The Most Surprising MLB Move in April Debate…The Brilliant or Desperate Zambrano Move

April 28, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

My oh my how the mighty have fallen.

Once a proud and emotional leader of the Chicago Cubs, the team’s supposed ace is now relegated to bullpen duty, making Carlos Zambrano the highest paid setup man in the history of baseball.

As a starter, Zambrano’s early season ERA was over eight, and manager Lou Piniella had quite enough. Who can blame him? Not only was Zambrano’s ERA out of control, his signature emotion was gone. In short, Sweet Lou did not believe that Zambrano CARED about his struggles. Of the long list of things that make Sweet Lou’s face twitch, apathy is near the top. While seemingly deserved, the most surprising move in April is Zambrano’s sudden move to the pen.

Zambrano has stunk this season, even after a couple of improved performances out of the pen. His ERA is still a ridiculous 6.85. After giving up ten home runs all of last season in 169.1 innings, Zambrano has already served up four dingers in just 22 innings. Yikes.

Aside from the rough start from the right hander, it is generally hard to blame Lou for the move. Zambrano has always had “the stuff” of an ace, but never the psyche. He is prone to intense emotional outbursts and to extreme pitching efficiency when he is on, using few pitches to set down the side in order. Since the Cubs have blown some leads early in the season, primarily because a young bullpen was unable to hold leads late in the game, the gaping hole in the late innings was obvious. Zambrano has the best pitches and mentality for the bullpen of any other player in the starting rotation.

Zambrano fits because the alternatives are not good. Carlos Silva and Tom Gorzelanny, surprising Cubs starters for the 2010 campaign, are actually pitching well in the rotation right now. Randy Wells is probably the staff’s best pitcher, and Ryan Dempster its most consistent. The odd man out is clear, and Zambrano belongs in the pen.

The problem is that pesky – and enormous – contract. He is due $17.875M in 2010, $18M in 2011, and $19.25M. Obviously this is the salary of an ace, not a setup guy. But, he also has a full no trade clause. The Cubs are stuck with Zambrano, and they must get SOME value out of him. As a result, along with Zambrano’s lip service to “doing whatever is needed to help the ballclub,” the best way to make Zambrano valuable is to use him out of the pen.

The move is not just surprising for its clarity and swiftness, but also for its mismanagement. Of course it’s the right decision; of course something needed to be done quickly. But Zambrano somehow still maintains that this is a temporary move. For this to be effective either as a psychological ploy, or to strengthen a weak bullpen, Zambrano must be convinced of its seriousness. Failure to do so neuters the effectiveness of this move.

Cubs’ fans should hope that the move sticks, regardless of the weird contract situation. Zambrano makes more sense as a bullpen pitcher than a starter, even with a no hitter under his belt. The less time Zambrano has on the mound, the less time he has to get mad at his defense and frustrated with the catcher recommended pitches. It is good for his blood pressure – and for the fans’ blood pressure.

Winning has a way of making surprising moves look brilliant. Losing makes them look knee-jerk and desperate. I am curious to find out which type of move this is. My Sports Geek hunch tells me it’s brilliant.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The New NFL Draft Format Debate… Too Much of a Good Thing IS a Good Thing

April 20, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

The NFL Draft is not exactly a made for TV event. At least, it wasn’t until ESPN approached then-commissioner Pete Rozelle 31 years ago with an idea. “Broadcast the NFL Draft and people will watch it,” or something like that, was probably the conversation’s opening line. No matter how the conversation started, it ended with Rozelle agreeing to make the NFL more accessible by broadcasting the draft, a decision that helped transform the league into an unstoppable force in American sports culture. The draft is so popular now with football fans that any change in the format runs the risk of being received negatively. Nevertheless, the league and its primary draft broadcasting partner, ESPN, have teamed up to change the format and approach to the NFL draft. And the draft will actually now be better that it ever was before.

To start, let’s just dispel the notion that the draft did not need to change. Of COURSE it needed to change. The world is changing in how people consume media. You can get draft information and content from virtually every sports-related Web site on the interwebs now (including, obviously, this one). ESPN is in competition with those media outlets that wish to compete with them in their distribution of information about the draft. The only logical thing to do is evolve the medium they control in order to retain eyeballs where they – and their sponsors – want them. Changing the NFL draft to a three day long event captivates fans for a longer period of time, in addition to dealing with the modern realities of media consumption.

It is true that overexposure is sometimes a death knell to once popular events. This new draft format, however, is not overexposure. It is an improved product, especially for Sports Geek’s like me.

