Should High School Sports Be Televised Nationally?

TIrwin24 · Post by **TIrwin24** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:37 pm

I personally say no.

It assists in creating athletes that are too full of themselves and takes away from the fun of high school sports. Especially football.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:59 pm

I say no for basically the same reasons and I wouldn't waste my time watching.

KittieKop · Post by **KittieKop** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:09 pm

No. Should they be televised statewide, or even locally? I see some of the same issues as if they were on nationally (hey look at me, I'm on TV), but not to the same extreme.

cats2506 · Post by **cats2506** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:12 pm

I enjoy watching HS football on Altitude and a few other regional sports channels. 5A in CO is pretty interesting IMO. These larger schools in in other areas of the country are nothing like HS sports in MT. I think that some of these kids in places like TX have quite a bit of coverage already and are under quite a bit of pressure anyway. I have also seen some HS wrestling on the regional sports channels, and I know that basketball, soccer ect is availble but I haven't watch it.

I dont have a problem with them on the regional sports channels, which BTW are available nationally via sattlite.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:35 pm

KittieKop wrote:No. Should they be televised statewide, or even locally? I see some of the same issues as if they were on nationally (hey look at me, I'm on TV), but not to the same extreme.

I don't have a problem with local/statewide for a state championship game, whether it be FB, BBB, GBB, etc. In those games I think tv exposure is the last thing the kids are thinking about with adrenaline focused on that championship (the same could easily apply to semi-final games, etc.). In my scenario I'm thinking Montana, I can see where it could be a whole different situation say in Texas for FB.

Cledus · Post by **Cledus** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:42 pm

I say no.

I know I get fired up when I'm looking for something to watch and there's a high school game on ESPN. Seriously? There's no better programming?

Having said that, I do actively seek out television coverage for local events such as state championship games. My interests in televised high school games is strictly local schools.

Billings_Griz · Post by **Billings_Griz** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:57 am

Nationaly? Doesn't matter. If you have a couple teams playing on ESPN, they're probably pretty good and most have probably already signed to play somewhere big.

Locally? YES!!!! Having grown up in Northeast MT, I grew up watching North Dakota's High School State Tourney's on TV (Williston station). Keep in mind, that was 24 yrs since I graduated. There is no reason MT can't put the state tourney's on local TV's.

DCC2MSU · Post by **DCC2MSU** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:08 am

Billings_Griz wrote:Nationaly? Doesn't matter. If you have a couple teams playing on ESPN, they're probably pretty good and most have probably already signed to play somewhere big.

Locally? YES!!!! Having grown up in Northeast MT, I grew up watching North Dakota's High School State Tourney's on TV (Williston station). Keep in mind, that was 24 yrs since I graduated. There is no reason MT can't put the state tourney's on local TV's.

Agreed. ND does an outstanding job with their coverage and when you get to that point I would guess the kids are much more concerned with winning and moving on than looking cool on TV.

Old Skool Cat · Post by **Old Skool Cat** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:44 am

I'm gonna put my vote in for no, not nationally. Besides what everyone else saying about wanting something else to watch on TV, I just think we need to be careful with young men that age and the progress of their athletic careers. This could just lead to kids pimping themselves just for the opportunity to be seen on Sportscenter.

whitetrashgriz · Post by **whitetrashgriz** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:06 am

Billings_Griz wrote:Nationaly? Doesn't matter. If you have a couple teams playing on ESPN, they're probably pretty good and most have probably already signed to play somewhere big.

Locally? YES!!!! Having grown up in Northeast MT, I grew up watching North Dakota's High School State Tourney's on TV (Williston station). Keep in mind, that was 24 yrs since I graduated. There is no reason MT can't put the state tourney's on local TV's.

I agree. espn doesn't just pick two random teams and televise them. they are normally 2 of the top 10 in the country. the problem, if you have one, doesn't have anything to do with these guys being on tv. it all trickles down from the nba, all the way to when kids are in 2nd grade. the game has evolved so much, and guys are so much bigger, so much faster, so much stronger than they used to be. because of this evolution, the competition recruiting has never been as beg as it is today. remember that we live in the age where i can do a quick google search, and tell you who the best 3rd grader in the country is! kids now hold press conferences to announce what HIGH SCHOOL they will attend. and often it's not in the same city, and many times not even in the state as the one in which they attended middle school. they have people in their ear from the time they are 8 until their 18 telling them where they need to be, and what they need to do to be in the nba. guys like sebastian telfair announced which high school he'd be going to, and in the same sentence declared that after 4 years there he'd be entering the nba draft! he was 13. big time programs like the dukes, carolinas, etc. receive verbal commitments from 6th and 7th graders. it's my opinion that if you watch a game on espn, and it seems to you that some of these kids have egos, it probably has nothing to do with the fact that they are being televised. many of them are used to the spotlight.
as far as local sports i'd love it if they were televised again. it was nice being able to watch the high school playoffs and state championships in football and basketball.

