Chick
06-19-2007, 03:01 PM
So just because it has been that way for a while we should just bend over and say thank you? I do not get this logic. The New York Times and CBS are very leberal news outlets and slant their views accordingly so you really donot get a fair reporting of government and Fox is conservative, if they all covered one way or the other we would not get the trth and since it has been this way for a while it is ok.is that what you are saying.

As a broadcast journalism mahjor in college, reporters were just that, they were suppossed to report the facts and let individuals make their own conclusions, not manipulate the facts so a person interupts the news my way of thinking based on my beliefs. I do not care if it sports, politics or the weather I want it reported without a slant to it and then I can make up my own mind.

This should not be to hard to ask, but to many people with agendas report only what they want to report, ala Mark May and Matt Mosley.

:bat:


There's reporting, and then their are columnists. I want to read sports opinions--but I want them to be based on facts.

Texans_Chick
06-19-2007, 03:04 PM
If I want an in-depth Lions article I will go to the Detriot newspaper website. If I want an in-depth Cardinals article, I will hit the Arizona Republic. These days there are fansites that do better than any newspaper. Good coverage of any team I want to read about is out there. Thanks to the net, the coverage is out there. So to beg and plead for national coverage to do the Texans better or other teams without winning traditions better is akin to asking for the impossible. It has never happened it it never will. But in 2007, there are many more options out there to get that information. So why should your or anyone else waste time trying to change a media that has worked in the same way forever? No national columnist is going to give me the type of coverage that a local beat writer or a writer on a fansite can give me. No matter how hard they try, there simply isn't enough time.

So you can demand to get something from a national source, but why do that when local and fan-based sources are doing just fine? Will it make you feel better to hear it come from a national voice? Do you live in some fantasy world that the majority of the country actually cares about the Texans and think they are chomping at the bit for better coverage? They are sitting back and shaking their heads just like we used to do about the Saints.

I'm just a fan and a blogger that wants better material to work with.

I do think there is a desire for better sportswriting. There are fans of the NFL and their are fantasy players, and they want to hear mo better information about all of the teams.

You never know what is possible unless you try. (BTW, the ESPN guy I wrote the article about emailed me and enjoyed what I wrote. You never know what seeds you are sowing....)

TEXANSTAILGATER
06-19-2007, 03:23 PM
The national perception is what it is. Thats fine too.

It sux way more right about now to be Raider fan, Lions geek, Dolphins dork, or a Browns bum just off the top of my head.

If the Texans punk NO in Nov, alot of this will die down. Wins are what will change peoples thinking.

Texans_Chick
06-19-2007, 04:32 PM
The national perception is what it is. Thats fine too.

It sux way more right about now to be Raider fan, Lions geek, Dolphins dork, or a Browns bum just off the top of my head.

If the Texans punk NO in Nov, alot of this will die down. Wins are what will change peoples thinking.

I guess my question is: why do bad teams deserve worse (inaccurate, superficial) sports coverage than good teams? I'm not resonsible for the way my team drafts or how it is coached. I just want to know more information about the players, coaches, schemes, things to look for, etc. Why do I need to get a ration of crap when I'm trying to find out more information about my favorite team?

I have to admit it is kinda fun bopping people on the head a little when they think they can just punchline their way through their writing. People are more likely going to say junk when they think nobody is going to call them on it.

Specnatz
06-19-2007, 05:41 PM
There's reporting, and then their are columnists. I want to read sports opinions--but I want them to be based on facts.

This is what I ment, I guess I sorta messed up on my wording and phrasing.


I guess my question is: why do bad teams deserve worse (inaccurate, superficial) sports coverage than good teams? I'm not resonsible for the way my team drafts or how it is coached. I just want to know more information about the players, coaches, schemes, things to look for, etc. Why do I need to get a ration of crap when I'm trying to find out more information about my favorite team?

I have to admit it is kinda fun bopping people on the head a little when they think they can just punchline their way through their writing. People are more likely going to say junk when they think nobody is going to call them on it.


