Ever notice how ESPN is just absurd sometimes?

[Eja117]

It annoys the heck out of me. There. I said it.

Like how is this newsworthy?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4443297

Or the time they named Michael Jordan athlete of the century? He fell flat on his face at minor league baseball and he's not even a top 3 basketball player.

And don't even get me started on the whole if it were possible for a corporation to marry a person they would have married Brett Farve a long time ago thing....making them guilty of polygamy due to their marriage to MJ as well. 

They're worship of Brett reminds me of Citizen Kane when the guy's newspaper keeps saying his wife is a great singer, even though we can all see she's not

Is it just me? Has it been since the Disney thing?

[indeedproceed]

Honestly, I've been following the Dirk story. Pretty heavily.

[dark_lord]

he's not even a top 3 basketball player.

i agree with a few of your points, however, how can u not have jordan in your top 3?

[Eja117]

Honestly, I've been following the Dirk story. Pretty heavily.

I admit I've been following Pitino, but player's personal lives just don't interest me much.

[Donoghus]

First of all, Jordan not in the top 3 is kinda ridiculous, IMO.

ESPN has definitely gotten away from what made them such a great network back in the day.  I do think Disney's acquisition of them is a big part of it.  

Sportscenter is a far cry from what it used to be.  There's all these corporate sponsored segments and they really have gotten away from the highlights.  

Also, the ridiculousness of their "breaking news".  They try to take credit for anything that happens in the sports world and make it act like they're the ones "breaking" it.  Has anyone read some of those breaking news items on the Bottomline?  

I thought they fumbled the ball real bad on the Rothliesberger story. It was news and should've been reported, not totally ignored and I think the decision had to do with the fact that Rothliesberger was set to appear on an ABC/ESPN production the following week.   That just looks bad.  

They beat stories into the ground whether its the Favre comeback, Plaxico, Vick, or even Spygate.  IMO, they were on such a witchhunt with the Spygate thing and couldn't find enough people to throw the Pats under the bus.

Honestly, I still watch ESPN but its a shell of its self now.

[moiso]

There is obviouly a lot of Favre coverage, but a lot it is negative in nature.  I really don't think they are kissing his butt.

[Eja117]

he's not even a top 3 basketball player.

i agree with a few of your points, however, how can u not have jordan in your top 3?

Easy

Oscar Robertson
Bill Russell
Magic
Kareem
Wilt
Larry
Shaq
Sabonis

I guess that's it.  
Minor explanation.....Larry and Magic are in there because had MJ played in the 80s there's no way he wins 6 rings. He gets maybe 2 or 3 just like them

Shaq is there, because had he played with a dominant big I don't think MJ become MJ. He becomes D Wade with more rings.

Sabonis is there because if Mj had entered the league at the age of 30 MJ wouldn't be MJ

[nickagneta]

Please explain the whole "Jordan isn't a Top 3 player" thing. That makes no sense. Chamberlain is probably the only basketball player who I would put in front of him and that's only a might. Jordan is a guaranteed top 2 player all time.

And yes, they do fall in love with promoting certain athletes but they are in the business of making money and Kobe, Lebron, MJ, Brady, Manning, Favre, ARod, Pujols, Jeter, Tiger, and other famous athletes sell.

I will say that they have dropped the ball and report a lot more tabloid journalism stuff, but again, that sells.

[Eja117]

Please explain the whole "Jordan isn't a Top 3 player" thing. That makes no sense. Chamberlain is probably the only basketball player who I would put in front of him and that's only a might. Jordan is a guaranteed top 2 player all time.

And yes, they do fall in love with promoting certain athletes but they are in the business of making money and Kobe, Lebron, MJ, Brady, Manning, Favre, ARod, Pujols, Jeter, Tiger, and other famous athletes sell.

I will say that they have dropped the ball and report a lot more tabloid journalism stuff, but again, that sells.

I think Jordan was sort of the best of a weak era. I think had certain other players been around he wouldn't have been what he was. All it would have taken was one Duncan or Shaq or Magic or Larry in his prime and MJ wouldn't have all the rings.

I mean the Sonics?  The Blazers? The old as heck Lakers? These are the teams he beat? The Stockton/Mailman teams were the best he played, and he shoved off on the last one. 

[fairweatherfan]

Sabonis is there because if Mj had entered the league at the age of 30 MJ wouldn't be MJ

I don't quite follow this - if any other player on the list had entered the league at 30 they wouldn't be as great as they were.  Why apply the standard only to Jordan?  Heck, if Jordan had driven his car into a train at 25 he wouldn't be MJ, so does that mean Eddie Griffin was a better player?

Shaq is there, because had he played with a dominant big I don't think MJ become MJ. He becomes D Wade with more rings.

