I think the bigger problem is the above reads like you actually value the comments on ESPN's articles.
ESPN Is Pathetic
- Thread starter Lose Remerswaal
- Start date
terrisus said:
Linking commenting accounts to Facebook accounts has been one of the best recent developments in the blogosphere. It forces people to use their real names and creates a generally more civil commenting atmosphere.
Orel Miraculous said:
Companies like ESPN link their comments to the Facebook exchange because that's how you amplify what is referred to in the industry as your "social footprint." It's the social equivalent to what SEO and SEM were two or three years ago.
The fact that it might promote more civil behavior is nice, but it is an unintended consequence of an explicit ESPN marketing strategy.
But why does ESPN care about that?Orel Miraculous said:
Average Reds said:
And there we are...
kenneycb said:
Nah, I think I only posted like 4 comments there, all about errors they made in their articles.
I just don't like Facebook.
I think you mentioned you were in your 20's.. I thought all you young uns were into Facebook. Why don't you like it?terrisus said:
richgedman'sghost said:
Well, I'm 30 now, but still, on the younger side of things.
But, having had the internet for over 17 years now, I think I'm just a bit "get off my lawn" about all this Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Blogs/etc. stuff now. Give me a good, old-fashioned website (which, of course, ESPN can't seem to do anymore).
I'm 29 and have joined the "too cool for facebook" crowd.
When Facebook came out and you needed a college/university email address to access it, it was great. Between Facebook and AOL instant messenger (is that even still around?), I got every piece of info I needed and wasn't over saturated with shit I didn't care about.
Once Facebook allowed anyone to join, the floodgates opened and that was pretty much it for me.
When Facebook came out and you needed a college/university email address to access it, it was great. Between Facebook and AOL instant messenger (is that even still around?), I got every piece of info I needed and wasn't over saturated with shit I didn't care about.
Once Facebook allowed anyone to join, the floodgates opened and that was pretty much it for me.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
Yup, AOL Instant Messenger is still around (and, I'm still using the same AOL email address for my email that I've had since the mid-90s, despite having my own domain and being able to create 1000 email addresses through that if I wanted). Things like that are the most convenient thing for me - I use Yahoo Messenger to talk to my wife when we're on computers in different rooms. And, if I want news or information or something, I go to the website that I want it from.
I've just never had any need at all for something like Facebook, and seeing it creeping into other websites as well is just annoying.
Was it difficult to type that in your skinny jeans between sips of PBR tallboys?Kenny F'ing Powers said:
You act like it's intrusive and in your face in every article but I honestly had no idea ESPN used it until someone posted about it upthread. You have to go to the end of the article, past the ESPN headlines, past the sponsored headlines and then you reach an area that looks exactly like the old comments but with an actual name and face attached instead of an avatar and user name like "JetsSanchizeLover6969".terrisus said:
kenneycb said:
Well, it's intrusive in the sense that, if one did want to post a comment, that's the only option. While, yes, ESPN's comments section are kind of a joke, and so it's more a matter of the issue in general as opposed to actually wanting to use the comments section, I'm just not in favor of everything being brought together under one system like that. If someone wants to post a comment on ESPN, they want to post a comment on ESPN. If they wanted to use Facebook, they would be on Facebook.
Why not just sign up for Facebook and never use it except for such scenarios. You don't even have to use your real name? Is it that much different than creating an ESPN login?
Twenty of them picked Toronto to win the division. And since when is Stephania Bell a baseball expert, fantasy or otherwise?
So I should have listened to Paul the Octopus' analysis because he was good at predicting the World Cup?
And, no, I don't really consider many of them experts but that's more because of the content of their work, not a fruitless exercise most spent five minutes on.
And, no, I don't really consider many of them experts but that's more because of the content of their work, not a fruitless exercise most spent five minutes on.
Chris Carter on mike n mike this am. Talking about his high school team he coaches. Mike asked if the kids were old enough to remember him. CC said some were trash talking him saying they never heard of him. He said he told then to google him or go ask your momma about me. Your momma will tell you. Ha, he didn't realize he insinuated fucking mothers.
SportsCenter did their Top 10 World Series Walk Off Hits list this morning. Fisk was #8. 8 out of 10 for Fisk. Mookie Wilson was #7.
Really? I know most never saw the point of game seven, but they did play it.PC Drunken Friar said:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN198610270.shtml
Did the Sox win game 7 in '75? So even with Fisk's HR, they lost. That is enough to knock it down a couple spots.
PC Drunken Friar said:
What were the plays in the 1-6 spots? Without those, it's hard to determine their criteria. If more emphasis is given to teams that went on to win the Series, It makes sense. If not, no way is Mookie hitting a weak roller to a hobbled first baseman a bigger walk-off than Fisk.
If I were doing the list, I'd have Joe Carter ('93), Bill Mazeroski ('60), Luis Gonzalez ('01), Gene Larkin ('91) and Edgar Renteria ('97) ahead of Fisk for sure...being that those walk-offs ended the Series not just a game. Put Kirk Gibson at 6 and suddenly Fisk at #7 or #8 kinda makes sense, personal rooting interests aside.
