# ESPN 30 For 30 - Anyone watching?



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

Anyone else watching these?

http://30for30.espn.com/

30 documentaries produced by various people on various subjects in the sports world. I recorded several of them and have watched some. I have found them to be pretty entertaining so far.

7 of the 30 have aired but you can set up a season pass (or whatever your DVR calls it) and probably catch them. I only have one that I haven't recorded yet.


Kings Ransom - the trade of Wayne Gretzky
The Band That Wouldn't Die - the move of the Baltimore Colts
Small Potatoes: Who Killed The USFL?
Mohammad and Larry - Ali and Holmes
Without Bias - The Death of Len Bias
The Legend Of Jimmy The Greek
The U - the story of the University of Miami in the 80's/90's
Some of the upcoming topics include Terry Fox, Steve Bartman, OJ's Bronco Ride, Marcus Dupree, Chris/Martina, the birth of Fantasy Sports...

:up: from me. Hope you enjoy them too.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Yeah, I've been enjoying them. Missed the first two though.

I thought the USFL one was the best (surprisingly) with the Len Bias ep coming in second. _The U_ was good, but it was a little too congratulatory. I get that the team's image was (is) all about confidence, but they needed to rein it in a little.

In terms of those still to come, can't wait for the Reggie Miller vs. Knicks one.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I think I have only watched the USFL one so far, but I have the rest saved.

I just heard an interview about two guys who made one about Al Davis and LA, and I think it is coming out in April.

This was a very cool idea by ESPN.


----------



## HiddenSky (Dec 14, 2004)

I'm watching Kings Ransom right now.:up:


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I thought they were all pretty well done. I thought Kings Ransom was the worst and kind of typical in the way that ESPN treats hockey in general, which disappointed me as an avid hockey fan. My two favorites were the USFL one (and I loved how they pretty much blamed Trump for it's demise), and the Baltimore Band (but they so romanticized it that the irony of the fact that the Ravens were brought to Baltimore at the expense of the Cleveland fans, exactly the same situation that happend to those same Colt fans). The Holmes/Ali one was interesting too. I even enjoyed the Len Bias story even though I'm not a big basketball fan. It did make me think why his friends aren't in prison for murder for giving him the drugs, and why they didn't make more of the point his friends were insinuating, that Bias was a drug user prior to his death.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'd heard people talking about them and heard good things about the USFL one and the Baltimore Colts band one, so I recorded those when they did a marathon over New Years. I watched the USFL one and enjoyed it. Haven't watched the band one yet. I'll probably check out a few of the upcoming ones, if there are topics I'm interested in.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

I've recorded them all, and watched all except the Baltimore Band. I was in junior high when ESPN hit the air, so all of these so far are very vivid in my memory as a sports fan.


Steveknj said:


> I thought Kings Ransom was the worst and kind of typical in the way that ESPN treats hockey in general, which disappointed me as an avid hockey fan.


Every director chose his subject matter based upon their personal interest. It wasn't ESPN that mishandled it, it was Peter Berg that was responsible. And I agree that it was the weakest of what I have seen so far.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

I've been recording them and have watched the ones on the USFL, Bias, the Greek and the U. All were pretty good but the USFL one was the most enjoyable for me.


----------



## trnsfrguy (Apr 28, 2005)

I've only seen the one on the USFL and enjoyed it. Having gone to most of the NJ Generals home games in their short life, I was very interested in it.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I've watched them all. Feel the same way about the as SteveNJ except I agree with Megahertz can't blame ESPN for the Kings Ransom one. ESPN actually ran an interview with Berg that was more interesting than the film he did.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

trnsfrguy said:


> I've only seen the one on the USFL and enjoyed it. Having gone to most of the NJ Generals home games in their short life, I was very interested in it.


I was living in AZ at the time and went to the first ever USFL game (first ever pro-football game) in Sun Devil Stadium between the Arizona Wrangers and the Oakland team. IRC we got blanked. Also went to Hershel Walker's USFL breakout game (his first 100 yard game) against AZ. It was a fun league, and ESPN's first attempt to cover pro football.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MegaHertz67 said:


> I've recorded them all, and watched all except the Baltimore Band. I was in junior high when ESPN hit the air, so all of these so far are very vivid in my memory as a sports fan.
> Every director chose his subject matter based upon their personal interest. It wasn't ESPN that mishandled it, it was Peter Berg that was responsible. And I agree that it was the weakest of what I have seen so far.


I agree, except it is typical of ESPN to choose a story about hockey that doesn't put it in a good light. It was just a poor story choice. I was going to say NY Rangers quest for the cup as a better "feel good" hockey story, but I don't think ESPN had hockey that year. Ahh well, just venting. The series has been good overall.


----------



## jschuman (Feb 20, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I agree, except it is typical of ESPN to choose a story about hockey that doesn't put it in a good light. It was just a poor story choice. I was going to say NY Rangers quest for the cup as a better "feel good" hockey story, but I don't think ESPN had hockey that year. Ahh well, just venting. The series has been good overall.


One of the upcoming documentaries is about June 17, 1994 - which includes the Rangers championship (probably the parade?):
http://30for30.espn.com/film/june-17-1994.html


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jschuman said:


> One of the upcoming documentaries is about June 17, 1994 - which includes the Rangers championship (probably the parade?):
> http://30for30.espn.com/film/june-17-1994.html


Cool. As a Rangers fan, I'm sure that will be the highlight of these films for me  What was really cool about that time is the Knicks were ALSO in the NBA finals at the same time.

Reading the link it looks like it's about the day not the Cup finals. My guess is that the Rangers will be mentioned in passing while they will play up (understandably) the OJ stuff. If they play up the Arnold Palmer stuff as a major event I will puke. I don't even recall that happening around then with all this other stuff going on.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

I watched the USFL, Bias, and Jimmy the Greek shows. Being a Terp fan during Bias playing days, that really brought back good and bad memories. Bias could have been as good as Jordan. And the Celtics could have been dominant for another 10 years.