First, consider that Thursday nights in America are the one night every week where the most people are watching television. What better place for the first night of the draft, especially considering it features its most universally popular off-season content. The most popular sport in the country welcomes players from another sport among the country’s most popular, college football. Casual and diehard fans alike find this first night of the NFL draft quite appealing. For ESPN, and the NFL, to have an entire night devoted solely to the first round sets up for an intense and dramatic evening and creates a new level of achievement in sports… provided that NFL rookie was a first-day draftee. Now, being a “first-day draft pick” carries a certain caché – and income level. It’s up the players what they make of the new sought-after moniker.

As rounds two and three are drafted on Friday night – the rounds often full of the most valuable draft picks, where talent and financial investment are most properly aligned – some of the casual fans fall by the wayside, but the interest from the diehards picks up substantially. In fact, the second round is viewed by some to be just another first round now that the format is changed. Patriots coach Bill Belichick has publically stated his belief that the extra time will afford each front office more time to research players who are still available, evaluate where competitors sit in draft position, and determine if they wish to move up in the second round or trade down to collect picks. Hmm, sounds a lot like how the first round of the draft is treated.

Belichick continued, “In the past, you kind of rolled into that round. Now, to actually stop and have the whole night to sit there and think about it and talk to other teams and develop a new strategy. Everybody does that on the second day; now we have three days. It’s a different dynamic.”

The man knows what he is talking about, having built several Super Bowl championship teams. The idea that teams get extra time to evaluable talent and competitive position means teams gain more control over the draft, and are able to better execute a strategy. As a fan, I love this idea because it appears to give my favorite team a chance to get better. I am in favor of any draft modifications that give my team the opportunity to get better.

If the second round is similar to the first in its approach because of the extra study time, then the fourth round – which drafts on Saturday, along with the remaining rounds in the draft – can be leveraged by teams in much the same way. Teams may have to spend additional time on their respective drafts boards and scouting, but now if a player gets drafted, the decision will have been more carefully considered when teams have another night to sleep on a decision. Overall, this greatly improves each team’s ability to build a winner.

Fans also get additional intrigue and excitement. No longer is the first day of the draft the most anticipated. All of the analysis can be hashed out after the first round, then new needs are uncovered and new strategies hatched. It is as much about football as political and business maneuvering.

Getting drafted as a player means something more than it used to now. Sure drafted players get a contract and longer look than a free agent does, but imagine being a round five draftee this year. Teams will be positioning themselves to get the players they believe have fallen through the cracks of the previous rounds. Every decision is more carefully weighed, so every pick is put through a new, more intense ringer than ever before.

Fans can now not only better judge their team’s decisions and trust that better decisions will be made, they will also get more time to learn about their team’s newest players. The media will have more time to give background stories and information on these new players, to provide scouting reports and discuss a player’s fit within a particular scheme. It is a free country, so fans that are bored by that do not have to watch. But for those that are intrigued, it is a big win.

Fans win, teams win, and players win. Seems like if those three stakeholders are winners, the league is, too.

The new format is good if you’re a Sports Geek like me, a passion-filled loudmouth like Bleacher Fan, a success-at-all-costs fan like Babe Ruthless… and even a heavily biased Loyal Homer, my opponent in this fine debate. Plus, the NFL takes up more airspace in a down time for the league, sells more ad space on the league-owned cable channel, and fills up its own network with more content than it has ever had before. If there was ever a sports-related win-win (win-win-win), the NFL’s new draft format is just that. For fans, organizations, and the league alike.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The NFL Combine Relevance Debate – Relevance Still Exists For the Combine

February 25, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned in one of my arguments that several sporting events are over hyped. The Kentucky Derby came to mind, as did National Signing Day for college football as basis for that particular argument. The NFL Scouting Combine could be lumped into that category as it has seemingly grown in stature over the past few years. Many of the time trials and drills are actually televised by the NFL Network. However, I recognize the fact that NFL teams want to do their homework and their due diligence on the players. Does that make the combine still relevant? That is the focus of this debate.

Babe Ruthless openly questions the validity of the combine, stating that the activities at the combine do not truly evaluate the ability of a player to play football. The Wonderlic test, which has gained more awareness in recent years, does not escape the wrath of Babe Ruthless. I happen to agree that this test really does not test an athlete’s football ability and has no place in football, as evident by the fact that a punter is the only player to ever score a perfect 50 on the test.

