I was just catching up on the news from one of my favorite sites, when I ran across this recap of Baseball Tonight:
Finally, on BBTN, [Steve] Phillips and [John] Kruk debate the "Worst Franchise in Sports." Phillips chooses the Phillies because their next loss will be their 10,000th. This is problematic for several reasons: first, because that says as much about the longevity of the franchise (starting in 1890) as anything else. Second, the team is only 4 games out this year and has a lot of good players. Third, the team has been in the WS as recently as 1993. The Phils aren't close to being the worst franchise in baseball, much less all of pro sports.
Not to be outdone, Kruk chose the New Orleans Saints.
Who played in the NFC Championship Game.
Nice work, everybody.
I know ESPN's mantra is "Talk loud. Talk fast!!!" but the network's anchors and analysts lose credibility when they make wild, unsubstantiated assertions ... particularly in lieu of some meaningful discussion. "Worst Franchise in Sports" is better left to talk radio shows, barber shops and water coolers, not programs that claims to cover the news. "Who's Now?" is disgustingly transparent cross-promotion, and ineffective at that. A big part of the rise in internet journalism has been the inadequacy (or refusal) of the major news sources to cover stories properly, and to police themselves against allowing journalism to devolve into idol worship. For all the good that ESPN contributes to the sports world, the insidious corporate element, and the arrogance that accompanies it, will always create a market for sites like Deadspin.