Are hosts becoming too hyperbolic these days about

[Steve J. Rogers 0]

There was a funny error on Mike & Mike ESPN Radio show the other day, not funny in terms of what was said (but it speaks to a greater issue I have with national sports radio hosts) but who actually said it.

 

Mel Kiper Jr was on Mike & Mike In The Morning on Thursday previewing Saturday's USC-Notre Dame game and Mel wondered if there was ever a game featuring 4 possible Heisman Trophy finalists and he honestly could not come up with one. This is Mel Kiper Jr. A GURU when it comes to major college football. Granted he subscribes to Mel Allen's (or maybe it was Red Barber) theory on calling horse racing where you block out everything about past racing so you can concentrate on the race at hand (except of course horses are generally forgoten by the masses after the race usually, here Mel is talking about something that is followed greatly and passionatly by millions all over the USA, I'd think remembering past events is key to talking about the sport) but how in the BLUIEST OF HELLS did he forget that all FOUR of the 2004 top canidates played in the BCS Championship game IN JANUARY!

 

What I mean in terms of the greater issue of Mel's gaffe is that ESPN's national hosts (and this is a TV thing as well) have a thing where they seem to want to be the first to anoit something as the best ever, or the most exciting ever, ect. Almost like they won't let history do the judging, they want to be right there saying that what we are witnessing is the absoulte best.

 

Perfect example, every September now Mike Greenberg keeps saying that he can't remember a more exciting pennant race, or that the current races are among the most exciting in recent memory.

 

What I'd love to hear is an actual breakdown of what these hosts do think is the top 5 or so of whatever they are being so hyperbolic about when it comes to the current situation, but that would mean that hosts would have to admit that something DID HAPPEN BEFORE LAST MONTH!

 

Its getting to the point where these commentators are getting pro-wrestling annoucer bad with hyperbole, and at least in pro-wrestling you can use the excuse that the announcer is trying to promote the upcoming PPV, or he wants you to buy the replay or the DVD when it comes out. Sure its way too over the top most of the time (Tony S of WCW was the biggest culprit with his "...in the history of our sport!" lines that seemed to border on self parody by the end) but at least it has a legit purpose

 

These commentors on radio and TV, aren't really doing that, or at least thats not really their job description.

 

 

Steve

[Guest Vitamin X]

Well no shit sherlock, it's their job.

[Damaramu 0]

ESPN doesn't have journalist on TV. If they did they wouldn't display bias like Mark May does towards USC or Hodge does against the Eagles. They hire personalities.

[Steve J. Rogers 0]

Well no shit sherlock, it's their job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My point is, they really aren't selling programing, so there is no real need to go "Boy, I don't remeber the last time 4 possible Heisman canidates were on the same field" since the game is on NBC

 

I see your point if all they (talking just ESPN now) were hyping were soley seen on ESPN and/or ABC, but the events (or athletes themselves in come cases) aren't

 

My point is, they seem to be kneejerk historians rather than developing an actual list and say "Boy, this race has to rank up there all time. Not quite 78 Yankees/Red Sox or 93 Braves/Giants, but it has to be in a top ten at least"

 

The job is as an analysist or a commentator. There is no real need for hyperbole in these cases

[Guest Finch]

Lane just hit a ball out of Minute Maid that you could only pull off in wiffle ball. That is a joke

[Guest Vitamin X]

Well no shit sherlock, it's their job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My point is, they really aren't selling programing, so there is no real need to go "Boy, I don't remeber the last time 4 possible Heisman canidates were on the same field" since the game is on NBC

 

I see your point if all they (talking just ESPN now) were hyping were soley seen on ESPN and/or ABC, but the events (or athletes themselves in come cases) aren't

 

My point is, they seem to be kneejerk historians rather than developing an actual list and say "Boy, this race has to rank up there all time. Not quite 78 Yankees/Red Sox or 93 Braves/Giants, but it has to be in a top ten at least"

 

The job is as an analysist or a commentator. There is no real need for hyperbole in these cases

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's all still just a tool to get their promotion of the events they're working on, for their company, across.

 

That, and also like they want to seem qualified like they know what they're talking about, by being, as you said, kneejerk historians.

[JustJoe2k5 0]

I always thought of Mel Kiper as the "draft expert", he is rarely around when they talk college football. Perhaps he was talking about the last time during the regular college season that a game took place involving four possible Heisman finalists.

