Last Thursday at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, eventgoers were privy to an interesting event courtesy of ESPN: boxing. The Worldwide Leader put on a Friday Night Fights card at the expo to promote ESPN 3D, which had a busy last week at the event. In addition to the FNF card, attendees saw the live BCS National Title Game in 3D, as well as a live segment of SportsNation. If you're a sports fan, there is no better time than now to own a 3D TV.

But here's the main issue with ESPN's promotion of the technology: right now on cable systems, it's pretty much limited to sports, and only sports. On my Comcast package, there are two 3D channels: ESPN, and Xfinity 3D, which is a jumble of programs that appear to be mainly from HDNet. The content for Xfinity 3D include low-level (IE, non-UFC) MMA, kickboxing, pool, and various small release iMAX movies. It's not as if 3D TV is mainstream, with dozens of channels in the style like high definition channels today.

3D TVs are pricier than HDTVs, with a cost usually 50% more than an HDTV as the LA Times reports. With 3D DVDs also not in existance yet, why would someone want to buy a TV with a technology that's still rather primitive and not widely adopted? If you buy a 3D TV, you're pretty much paying the extra money to watch certain events on ESPN... and that's all.

Furthermore, why is ESPN so insistant on promoting the technology so heavily? I know they're at the top of the sports food chain, but it seems like a colossal waste of money to broadcast over 180 events in 3D when they're literally the only kid on the block and that block is ridiculously small.

The technology may be fantastic, but ESPN is going a little too deep into this right now. ESPN has built an empire on taking risks and successfully pushing the envelope, but is a heavy investment in 3D really one of those examples? It has the feel of the ESPN Mobile experiment that ultimately failed. I'm personally in the market for a new TV right now, and a 3D TV has never even crossed my mind, due in part to the price point and the fact that I'd be paying a lot more for a feature that I'd rarely be using. This just seems like an unnecessary investment for ESPN at this point in time.

[h/t: LA Times]

[follow]

Here's your NBA announcing schedule for the rest of the week.  The Clippers and Lakers both make two appearances as do the Mavs and Heat.  ESPN has doubleheaders on Wednesday and Friday Night and TNT is back in their Thursday night spot after both networks televised games on the MLK holiday.

Tuesday January 17

San Antonio Spurs @ Miami Heat (NBA TV 7:30) Vince Cellini, Greg Anthony, Chris Webber

Wednesday January 18

Portland Trailblazers @ Atlanta Hawks (ESPN 8PM) Terry Gannon, Chris Mullin

Dallas Mavericks @ Los Angeles Clippers (ESPN 10:30PM) Dan Shulman, Hubie Brown

Thursday January 19

Los Angeles Lakers @ Miami Heat (TNT 8PM) Marv Albert, Steve Kerr, Mike Fratello

Dallas Mavericks @ Utah Jazz (TNT 10:30PM) Kevin Harlan, Reggie Miller

Friday January 20

Los Angeles Lakers @ Orlando Magic (ESPN 8PM) Mike Breen, Jeff Van Gundy

Minnesota Timberwolves @ Los Angeles Clippers (ESPN 10:30PM) Dan Shulman, Hubie Brown

Saturday January 21

Denver Nuggets @ New York Knicks (NBA TV 7:30PM) Local Broadcast

Sunday January 22

Boston Celtics @ Washington Wizards (NBA TV 1PM) Local Broadcast

H/T Sammy!

[follow]

What do Chris Cooley, Jeff Saturday, Dominique Foxworth, Reggie Bush, and Chad Ochocinco have in common besides playing football? All made the recent Sports Business Journal list of players and coaches who they believe will transition well to television personalities. It's an interesting list and I'm in agreement with the majority of it including a big endorsement of their selection of Drew Brees.

