Before I get on a soap box and take a baseball bat to the idea of the ESPY's, my problems with the concept, and the set up of the majority of award shows in our (subliminally or not) corporate dominated public discourse, I wanted to start with a compliment. At least ESPN thought of something to show on the slowest day of American Sports (aka, the day after the All-Star game).
I had ESPN on last night as I was cooking dinner and thus had the ESPY Red Carpet show. That was painful, but probably for different reasons than one would think. There are two things that really get my blood boiled in sports, when it comes to debates. The first is large, corporate markets, and the shockwaves they create in the general public about opinions about best players, teams, etc. The second is comparing apples to oranges. Sadly, while a Sports Award show seems like a good idea, it has to be something that is done by the experts and only the experts, and very carefully.
Before I rip it apart, a good example of comparing “apples to oranges” in Sports is the Sportsman of the Year award from Sports Illustrated. On average, that award is very well thought out, has a fantastic arguement, and pages of support. It balances athleticism, achievement, public impact, and legacy.
The ESPY's can't do that because they attempt to do this too many times. How do you answer the question of who is coach of the year? That is such a loaded question and there are so many specific elements of differnet sports that need to be considered. Given enough time, I believe that the people at ESPN would be able to get an answer. However, when then allow the public to decide, well now we have the same problem with the All-Star game voting. The media markets push and publicize the more profitable teams, players etc, and I'm not saying that's wrong (despite what my opinion about it is, the raising of profitable icons in sports, at this point in American culture, is inevitable). The result is that winners on the whole are predictable. I guess what I am specifically thinking of here is Phil Jackson winning coach of the year over coach Geno of the UConn Women's Basketball Team.
I will admit, after I heard the coach of the year verdict, I turned off the award show, because I figured this would turn into me just being angry on a couch watching an award show that I wouldn't actually like, and I wouldn't be doing anything productive for society. I guess for me this just goes into a deeper disdain for the majority of award shows. The example I generally use with my friends and family is the Grammy's. When an artist wins best rapper, well that person isn't actually the best rapper. They are an above average, to good artist that was picked up by a major record label and deemed marketable. These people have a certain amount of talent, but there are other rappers out there that are more talented. That is the problem with the ESPY's. The talented and marketable win, but maybe the losers could be more talented in their respective sports, but then we get back to the apples and oranges arguement.
Or another way to look at this, I'll just be happy tonight when baseball is back on, and I don't need to think of things like this.