I will admit that Bleacher Fan went an entirely different direction than I initially thought he would, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In addition to the field activities, one of the things that the teams do with the players is talk to them individually and get an indication of how their “football” mind works. Bleacher Fan chose to highlight Chris Johnson. We all know Chris Johnson now, and he has helped many fantasy football owners, including me, in his first two seasons in the league. But coming out of college he was a relative unknown, at least to the casual fan anyway. He parlayed an impressive overall performance at the combine in 2008 to a first round selection, something that most definitely would not have happened otherwise.

I can see both sides of this. On one end, how much can we really tell about a player because of a 40-yard dash time? There are some fast NFL players who are not necessarily good football players… just as there are strong some NFL linemen who are just average at blocking. However, I also realize that the combine is essentially a job interview. The players, or future employees, are there to impress the teams, or their future employers. The teams will be spending millions of dollars on these players over the coming years, so they definitely have a right to gather all the information necessary. As Bleacher Fan wrote, scouting is an inexact science. So, every bit of information, no matter how minute it may appear to be, can provide some insight to the organization. Taking all of that into consideration, I am declaring Bleacher Fan the victor.

It is up to the organizations to decide how much value to put on a player’s performance at the combine. But it is the job of the scouts to come up with the best possible evaluation, and watching a player go through tests and watching how the player interacts is a part of that evaluation. That makes the combine still relevant.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The [League Name] Network Debate – Let the ESPN Viewer Attrition Begin

December 16, 2009

Read the debate intro and the arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan about whether or not league affiliated cable networks are beginning to come into their own.



I am really partial to these media debates (as you may have noticed since I seem to draw the judging straw for the majority of them). I am extremely fascinated by how and why fans choose to consume sports content. The development of so-called “niche” sports networks – those dedicated to a single sport or league – carry forward the immersion perspective to sports fandom. As the popularity of these networks grows within the diehard fan community (and make no mistake – popularity is increasing), ESPN viewer attrition is a plausible reality. Fans are beginning to shift their focus from a holistic perspective on all sports to a concentration only on the sports and leagues they like the best. Before these networks existed ESPN owned 100 percent of sports fans’ eyeballs. The only possible outcome is for ESPN to no longer own 100 percent of the market. Thus, competition.

The argument from Loyal Homer leads me to believe ESPN viewership will be replaced by the most diehard of information-hungry fans. Therefore, the debate victory is awarded to Loyal Homer.

The first paragraph of Loyal Homer’s argument won me over. The exclusive immersion of content is a tremendous advantage these networks have over what is now becoming a general sports aggregator in ESPN. For ESPN to compete with these exclusive networks they would need to serve almost every conceivable sports master. It is an impossible task, even for ESPN and its many distribution touch points.

Loyal Homer also proved that “niche” networks have improving reporting and are capturing a larger share of the all-important live events. League-affiliated networks also provide access to previously inaccessible events for fans. As Loyal Homer pointed out, NFL junkies love understanding what is happening at the pre-draft rookie combine. The NFL Network provides exclusive access and content never before seen for even the most enthusiastic of fans.

Bleacher Fan made some interesting points, specifically about specialization. While the argument is correct in pointing out these specialist networks’ singular focus, it is precisely the enthusiast audience the content is designed to appeal to. Live events will draw bigger ratings, but the diehard fans are the ones that watch the analysis and other network content on any network, including ESPN. The specialization of each network is designed to appeal to an audience that has previously not been catered to by ESPN’s more holistic sports approach.

Bleacher Fan is correct that the league-owned networks are unable to carry live events year ‘round that draw big ratings. However, as previously stated, that goal is the not the stated purpose of these networks. They are designed to appeal to the 365 day fan of a single league or sport, not the occasional seasonal fan that only watches when their team is doing well. Competition is well-defined and relative in this case. Is the MLB Network looking to displace ESPN? No. But the minds behind the MLB Network have recognized that the diehard 365 day fan is not well served, so they are providing a product to serve the need.

Bleacher Fan is correct that the not every sports fan NEEDS a 24-7 view of MLB’s Winter Meetings. However, if some do (and Loyal Homer points out how value that content is), what’s the harm in filling that void? Passionate fans are a highly sought after crowd for advertisers because they buy the products that sponsor their passion. Those purchases are viewed as if the viewer is giving to a political cause or a charity. If the sponsors are happy the content lives on. And the exclusive networks are now better at attracting these types of fans than ESPN is.