Frank


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I agree, except it is typical of ESPN to choose a story about hockey that doesn't put it in a good light. It was just a poor story choice. I was going to say NY Rangers quest for the cup as a better "feel good" hockey story, but I don't think ESPN had hockey that year. Ahh well, just venting. The series has been good overall.


this series is not about selecting events and rehashing them... it's about taking an angle of a big sports story that hasn't really been explored before. the wayne gretzky trade was THE biggest hockey story of the last 30 years (this coming from a less than casual hockey fan), and it was interesting to see the anatomy of the trade from different POVs, and the aftermath. it's less about gretzky and his accomplishments and more about the 'players' in the trade, and what they were thinking, incl gretzky... i don't think it has anything to do with good light/bad light... it was a big story, and it was an obvious choice for this series. 


Steveknj said:


> Cool. As a Rangers fan, I'm sure that will be the highlight of these films for me  What was really cool about that time is the Knicks were ALSO in the NBA finals at the same time.
> 
> Reading the link it looks like it's about the day not the Cup finals. My guess is that the Rangers will be mentioned in passing while they will play up (understandably) the OJ stuff. If they play up the Arnold Palmer stuff as a major event I will puke. I don't even recall that happening around then with all this other stuff going on.


as your link illustrates, it's less about the finals, and more about the circumstances surrounding the finals, and the sports day in general. surely more interesting than just a rehashing of the stanley cup finals.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I agree, except it is typical of ESPN to choose a story about hockey that doesn't put it in a good light.


as stated earlier, espn did not choose any of the stories.. they approached filmmakers and let them choose the subject matter.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

bruinfan said:


> this series is not about selecting events and rehashing them... it's about taking an angle of a big sports story that hasn't really been explored before. the wayne gretzky trade was THE biggest hockey story of the last 30 years (this coming from a less than casual hockey fan), and it was interesting to see the anatomy of the trade from different POVs, and the aftermath. it's less about gretzky and his accomplishments and more about the 'players' in the trade, and what they were thinking, incl gretzky... i don't think it has anything to do with good light/bad light... it was a big story, and it was an obvious choice for this series.
> 
> as your link illustrates, it's less about the finals, and more about the circumstances surrounding the finals, and the sports day in general. surely more interesting than just a rehashing of the stanley cup finals.


I don't quite agree with you that this was the biggest hockey story in the last 30 years, but I see your point. But, you don't think that ESPN gets final say on what story these directors are doing? As for your second point, a story about a team waiting 54 years to win a Stanley Cup, where whole generations of fans have been waiting, just like the Red Sox did or the Cubs are, is NOT a compelling story? As you say, you're not a hockey fan. I'm not a college football fan, but the story about U of Miami was compelling. Why couldn't a more uplifting hockey story be compelling?

But anyway, that's just a personal pet peeve that probably only a hockey fan would notice. Same way that west coasters notice a certain East Coast bias that I never see, living on the East Coast.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Anyone know what baseball stories they are doing? I find it interesting that 4 of the first 7 stories are football related. (I'm including the Jimmy the Greek story as football related because he's most famous for his NFL Today stint).


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

The only people that really care about the ranger story are ranger fans. Lets face it, Gretsky's move to L.A. opened up the NHL to other non-traditional markets.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

JFriday said:


> The only people that really care about the ranger story are ranger fans. Lets face it, Gretsky's move to L.A. opened up the NHL to other non-traditional markets.


That's true, but why would anyone other than Baltimore Colts fans care about them moving to Indy? Or U of Miami fans care about their rise to success? Spike Lee vs. Reggie Miller? Yeah, Knicks and Pacer fans care, who else would? Ali vs. Holmes....that marked the end of an era in boxing...but wouldn't the rise (and fall) of Mike Tyson be a bigger story during the ESPN era? See my point? All of these stories have some regional appeal and if you aren't a fan of teams from that region, they don't matter TO YOU. Of course the biggest hockey story is the 1980 Olympics, but it's been done to death. We'll see, we don't know all the stories yet, so maybe some of these other ones will be done too.

In fact, what stories would everyone want to see done:

besides the one I mentioned above, how about....


Bird vs. Magic
The Dream Team
The preliferation of HRs in the 1990s-2000s
The death of the heavyweight division in boxing
The NHL strike and the rise of the young stars in it's aftermath
Cancelling the 1984 World Series
The rise of NASCAR
The rise of Pro Wrestling
Michael Phelps
Super Bowl advertising

Not sure what else...


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

It was a lockout not a strike (NHL). I wouldn't care about half those but would watch them. Just like I've watched all of them so far. Enjoyed the Len Bias episode even though I am not a basketball fan. I just think the Gretsky one was boring especially compared to the others so far. Like I said the interview with the film maker was better than the actual episode. Even though the 80 Olympic team was probably a bigger story, the Gretzky trade had a bigger ripple affect to the NHL as a league.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

I just saw Winning Time: Reggie Miller vs. The New York Knicks at Sundance the other night. It was utterly riveting. Seriously, make sure you watch it when it premieres on ESPN in March.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

here's a nice summary of how the whole series was conceived and implemented. gives you insight on why they did or didn't do a story you might be interested in.
bill simmons on 30 for 30


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

I have a Season Pass for these and I've seen ALL of them what have aired. Really great stuff. I actually thought I missed some since I assumed there were 30 total that aired sometime.

My least favorite was the King's Ransom one. Kind of dull, and I honestly think a Charlie Rose episode with Wayne would have been more intriguing. 

The one I ended up liking the most was the one I almost deleted when I saw the subject matter. It was "The U". I can't get over how impressed I am with the way Billy Corben makes films. I was a huge fan of Cocaine Cowboys, and the way The U is presented is much the same way. There's all sorts of filmmaking tweaks like still photos that have some moving action in them as the camera pans by, to really excellent pacing that never left me bored at all.

I can't wait for the others to air...huge fan of this series.

