It's the height of condescension. It also suggests that they feel the majority of their viewing audience is only marginally interested in the two teams playing. I have little trouble believing that is true.
I have a modest proposal to satisfy both concerns.
A new channel: Maybe call it ESPN 4. A live TV talk show up in the nosebleed section, where 2 talking heads can discuss topics mildly tangential to the game at hand, maybe take calls, and discuss such topics as I heard yesterday during the Valpo-Green Bay game:
1. The idiocy of freaking out over road losses, with examples from the Miami Heat to the Louisville Cardinals. 2. Anticipation of the upcoming Duke-Maryland rematch (Duke's going to be angry, dontcha know). 3. Various other high major battles (which as we all know are the only games most basketball junkies really care about). 4. Bobby V's top 5 bracketbusters this year (none of which were mid-majors, funnily enough -- I thought bracketbusters was a mid-major thing)Over the past 3 years, I've watched non-stop mid-major action paired with play-by-play commentary that sounded suspiciously like predictions of which conference is going to win this year's ACC-Big Ten Challenge, who are the top 5 point guards in the nation, who are going to be the 1 seeds in the NCAA tournament (the last mid-major to be a #1 seed was, I believe, St. Joseph, and we all remember what a scandal that was, Billy Packer), and a whole host of other things.
Since this is what the viewing public really wants (right?), let's have a separate channel for this. If something truly compelling does happen to take place on the mid-major court, the guys can take time out to highlight it and talk about it, if they want to. Otherwise, they can mind their own business and cater to their overwhelming throng of high-major basketball junkies.
Meanwhile, on ESPN3 or ESPNU or ESPN2 or ESPN, actually play-by-play guys can, ya know, concentrate on actually calling the game they were sent there to call. When the ball is live, they can be free to concentrate on describing the action. I realize it's not radio and a picture is worth a thousand words, but there are many situations where talk is still needed. For example, a whistle just blew. Not being a referee aficionado, I can't always decipher the hand motion. I can tell that the ball changed hands, but I can't tell if it was a foul, 3-seconds, traveling (especially if the camera is not focused on the official making the call), or a myriad of other things. Let's just say the play was obscure enough that I'm left hanging in limbo totally clueless as to what was just called. In moments like that, I couldn't care less about the Duke-Maryland rematch, I want to know what just happened. Or let's say one team just executed a masterful offensive set that freed up a shooter under the basket. Yes, I saw it with my own eyes, but the play was such a thrilling one it begs for some commentary, maybe some telestration showing me why the play I just saw worked so well. Again, this is no time to be predicting who is going to win the ACC-Big Ten Challenge or who you think is going to make the Final Four. I honestly don't give a crap about that. I want some expert commentary on the exciting play I just saw. I'm not an expert on basketball strategy, but I know enough to know that I just saw an outstanding play and I'm curious what made it so outstanding (or perhaps it wasn't quite as outstanding as it appeared to be, and I need to be educated on how the defense screwed up).
If you are a play-by-play or color commentator assigned to this game, it means your #1 job is to call and comment on this game, and EVERYTHING else should take a back seat. Since that doesn't serve ESPN's needs, how about giving us 2 broadcasts, 1 for those of us who watch a game in order to, ya know, watch the game, and 1 for those of us who are only mildly amused by these two largely irrelevant schools but really want to hear about the popular topics of the day.
Think about it, ESPN. It's the professional thing to do.