The basic differences I have with Bleacher Fan’s argument boil down to the comparison between shopping for specialty food items and watching sports television. One requires a great deal of effort, the other requires a flip of the channel. Also, those seeking 10 varieties of milk and 50 choices of cereal prefer two separate stores for the depth they seek. Depth trumps efficiency. Therefore, both stores exist for a reason and serve an audience, just not as big of an audience as a general store. Bleacher Fan’s so-called “snob” audience is a real, valid, money-spending audience deserving of content they wish to see. To define the audience for sports as singular is not only invalid, it misses the huge money-making opportunity locked within the enthusiast.

Taking the MLB Network example ever farther, the content, guests on shows, and personalities on the network are all solid. The reporting is solid. The bar was set high in these pillars of sports broadcasting from the start, and that foundational philosophy allowed the network to also be very aggressive in how it penetrated markets. Rather than the soft launch approach many of these channels have used – a few homes while trying to cut sweetheart deals with the various carriers and cable companies – the MLB Network sold minority ownership stakes in the network to all of the big broadcast distributors like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications and DirecTV. Instead of launching in a few million homes as many of the other networks have, MLB Network launched in 53 million homes – including Sports Geek’s home – from day one. For perspective, the MLB Network was in as many homes on day one of its broadcast life as the NFL Network was after six years on air. The MLB’s updated and more aggressive model is better for its stakeholders while also providing a blueprint for the success of present and future niche networks.

That long-winded example is essential to prove a point – these networks are competing with ESPN in every way shape or form, and the viewer attrition just beginning will hit light speed as more networks adopt the successful MLB Network model (keep an eye out for the NHL Network in most homes in 12-18 months). I know when I want baseball news or scores at night during the season I no longer turn on Baseball Tonight – I go for the MLB Network to get stats on the scroll, highlights, and live look-ins at games that are not in my market (this is key for an Indians fan… especially late in the season). The MLB Network is a better baseball product than ESPN, and fans will slowly wake up to a new sports information/broadcast reality – ESPN is no longer mandatory viewing.

The truth is, the more ESPN tinkers with formats, lets columnists clumsily anchor Sportscenter (yes that is YOU RICK REILLY, STOP IT!!!!), and takes credit for reporting done by competitive organizations, the more fans will turn away. ESPN is still a primary destination for the holy grail of sports broadcasting – live events – but it is losing the battle in analysis. Live events are the next target from the networks (see the NFL Network’s model and MLB Network’s Thursday Night Baseball for two examples). Because of the close league ties, getting the live programming will not be an issue, as the league’s sensitively dance around the current but temporary structure of potentially airing competing live content on two networks.

ESPN will always fulfill the needs of the devoted sports fan who desires broad coverage of every sport. But that all-inclusive sports fan has been taken for granted by ESPN. Fan fragmentation is the new reality of sports content, and competitive niche channels are popping up to prove the point. The 100 percent share of eyeballs the network enjoyed for the majority of its life is gone. The answer to the fundamental question – Could ESPN be replaced by viewers? – is yes.

Stay tuned – the next time ESPN must renew rights to a major sports league’s games, the deal will look different. And that is a positive trend for diehard fans.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The [League Name] Network Debate – Could ESPN Be Replaced?

December 15, 2009

Read the arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan about whether or not league affiliated cable networks are beginning to come into their own.



Smart fans – like the kind that read informative and fascinating debates on modern sports – demand information. Well, check that. Smart fans demand GOOD information from reliable sources. Historically sports fans have become extremely reliant upon ESPN. For better or worse, whether we agree with all of the editorial decisions or not, ESPN has been the most reliable, easily accessible source for immediate sports news and information for more than two decades.

But, the way fans are accessing and consuming information is changing. ESPN was the primary information source. Now league-owned and powered networks are beginning to create an alternative to ESPN.

Competing with ESPN requires insightful commentary, solid non-news programming, instant information, access, and great reporting. ESPN has been a champion in each category in recent years. Now niche networks are creating competitive content. The MLB Network is showing it can attract top talent like Harold Reynolds and Peter Gammons. The NFL Network has exclusive rights to very important games like the upcoming games for the New Orleans Saints and Indianapolis Colts as those teams attempt to preserve undefeated seasons. The NBA Network and the NFL Network also have exclusive content that diehard fans want to see.

The number of households a network has penetrated does not matter in this situation. Network growth sometimes comes after the content is proven to be solid. For example, the Big Ten Network was kept out of the majority of households in its first year of existence in much of the Midwest despite the ownership of exclusive content. While not the primary driving force in negotiations, when the non-event related content improved the cable companies and the network did manage to strike a deal that fans benefitted from.