[Steve J. Rogers 0]

I always thought of Mel Kiper as the "draft expert", he is rarely around when they talk college football.  Perhaps he was talking about the last time during the regular college season that a game took place involving four possible Heisman finalists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is no "postseason" in college football, the Bowl counts towards the official total record of the regular season

 

Mel Kiper also does a regular sports talk show in Baltimore and on ESPN Game Day on weekends. Probably just to justify his most likely hefty salary for what would be a couple of weeks worth of work in and around the NFL draft

 

Another example of Mel having no use for sports history (difference between use and knowledge) is that when asked when was the first time a Yankee ever pitched a perfect game at Yankee Stadium he simply said "I don't know, can't answer that"

 

Even if you don't have a clue you should still offer up Don Larsen in the 1956 WS as a GUESS! A simple "I don't know, Larsen?" would have sufficed as it was one of the most famous, and to this day most talked about moments in baseball history

 

Unbelieveable, his cohost that day couldn't belive it as well.

 

Steve

[Guest Vitamin X]

I wouldn't have known the answer to that either, I don't even know who the fuck Don Larsen is until you mentioned that, since I care little for baseball. My point is what does his knowledge of baseball have to do with his knowledge for football?

 

I'm afraid I don't understand that argument. I don't think anyone knows everything about every major sport in the country, people have their favorite sports they're more into or not. I'd think that would also extend to sports journalists as well.

[Steve J. Rogers 0]

I wouldn't have known the answer to that either, I don't even know who the fuck Don Larsen is until you mentioned that, since I care little for baseball. My point is what does his knowledge of baseball have to do with his knowledge for football?

 

I'm afraid I don't understand that argument. I don't think anyone knows everything about every major sport in the country, people have their favorite sports they're more into or not. I'd think that would also extend to sports journalists as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kiper considers himself a causal baseball fan, Kiper is a general sports host on a national sports radio network.

 

That point there was, he should have at least said "I don't know, Larsen?" as any one with passing knowlege of sports history, or at least one working in the business should know.

 

You are not in the business (if you are then I apologize) and you seem very football orientated so if you were, then there is no reason why you would be having a rational discussion of baseball from a historical perspective.

 

Look, the argument isn't "They shouldn't be qualified to talk about other sports" The point is their tendancy to overhype the here and now without real evidence that what they are overhyping does in fact belong in the discussion of top, whatever they are calling one of the best ever.

 

Just happens that Kiper made a gaffe here with something that happened back in Jan, and its just a gaffe, I mean its hard to remember something that happened last week. The point was more the discussion of how there were 4 potential Heisman canidates out there in South Bend Saturday and the fact that in Kiper's opinion it must be one of the greatest assemblages of talent in recent memory.

 

The problem is more with the overhyping of the game, of the moment rather than just letting it happen. "USC undefeated and #1, ND having a great year, hey we have several possible Heisman canidates on both sides as well, NBC 3:00, this should be a classic" THATS how its done, no hyperbole, no felettos to any of the players, just some soild anaylsis with some opinions about how you think the game is going to go

 

Steve

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The idea that an analyst with the last name "Kiper" could miss that makes me very sad (it's pronounced exactly like mine).

[Guest Vitamin X]

I wouldn't have known the answer to that either, I don't even know who the fuck Don Larsen is until you mentioned that, since I care little for baseball. My point is what does his knowledge of baseball have to do with his knowledge for football?

 

I'm afraid I don't understand that argument. I don't think anyone knows everything about every major sport in the country, people have their favorite sports they're more into or not. I'd think that would also extend to sports journalists as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kiper considers himself a causal baseball fan, Kiper is a general sports host on a national sports radio network.

 

That point there was, he should have at least said "I don't know, Larsen?" as any one with passing knowlege of sports history, or at least one working in the business should know.

 

You are not in the business (if you are then I apologize) and you seem very football orientated so if you were, then there is no reason why you would be having a rational discussion of baseball from a historical perspective.

 

Look, the argument isn't "They shouldn't be qualified to talk about other sports" The point is their tendancy to overhype the here and now without real evidence that what they are overhyping does in fact belong in the discussion of top, whatever they are calling one of the best ever.