I can't wait for the Fantasy Sports one. I wonder if they'll show the bar in my town of Oakland, CA like King's X (gone now...it's the Tiki Bar) where it all began.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Is anyone going to do a movie on monster trucks or billiards? Those were integral parts of ESPN's history.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I thought they were all pretty well done. I thought Kings Ransom was the worst and kind of typical in the way that ESPN treats hockey in general, which disappointed me as an avid hockey fan. My two favorites were the USFL one (and I loved how they pretty much blamed Trump for it's demise), and the Baltimore Band (but they so romanticized it that the irony of the fact that the Ravens were brought to Baltimore at the expense of the Cleveland fans, exactly the same situation that happend to those same Colt fans). The Holmes/Ali one was interesting too. I even enjoyed the Len Bias story even though I'm not a big basketball fan. It did make me think why his friends aren't in prison for murder for giving him the drugs, and why they didn't make more of the point his friends were insinuating, that Bias was a drug user prior to his death.


A couple of thoughts.

-I really didn't think it was much of a revelation that Trump killed the USFL. It was his choice to move it to the fall; pretty much anyone with any knowledge of the USFL is aware of that.
-Glad you brought up the irony of the Baltimore Band. That's why I wasn't overly enamored of that episode. I can't listen to a Baltimore fan ***** about losing the Colts without thinking, "You did the same effing thing to another town!"
-I thought the Bias thing hit pretty well on the fact that Bias was not just a casual drug user. I'd be willing to bet there are still a fair amount of people familiar with that story who think that was the first time Bias did coke. The thing I found fascinating about that one was that the doctor who essentially created the mandatory minimum terms for crack wound up being disbarred.



JFriday said:


> I've watched them all. Feel the same way about the as SteveNJ except I agree with Megahertz can't blame ESPN for the Kings Ransom one. ESPN actually ran an interview with Berg that was more interesting than the film he did.


Yeah, I listened to that before seeing the episode, and I'd also read Gretzky's autobiography way back when, so there really wasn't much new there for me. I'm disappointed that they didn't mention in the documentary that Gretzky's wife told him to take the trade to Detroit and that it was Wayne's choice to go to L.A.



Steveknj said:


> I agree, except it is typical of ESPN to choose a story about hockey that doesn't put it in a good light. It was just a poor story choice. I was going to say NY Rangers quest for the cup as a better "feel good" hockey story, but I don't think ESPN had hockey that year. Ahh well, just venting. The series has been good overall.


No, no, no, no, 1000 times no. That would be like me saying the Red Wings-Avalanche rivalry was the most compelling story of the last 30 years. Anyone who knows anything about hockey knows that the Gretzky trade changed hockey forever, for better or worse (thanks Wayne...now we've got teams in Nashville and Miami and Phoenix and Charlotte ). The Rangers winning the Cup was a compelling story for Rangers fans. A more compelling story would be looking at how a team that spent so much money on players could've sucked so badly on a consistent basis.

And yes, ESPN had hockey that year. They crammed the Rangers down our throats (perhaps because the NBA Finals that year was the most boring 7-game series ever). It was all Rangers, all the time. So please, don't sell the idea of the Rangers being a compelling story. You'll find no buyers.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

inaka said:


> The one I ended up liking the most was the one I almost deleted when I saw the subject matter. It was "The U". I can't get over how impressed I am with the way Billy Corben makes films. I was a huge fan of Cocaine Cowboys, and the way The U is presented is much the same way. There's all sorts of filmmaking tweaks like still photos that have some moving action in them as the camera pans by, to really excellent pacing that never left me bored at all.


I really liked that one too. Nothing better than Mike Francesca saying, "They're the best team in the country, but they do not deserve the national championship"  (and what the hell was Francesca doing calling a football game!?!).

But I really want to know what the hell was wrong with Bernie Kosar. Were they feeding him liquor as he was filming his scenes? It's no wonder he's broke.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

Sparty99 said:


> A couple of thoughts.
> 
> -I really didn't think it was much of a revelation that Trump killed the USFL. It was his choice to move it to the fall; pretty much anyone with any knowledge of the USFL is aware of that.


how many people have ANY knowledge of the usfl... anyone in my age group and younger (i'm 37) has fleeting, if any knowledge of the usfl. i was in 6th grade maybe... i remember going to an express game... and i knew they had herschel walker... and that's it. and then they were gone. i had no idea donald trump was a player. 
being a pretty informed sports fan now, here's what i could tell you about the usfl before watching this:
they had herschel, jim kelly, flutie, steve young?, a franchise in LA, and when the league folded, they somehow made it to the nfl, maybe via draft. it just wasn't in my knowledge base, and there are plenty of people like me.

i found the usfl piece very informative and entertaining.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

bruinfan said:


> how many people have ANY knowledge of the usfl... anyone in my age group and younger (i'm 37) has fleeting, if any knowledge of the usfl. i was in 6th grade maybe... i remember going to an express game... and i knew they had herschel walker... and that's it. and then they were gone. i had no idea donald trump was a player.
> being a pretty informed sports fan now, here's what i could tell you about the usfl before watching this:
> they had herschel, jim kelly, flutie, steve young?, a franchise in LA, and when the league folded, they somehow made it to the nfl, maybe via draft. it just wasn't in my knowledge base, and there are plenty of people like me.
> 
> i found the usfl piece very informative and entertaining.


A fair point. I too enjoyed the USFL piece, but I've always found the USFL fascinating so I've just absorbed pretty much everything I've ever heard about it. My point wasn't that the USFL piece was bad, but I was surprised that anyone seemed all that surprised that Trump was blamed for the downfall of the league, as I'd always assumed it was well known.

Ironically enough, I'm all of 32. The USFL had come and gone before I started paying any attention to sports.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> -I thought the Bias thing hit pretty well on the fact that Bias was not just a casual drug user. I'd be willing to bet there are still a fair amount of people familiar with that story who think that was the first time Bias did coke. The thing I found fascinating about that one was that the doctor who essentially created the mandatory minimum terms for crack wound up being disbarred.