MLB Network is an excellent example of a cable station that is coming into its own. It employs excellent analysts ranging from Harold Reynolds to Al Leiter to Barry Larkin to Sean Casey to Billy Ripkin to some former general managers – former GMs with much better luck staying away from interns. The non-event programming is excellent, too. While Bob Costas is not a personality everyone finds appealing, his show, Studio 42, is widely acclaimed as an excellent interview show. The purpose build, baseball-diamond shaped studio is ideal for creating atmosphere and giving the former players ample space to demonstrate the finer nuances of the game. The lengthy, in-depth documentaries are ideal for the baseball fan that appreciates history and statistics. It is a themed network in the same way Disney is a themed park. Down to the details, MLB Network is appealing to the baseball fan.

So, why would a baseball fan bother with ESPN any longer for baseball content? Sure, Baseball Tonight is a great program, but MLB Network has an hour of pregame for the night’s games, then live look-ins and analysis of each of the night’s biggest moments. In short, ESPN no longer offers any type of content that makes it a destination for baseball fans.

With league-owned networks creating competitive content and reporting to ESPN, will ratings follow? Will these series of networks supplant ESPN as the go to source as fans begin to favor depth over a cursory overview? Fortunately the world has a gift. That gift is called The Sports Debates.

Today’s debate topic: Are league-affiliated networks finally coming into their own?

Loyal Homer will argue that league-affiliated networks are starting to come into their own, citing moves like the MLB Network’s recent announcement that former ESPN baseball reporter Peter Gammons is leaving the worldwide leader for the MLB Network. Bleacher Fan will argue that the niche league-affiliated networks are not coming into their own and ESPN will remain the supreme source for sports news and information.

Now, begin the debate. I’m going to flip on the MLB Network and watch Hot Stove.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The [League Name] Network Debate – In MOST David versus Goliath stories, Goliath Wins for a Reason!

December 15, 2009

Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that league affiliated television networks are finally coming into their own.



Golf Channel, Tennis Channel, NHL Network, MLB Network, NBA TV, NFL Network – when will it all stop?!

Don’t get me wrong, I have enjoyed many different programs on these various sport and league-affiliated networks. Does that mean that there is a need for 24-hour coverage of each sport individually, or that these networks should be considered viable competition for more established sports-themed networks such as ESPN or Fox Sports? Absolutely not.

Too much specialization

I give the MLB Network a great deal of credit for being able to sign Peter Gammons, a HIGHLY respected baseball reporter who will bring credibility and outstanding insight to the MLB Network. What Gammons will not bring, however, is a noteworthy increase in viewership. Sure, there are fans out there who seek out Gammons’ opinions and reports, and they will hungrily seek out his input and analysis no matter where it is housed. The ‘Gammons Army’ is not, however, so great that it will single-handedly propel a niche network into legitimate competition against major networks.

The problem that the MLB Network faces (as well as other league-specific networks) is that it is a network based solely on events, and those events do not run year-round. While MLB Network may be able to provide occasional programming that is noteworthy, it will not be able to provide ENOUGH programming to sustain a full-time network that can effectively COMPETE with those major networks. There is just not enough baseball to talk about 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Eventually, the repetitive and excessive over-analysis of the same events becomes overkill. While I may want to know the details about the pending trade that would involve Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay, I don’t need to hear about what seven different people think about it over a period of four hours tonight, and then another ten opinions on it tomorrow!

Each sport separately makes for great headlines from time to time, and when a big story breaks it is nice to be able to utilize the league-specific networks as ONE of the resources at our disposal to find out more about a situation. Where ESPN or the Fox Sports Network holds an advantage, though, is in not restricting reporting only one sport. Instead, they can focus on those sports and events that are most relevant REGARDLESS of the sport the event occurs in. That flexibility allows those major networks to report any news that happens from any sport, rather than try to create news even in times when nothing truly newsworthy is happening. Honestly, do we REALLY need 24-hour a day news coverage of winter meetings?

Think about specialty-food stores. There are going to be times where you as a consumer are looking for a specific product, and you know that the best quality product you can find is at one of those specialty food stores. However, it is foolish and wasteful to go to the milk store, then the bread store, then the egg store, pasta store, etc, EVERY time you go grocery shopping. More often than not, the practical (and nonetheless effective) choice is to go to a one-stop shop where you can get everything you need in a quick and efficient manner.

