07-12-2021, 10:31 AM
(07-12-2021, 09:00 AM)BostonCard Wrote: As are the Oscars and Tonys and all the other self-important awards shows. And the fact that ESPN televises not just the draft, but the draft lottery, tells me that there are way too many people with too much time on their hands. Then again, I'm posting to mostly strangers on a random message board...
BC
The difference for me is that in sports, we have competition to resolve "who is the best" arguments. With film and theater and music, we don't. We can have box office numbers and album sales/streams to show us what is the most popular, but we don't have head to head competition to determine what is the best film/musical/album, etc. Sure, there's a lot of self-indulgence in those award shows, too, but those serve a purpose that many find interesting, while the ESPYs are completely surplus to requirements. I will tune into other awards' shows because it's something of an event, I may have rooting interests because I loved a particular movie, and if nothing else, it gives me ideas on what to watch if I haven't seen it already. The human drama on the nominees' faces is real because these awards mean something to them--it's history and prestige and real money (in future contract negotiations).
Anyway, the Oscars add something to the world of film. What do the ESPYs add to the world of sports? Why do I need a "Best NBA/WNBA/MLB/MLS/NWSL Player etc." when we have the MVP awards from those leagues? Why do I need a "best international soccer player" when we have the Ballon d'Or? Why do I need a best tennis player award when the rankings and the Grand Slam titles tell me the relevant data points? Why do I need a contrived "Best Team" award comparing teams from different sports? Does the Baseball Hall of Fame keep track of the number of Best MLB Player ESPYs a candidate has won like it does MVPs, Cy Youngs, and batting titles? This is especially true when many of the awards themselves are such head-scratchers. For example, Roger Federer won the "Best Male Tennis Player" award in 2019--in the previous year (on which the award was purportedly based), Novak Djokovic had won 3 of the 4 Grand Slams, with Rafael Nadal taking the 4th. Same with Serena Williams winning the Best Female Tennis Player award the same year. Now, she's absolutely the greatest of all time in women's tennis, no question, but when she won that ESPY, she hadn't won a Grand Slam in over two years and was ranked #10. There was a case for Naomi Osaka (2 Grand Slams in the previous year) and Ashleigh Barty (the new World No. 1 when the award was given), but not Serena. Anyway, with the weird results and the redundant awards, I've just never seen the point.
Given the ratings, I don't appear to be alone. The 2021 ESPYs drew 1.11M viewers on ABC. At the same time, auto racing on CBS got 1.33M, a rerun of America's Got Talent on NBC got 1.92M, and MLB baseball on FOX got 2.29M viewers.
Meanwhile, the Oscars this year got 10.4M viewers (which is way, way down from the 23.6M that watched the year before, and there's obviously a "further evidence of the demise of live TV in the streaming/people following on social media era" story to be told there, and that's a topic for another day, but still--the Oscars remain an Event ™ in a way the ESPYs just aren't).
THAT SAID: I'm super glad for Tara to be recognized, and really, if you're going to compare the jobs championship coaches did at different levels across different sports, it's hard to imagine a tougher road to winning a title. She deserves all possible accolades, and she's always been a credit to the University. "Best Coach" and "Best Team" across sports is the kind of barroom conversation that is an interesting thought exercise, but building an awards show around such things seems to take that premise much too far.