Possibly, though MJ did plenty that D Wade has never come close to accomplishing.  Shouldn't you apply the same logic to Shaq and say if he didn't have Kobe and D-Wade to play with he'd just be Patrick Ewing with more points?  And ultimately shouldn't players be judged on the career they actually had, rather than a hypothetical career you make up yourself?

I hated Jordan when he played, and his ring count is exaggerated due to lack of elite competition for the Bulls, but I can't deny he has to be considered a top 3 individual player.  Only Wilt and Oscar Robertson have a real case to be considered above him.  LeBron might years down the road as well.


On the topic - yeah, ESPN's big problem is that with the Internet, scores, analysis, all the stuff that deals with the actual games is available everywhere for free now.  So they have to follow off-the-court stuff, controversies, and make stupid lists to be able to put anything out there that's even close to unique content. 

[Eja117]

Sabonis is there because if Mj had entered the league at the age of 30 MJ wouldn't be MJ

I don't quite follow this - if any other player on the list had entered the league at 30 they wouldn't be as great as they were.  Why apply the standard only to Jordan?  Heck, if Jordan had driven his car into a train at 25 he wouldn't be MJ, so does that mean Eddie Griffin was a better player?

Shaq is there, because had he played with a dominant big I don't think MJ become MJ. He becomes D Wade with more rings.

Possibly, though MJ did plenty that D Wade has never come close to accomplishing.  Shouldn't you apply the same logic to Shaq and say if he didn't have Kobe and D-Wade to play with he'd just be Patrick Ewing with more points?  And ultimately shouldn't players be judged on the career they actually had, rather than a hypothetical career you make up yourself?

I hated Jordan when he played, and his ring count is exaggerated due to lack of elite competition for the Bulls, but I can't deny he has to be considered a top 3 individual player.  Only Wilt and Oscar Robertson have a real case to be considered above him.  LeBron might years down the road as well.


On the topic - yeah, ESPN's big problem is that with the Internet, scores, analysis, all the stuff that deals with the actual games is available everywhere for free now.  So they have to follow off-the-court stuff, controversies, and make stupid lists to be able to put anything out there that's even close to unique content. 

Good counter points both. I yield on those.

But cross era comparison is totally legit so hypothetical careers count for something

So are you guys saying a team of 5 Jordans beats almost any other team of 5 guys? I'm not so sure.

[SCBirdman]

Please explain the whole "Jordan isn't a Top 3 player" thing. That makes no sense. Chamberlain is probably the only basketball player who I would put in front of him and that's only a might. Jordan is a guaranteed top 2 player all time.

And yes, they do fall in love with promoting certain athletes but they are in the business of making money and Kobe, Lebron, MJ, Brady, Manning, Favre, ARod, Pujols, Jeter, Tiger, and other famous athletes sell.

I will say that they have dropped the ball and report a lot more tabloid journalism stuff, but again, that sells.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but I would definitely rate Magic Johnson ahead of Jordan. To me, that is a no-brainer. If Magic had played on those bulls teams, his numbers would have been even better than MJ's.

Wilt, Russell, and Bird come to mind as others I would rate ahead of Jordan.

Was he the most spectacular player ever, as far as unbelievable athletic plays? Yes, but he never made his teammates better like those other guys did. Playing the game entails more than hanging your tongue out, spreading your legs and dunking.

[chakfu]

Jordan was definitely the best of the weakest era we've seen in NBA history.  That and a little help from the refs got them their 6 titles.

You can make a strong argument for Jordan anywhere from 1-6 all time, IMO.    I'll take some combination of Bird/Magic/Russell and 1-3.  Throw Big O, Wilt, and MJ in the mix for 3-6.   But you could honestly wind up with just about any order for all 6.   LeBron could wind up in there eventually.

But what IS a joke is how espn and the NBA machine have glorified and deified Jordan to the point of basically declaring him the greatest ever by a level of magnitude over everyone else (with only Kobe coming close, ha!!!!).     That is an absolute insult to Russell/Bird/Magic and the other candidates for the title of the greatest.

Kobe is actually like Jordan to a scary extent - but a better shooter.   Kobe's downfall is that he has Jordan's flaw of selfishness, but to an even greater extent!   To the point that it's a joke to even consider him in the conversation of greatest ever.

Jordan played unselfishly from about 1989 through the first 3peat, but to the greatest extent 89-91. (The only years that he put up Bird/LeBron type numbers...) If he played like that his whole career, he probably would be the greatest ever without question.   But after his comeback, and especially by 97-98, he was nothing but a chucker.   Things are completely confounded by his treatment by the refs - if a foul gets called every time you miss a jumpshot, hogging the ball and chucking contested jumpers is a really good strategy.   But it's hard to anoint someone the greatest just because the league and the refs decided that should be the case.

[Eja117]

I'm not sure but I think there are also players that played better at the age he was playing with the Wizards

[dark_lord]

comparing players in different eras is always difficult.  i can say though, without a doubt, jordan is the greatest player i have watched personally.