If you watch sports at all, you know that the article is right. The problem is that most of the people who used to actually, you know, cover football and other sports (Furman Bisher springs to mind) have slowly been replaced with former coaches and players (some of them surprisingly ignorant of their sports) and the occasional former announcer. There's an overwhelming pressure to conform to the message the audience wants in these situations, rather then actually, you know, offer informed analysis of the game itself. Example #1: The short career of Johnny Unitas as an NFL color guy. The problem was that Unitas, a guy who simply couldn't stand to see sloppy football, called it like he saw it. If a team - even the Colts - was playing poorly, he not only pointed it out but told you why it was happening and who was responsible for it. Result = the fans of the truly rotten teams hated him. He tried to be more of a happy talker, but it sounded so insincere that he finally was eased out. Example #2: Remember when Coach Holtz had a short segment where he analyzed aspects of college football? Not any more. Of course, he's forgotten more about football then anyone else on tv, but the viewers want touts, not actual analysis.
You can see the same thing in regular life too. Ever been to a business conference where there's a real star of the speaker's circuit speaking then gone to another at a lower level with a wanna-be speaker? I have. The wanna-be says the same thing the star does; it's too dangerous to his prospects to do otherwise.
I don't blame ESPN for this - they aren't in business to do the news; it's entertainment all the time with them - and I don't expect them to change.