LTown Cat · Post by **LTown Cat** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:19 am

I voted no but I agree with what everyone has stated as far as local sports--especially playoffs and state championships.

I do have to admit though that when ESPN showcases 2 of the top high school teams in the nation playing each other--I enjoy watching, even if I don't agree with them doing it.

Also, whitetrashgriz said that the TV doesn't cause the ego's and that is correct--that damage was already done for the reasons stated.

RedCat · Post by **RedCat** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:53 am

I don't see the problem with it at all. I remember watching a televised game of Greg Oden going up against Tyler Hansbrough (who got dominated if I remember correctly) on ESPN a few years ago. Pretty fun to watch.

I think it would be great if a local station had a big game on every week. Didn't altitude used to play to those games on Thursday night? I'd also love to see the state championship games televised.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:58 am

I see no problem with it. If golfers and tennis players and gymnasts and ice skaters and (fill in the rest) can go pro in their teens and make gobs of money and be on TV, I see no problem with elite high school basketball and football players getting some national exposure.

I generally don't have an interest in watching it, but if enough people do tune in to make it worth someone's while to broadcast, more power to them.

TIrwin24 · Post by **TIrwin24** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:24 pm

whitetrashgriz wrote:
Billings_Griz wrote:Nationaly? Doesn't matter. If you have a couple teams playing on ESPN, they're probably pretty good and most have probably already signed to play somewhere big.

Locally? YES!!!! Having grown up in Northeast MT, I grew up watching North Dakota's High School State Tourney's on TV (Williston station). Keep in mind, that was 24 yrs since I graduated. There is no reason MT can't put the state tourney's on local TV's.
I agree. espn doesn't just pick two random teams and televise them. they are normally 2 of the top 10 in the country. the problem, if you have one, doesn't have anything to do with these guys being on tv. it all trickles down from the nba, all the way to when kids are in 2nd grade. the game has evolved so much, and guys are so much bigger, so much faster, so much stronger than they used to be. because of this evolution, the competition recruiting has never been as beg as it is today. remember that we live in the age where i can do a quick google search, and tell you who the best 3rd grader in the country is! kids now hold press conferences to announce what HIGH SCHOOL they will attend. and often it's not in the same city, and many times not even in the state as the one in which they attended middle school. they have people in their ear from the time they are 8 until their 18 telling them where they need to be, and what they need to do to be in the nba. guys like sebastian telfair announced which high school he'd be going to, and in the same sentence declared that after 4 years there he'd be entering the nba draft! he was 13. big time programs like the dukes, carolinas, etc. receive verbal commitments from 6th and 7th graders. it's my opinion that if you watch a game on espn, and it seems to you that some of these kids have egos, it probably has nothing to do with the fact that they are being televised. many of them are used to the spotlight.

Don't you think though that ESPN and the other big sports names are enabling this stupid behavior?

I could give a rat's ass about who the number one high school team in the nation is. It's all subjective and doesn't mean squat.

State championships deserve to be televised regionally, but nationally? No way

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:08 pm

Doesn't the free market (what people want to watch and therefore what TV outlets will broadcast) dictate who "deserves" to be televised and to what extent?

TIrwin24 · Post by **TIrwin24** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:26 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:Doesn't the free market (what people want to watch and therefore what TV outlets will broadcast) dictate who "deserves" to be televised and to what extent?

That's a good question.

I have a feeling that private citizens with some $$ are able to cough up some cash to have their team broadcasted. That could be totally off base, but I don't think ESPN just goes anywhere without the opportunity for some cash flow.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:37 pm

So you think these games are being broadcast because people associated with those teams are paying ESPN to broadcast them?

I find it much more reasonable to assume that ESPN broadcasts those games because those games draw viewers, and then advertisers pay ESPN to run ads during commercial breaks of those games because they want their ads to be seen by the people who want to watch those games.

Of course, in the highly unlikely event that private boosters of these teams are spending a fortune of their own money to have these games put on national TV, I have no problem with that, either. I just don't happen to think that's what's happening.

whitetrashgriz · Post by **whitetrashgriz** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:55 am

TIrwin24 wrote:
whitetrashgriz wrote:
Billings_Griz wrote:Nationaly? Doesn't matter. If you have a couple teams playing on ESPN, they're probably pretty good and most have probably already signed to play somewhere big.

