ESPN’s public relations department issued a statement on Saturday afternoon denying a report that Milwaukee Bucks guard Patrick Beverley was banned from network programming.
The report, which came from Michael McCarthy of Front Office Sports Friday, indicated that Beverley had been banned from appearing on any ESPN shows after the Bucks guard ejected network producer Malinda Adams from his postgame media availability on Thursday night.
“There was an erroneous report that suggested Patrick Beverley was banned from appearing on ESPN. He isn’t banned and never was,” the statement from the network said Saturday.
Beverley’s verbal altercation with Adams came after she admitted to the Bucks guard that she did not subscribe to his podcast.
Beverley’s behavior during the media scrum, as well as during the game when he threw a ball at a group of Pacers fans behind the Milwaukee bench twice, was widely criticized in the aftermath of Milwaukee’s elimination from the playoffs.
Beverley apologized to Adams on Friday, she said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) Friday.
There is no word yet on any discipline for Beverley from the NBA regarding either of the two incidents.
Caitlin Clark has the entire sports talk industry turned upside down right now. Clark and the Indiana Fever have been playing nonstop since the season started and between the attention and pressure, she has struggledout of the gate. On top of that there's how she's being treated by other teams, which has not been very nicely, culminating in a cheap shot from Chennedy Carter over the weekend.
On Monday's episode of The Pat McAfee Show, the eponymous host got out from behind the desk and did a whole presentation about how important Clark is and how jealous all the haters are. He did this is in a McAfee-specific fashion as he swore on ESPN and identified Clark as the "white b----" who has lifted the entire sport.
Monday's Pat McAfee Show opened with a Caitlin Clark PowerPoint:
"I would like the media people that continue to say, 'This rookie class, this rookie class, this rookie class'. Nah, just call it for what it is — there's one white bitch for the Indiana team who is a superstar." pic.twitter.com/psGNQXts5O
— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) June 3, 2024
"I would like the media people that continue to say this rookie class, this rookie class, this rookie class. Nah. Just call it for what it is," said McAfee. "There's one white b---- for this Indiana team who is a superstar. And is it because she stayed in Iowa, put an entire team on her back, took a program from nothing to a multiple-year success story?"
"Is it because she would go on to break the entire points records in the history of the NCAA? Not just the women's by Kelsea Plum - shout out - but also "Pistol" Pete Maravich's. The dude's record as well. Is there a chance that people just like watching her play basketball? Because of how electrifying she is. What she did. What she stood for. How she went about going what she went for? Maybe. But instead we have to hear people say that we only like her because she's white. And she's only popular because the rest of the rookie class is doing what they're doing. That's a bunch of bulls----. And we think the WNBA, more specifically, their refs, need to stop trying to screw her over at every single turn. What you have is somebody special. And we're lucky to have her in Indiana."
McAfee also discussed the "Eminem effect," playing a clip of 50 Cent saying people didn't want to give Eminem credit because he was white. "Let's just take that into the WNBA situation," said McAfee. "That it is just a bunch of racist people who will only watch if a white superstar is there." Then the show put up pictures of Diana Taurasi, Sabrina Ionescu, Kelsey Plum and Breanna Stewart. "I think what we're trying to say is what the WNBA currently has is what we like to describe as a cash cow. There is a superstar."
All-in-all, a very colorful presentation by McAfee, who continues to make it clear that he can do whatever he wants on ESPN. Including defending Clark by trying to make sense of why so many people apparently hate her. By whatever means necessary.
While Trout was distraught about the news, ESPN's Stephen A. Smith seemed to make it all a big joke as he tore down the Angels outfielder for having to miss more time due to injury during Wednesday's episode of First Take.
“How the hell is he always hurt?," Smith yelled. "I don’t understand this. It drives me nuts when I see baseball players get hurt. What is it that you’re doing with yourself physically that you can’t stay healthy playing baseball? Now, you get hit by a pitch or something, that’s different, I get all of that. With these oblique injuries, you’re running around bases, catching one, then you’re running out for a fly ball, and all of a sudden, something gets tweaked. What the hell is going on?”
Here's Smith's full rant:
Stephen A. Smith isn't sure how baseball players like Mike Trout keep getting injured.
"What the hell are you doing to take care of yourself? Always injured. I mean, damn, it's baseball. What are we talking about here? It's not football. It's not boxing. It's not the UFC..." pic.twitter.com/MamhcLHQKH
Someone brought this to my attention. This is just dumb. This is "take" culture at its worst. Pretend you know things that you don't, get upset, get loud, never back down. Never learn. Never grow. Never change, ESPN https://t.co/Ek08fHUOOU
Stephen A. Smith talking about baseball is as cringeworthy as Christopher Russo talking about college football. National guys spread too thin who don’t know anything but a couple of sound bites. Zero depth. https://t.co/caJM7XRqGs
Halftime shows are like commercials. A necessary evil and a perfect opportunity to load up on more snack mix or perform a fluids check. Few people in the history of sitting on their couches have ever been deeply intrigued by a Coming Up At the Half tease. And the hardworking broadcasting crews that try to capture eyeballs and attention are fighting an uphill battle.
That's the bad news. The good is that all of this combines to create a low-stakes environment because, let's face it, average viewers don't really care if the halftime show is good or average or a trainwreck. As long as the second half begins on time then everyone wins and no one loses.
So it's kind of perplexing to see the aggregating of grievances concerning ESPN/ABC's mid-game fare during the NBA Finals. Awful Announcing got out the stopwatch and crunched some numbers following Game 1's halftime show.
All told, the studio crew got roughly a minute and 20 seconds of air time. And remember, that time was split between five people. Much of that time was spent on intros from and outros to commercial breaks.
Is this ideal? Certainly not. But is it a new phenomenon? Also no.
ESPN/ABC has been dinged for stuffing shot-clock-length opinions and observations between a crushing amount of bells and whistles for years. Those critiquing the operation are right when they say there's no flow and it can all be a bit disorienting. But they are also a bit silly for tuning into the Finals games and expecting anything different than what has been standard operating procedure for some time now.
It feels weird to defend something that could certainly be better yet at the same time complaining that viewers aren't getting enough opinions or analysis during what is essentially a content oasis feels a bit weird. Those are available on the network before the game and after the game, plus on-demand and on social media for anyone who may have missed the thousands of words and hundreds of segments devoted to Celtics-Mavs under the ESPN umbrella.
There simply cannot be a real world faction significant enough to warrant concern-trolling that Bob Myers and Josh Hart weren't given enough time to explore the space. Or that the real world is pining for another minute of Stephen A. Smith to fire off whatever he's going to fire off.
For as often this crew is compared to TNT's iconic foursome on Inside the NBA, which does move at a more beneficial pace, there's little apples-to-oranges consideration. First, broadcasting a champioship is going to afford the opportunity — and necessity really — to be more sponsor- and commercial-heavy. Then there's the problem of people conflating TNT's long postgame coverage with its halftime hits. Sure Barkley or O'Neal might say something hilarious and go viral during the mid-game break but more often than not the focus will be on Team X not turning the ball over or how Team Y looks sleepy out there.
Sunday night's Game 2 brought more of the same because, honestly, who would think it would change in the span of a few days. Unofficial numbers suggest the commercialization outpaced the analysis at around a 6-1 clip. But we're not going to go back and chart it ourselves because almost anything is a better use of time.
Something to keep in mind for Game 3 instead of hoping for a miracle that simply isn't going to come.