Historically, there are two positions that funnel folks to high profile broadcasting jobs at a very impressive hit rate. The first being recently unemployed coaches (Mangini, Billick, Dungy, Jimmy Johnson, Gruden, etc). The other resume builder is being a NFL quarterback, and in particular a Super Bowl winning Quarterback. The list there would include Aikman, Young, Dilfer (yes he counts..... but it could have been you Tony Banks), Bradshaw, Simms, Theismann, Warner, and Bob Griese.  Joe Montana doesn't have an impressive TV resume, but two quarterbacks he beat in the Super Bowl do in Marino and Esiason.

Looking to the future I recently put some thought into which of the Big 3 quarterbacks (Brees, Manning, and Brady... Rodgers is still way too young to consider for TV), I thought would make the best television personality.

My first take was that Manning would probably be on television in some capacity. He does well to poke fun of his robo-QB image and can be funny, but in fluid conversation I don't know if he's someone that will enthrall an audience. Perhaps he'd be too similar to Phil Simms. We've seen how that has turned out.

Brady is a guy who, although charming at times and with a good understanding of the game, doesn't strike me as the type of guy who wants a job in television. It's just a rigorous industry. While you're not jackhammering concrete all day, I just don't see Brady as a guy who wants to punch a clock, especially considering Gisele is at home and is rumored to cook and love chocolate. I can't envision Brady getting really serious talking about football with a bunch of big personalities or laughing it up on pregame shows.

Brees was my pick, but when I polled some friends the common reaction was "I haven't really heard him talk much." 

It's a valid point as he seems to get a lot less media hype than Brady, Manning, and now Tebow. With that in mind, here is a nice clip of Brees speaking in the post game conference after their Wild Card win versus the Lions that is a good look at what he could bring to a studio environment or broadcast booth...

Being a fan of GOLTV's loquacious soccer analyst Ray Hudson, I had to share this clip of the eccentric Englishman describing the following goal from world player of the year Lionel Messi.  The clip is from Barcelona's 4-0 win over Real Zaragoza back in November, but just showed up on YouTube.  Watch as Ray is able to turn a rather simple and straight forward Leo goal into a lightning bolt from the gods as only he can...

"Does it the witching way Lionel Messi!  Brilliance on steroids again!!  The run, wonderful.  The finish, impeccable.  Leo ruthless once again.  Wouldn't give you the smell off his cologne when he's got the goal in his sights."

"He would find the needle in the haystack by his sense of smell."

"When you go back on your fancy machines don't slow it down.  Just let it right out in front of your eyes and you'll appreciate it ten times more.  FLASH."

Of course my favorite line is describing Lionel Messi as "brilliance on steroids."  Brilliance on steroids.  I can't believe nobody thought of using that during Barry Bonds' home run chase...

[follow]

After adding Detroit Lions star defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh for this weekend's divisional playoff games, CBS's The NFL Today is looking to add another current star to its lineup for the conference championship games: Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow. According to Michael Hiestand at USA Today, CBS has a request in to Tebow's people in efforting a guest appearance on their AFC Championship studio coverage. Just when you thought you escaped, CBS goes ahead and pulls you back in...

From what attention I paid to the pregame show, Suh came off relatively well in his guest spot. He was contrite for his actions on Thanksgiving Day, and said all the right things. But it would be a whole different story with Tebow. He's a very divisive figure among NFL analysts, with guys like Skip Bayless claiming he's the savior and an elite quarterback, and Merrill Hoge claiming the opposite. It could be interesting for Tebow on the CBS set, with three former players (two of whom, Dan Marino and Boomer Esiason, are quarterback) and one former coach on the panel. Would they bow down at his presence or push him on some of his flaws as a quarterback?

Regardless of what actually happens with Tebow on the set, this news has revealed one thing about the networks: they love Tim Tebow, and are going to do everything in their power to make sure that he's in our collective consciousness at all times during the NFL season. I wouldn't be surprised to see him somehow involved in Super Bowl weekend festivities either. Hell, maybe they'll bring him to the Pro Bowl, just because.