Right here is exactly it, the dolts who are on major radio or tv can say what they want about bad teams because they will not be confronted about it. OK, a blog can be written and we can put feedback on some of the writings on eSpin, Fox, or cbs if it is on the website. None of can do much if it is said on the air. It is not like I can walk up to Schlereth and tell him just how wrong he is or debate him on what lineman that him and the hairdo wanted the Texans to take at number 10. So they get away with being two-faced on there analysist of teams, because one is not doing so well.

Prime examble of this (college but it works) is in 2005 prior to the start of Notre Dames season, Mark May an analysist on eSpin said Notre Dame would lose there first 6 games or if they were lucky would win one of them. Well his sidekick is Lou Holtz who used to coach at ND. After the 6th game Holtz asked May about his prediction, and instead of being a man and saying opps I was wrong, he just folded his arms and sat there and did not say a word. This exemplifies eSpin and how they conduct business. No matter if it is on college gameday or NFL countdown or NFL live.

dskillz
06-20-2007, 07:51 AM
I guess my question is: why do bad teams deserve worse (inaccurate, superficial) sports coverage than good teams? I'm not resonsible for the way my team drafts or how it is coached. I just want to know more information about the players, coaches, schemes, things to look for, etc. Why do I need to get a ration of crap when I'm trying to find out more information about my favorite team?

I have to admit it is kinda fun bopping people on the head a little when they think they can just punchline their way through their writing. People are more likely going to say junk when they think nobody is going to call them on it.

I just don't know what hangup you have with national media. There are other sources out there to get accurate, in-depth information on bad teams. So why not just use those sources? Last time I checked, there is one national source that gives equal coverage and that is the NFL Network. So why keep trying to change ESPN's way of reporting or AP's way when the you seek information is getting out there from other places?

Seems like trying to make McDonald's serve steaks, though there are plenty of other places to get one.

Specnatz
06-20-2007, 12:36 PM
I just don't know what hangup you have with national media. There are other sources out there to get accurate, in-depth information on bad teams. So why not just use those sources? Last time I checked, there is one national source that gives equal coverage and that is the NFL Network. So why keep trying to change ESPN's way of reporting or AP's way when the you seek information is getting out there from other places?

Seems like trying to make McDonald's serve steaks, though there are plenty of other places to get one.

It is more like when you walk into McDonalds you get a Quarter Pounder with cheese and then i walk in and order the same thing but they give me everything but the meat.

You got what is on the menu and I got a sandwhich with no meat, hell might as well give me a crap sandwhich.


:texflag:

real
06-20-2007, 01:06 PM
I just don't know what hangup you have with national media. There are other sources out there to get accurate, in-depth information on bad teams. So why not just use those sources? Last time I checked, there is one national source that gives equal coverage and that is the NFL Network. So why keep trying to change ESPN's way of reporting or AP's way when the you seek information is getting out there from other places?

Seems like trying to make McDonald's serve steaks, though there are plenty of other places to get one.

I agree.

ESPN is in the business of making money. The Texans have enough trouble getting Houstonians interested enough to buy tickets, so why would ESPN dedicate more time to a team that has done pretty much nothing but lose and make questionalbe moves since inception ?

Honestly, do you guys want to hear more about the Atlanta Hawks ?

You have to think about it from a national perspective...

Teams that lose a lot/ have very few--or no--media enticing players aren't going to dominate the airwaves...

That wouldn't be very smart on ESPN's part....

real
06-20-2007, 01:12 PM
It is more like when you walk into McDonalds you get a Quarter Pounder with cheese and then i walk in and order the same thing but they give me everything but the meat.

You got what is on the menu and I got a sandwhich with no meat, hell might as well give me a crap sandwhich.


:texflag:

You're right....

It is more like that....

If asking for a hamburger is equivilent to asking for 'more Texan coverage' no wonder it's not getting served....

ESPN shows what a majority of people 'order'....

No one cares about the Texans so they don't get shown...

Texans_Chick
06-20-2007, 01:24 PM
You're right....

It is more like that....

If asking for a hamburger is equivilent to asking for 'more Texan coverage' no wonder it's not getting served....

ESPN shows what a majority of people 'order'....

No one cares about the Texans so they don't get shown...