Yea, I guess it is hard to tell without hearing the audio. I can understand how hearing it might change my mind.garlan5 said:
garlan5 said:
I totally don't. I take ask your Momma to mean your Momma remembers how good I was at football. That's a weird interpretation unless you left something out.
Mazeroski was #1 (rightly so). I forget most of the list since I was so traumatized by Fisk being #8. Luis Gonzalez, Joe Carter, Renteria, Kirby Puckett and David Freese were all above Fisk and Mookie.Red(s)HawksFan said:
cromulence said:
well he could have said your father. ask your father. but he kinda gave a little cocky laugh thing if i remember correctly... like ahuh, ahuh, ask your momma about me. she'll remember or something similar. i completely understand what he meant. just the way it came off was funny.
ifmanis5 said:
Well then how did Larkin's get screwed? It ended the Series (and was in extra innings of a scoreless game to boot) but they ranked three hits that didn't end a series ahead of it (Puckett, Freese, and Pudge). I guess it gets knocked down because it was a dinky little hit that was only even a hit because of the defense's positioning, but that is also the exact description of Luis Gonzalez's hit.
On NFL Countdown today the panel of six were talking about the Philly QB situation and whether Nick Foles should be definitively be declared the starting QB over Vick. So, Keyshawn Johnson chimes in and says he had a conversation with Bill Belichick when the Patriots had an up and coming young QB who was having a hot hand and an established QB, and he (Keyshawn) said he recommended to Bill that he go with the young guy. So, Keyshawn was playing for Tampa Bay at the time (2001) and he's giving advice to Bill Belichick? OK, they were both with the Jets 1997 to 1999 and maybe KJ runs into BB on the sideline in 2001 and Bill says he's got these two QBs and KJ gave the recommendation he says he did. Except, the Pats and the Bucs didn't play each other in 2001. Whatever, Keyshawn is often full of it. The guy on that panel I like the most by far is Cris Carter, the least by far is the new guy, Ray Lewis. Well, Tom Jackson. Overall, to me, that's one of the better ESPN shows though.
Thanks. Preseason 2001 though, I think Brady's chances of starting over Bledsoe were slim and none. Still, we have heard the stories about Tom's almost maniacal hard work and enthusiasm during the preseason while Bledsoe was showing up barely on time for practices looking half asleep.Dollar said:
ESPN FC published a piece praising Qatar's World Cup preparations by Phil Ball (whose work I usually like, and whose book Morbo is very good), after Ball went on an all-expenses paid junket to Qatar. ESPN seems to have pulled the piece, as it's now gone from the front page and I can't find a working link.
Here's Deadspin's summary: http://deadspin.com/espn-writer-takes-all-expenses-paid-trip-to-qatar-love-1469590906
Here's Deadspin's summary: http://deadspin.com/espn-writer-takes-all-expenses-paid-trip-to-qatar-love-1469590906
Oh Boy! NFL Countdown is going to do a segment entitled "The Patriot Way or the Highway" and will sit down with several former Patriots (Bledsoe, Milloy, McGinest, Law, etc.) who were cast aside for cheaper replacements and get their take on the Patriot Way. The link doesn't mention interviewing them, but Bruce Allen on his blog says that will be the case.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/102339/sunday-countdown-welker-lett-more
This should be riveting television
EDIT: Typo
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/102339/sunday-countdown-welker-lett-more
This should be riveting television
EDIT: Typo
Phil is upset that people want Qatar to lose the World Cup over what the Guardian said amounted to "modern day slavery" (that and the fact that male homosexuality is illegal there), then whitewashed the issue because Qatari officials told him on his propaganda expedition that everything will be alright. And because hey they're super rich.
I can't imagine what they were thinking when they published it in the first place.
And this is why people get stupid when they watch non-events on espn:
The premise of talking to players who were let go by a productive team is a good one. But that last sentence is why ESPN -- and most sports commentary -- just sucks. "Titles" is not the opposite of "stay near the top." It just pisses me off that there are people who get paid money to come up with "ideas" like that without ever being told, "no."
What person *not* suffering from CTE can argue that the organization's "strategy" has *not* kept them "near the top." It's virtually beyond dispute: They have their strategy, and they are on a virtually unprecedented run of success in this era.
Next up on "At ESPN the "n" Stands for 'moron'": Was Branch Rickey a Baseball Pioneer or a Shitty Catcher.
The premise of talking to players who were let go by a productive team is a good one. But that last sentence is why ESPN -- and most sports commentary -- just sucks. "Titles" is not the opposite of "stay near the top." It just pisses me off that there are people who get paid money to come up with "ideas" like that without ever being told, "no."
What person *not* suffering from CTE can argue that the organization's "strategy" has *not* kept them "near the top." It's virtually beyond dispute: They have their strategy, and they are on a virtually unprecedented run of success in this era.
Next up on "At ESPN the "n" Stands for 'moron'": Was Branch Rickey a Baseball Pioneer or a Shitty Catcher.
Now, I'm hearing that the premise is that the Patriots Way is about replacing Patriot players with "lesser known" ones, not necessarily cheaper ones.
EDIT: Funny, over the summer, the Patriots Way was about eschewing bad guys for high character guys.
EDIT: Funny, over the summer, the Patriots Way was about eschewing bad guys for high character guys.