Lefty Driesell said recently in the Baltimore Sun I think that he thought it was the first time Bias used. Please! In the 80s? That's like being surprised that college players were getting paid by boosters. How the hell is a poor kid from the city driving around in a BMW?

I just remember when that happened seeing the body taken away on the stretcher with his big feet hanging off the edge uncovered.

I need to catch "The U" episode. Haven't seen it yet.

Frank


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

marksman said:


> Is anyone going to do a movie on monster trucks or billiards? Those were integral parts of ESPN's history.


Or Aussie Rules football


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> A couple of thoughts.
> 
> -I really didn't think it was much of a revelation that Trump killed the USFL. It was his choice to move it to the fall; pretty much anyone with any knowledge of the USFL is aware of that.
> -Glad you brought up the irony of the Baltimore Band. That's why I wasn't overly enamored of that episode. I can't listen to a Baltimore fan ***** about losing the Colts without thinking, "You did the same effing thing to another town!"
> ...


So, how is the Rangers story (and if you lived in NY ...or Chicago...or Boston...anywhere there has been a long time between championships) any more or less compelling than the story of the U of Miami...I'm not a CFB fan, so I couldn't care less, in the same way....or the Baltimore band...an interesting story....but who cares outside of Baltimore? I agree with the Gretzky point, that is's an important story, but there are other 30 for 30s that are not important stories that have been done....the band story, the Spike Lee story....etc.

Funny, I don't remember the NHL on ESPN, as I thought that was the year (or years) that SportsChannel had the national rights, but I do remember ABC having a few early round games. I DO know I was able to watch all the Rangers playoff games on my RSN...MSG.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> I really liked that one too. Nothing better than Mike Francesca saying, "They're the best team in the country, but they do not deserve the national championship"  (and what the hell was Francesca doing calling a football game!?!).
> 
> But I really want to know what the hell was wrong with Bernie Kosar. Were they feeding him liquor as he was filming his scenes? It's no wonder he's broke.


Francessa got his start doing CFB and CBB on CBS. He talked about this during his radio show when they showed the film.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> A fair point. I too enjoyed the USFL piece, but I've always found the USFL fascinating so I've just absorbed pretty much everything I've ever heard about it. My point wasn't that the USFL piece was bad, but I was surprised that anyone seemed all that surprised that Trump was blamed for the downfall of the league, as I'd always assumed it was well known.
> 
> Ironically enough, I'm all of 32. The USFL had come and gone before I started paying any attention to sports.


I was at the very first USFL game in Arizona, and I remember the whole story well. While I knew that Trump's dream was to either get an NFL team or to try and get the merger with the NFL by forcing the league into fall football. And I remember when the ruling came down and they got $1 in damages!! But I had no idea that the Tampa owner was the other big player in the league.

For those who only know Trump from The Apprentice and his mega casinos, this is a nice insight into the budding ego of this man.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> But I really want to know what the hell was wrong with Bernie Kosar. Were they feeding him liquor as he was filming his scenes? It's no wonder he's broke.


I laughed everytime Bernie was interviewed, he sounded like a guy they pulled out of a bar. I would have never guessed it was him if they didn't show his name.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

ok, since noone has done it, here is the remaining list of upcoming topics, save the last 3:

reggie miller v ny knicks: mar 14

allen iverson trial apr 13

silly little game: a look at the birth of rotisserie baseball: apr 20

ricky williams: apr 27

straight out of LA: may 4, directed by ice cube: al davis and the LA raiders and his fight vs the nfl

the 2 escobars: may 11 the 94 world cup, and the dude that got killed for the own goal that cost the game and the connection btwn that guy, andres escobar, and pablo escobar

June 17, 2004: june 16: a look at the day in sports, with the OJ chase going on

the 16th day: june 22: how the 95 rugby world cup facilitated the end of apartheid in south africa

guru of go: TBA: LMU, hank gathers, paul westhead

into the wind: directed by steve nash: story of terry fox, a dude who had his leg amputated and set out to run across canada to raise awareness and money for bone cancer

jordan rides the bus: MJ in baseball (ron shelton directed)

charismatic: horse racing story

birth of big air: BMX

steve bartman

unmatched: evert/navratilova rivalry

one night in vegas: the night tupac was killed, and his relationship with tyson

marion jones: directed by jon singleton: 

the house that george built: steinbrenner legacy

right to play: directed by frank marshall: johann koss story, a speedskater, started a foundation, "right to play", which does good things

the best that never was: marcus dupree story, an oklahoma sooner RB

3 more tba


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I was at the very first USFL game in Arizona, and I remember the whole story well. While I knew that Trump's dream was to either get an NFL team or to try and get the merger with the NFL by forcing the league into fall football. And I remember when the ruling came down and they got $1 in damages!! But I had no idea that the Tampa owner was the other big player in the league.


I grew up in Tampa, and went to at least a couple of Bandits games, and _I_ really had no idea that the Bandits owner was such a big player in the league. Granted, I was 9-11 years old while the USFL was in operation, but I was precocious enough that I read the local paper daily. (We didn't have ESPN -- or cable, period -- at that time.)


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> So, how is the Rangers story (and if you lived in NY ...or Chicago...or Boston...anywhere there has been a long time between championships) any more or less compelling than the story of the U of Miami...I'm not a CFB fan, so I couldn't care less, in the same way....or the Baltimore band...an interesting story....but who cares outside of Baltimore? I agree with the Gretzky point, that is's an important story, but there are other 30 for 30s that are not important stories that have been done....the band story, the Spike Lee story....etc.
> 
> Funny, I don't remember the NHL on ESPN, as I thought that was the year (or years) that SportsChannel had the national rights, but I do remember ABC having a few early round games. I DO know I was able to watch all the Rangers playoff games on my RSN...MSG.


