So yesterday, I talked to a few people at ESPN about the whole "Blog Buzz" post and they mentioned that the segment is a work in progress, and that I should watch this morning. Well I did, and to my surprise, AA's post was featured at the beginning of the segment as part of a clarification on the "Buzz". Take a look....

Like I told those I talked to yesterday, I do think there is an opportunity there, but it's all in how they put it together. If they go with the approach that they used today, most blogs will appreciate the gesture and it will begin to mend some fences. If they use the segment as just another cross-promotional tool, then it will get blasted. It's really that easy. The fact that they commented on their own employee being in the Top Five, is already a step in the right direction.

I've always said that more information and opinions is a good thing, and this could certainly be an example of that. Thanks for the mention, and for starting to listen to some of the constructive criticism out there as well.

ESPN's double dip of Monday Night Football once again turned in huge numbers for the network, and for the second straight year put the "Leader" in the top spot in terms of all cable programming for the year. Adding to that, MNF also won the night for ESPN beating out all cable and network shows across the board. Obviously most major network shows haven't begun their fall programming, but the numbers still look pretty impressive. Especially if you compare them to last year's double-header.

The Packers-Vikings game was sure to top last year's Ravens-Bengals game, which it did, but actually pulled a 9.3 rating and (an average of just over 9 million households) was up a hefty 8% over the 2007 game in the 7pm spot. Add to that a surprising 7.3 (an average of 7.1 million HHs) for the Denver blow out of Oakland, which was up 7% over the close Cards-9ers game from 2007, and that's a pretty shocking increase over last season's openers. For a blowout game to improve on 2007 ratings by that much is impressive, and to put it into perspective for both games, the Home Run Derby on the network earlier this year pulled a little over 6 million viewers.

The first Monday nighter of the year is always going to bring ratings, but I certainly didn't think the two games were going to do as well as they did. I know I've said this ad nauseum, but I still think ESPN deserves to be commended for at least attempting some changes with MNF. They destroyed shows like High School Musical and American Idol last year, but still spent the time to listen to fans when they didn't have to. Obviously there are still problems with the programming on a whole, but it's slowly improving. And with the Eagles-Cowboys coming next week they look to be on the road to setting even more records this year.

(Numbers via ESPN PR)

In its first year on ESPN, MNF decided that it would be smart to cross promote ABC shows all while the game was going on. The likes of Emmitt Smith (only talking DWTS), Hank Williams Jr talked about nothing while Christian Slater and James Denton battled to see who could piss off the audience more. While they did a much better job of keeping the guests in tune with the game in 2007 (Deanna Favre was amazing in October and the return of Jimmy Kimmel was hilarious), we still had to endure the likes of Drew Caray talking Soccer, Jimmy Johnson & Jeff Gordon talking nonsense, Russell Crowe talking Rugby, John C. Reilly talking "Dewey Cox" and my personal favorite Vince Vaughn talking about nothing.

The whole idea reeked of forcing reality shows and crappy movies down our throats. People could smell it from a mile away and weren't happy about it. Every mainstream site and blog hammered them for it and rightfully so.

Fast forward to today....After hearing accounts from people who attended the ESPN Monday Night Football Luncheon that took place in New York on Monday, (yes AA was invited, yes AA thought it was a trap so he didn't go) it seems to me that ESPN is attempting a re-branding of sorts for Monday Night Football. And, according to multiple sources, including Neil Best of Newsday, ESPN might not have any guests at all this season!

But here's a snippet that might even be newsworthy: When I asked producer Jay Rothman for his best guess about the number of booth guests this season, now that Brett Favre will be unavailable for the opener at Lambeau, he said, "Zero."

Then he added, "We may pull something off the eve of the election, but if we do we’ll do so at halftime."

Umm . . . the election? Was he referring to the President of the United States, perhaps?

"I don't know," Rothman said.

Umm . . . where is the game the night before the election?

Rothman: "Washington, D.C."

ZERO?!?! Well how about that? ESPN has been hammered over the past few years for being stubborn and not listening to their fans, but I think that's somewhat changing. Obviously not everyone can have what they want, but it's good that they understand how distracting and pointless a lot of those guests were and that they're (theoretically) making a change.

I also don't really have problems with guests as long as they are somehow linked to the game at hand. It would also be understandable to have the President on as well before the election. But inviting "Desperate Housewives" actor James Denton on, when he clearly knows nothing about Football, might have possibly been the worst decision in the history of Sports Television. I'm just saying.

