Every once in a while watching sports on TV becomes so frustrating that I have no choice but to write about it. For instance, just watching Sunday night baseball on ESPN will get you thinking about ways to mute Joe Morgan’s microphone. More often than not, it’s FOX’s national telecasts that bother me and cause me to voice my complaints. I’m guessing the same production crew that does the MLB playoffs on FOX also runs the BCS games on FOX because we’re encountering the same problems. In the MLB playoffs on FOX, they show the viewer everything BUT the action. They’ll show a close up of the manager, the pitcher, the fielders, and of course the fans, before they cut back to the pitch. If you’re lucky you’ll get back in time to see what the batter did. Same thing with their telecasts of the BCS games, specifically the Fiesta Bowl.

Every minute that wasn’t between the snap and tackle FOX was filling us with something to watch other than the game. Have a taste of the fans why don’t you? Here, here’s a band shot (the unofficial count is over 300). Let’s show a replay of nothing. Check out Colt McCoy up close. Take a peak at Jim Tressel. Oh wait, there’s a snap coming? Better get back to it. Incompletion, back to the same routine. And as if having one sideline reporter wasn’t enough (and you know how unnecessary I feel they are), they have two so we can get double the useless information!

Apparently FOX doesn’t understand that fans are interested in watching the play develop from the huddle to the whistle. We like to see adjustments and what schemes both sides of the ball are running. We like to see the whole field and see the setup of a play so we don’t miss any action. Really, if I could equate what FOX TV does to playoff (and Saturday) MLB, and what they do with the BCS games, to any actual situation, it would be like watching a baseball team throw a ball around the horn after every single pitch. I don’t have A.D.D. and neither does the majority of the population. Why do they treat the audience like we do? Perhaps these issues have something to do with the poor ratings the games have been getting on FOX.

I understand the way things work in sports broadcasting — the analyst jobs usually go to popular athletes who have retired or coaches who have recently been fired. I don’t have too many problems with this practice. For instance, ESPN brought recently fired Tennessee coach Phillip Fulmer into their college football studio for analysis, and NBA TV has added recently fired Raptors coach Sam Mitchell to their studio. I’ll listen to what Fulmer has to say since the guy built a strong program and was a national champion coach. Mitchell last year led the Raptors to the playoffs and is a former Coach of the Year, so his analysis of the game carries weight. What I don’t understand is how NBC can invite Matt Millen into their studio as an analyst given his history as a team exec. The guy ran the Lions from ‘01 until this season when he was finally sacked after a few games. The team’s record was 34-81 under his watch. Millen presided over one of the most embarrassing stretches for a team in the history of professional sports. What expert opinion could the guy possibly have to lend?

Yes, I understand that Millen was a Super Bowl winner as a player and that he began a career in broadcasting following retirement. Yes, I understand he may have had success in each of those areas in life. However, what’s freshest in my mind and that of pretty much any football fan is his failures with the Lions. Failures of gargantuan proportion. How could any sensible broadcasting outlet bring him in as an expert analyst and expect the audience to take anything he says seriously? The guy admitted in an interview with Dan Patrick that he was not qualified for the job when the Lions hired him and that he would have even fired himself. So when he says things like he “the Lions have a foundation in place” how can you help but not laugh? A foundation for what, more losing? To me, NBC Sports loses all credibility bringing him on for an analyst role. After the job he just did with the Lions, I have legitimate reasons to question anything and everything he says.

So first we had enthusiastic “Cowboy Chris” heckle ESPN reporter Ed Werder for “yellow journalism” and his use of “anonymous sources.” Maybe T.O. saw that video because he decided to join the bandwagon on Sunday night following the Cowboys’ 20-8 win over the Giants. T.O. gathered with Tony Romo and Jason Witten for the postgame interview with Andrea Kremer on NBC and offered the following:

Owens sang the same tune in his postgame press conference, expressing many of the same concerns (minus the profanity) as Cowboy Chris regarding Werder and ESPN. The only hole here is that T.O. admitted something was up on Friday to the Star Telegram, but that was after the story had been released by Werder. Let me just say this: next time things are slow around here, be on the lookout for a Brett Favre wants to return to the Packers story. Why not, right?