So, in other words, bad teams should expect to get very little coverage, and what coverage there is to be ill-informed.

I don't buy that. Especially with the internets, there doesn't need to be restrictions on the amount of coverage. We should aspire to better.

Texan_Bill
06-20-2007, 01:29 PM
I agree.

ESPN is in the business of making money. The Texans have enough trouble getting Houstonians interested enough to buy tickets, so why would ESPN dedicate more time to a team that has done pretty much nothing but lose and make questionalbe moves since inception ?

Honestly, do you guys want to hear more about the Atlanta Hawks ?

You have to think about it from a national perspective...

Teams that lose a lot/ have very few--or no--media enticing players aren't going to dominate the airwaves...

That wouldn't be very smart on ESPN's part....

Totally disagree.

ESPN sucks! ESPN has lost their mission...

ESPN, as introduced in the late 70's was in the business of being the "Worldwide Leader in Sports". This means reporting sports, not picking and choosing who they think is the sexy story de jour. For the 2 1/2 hours that they showed Roger Clemens "AA" start, I think they could have reported on something more worthwhile -or- have shown the regularly scheduled game..

"The Texans have enough trouble getting Houstonians interested enough to buy tickets"???? huh???? Thats news to me. 50 home games (including pre-season) - 50 sell outs....

As far as listening about the Atlanta Hawks, sure, so what, as long as they (ESPN) were making their rounds around the entire NBA and reporting equally with insight....

Again, that was their original mission when they started 38 years ago....

real
06-20-2007, 01:30 PM
So, in other words, bad teams should expect to get very little coverage, and what coverage there is to be ill-informed.

I don't buy that. Especially with the internets, there doesn't need to be restrictions on the amount of coverage. We should aspire to better.

Don't get me wrong...I don't like the fact that the Texans are treated like a media step-child...

But I just think reality is what reality is....We don't have any players that entice nationally...we haven't had a winning season....

I'm totally with you on the lazy journalism aspect though...It would be nice if there was a national outlet that provided 'real' analysis and not the same old re-hash that they heard from their momma's sister's uncle's best friend...

Don't know what can be done about that aspect, but again--I think it all boils down to the winning and marketable players aspect...

real
06-20-2007, 01:36 PM
Totally disagree.

ESPN sucks! ESPN has lost their mission...

ESPN, as introduced in the late 70's was in the business of being the "Worldwide Leader in Sports". This means reporting sports, not picking and choosing who they think is the sexy story de jour. For the 2 1/2 hours that they showed Roger Clemens "AA" start, I think they could have reported on something more worthwhile -or- have shown the regularly scheduled game..

"The Texans have enough trouble getting Houstonians interested enough to buy tickets"???? huh???? Thats news to me. 50 home games (including pre-season) - 50 sell outs....

As far as listening about the Atlanta Hawks, sure, so what, as long as they (ESPN) were making their rounds around the entire NBA and reporting equally with insight....

Again, that was their original mission when they started 38 years ago....

My bad...I shouldn't have said 'buy tickets'--I should have said interested enough to actually go to the games :)

But as far as ESPN goes--times change

Not that I agree with it or like it; but I do understand it...

Telling ESPN to show more of teams with little national interest is equivalent to asking them to decrease their ratings which boils down to making less money...

This is how they make money and I understand that.

TD
06-20-2007, 01:38 PM
ESPN's goal is to keep people tuned in and not change the channel. Truth is, if they showed in-depth coverage of the Hawks, Rams, Devil Rays, etc... I'm very likely to change the channel. I'm sure their marketing department has told them that most of country would do the same with the Texans.

The internet is another story. Seems like the "world wide leader in sports" should cover all the teams with equal veracity; just put the most popular on the front page.

Texan_Bill
06-20-2007, 01:43 PM
Showing Yankees v. Red Sox or Yankees v. anybody has turned me off to ESPN to the point I dont really watch it at all anymore... God Bless the NFLN.

Beer and Metal
06-21-2007, 10:02 AM
Someone should start a sports journalist power ranking site.