 

Just happens that Kiper made a gaffe here with something that happened back in Jan, and its just a gaffe, I mean its hard to remember something that happened last week. The point was more the discussion of how there were 4 potential Heisman canidates out there in South Bend Saturday and the fact that in Kiper's opinion it must be one of the greatest assemblages of talent in recent memory.

 

The problem is more with the overhyping of the game, of the moment rather than just letting it happen. "USC undefeated and #1, ND having a great year, hey we have several possible Heisman canidates on both sides as well, NBC 3:00, this should be a classic" THATS how its done, no hyperbole, no felettos to any of the players, just some soild anaylsis with some opinions about how you think the game is going to go

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ah, missed the part about him being a general sports host. I'd always thought of Kiper more as a football guy anyways, and it's pretty sad that the event happened just this past January and he doesn't know, so yeah I could see your point there.

 

But again, with the overhyping, how is what was said any different than what you suggested? It's not like it was overblown in any sense, and it was a historically great instant classic, so it lived up to and possibly even exceeded the hype.

 

I think when it comes to fellatios to the players, it's the sports media's need to create stars, which often happens in college football, since there's new kids coming in and trying to make a name for themselves literally every year. They need to hype up a player on a team to make the viewer think the game will be important because of THAT player and THAT player alone. Watch any commercial hyping just about any Falcons, Packers, Patriots, or Colts game and you'd almost think there's noone else on any of those teams but Vick, Favre, Brady, or Manning. Another example is how much I saw TBS hype up Adrian Peterson before this past Saturday's game with Oklahoma vs. Kansas, a game which is pretty much inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but it gives an air of importance to the game, and may want to make the viewer tune in (which then leads to them watching the game, inviting others to watch the game and its advertisements and buying products from watching those advertisements during the game, which then recycles back into our great capitalist circle of consumerism we call sports broadcasting).

 

Watching the sportscenter anchor reality show ESPN had a while back, kind of gave a little bit on insight as to what they have to go through, they don't just have to be a regular old PBP or color guy, they have to be a "broadcast PERSONALITY" and pretend like they have some value or importance if they're not already some kind of player. Part of their job also entails that they hype up the players and games as much as possible, for the network to be successful, at least certainly in the network's view.

 

I, personally, don't have that big a problem with it, since I tend to generally ignore a lot of television sports personalities and sports shows as it is, since it's generally the same bullshit you'll get reading the paper or talking sports with your buddies or even here on TSM. I think what's much worse is when Al Michaels or even worse Joe Buck start shilling things that have nothing to do with the game at hand DURING the game. That's far more irritating to me, but again, we all for the most part accept that because we know they're just doing their job. I think it's more or less the same principle with the hyperbole.

[alfdogg 0]

 

"That was the worst pass in the history of basketball."

[The Czech Republic 0]

What is WITH that freakin' Baltimore accent, anyway?

 

Oh, also:

Chris Berman, I've heard of being out of shape, but this is ridiculous!

[Guest Finch]

Robert Horry is the greatest inbounder in NBA history

 

[Precious Roy 0]

Robert Horry is the greatest inbounder in NBA history

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

he isn't?

[nl5xsk1 0]

While I don't necessarily agree with this assessment 100%, I do agree that the media is too bent on making current players, games, whatever to be "the best ever".

[Damaramu 0]

Once again. The problem with ESPN is that most of the guys you see on TV are not journalist. They're former athletes or TV personalities with personal bias(something a journalist is not supposed to show in their work) and they're just looking to say something edgy or shocking on TV for attention and ratings. There is basically no journalistic integrity in anything ESPN does.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

It's not just sports journalism. Basically any kind of media coverage goes overboard in regards to "BEST/WORST/MOST/LEAST *insert subject that's being covered* EVER!..."

[Slayer 0]

The idea that an analyst with the last name "Kiper" could miss that makes me very sad (it's pronounced exactly like mine).

Damn, I was always calling you "Al Kipper"

[Damaramu 0]

It's not just sports journalism. Basically any kind of media coverage goes overboard in regards to "BEST/WORST/MOST/LEAST *insert subject that's being covered* EVER!..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah well it's funny because my media writer's handbook says not to say things like "best ever" or "worst ever" and stuff like that. It says to present the facts and let the reader decide.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What the media writer's handbook and what your dipshit boss want are two different things, young grasshopper...