Miami went from essentially nothing to become a national program practically overnight. They were culturally relevant to everyone (whether you believe that to be the case or not, it's true). They won 4 national titles between '83-91, and as the piece mentioned, they were basically screwed out of another in South Bend in '88 and they outplayed Penn State in '87 but for 5 turnovers in the Orange Bowl. They've also been looked at as a bunch of thugs, but the bit in the show about the infamous fatigues game showed there was a tinge of racism in the whole thing.

In order for hockey to be that relevant in this country, it takes something like Wayne Gretzky being traded for it to measure on the radar. Consider that the '94 Cup Finals Game 7 that you reference got a 6.9 rating, and it was one of the highest rated hockey games ever. The average MNF game on ESPN got an 8.6 in '08. Hockey is a niche sport, even when a team in New York is playing.

Look, the Super Bowl this year is not just memorable to people in New Orleans and Indianapolis. The NCAA tournament is not just memorable to the team that wins it, and the University of Miami is not just memorable to people only in Miami. It's an interesting story. I'm guessing you're never going to agree with that.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

trainman said:


> I grew up in Tampa, and went to at least a couple of Bandits games, and _I_ really had no idea that the Bandits owner was such a big player in the league. Granted, I was 9-11 years old while the USFL was in operation, but I was precocious enough that I read the local paper daily. (We didn't have ESPN -- or cable, period -- at that time.)


I didn't either, but then again I was about the same age and you were.

The USFL series was especially interesting to me, because I was a huge fan of the Oakland Invaders growing up. My dad actually created the logo artwork for the team. I still have a folder right here on my shelf with all the early concept drawings and fonts for the lettering, etc.

My dad was an artist at the time, and he told me the story of when he and a sales buddy just read about where the new USFL was practicing in the newspaper (I don't think they had a name yet) and they went there to show the team some of my dad's designs. They didn't have a name or logo yet, and didn't want to pay for anything, so they asked my dad to do it and he said sure. (Could you imagine that happening in this day and age for a professional sports league?)

Anyway, just in case anyone is interested, here are those designs. This was before computers were the norm, so the artwork was all image ready shot on film, etc.:

Original idea for Oakland's team logo in red/white/blue like the new Patriots, etc. (team name wasn't decided yet):










After they were called "The Invaders" (in silver/black like The Raiders)










When they originally were going to call them the Bay Area Invaders and not "Oakland":



















Then the management got spooked that it was took close to the Raiders colors, etc. and they requested a guy holding a lightening bolt and blue/yellow colors. Original sketch:










And the rest is history. Final design:










I miss going to those old crazy USFL games as a kid, but it's nice to know that I still have a packet of these designs and tons of others to fondly look back on from time to time.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

inaka you should tell that info to uniwatch.com they'd be really interested in that story. The guy that runs that site writes for ESPN.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> Miami went from essentially nothing to become a national program practically overnight. *They were culturally relevant to everyone (whether you believe that to be the case or not, it's true). *They won 4 national titles between '83-91, and as the piece mentioned, they were basically screwed out of another in South Bend in '88 and they outplayed Penn State in '87 but for 5 turnovers in the Orange Bowl. They've also been looked at as a bunch of thugs, but the bit in the show about the infamous fatigues game showed there was a tinge of racism in the whole thing.
> 
> In order for hockey to be that relevant in this country, it takes something like Wayne Gretzky being traded for it to measure on the radar. Consider that the '94 Cup Finals Game 7 that you reference got a 6.9 rating, and it was one of the highest rated hockey games ever. The average MNF game on ESPN got an 8.6 in '08. Hockey is a niche sport, even when a team in New York is playing.
> 
> Look, the Super Bowl this year is not just memorable to people in New Orleans and Indianapolis. The NCAA tournament is not just memorable to the team that wins it, and the University of Miami is not just memorable to people only in Miami. It's an interesting story. I'm guessing you're never going to agree with that.


I understand all that about it being a more popular sport, but when you look down the list of upcoming shows, really, that isn't an issue. Culturally relevent to EVERYONE? Not to me...so that already means you're wrong about that. Here in NYC, college FB is a marginal sport at best, but I understand that in much of the country, it's big time. Anway, if you can have a story about BMX, tupac and Tyson (and I'm not even sure if that's going to be a "sports story" , marcus Dupree and a few more ANY more relevant than what I was proposing. The BMX story is there to promote their X-Games. I'm actually surprised they don't have a story about poker? I actually enjoyed the Miami story.

The other thing that annoys me, is there's exactly ONE REAL baseball story, the one about Steinbrenner. I'm not counting the MJ story or the Rotessiere story. I can probably think of a 2 or 3 stories about baseball that are MORE relevent than what they are showing. Steroids, the 1998 HR race. Nolan Ryan, Josh Hamilton.

I'm not saying ANY of these movies won't be interesting, I just made the point that the one story they chose on hockey was done poorly and was typical ESPN to smackdown the sport. They still live in the belief that the only hockey highlights worth showing is two goons fighting.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I understand all that about it being a more popular sport, but when you look down the list of upcoming shows, really, that isn't an issue. Culturally relevent to EVERYONE? Not to me...so that already means you're wrong about that. Here in NYC, college FB is a marginal sport at best, but I understand that in much of the country, it's big time. Anway, if you can have a story about BMX, tupac and Tyson (and I'm not even sure if that's going to be a "sports story" , marcus Dupree and a few more ANY more relevant than what I was proposing. The BMX story is there to promote their X-Games. I'm actually surprised they don't have a story about poker? I actually enjoyed the Miami story.
> 
> The other thing that annoys me, is there's exactly ONE REAL baseball story, the one about Steinbrenner. I'm not counting the MJ story or the Rotessiere story. I can probably think of a 2 or 3 stories about baseball that are MORE relevent than what they are showing. Steroids, the 1998 HR race. Nolan Ryan, Josh Hamilton.
> 
> I'm not saying ANY of these movies won't be interesting, I just made the point that the one story they chose on hockey was done poorly and was typical ESPN to smackdown the sport. They still live in the belief that the only hockey highlights worth showing is two goons fighting.