We can't escape the madness, so the best thing to do is embrace it.

[h/t: USA Today]

[follow]

An ESPN Outside the Lines story released Sunday attacked the UFC over perceived low fighter pay. The linked piece features an interview with UFC CEO Lorenzo Fertitta talking about the pay of the fighters. Well, the UFC struck back by releasing part of the interview unreleased by ESPN, in which Fertitta discusses ESPN paying fighters as low as $200 per fight for participating in ESPN's Friday Night Fights.

Both sides have a valid argument in this case. While it could be argued the UFC isn't paying fighters a lot of money, there is also the possibility of a "locker room bonus", that goes unreported to the commission. This bonus is pretty much a "hey, you fought a good fight, here's an extra ten grand" kind of bonus. The UFC also offers its fighters health insurance, which is unheard of for a fight organization. 

In comparison to other organizations, the UFC is spoiling its athletes. Here are the salaries from a Strikeforce Challengers card in June, before the UFC bought the company. The highest base salary was $10,000 going to Ryan Couture, son of UFC legend Randy Couture. Jason High, a veteran of both the UFC and the Japanese fighting circuit, made just $3,000 as his base for his 17th career fight. Compare that to the salaries from UFC 141 in December, where the four fighters who made the low base of $8,000 were still on their first contracts with the organization. The UFC works like any company, in that seniority results in a new contract and a raise. Fighters usually initially sign four fight deals.

I think the more telling aspect is Fertitta's point about ESPN paying fighters so little for its Friday Night Fights shows. The promoters of the Friday Night Fights cards are the ones who are paying the fighters and not ESPN, but the point stands: if ESPN can afford to buy the rights to air the show, why are the fighters not making more money? That's more of a question for the promoters than ESPN, but to say that this is just a UFC problem is incredibly short-sighted. 

Also entertaining throughout this whole ordeal? The war of words on Twitter between UFC president Dana White and ESPN boxing analyst Dan Rafael. The two went back and forth for about ten tweets apiece, bickering over the pay for fighters on Friday Night Fights cards. White seemed to be arguing the point made in the video by Fertitta, while Rafael towed the company line about licensing the cards and not being in charge of the payouts.  White also released a video on Youtube today, going off on ESPN. Who do you side with in this debate - UFC, ESPN, or somewhere in between?

[follow]

The FCC has asked for public comment in regards to the NFL's longstanding Blackout Rule, adding more momentum to fans' pleas that the reviled and dated rule be repealed. This comes on the heels of Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown's public comments calling for elimination of the nearly 40 year old rule.

This past season, 16 games were blacked out in their home markets. Over the last decade about half of the NFL (15 teams) have been subjected to a blackout with some clubs like the Raiders, Jaguars, Chargers, Lions, Bengals, and Buccaneers often finding themselves not on television to the dismay of fans. In addition to the many blackouts in recent history, many teams are forced to creatively dump tickets by selling them on the cheap to sponsors. 

Fresh off the NFL's renegotiated television extensions that will bump revenue a whopping 60%, the mental gymnastics of explaining the logic of the Blackout Rule is beginning to become more strenuous (from PFT via USA Today)...

“The blackout policy is very important in supporting NFL stadiums and the ability of NFL clubs to sell tickets, keeping our games attractive as television programming with large crowds; and ensuring that we can continue to keep our games on free TV,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement to USA Today.  “Playing in full stadiums with thousands of fans is an important part of what makes NFL football an exciting and special entertainment event, both live and on television.  We have a limited number of games and do not want to erode the incentive to buy tickets.

I've read that quote above a handful of times and I still don't understand how it makes sense. PFT lays the wood against the NFL's stance by pointing out that changing ticket prices or stadium sizes could eliminate this problem...

Last season as an analyst for ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball, Bobby Valentine often spoke his mind and wasn't hesitant to say what he thought of certain players. One of those players was Carl Crawford, now one of Valentine's players with the Boston Red Sox. In August, Valentine criticized Crawford's open stance in the batter's box, and the outfielder was apparently none too pleased with him according to NESN.