President Bush to visit 'MNF' booth Nov. 3? (Newsday)

ESPN has been through the ringer over the past year after the emergence of blogs and even mainstream media not always buying what the "Leader" was selling. There were multiple on-air, print and "roast" instances and there was even a Power Point sent around that tried to deter advertisers from working with the network. It's tough when you're at the top, whether the criticism is justified or not.

Well you can add the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch to the list of critics and they don't seem to be pulling any punches....

It's one thing for a journalist to see a quip fall flat, but it's another when people feel abused. To ESPN's shame, some of its employees have insulted the audience on several occasions with lowbrow or boorish behavior.

(Lists Jacobson, Jemele Hill and Bonnie Bernstein as examples)

John Walsh, executive editor of ESPN, cautioned me to "consider the volume (of content that) our company produces" and said: "I don't think it's a cause for a pattern or trend." ESPN's staff shouldn't try so hard to be controversial. The network would have fewer embarrassments.

"We'd rather the scoreboard says none," Walsh said. "But if the scoreboard says three (examples), we endure." He called them "three separate instances" and added: "Trying to group them together, I think, would not be a wise thing for you."

Then call me unwise, Mr. Walsh. I'm not buying your argument.

In the news business, journalists will chalk up something out of the ordinary as an aberration. But when it happens twice, we wonder if it is a pattern. By the third time, it can reasonably be called a trend.

ESPN rejects the idea that there is a pattern of recklessness in its ranks, but I'm not so sure.

The whole thing is really a fascinating read and even looks back at what ESPN used to do well and how it has changed over the years. The interesting thing to note for the future is, as more and more mainstream publications continue to lambaste the network, how will they respond? It seems like the network will take a couple steps forward (new Sports Center format, V Foundation work, Euro 2008, changing S.A.S' role) and then just leap back (NBA/NFL Draft, Titletown, continuing to employ Joe Morgan), so much so that they seem worse off than they were before.

I do somewhat agree with Mr. Walsh that incidents will undoubtedly take place with all the coverage that the network has. The issue though is the degree to which those incidents have hurt individuals or groups in the past. Up until recently most hadn't been punished and probably weren't even addressed. The question now is whether ESPN listens to its critics or just ignores them and plows ahead for that almighty dollar ultimately turning the network into Sports' version of MTV.

No entity, company, or medium is perfect. Not TV, newspapers, radio, or blogs. But if you're going to claim to be the "Leader" of anything.....you should try and come as close to that level as possible.

ESPN: The sports leader in embarrassment (Market Watch)

I wanna say something. I’m gonna put it out there; if you like it, you can take it, if you don’t, send it right back.

I still like Bill Simmons.

In fact, he is one of my favorite writers, one of the few guys who makes me sit up and say, “Oh good, he wrote something new today” when a story with his byline pops into my Google Reader. Like it or not, I usually find that the story provides an interesting read – I might not necessarily agree with the premise or the conclusions, but it generally grabs my attention and holds it. (For the record, my current favorite writer: Dave Lozo over at Why Don’t We Get Drunk And Blog? Some of the funniest stuff I’ve ever read.)

There has been plenty of fury directed at Simmons over the last couple of years, much of which stems from two occurrences: a decrease in the frequency of his writing and the hiding of his archived work behind ESPN.com’s dreaded Insider pay wall. Steps have been taken recently to remedy the first issue: since February 8, Simmons has authored “The Basketball Blog”, a supplement to his regular twice-weekly columns that serves as a way to directly comment on the sport in which he is most knowledgeable. It also means he is writing much more – up to four times per week during the month of March. Some of the posts have been very good, some very bad, but hey, it’s more Simmons.

Friday’s blog post showed that ESPN is willing to take steps toward satisfying Simmons readers in problem number two: the archives have been paroled and are available for everyone’s reading enjoyment, free of charge. No more Insider for Simmons.

More frequent writing…less good stuff behind the pay wall…if this keeps up, we might have to consider that ESPN is actually listening to public opinion. Perish the thought.

(The Big Lead recently wrote about the problems with ESPN.com in a post about the demotion of Editor-In-Chief John Papanek. In closing, they asked for suggestions on ways to "alter the .com". Out of 54 comments, more than 20 addressed Insider in some way. So yeah...maybe they're listening.)