But once again, you're missing the point. ESPN didn't pick the topics, and documentaries aren't generally made about mainstream subjects. Documentaries are usually pet projects or more artsy, creative projects, and they rarely look at the obvious, front-page stories. They usually focus on something that the average person wouldn't know about, or take an angle that's unorthodox.

If ESPN were simply picking the top 30 stories in sports over the past 30 years and instructing people to make documentaries about those subjects, they'd probably only retain 2-3 of the same subjects that they have now, if that.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Steve maybe this will help you understand what the 30 for 30 is about.

http://30for30.espn.com/bill-simmons-essay.html


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

JFriday said:


> inaka you should tell that info to uniwatch.com they'd be really interested in that story. The guy that runs that site writes for ESPN.


Thanks, JFriday. I went to uniwatch.com, but it just popped up some web site placeholder, not a real site. Is there a different URL perhaps? Thanks.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

inaka said:


> Thanks, JFriday. I went to uniwatch.com, but it just popped up some web site placeholder, not a real site. Is there a different URL perhaps? Thanks.


Sorry. Here you go. They just ran a piece on the USLF.

http://www.uniwatchblog.com/


----------



## trnsfrguy (Apr 28, 2005)

While this is nothing compared to inaka's post, I did find this while cleaning out my closet today.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> But once again, you're missing the point. ESPN didn't pick the topics, and documentaries aren't generally made about mainstream subjects. Documentaries are usually pet projects or more artsy, creative projects, and they rarely look at the obvious, front-page stories. They usually focus on something that the average person wouldn't know about, or take an angle that's unorthodox.
> 
> If ESPN were simply picking the top 30 stories in sports over the past 30 years and instructing people to make documentaries about those subjects, they'd probably only retain 2-3 of the same subjects that they have now, if that.


I get that, and that's fine....but the point others were making was that these stories WERE stories that were more mainstream than the one I suggested (such as the one on Univ Miami). Whatever, I am enjoying it anyway.


----------



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

New episode coming up this Sunday - "Winning Time"



> Reggie Miller single-handedly crushed the hearts of Knick fans multiple times. But it was the 1995 Eastern Conference Semifinals that solidified Miller as Public Enemy #1 in New York City. With moments to go in Game 1, and facing a seemingly insurmountable deficit of 105-99, Miller scored eight points in 8.9 seconds to give his Indiana Pacers an astonishing victory. This career-defining performance, combined with his give-and-take with Knicks fan Spike Lee, made Miller and the Knicks a highlight of the 1995 NBA playoffs. Peabody Award-winning director Dan Klores will explore how Miller proudly built his legend as The Gardens Greatest Villain.


And, on April 3rd - "Guru Of Go" - The story of Loyola Marymount, Hank Gathers, Bo Kimble and Paul Westhead.

Lastly - April 13th - No Crossover: The Trial of Allen Iverson


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Yeah, I'm definitely looking forward to this Sunday's ep. I still hate Reggie Miller.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> In fact, what stories would everyone want to see done:
> 
> besides the one I mentioned above, how about....
> 
> ...


An obvious choice, although one that may have already been done, is Affirmed vs. Alydar; maybe they can concentrate more on their subsequent lineages than on those horses themselves.

How about one on the Arizona State men's basketball point-shaving scandal of the mid-1990s? (I think the turning point was in 1994, when the FBI pretty much walked in on ASU's team during halftime of a game against Washington and told then-coach Bob Bender about some late heavy betting on Washington amid rumors that ASU was point shaving (it didn't help the team any that they were having a poor game up to that point); they found their A-game in the second half and easily covered. It turned out that a sizable number of bets came from college-age kids who believed the rumors; three years later, two ASU players would admit to shaving points during that season.)

Then again, if you want to talk about betting scandals, not many sports have bigger internationally-known ones than cricket - you don't have to worry too much about describing the game to describe some of the bigger betting incidents.

-- Don


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> An obvious choice, although one that may have already been done, is Affirmed vs. Alydar; maybe they can concentrate more on their subsequent lineages than on those horses themselves.
> 
> How about one on the Arizona State men's basketball point-shaving scandal of the mid-1990s? (I think the turning point was in 1994, when the FBI pretty much walked in on ASU's team during halftime of a game against Washington and told then-coach Bob Bender about some late heavy betting on Washington amid rumors that ASU was point shaving (it didn't help the team any that they were having a poor game up to that point); they found their A-game in the second half and easily covered. It turned out that a sizable number of bets came from college-age kids who believed the rumors; three years later, two ASU players would admit to shaving points during that season.)
> 
> ...


I think Affirmed-Alydar was PRE-ESPN, so that wouldn't count. As an ASU alum...I hope they DON'T do that story (but I do hate big time college sports, especially hoops, so I guess it wouldn't bother me). Betting scandal? How about Pete Rose?

Oh, and Bird vs. Magic was just done on HBO.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Thoughts on Reggie Miller vs. The Knicks? Watched it last night -- liked it a lot.


----------



## jschuman (Feb 20, 2001)

hanumang said:


> Thoughts on Reggie Miller vs. The Knicks? Watched it last night -- liked it a lot.


I liked it too. Here are some of my random thoughts:

- This was by far my _favorite_ Knicks team. I just loved rooting for them. Ewing, Oakley, Mason, Starks, even Herb Williams. There was just something about that collection of players that was very fun to watch.

- Say what you will about John Starks' temper, but I was a BIG fan of his (and I believe most Knicks fans at time had a special affinity for him). He was hardworking, fearless and made the absolute most of his talents. It's extremely telling that even when he somewhat single-handedly blew game 7 of the 1994 Finals, he wasn't vilified by most Knicks fans.

- Charles Smith sounded extremely intelligent in his interviews. Too bad he couldn't just dunk one time against the Bulls. 

- I can't put my finger on it, but for some reason the interview pieces with Ahmad Rashad _and_ Cheryl Miller were really annoying. I understand her effect on Reggie Miller's life, but (again, not sure why) I really didn't care about her opinions on his battles with the Knicks.