Locally? YES!!!! Having grown up in Northeast MT, I grew up watching North Dakota's High School State Tourney's on TV (Williston station). Keep in mind, that was 24 yrs since I graduated. There is no reason MT can't put the state tourney's on local TV's.
I agree. espn doesn't just pick two random teams and televise them. they are normally 2 of the top 10 in the country. the problem, if you have one, doesn't have anything to do with these guys being on tv. it all trickles down from the nba, all the way to when kids are in 2nd grade. the game has evolved so much, and guys are so much bigger, so much faster, so much stronger than they used to be. because of this evolution, the competition recruiting has never been as beg as it is today. remember that we live in the age where i can do a quick google search, and tell you who the best 3rd grader in the country is! kids now hold press conferences to announce what HIGH SCHOOL they will attend. and often it's not in the same city, and many times not even in the state as the one in which they attended middle school. they have people in their ear from the time they are 8 until their 18 telling them where they need to be, and what they need to do to be in the nba. guys like sebastian telfair announced which high school he'd be going to, and in the same sentence declared that after 4 years there he'd be entering the nba draft! he was 13. big time programs like the dukes, carolinas, etc. receive verbal commitments from 6th and 7th graders. it's my opinion that if you watch a game on espn, and it seems to you that some of these kids have egos, it probably has nothing to do with the fact that they are being televised. many of them are used to the spotlight.
Don't you think though that ESPN and the other big sports names are enabling this stupid behavior?
State championships deserve to be televised regionally, but nationally? No way

t.i. - i'm sure espn is enabling this sort of behavior. but my point was televising these games has only been done in the last 5-7 years. basically the lebron-james rule if you will. and they never televise state championships. like i said, these are "high schools" that are made up of kids from all over the country. sometimes all over the world. it's not uncommon for these kids to travel from new york, to florida, to l.a., then back to new york in a single road trip. my point was, these kids are "stars" when they are in first grade. they basically have guys representing them when they are in middle school. some stay grounded, while others go on an ego-trip. i guess i just feel that espn televising a game between the best team i the country, and another top team, loaded with soon-to-be d-1 and nba stars, isn't a big deal in the scheme of things. i think magazines and websites ranking 1st graders is a problem. i think high school coaches doing illegal things to get the biggest star in the city is a problem. i think recruiting violations are a big problem. and now, this stupid rule that a player has to go to school for one years is a problem. all that does is make recruiting harder because these coaches know if they land their star, they have one year to be national champs and then they are basically rebuilding. outside the lines reported the other day that after march madness, nearly half of all kids who plan on attending the draft just simply stop going to class. school is a complete joke to them, and has to hurt the university's. so, while i agree that espn probably isn't helping this cause, i don't see them as being a big factor. anymore, it's win at all costs, and this is what it's become. imo.

SaxCat · Post by **SaxCat** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:38 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:Doesn't the free market (what people want to watch and therefore what TV outlets will broadcast) dictate who "deserves" to be televised and to what extent?

I call BS on that claim in regards to television and most forms of media.
Viewers watch by time slot more than by programming, making networks able to shovel whatever filth they want at us just because they know people will watch. How else do you explain CSI being the most dominant show on TV for the last 6 plus years? The show hasn't changed at all in that amount of time.

Anyway, back to the programming of sports. ESPN is a powerhouse in determining what counts as sports knowledge. They show more hours of Sportscenter in a day than they actually do sports. Its almost as bad as MTV. Now try to tell me those two networks do not try to actively manipulate the tastes and interests of its viewers and the general public.

Also, I enjoyed being able to see my high school from Colorado win the state 5A [Go Grandview!] championship on TV last year. That was fun, and I am all for local and somewhat regional broadcasts of HS championship sports.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:59 am

SaxCat1985 wrote: I call BS on that claim in regards to television and most forms of media.
Viewers watch by time slot more than by programming, making networks able to shovel whatever filth they want at us just because they know people will watch. How else do you explain CSI being the most dominant show on TV for the last 6 plus years? The show hasn't changed at all in that amount of time.

Since the invention of the remote control (and accelerated by the introduction of cable/satellite TV that gave us even more options), I personally have been very adept at changing the channel when something is on a channel that I don't want to see.

I believe most viewers are in the same boat as me.

People like to watch CSI ... they don't just happen to be carryovers from watching Wheel of Fortune on the same channel earlier in the day.