ESPN really is getting so annoying and carried away with their coverage of the Dallas Cowboys. In fact, the Cowboys have truly become what the Yankees are to them during the summer — only for football season. They have like daily reports on the Cowboys, give higher priority to any team news, and it always seems like they’re trying to drum up controversies to make things more interesting. What’s happening with the Cowboys isn’t much different from most locker rooms in terms of in-fighting and disagreements. But ESPN loves to take the Cowboys and put them front-and-center in the news cycle and create controversies to boost interest. Apparently a devoted Cowboys fan has noticed that ESPN is creating a soap opera in Dallas, using reporter Ed Werder as their point man. “Cowboy Chris” as he’s known on YouTube, absolutely goes off on Werder as he’s trying to film a report on the scene. Mass hysteria ensued (language NSFW):

While I don’t agree with the guy’s methods for protesting Werder’s work, he does make legitimate points: who are these anonymous sources? Isn’t this yellow journalism? Cowboy Chris was pretty impressive, but the best hecklers of all-time were the Stephen A. Smith guys. Nobody tops them.

Look, the Yankees already do a good enough job screwing up their team via free agency without needing help from outsiders. Think Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright for starters. Last year, the front office listened to the writers who suggested they start rebuilding their farm system and stay away from signings that plagued them in the past. So what happened? They decided not to trade the likes of Ian Kennedy and Melky Cabrera to the Twins for Johan Santana and they missed the playoffs for the first time since Brian Cashman had hair. Now they’re going back to their old ways and will use that Johan money on CC (who’s a worse investment in my opinion). And they’re not going to stop there; they’re going for Burnett, Lowe, Teixeira, and Manny. Heck, their only constraint is a 25-man roster. Apparently they haven’t learned the lesson that spending isn’t the answer — spending wisely is. I don’t think A.J. Burnett is a good investment, but some media members do. Take venerable front office man George A. King III of the New York Post:

Burnett, 32 in January, went 18-10 with a 4.07 ERA for the Blue Jays this past season before opting out of the final two seasons, leaving $24 million on the table.

Coming off a career-high in victories, the 6-foot-5, 230-pounder is easily the second-best pitcher on the free-agent market behind Sabathia, so $15 million to $16 million a season for four or five years isn’t out of the question.

OK, let’s examine a few things here: 32 in January — fact. 18-10 with a 4.07 ERA for the Blue Jays — fact. Opting out of the contract — fact. 6′5″ 230-pounder vital stats — fact. Easily the second-best pitcher on the free-agent market? Are you kidding me? Says who, you? What makes Burnett the second-best pitcher on the market? If anything, replace “easily” with “arguably” or “potentially” and I’m fine with it. Even still, I’d rather invest my money in Derek Lowe or Ben Sheets, thus making Burnett the fourth-best pitcher on the market. To me, this is the difference between spending and spending wisely. Dropping $80mil on Burnett isn’t a wise investment. But according to baseball scout and stat guru George King, it is. So now that gets everyone who reads the Post and follows the Yankees thinking this is a no-brainer. Let me ask this: in four years when the Yankees are in danger of missing the playoffs and people are bitching about the $18mil a year they’re paying Burnett, is King going to be there to say he was a great signing, or is he going to criticize the team for their free-spending ways? The Yankees need to be cautious not reckless. And the media sure isn’t helping the cause here.

ESPN writer Scoop Jackson penned a column on B.J. Upton explaining that Upton’s stellar play in the playoffs could attract young inner-city African Americans to play baseball. I never understood what the claims of the crisis to begin with; baseball is open to all players regardless of race, and nobody is complaining about the dominance of African Americans in basketball or football, are they? Anyway, rather than saying young urban Black kids could watch slugger Ryan Howard lead the majors in home runs, or see Jimmy Rollins win an MVP (both also happen to be in the World Series), or watch CC Sabathia win a Cy Young and then pitch the Brewers into the playoffs almost single-handedly (on a team full of African Americans no less), Scoop decided to choose B.J. Upton as the player who could bring the popularity of baseball back to the African American urban youth. Here was his reasoning:

Read The Full Story…