- I was still looking for the foul call when Miller shoved Greg Anthony down during the 8 points in 18 seconds game!! 

- It sounded like Ewing still gets choked up when talking about that missed layup in 1995.

- The video over the credits - showing most of the key players embracing - was pretty poignant and enjoyable.

- The Larry Johnson 4 point play was awesome. Ah, memories.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

hanumang said:


> Thoughts on Reggie Miller vs. The Knicks? Watched it last night -- liked it a lot.


I enjoyed it. I kinda wish they'd done the documentary on Reggie _and_ his sister Cheryl (sp?). Her story is pretty interesting, and the relationship between them was a big part of Reggie's story.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

jschuman said:


> Say what you will about John Starks' temper, but I was a BIG fan of his (and I believe most Knicks fans at time had a special affinity for him). He was hardworking, fearless and made the absolute most of his talents. It's extremely telling that even when he somewhat single-handedly blew game 7 of the 1994 Finals, he wasn't vilified by most Knicks fans.


Agreed on all counts.

And, yeah, the Ewing miss is _still_ a heartbreaker.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

jschuman said:


> - I was still looking for the foul call when Miller shoved Greg Anthony down during the 8 points in 18 seconds game!!


And yet you're not looking for the BS call on Starks's (?) 3-pointer in the Bulls series to be given back. Probably best to just call it even. 



jschuman said:


> The Larry Johnson 4 point play was awesome. Ah, memories.


It's been 15 years and I'd still like to see the foul on that play.

Thought the doc was good. Would've liked to have seen more of relationship between Reggie and Cheryl, because it really seemed to look like Reggie had a chip on his shoulder. And the Indiana fans *****ing about Steve Alford...uh, when he winds up going 26th, it's probably best that your team didn't take him at #2.

The podcast on this episode was interesting, because the director said he would've taken out the comment Reggie made about Starks being dumb.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

I always had a respect for Miller's talent, but always hated him as a player and thought he was a punk. I have now listened to him for years calling into Dan Patrick's radio program and have grown to like and understand him better and that hatred has gone away. 

Not hating him made this much more enjoyable to watch because I could just focus on hating the Knicks.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

hanumang said:


> Agreed on all counts.
> 
> And, yeah, the Ewing miss is _still_ a heartbreaker.


I must disagree.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

"Silly Little Game"

Got finished this and wow, I must say that this is the very first film of the 30 for 30 series that I completely hated on many levels.

The filmmaking was atrocious. Why fill it full of cheesy reenactments when you have interviews with the very people right there? Real life interviews are waaaaay better than cheeseball reenactments.

The second part I have a real problem with. They made it sound like these guys invented Fantasy Sports. They didn't. Not by a long shot. I'm from Oakland, and one of the things we're very proud of here is the creation of Fantasy Football in here in a few bars in the early *1960's*. These guys may have developed Rotisserie Baseball, but they didn't even _create_ Fantasy Sports like the film described. Hell, their version of Rotisserie Baseball was created about 20 years after Fantasy Football. Some "invention".

Wow, what a let down. It's such a perfect topic to cover, and these filmmakers completely blew it IMO. :down:


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

inaka said:


> "Silly Little Game"
> 
> Got finished this and wow, I must say that this is the very first film of the 30 for 30 series that I completely hated on many levels.
> 
> ...


I enjoyed the film, but that was probably because I have been a fan and have read the original book back when it came out and nobody knew what it was. I do agree though, the "reenactments" were cheesy and unnecessary. But I think they were trying to capture the spirit of the book and the guys in the original league.

On your second point, while there probably have been sports "bar games" that would be considered similar to what is considered Fantasy Sports today, the guys in the movie were responsible for what it has become. Even Okrent admitted he took the game from a professor he knew who used to play something like it and refined it. Think Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone? Or the Wright Brothers invented the motorized plane? Of course not, but they were the ones who were smart enough to have the most success with it and were able to "market" it. If you consider card and dice games like APBA and Strat-O-Matic as fantasy games then it's been around since the 1950s. You also have to consider that the basic rules for fantasy baseball are STILL in existence from Okrent's original rules.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> On your second point, while there probably have been sports "bar games" that would be considered similar to what is considered Fantasy Sports today, the guys in the movie were responsible for what it has become.


Sorry, that's not true at all. Just because Fantasy Football was created _in_ a bar, doesn't mean it was a "bar game". (With your quotes around it, you're making it sound like it was bar trivia or darts, etc.) It wasn't. It was just like Fantasy Football is today.

There was a draft board, auction for players, personal teams created with stats, etc. The very first Fantasy Football league was the GOPPPL (Greater Oakland Professional Pigskin Prognosticators League). This wasn't a league setup by a guy in his basement. It was created by a writer from the Oakland Tribune, the editor of the paper, and a partner of The Raiders. All in 1962.

The very first player ever picked in Fantasy Football? George Blanda.

I grew up playing Strat-o-matic and the like and I know these guys were the founding fathers of Fantasy _baseball_. However, they weren't even close to being the founding fathers of _*all*_ Fantasy Sports, and definitely not Fantasy Football. And you're repeating this inaccuracy that they created fantasy sports even now. The film, especially toward the end, showed this broad (and false) leap, making it sound like these guys were the inventors of fantasy sports. In fact the film showed clips of Fantasy Football, Basketball, etc., as if they built this empire. Again, they didn't. They created Rotisserie Baseball, yes, while Fantasy Football was already well underway.

They weren't the creators of fantasy sports. Not by a long shot.

Really poor filmmaking. :down:


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

inaka said:


> Sorry, that's not true at all. Just because Fantasy Football was created _in_ a bar, doesn't mean it was a "bar game". (With your quotes around it, you're making it sound like it was bar trivia or darts, etc.) It wasn't. It was just like Fantasy Football is today.
> 
> There was a draft board, auction for players, personal teams created with stats, etc. The very first Fantasy Football league was the GOPPPL (Greater Oakland Professional Pigskin Prognosticators League). This wasn't a league setup by a guy in his basement. It was created by a writer from the Oakland Tribune, the editor of the paper, and a partner of The Raiders. All in 1962.
> 
> ...


