The debate is multi-faceted and some people are combining disparate arguments into an incorrect whole and thus having an incomplete viewpoint of the situation.
1. Of course sports outlets are going to cover the hype stories, of course it can also be debated HOW these stories become hyped in the first place (years of Manziel pimping) and how in the absence of the prerequisite hyping, why something else couldn't equal those numbers naturally.
But we're going to skip that one for now other then just pointing that this point is muddier then most think. But in the end, ESPN and other outlets want hits and views because they make money off it. But it is important to realize there is more then one way to skin a cat, and thus just because all the focus on Manziel gives them ratings, doesn't mean if they went another way, they couldn't equal or even surpass what the current situation creates around Manziel.
2. Sports in general creates stories by what occurs while playing or preparing to play those sports. For the 2014 NFL preseason so far, these are the ones that should crop up when say Bortles has a fine first outing. Or Logan Thomas plays lights out. Or any non-QB that play well. It can be rookies, it can be veterans. It's players singularly, or how teams as a whole play together. That's why there should also be stories about teams that kick another teams butt and completely dominate them. Or they spend 3 minutes showcasing Manziel, but then say in the last five seconds that it only led to 3 points and the other team, Detroit won, and we won't show you how or why.
3. People don't mind having extra stories about Manziel or Clowney or anybody, as long as this coverage doesn't push out REAL stories. So if ESPN wants to show Manziel coverage, they have to make sure they still leave time to cover all the REAL stories of what is actually happening. They have to make sure they have the staff to do the extra stories or have some staff do more. Sadly they are choosing not to do this.
4. People want honest analysis. They don't want people pissing down their back and tell them it's raining. But that's exactly what ESPN and other sports outlets have been doing with Manziel and Sam.
Neither of these guys are likely to play much, if at all, during the 2014 regular season. Could Manziel win the job? Sure, but only because a Brian Hoyer level talent (or lack thereof) is in front of him. Will he play long? Not if he runs around like a moron and chooses to run instead of taking the open play.
People may hate Gruden, but he's right when says you can't go broke taking a profit, and for Manziel, taking that profit, helps keep Manziel from getting layed out. A big part of Gruden's camp with Manziel was entirely that. Don't run when you can make a profit throwing. Look at how he got injured by not taking a profit in a college game, and how that injury then hampered him and the team for a long time.
So far in one game we watched Manziel do exactly what Gruden warned him about, and came up shaken a bit. Funny that ESPN's analysis doesn't even use ESPN's own analysis (via Gruden) when talking about Manziel. It's hype train. You can service a hype story without being morons about it. ESPN though, chooses to be morons.
Manziel was very pedestrian, both throwing and running, and people want real analysis of it. After all, if you're going to cut away the real stories, and subject people to these ones, at least be honest with what you shove down people's throats.
Many cut QB's can run for 15 yards when the defense vacates the middle and leaves it wide open. It's a nothing play. It's nothing to be excited about. He had a wide open field, and ran like any other QB could. It's not Johnny Football. It's regular football, and it doesn't showcase how good anyone can be, because it was a defensive mistake (or defensive playcalling mistake) rather then a good play by Johnny that shows he is a legit NFL QB.
He connected on a 15 yard post route, again, nothing special. Besides these two pedestrian plays, he did nothing except make mistake after mistake. Even his 1 yard run 1st down scramble, that he was lucky to get, he had a wide open guy, right in front of him, that he could of dumped off and gotten the 1st down.
But he didn't take the profit, and almost went broke. So people won't mind if 100 articles come out about the game, but ALL of them should talk about how badly he sucked, and very few did. They were pissing down our back and told us it was raining.
What ESPN and others did was not only that, but then decided to take all the real plays, and real stories, let them go unnoticed, and present that as their Sportscenter or whatever. How can they talk about the exciting Manziel when Logan Thomas and Blake Bortles had theirs? It's dishonest, plain and simple.
If you want more Manziel stories, be correct, and add to the body of work that should be done around the NFL regardless of one Johnny Manziel or one Michael Sam. Cover the NFL, don't just cover Johnny and Sam at the detriment of everyone else. It is not legitimate to forget the real to cover the hype, no matter what ratings say. Find a way to work both, but never abandon the real.
So of course people want to know about Clowney and Manziel and Sam, but the NFL is about a whole lot more then that, and people are justified in their complaining when they see real stories ignored for a predetermined narrative. It's THEIR job to cover the NFL, so when they don't, and do so in such an obvious fashion, people are rightly going to complain and be completely justified in doing so.
We see it on MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN regarding pretty much everything. But every year ESPN and other sports outlets become more and more like these above morons of propaganda.
We in America are sick of propaganda. It's all we get, and we know it, and we want something else.
So it's not a valid either/or question. They can easily talk about the real NFL stories and placate the hype. Just somehow they CHOSE one over the other, for no reason. ESPN has an hour program, and at least half of that time is wasted on pointless crap and needless asinine banter. So I don't buy the either/or situation. They could of done both, or if actually pressed, go with what's real over what's hype. But remember, they aren't forced into that decision, since they have plenty of time to cover both.
So people can play the numbers game, or they can focus on reality. This is another case of focusing on numbers and missing the forest from the trees.