Well, after weeks of trying, Valentine and Crawford finally had a conversation, and all appears to be well in Red Sox Nation. Crawford needs to turn his tenure in Boston around, and can't have an awful year like he did in 2011.

As for Valentine, let this be a lesson to all of the aspiring coaches out there currently hanging out in the broadcast booth: watch what you say, it might bite you in the ass at the end of the day. For a college coach like Urban Meyer, his players can easily transfer schools if they were that irritated at what a coach had to say in the booth. But in a professional league, where contracts are the norm? Yeah, that could be an issue. Jon Gruden had better watch what he says about some of the worse teams in the league, because he might be at the helm of one shortly. Maybe that's why he's gone the safer route of loving everybody.

[H/T: NESN]

[follow]

It was last week when Joe Buck took to Twitter to defend his call of David Tyree's helmet catch in Super Bowl XLII.  At the time, I reasoned that Joe's Twitter page and this lengthy explanation of his most infamous call could go a long way in getting over with fans that have never liked Joe's morbid style of announcing.  Joe Buck's Twitter page has been a forum for him to interact with supporters and critics, offer insights into his announcing, and generally appear more likable and human (although there was a brief time his profile picture was him and Snooki).  Joe Buck has been able to connect on his Twitter page to sports fans in a way that he previously hadn't been able to in the booth.  Whether his Twitter page has anything to do with it or not, Joe Buck delivered what may be his best, most excited, and most popular performance last night in the Giants win over the Packers at Lambeau.  

The major criticism since the dawn of Buck's dominance as Fox's #1 announcer has been his total lack of emotion in calling the highest profile games in sports.  There have also been certain other times in the past where Buck has come off as arrogant or being more interested in becoming a late night star.  Joe has always been a top pro amongst play by play men, but the main critique of Buck amongst a large section of fans has been his excitability.  When we're jumping out of our chairs at home, we want to listen to someone that feels those similar emotions while telling the story of what we are seeing.  That's why Gus Johnson connects with fans, or Bill Raftery, Ian Darke, and others.  Dan Shulman would never be confused with a screaming lunatic, but he's as popular as any other announcer because he's able to find a balance and deliver big calls in big moments.  Not everyone has to be Gus Johnson to win supporters over and last night, Joe Buck continued what is becoming a trend.  He actually sounded excited and was able to connect with viewers.

The perfect example of this from last night's game was Hakeem Nicks catching a Hail Mary pass from Eli Manning at the end of the first half.  The play might've taken the broadcast crew by surprise as the Giants were on the edge of field goal range with no timeouts.  Instead of playing for the field goal, the Giants went for the touchdown.  Here's Joe's call...

It's times like these that I'm thankful that my NFL team bowed out of the playoffs by a double-digit margin. That's because double-digit losses aren't recreated on Tecmo Bowl by some internet hero to remain in the annals of the internet until 12-21-12. For Saints fans, they sadly might want to be careful with their Youtube clicks because they might stumble on this gem spliced together with 49ers radio play-by-play announcer Ted Robinson's call of Smith to Davis.

For those of you who enjoy your video in greater than 8 bits, go here. 

My highlight from Robinson's call is without a doubt his "VERNON DAVIS WITH THE PLAY OF HIS LIFE! ALEX SMITH WITH THE PLAY OF HIS LIFE!" line. It's also funny that just minutes earlier everyone thought Alex Smith had made THE PLAY OF HIS LIFE when he scampered in from 28-yards out with 2:11 remaining to put the Niners on top.

If you enjoyed that video at all, I can't recommend enough that you check out Game 6 of the '86 World Series recreated on RBI Baseball with Vin Scully. If that didn't do it for you either, here's Bo Jackson running around with possibly the greatest video game play of all-time.

H/T Matt Clapp, The Score

[follow]