You'd have a panel of experts who would predict which journalists "get it right" in their coverage. By "get it right" I mean use facts and actual knowledge about what they report.

Texan_Bill
06-21-2007, 10:10 AM
Someone should start a sports journalist power ranking site.

You'd have a panel of experts who would predict which journalists "get it right" in their coverage. By "get it right" I mean use facts and actual knowledge about what they report.

Thats actually an excellent idea. Then some of these talking heads might be held accountable for the jibberish that spews forth..

Beer and Metal
06-21-2007, 10:21 AM
Thats actually an excellent idea. Then some of these talking heads might be held accountable for the jibberish that spews forth..

It wouldn't quite be a peer review, but work much the same. You could have, let's say, 8 panelists covering 4 teams each, who would read all the reports for for those teams. Then after checking the journalists for accuracy and content, rank them accordingly.

Post this on a site week after week, someone will start paying attention.

BeerTastesLikeVictory
06-21-2007, 10:49 AM
Showing Yankees v. Red Sox or Yankees v. anybody has turned me off to ESPN to the point I dont really watch it at all anymore... God Bless the NFLN.

You hit the nail on the head. A month ago the Yankees were getting tore up, somewhere along the lines of 13+ games back and near the basement of their division, yet ESPN continued to show 2-3 Yankee games per week. Yet Teams like Milwaukee, LA Angels, San Diego, Cleveland who sit at the top of their divisions get very little air time. If you are going to play favorites to the winners, at least follow your own rules.

Hardcore Texan
07-08-2007, 03:37 PM
First let me say thanks to Texans Chick for putting in some much effort into covering our beloved TEXANS.

Here's what I posted on the subject:

Stephanie,

I have to agree, I don't care if people want to slam my team or not just know a little about the topic.

Everyone is entitled to speak their mind, and we have not won enough to win everyone's respect, and I would assume that is motivating factor for this year's team. But it too often sounds like the same ole regurgitated comments when ESPN talks about the Texans, maybe they should have incentive bonuses based on the amount of orginal thoughts they can conceive per day?

You want to talk about fair analysis. It is ESPN who breaks down each team with Ultimate Depth Chart or draft break downs. I would love for once to hear some with accuracy besides Micahel Smith (he is very well informed and obviously researches what he is talking about).

But just like twayne05 said, I heard Scherlerth state that we didn't draft any OL. We drafted 2 and brought in Jordan Black, who the same ESPN analyst (and I use that term loosely) called a "key loss" for the Chiefs. So why wasn't he a key acquisition for the Texans? We also drafted 2 last year, one of which was sky rocketing until his leg was broken early in the season. Charles Spencer would be his name, and what of Eric Winston from the same draft class who will probably start this year. Also, Mike Sherman returns as the O-Line coach for his second year, giving last year's draft class more time in the same system, with added talent this year.

I also watched Matt Schaub be called the best potential starter in the NFL that was currently a back-up since 2006. But the Texans pick him up and it's "risky" and he is "unproven". What about his quick decision making and his up-side that I heard so much about last year. I am not suggesting they start cheering us on, just how about a little consistency or saying there is an outside chance we won't be the worst team in the NFL.

How about talking about Owen Daniels, if I recall correctly he led the ALL rookie TE's with TD receptions. If that is not a positive note what is? That's a better season than Vernon Davis who we hear so much about....but that's right he was injured, as was Mario Williams but I guess since Mario didn't have a cracked fibula and didn't miss 6 games like Davis and played through the excruciating pain of almost season long plantar fantitis (or however you spell it)he gets zero recognition or better yet labeled a bust.

And then there is Demeco Ryans, you can call him DROY, he barely gets mentioned at all and if he does his performance is downplayed.

It is definitely not too much to ask a PAID sports writer to know a few facts about the team they are discussing or covering. Slam us all you want, fine by me, but at least know a few details and the direction of the team. Not the same ole regurgitated alsmost verbatim crap.

I think we are headed in the right direction and will go 8-8 this year, look for an explosive defense and offense that can move the chains. At least I have formed this opinion because I have paid attention to the draft and mini-camp. And I planned to stay informed throughout.

Go Texans!