The Power of the Masses

Separately, each league-affiliated network offers certain programming that is worth tuning in for. As Sports Geek pointed out, the NFL Network has exclusive rights to very important games. The problem that these specialty networks face is that there are very few fans exclusive to their sport. MOST fans of baseball are ALSO fans of football, or basketball, and vice versa. You cannot expect the average sports fan to segment out and schedule when and how they get sports news and updates from separate locations when there is a viable product already in place that provides COMPREHENSIVE coverage of the collective sporting world. It would be like opening a shoe store that sells only left shoes. Sure, there will be people out there who need a left shoe, and the quality of that left shoe may be unsurpassed, but those same people are also interested in purchasing a right shoe. If you can’t provide it, they will probably go somewhere else for their shoe needs.

There will always be aficionados (the term snob also comes to mind) who laud the merits of specialized products. Food-aficionados (snobs) swear by organic products and natural foods. For movie-aficionados (snobs), they will insist upon the merits of “indie films” and swear off the big-budget, no-story-having, mass-produced, over-commercialized, under-performed movies of the major studios. While those aficionados (snobs) may be correct when they swear that the specialized product they love is of a higher quality, it does not change the fact that their product does not appeal to the population at-large.

The target demographic for specialized products is very important, and should not be overlooked. However, they represent only a small portion of the population at-large. As much as aficionados despise major corporations for pandering to the masses – and will curse the masses for being under-informed, mindless sheep – it is the masses that hold the power of determining success or failure in the marketplace. The masses hold all the cards, and the masses like having a single resource to provide them with the information they desire.

For the same reason that a Farmer’s Market should not strive to compete with Wal-Mart, niche-based networks should not strive to compete with ESPN… they will NEVER win!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The [League Name] Network Debate – I Want More Information… NOW!

December 15, 2009

Read the debate intro and the argument from Bleacher Fan.



I absolutely love Hot Stove time in Major League Baseball. I was eating up all on the information last week during the Winter Meetings. Outside of maybe the NFL draft, it’s my favorite non-game related sporting event of the year. One day I am going to be in the same town as the Winter Meetings just so I can feel the buzz from possible trades and free agent signings. Being a huge fan of baseball I am constantly looking for information. I often need a baseball fix 24-7, even during the off-season. Having a cable channel focused fully on baseball is a dream come true. Unfortunately, I do not have MLB Network on Dish Network. Bleacher Fan and Sports Geek both have it, and they often like to rub that fact in just a tad (Editor’s note: It is more than a tad. We rub it in a lot.). I have a fever, and the only prescription is MLB Network! The point is that it is a huge benefit to have a channel devoted exclusively to a sport. Exclusivity is a tremendous advantage to over other sports networks like ESPN.

As Sports Geek stated in the intro, MLB Network has recently hired Peter Gammons, who was employed at ESPN for twenty years. You will not find many more credible people in sports media than Peter Gammons. He is well respected in the business by players, front office personnel, and by other members of the media. You may recall that Gammons is the journalist Alex Rodriguez chose to interview him back before the 2009 season began when it was deemed that A-Rod tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs. By leaving ESPN, Gammons leaves a void there, and fills a void at MLB Network.

As you can probably tell from my previous articles I am also a huge fan of the NFL. Finally, after switching from cable to satellite two years ago, I have access to the NFL Network. I did not have the channel for quite some time… and it aggravated me because I wasn’t able to watch the Thursday night NFL games and the Saturday night December games. In fact, the network has a big game this Saturday night featuring the undefeated New Orleans Saints against the Dallas Cowboys in a huge game for Dallas. The network obviously also has ‘round the clock coverage of games from the previous week, analysis, classic games, and much more. It is the perfect channel for NFL junkies like me

I do not have to wait for NFL Live to come on ESPN. I do not have to listen to the latest developments on Tiger Woods. I can just watch a show that is 100 percent football and get the in-depth knowledge I crave. I know ESPN covers professional football heavily, and I have no problem with its coverage. But if, in the middle of the day, and I want to watch football I am turning the channel to the NFL Network. I also change the channel in the weeks leading up to the NFL draft, as the NFL Network provides hours and hours of coverage, even televising the scouting combines. ESPN does not do that.

My point is not to diss ESPN. My point is that the niche networks are able to carry exclusive content and are able to focus solely on one sport, year-round. ESPN has several sports to cover and obviously cannot go as far as NFL Network, MLB Network, NBA TV, or the NHL Network with its coverage.

Now, excuse me while I go call Dish Network to complain again about not having the MLB Network.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.