A Favor

[Specnatz]

Originally Posted by dskillz

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.

Originally Posted by dskillz

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....

Originally Posted by Specnatz

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.

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]

Originally Posted by xtruroyaltyx

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]

Originally Posted by xtruroyaltyx

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....

Originally Posted by Texans_Chick

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...

Originally Posted by Texan_Bill

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Beer and Metal

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]

Originally Posted by Texan_Bill

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]

Originally Posted by Texan_Bill

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]

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!