Actually, re-read my post. I never said they CREATED fantasy sports at all. I said, they were responsible for what Fantasy sports have become. They facilitated the boom of this. I'm sure there were fantasy sports going back to the days of Ruth in some form or another. Dice and card games go back to at least 1951 (the birth of APBA). Okrent talked about a fantasy game HE played in college that he used to base his invention on. The movie, while poorly done, I don't think ever pretended that this was the FIRST EVER fantasy sports game, only the version that started it all. Obviously, you're from Oakland and you know a lot about the game invented in Oakland. Think there weren't similar games in bars, schools, etc. around the country? What Okrent did with his game was turn his game into something that lots of sports fans wanted to be a part of. Due to serendipitous circumstances, such he and most of his league's membership being in the publishing industry, he had the means to spread the word about his game, using Inside Baseball, the New Yorker and his book. Once fantasy baseball took off, it was natural that folks would like to play other forms for other sports. Perhaps someone knew of the Oakland league and adopted those rules to the current form. But if it weren't for Okrent and his league, it is quite possible that fantasy sports might still be nothing more than a game that a few local folks play on a small scale with little money involved. Or maybe modern media would get wind of it and it would have evolved differently. Who knows. What you can't deny is that fantasy sports is what it is because of Rotissiere Baseball.

Think of this the same way that the "forefathers" of baseball invented the rules of the sport....even though baseball in various forms were played as early as the 1600s. Once the rules were in place, it enabled leagues to be formed, and eventually it became what we know today. Your bar in Oakland never did that.

I didn't mean to say that the game in Oakland was a "bar game" in the same way as darts, but it was essentially confined to the bar (and the people who knew of the game). While it was invented by the newspaper editor, it seems he did nothing to spread the game (or maybe he did, and times weren't conducive to spreading the word on a national scale back in 1962).


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> The movie, while poorly done, I don't think ever pretended that this was the FIRST EVER fantasy sports game, only the version that started it all. Obviously, you're from Oakland and you know a lot about the game invented in Oakland. Think there weren't similar games in bars, schools, etc. around the country? What Okrent did with his game was turn his game into something that lots of sports fans wanted to be a part of.


I see your point, and it's a valid one, that Okrent and the others _did_ make it possible for other fans to join in the fun and setup their own leagues, etc. This is true. Well put.

Where I disagree, is that the film DID imply that they were the FIRST EVER to create a fantasy league with a draft board, players you could "buy" for your own team, etc. That's my beef. Even the cheese ball reenactments and interviews kept taking about how it was something that had never been done before and how a player of Mike Schmidt's caliber went for so cheap since it was so new, etc. But a player draft in fantasy sports HAD been done before for nearly 20 years, in fantasy football. The film made it sound like they were creating something never been done before. False.

Again, my beef has nothing to do with Okrent or what they did to become the founding fathers of Fantasy Baseball. My beef is with the horrible filmmaking that failed on so many levels.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

inaka said:


> I see your point, and it's a valid one, that Okrent and the others _did_ make it possible for other fans to join in the fun and setup their own leagues, etc. This is true. Well put.
> 
> Where I disagree, is that the film DID imply that they were the FIRST EVER to create a fantasy league with a draft board, players you could "buy" for your own team, etc. That's my beef. Even the cheese ball reenactments and interviews kept taking about how it was something that had never been done before and how a player of Mike Schmidt's caliber went for so cheap since it was so new, etc. But a player draft in fantasy sports HAD been done before for nearly 20 years, in fantasy football. The film made it sound like they were creating something never been done before. False.
> 
> Again, my beef has nothing to do with Okrent or what they did to become the founding fathers of Fantasy Baseball. My beef is with the horrible filmmaking that failed on so many levels.


I thought the content was interesting, but poorly done. I'm not sure why they needed the cartoonish reenactments. I would have preferred they spent more time on how the thing spread and talk to more of the "touts" than all that time on the founding fathers. They barely even mentioned how Fantasy Football is already a lot more popular than baseball (although I have to admit to not enjoying Football NEARLY as much as baseball).


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Caught "Run Ricky Run" (about Ricky Williams) last night and thought it was the best one yet. Outstanding, if only because the subject is such a complete enigma.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I thought it was ok, nothing more. Already knew Williams was a wierdo.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

Do these things ever re-run? I know Run Ricky Run is still on, but I missed a few I'd like to see.


----------



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

Frylock said:


> Do these things ever re-run? I know Run Ricky Run is still on, but I missed a few I'd like to see.


I haven't seen some of the earlier ones on lately. I missed "The Band That Wouldn't Die" when it was on initially. Later, the guide had it listed, but it turned out to be a Midget Billiards Championship or something like that.

I noticed that The 16th Man is coming up on Tuesday May 4th. I'm pretty sure that I've never watched a rugby match (game?) in my life, but I've been enjoying these so much that I'll watch this as well.

Then the next week, Tuesday May 11th, Straight Outta LA.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

hanumang said:


> Caught "Run Ricky Run" (about Ricky Williams) last night and thought it was the best one yet. Outstanding, if only because the subject is such a complete enigma.


I caught this too. Thought it was very interesting. Gave me a whole new look at the Ricky Williams saga. Also caught the "Reggie Miller vs. the New York Knicks". Great stuff.


----------



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

Oh, and on June 16th, the premiere of June 17, 1994. I have high hopes for this one.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

Frylock said:


> Do these things ever re-run? I know Run Ricky Run is still on, but I missed a few I'd like to see.


For some reason my SP missed the 30 for 30 on Allen Iverson, and I was able to get it on repeats. They will repeat them on all of their different platforms like ESPN2, ESPNU and ESPNNEWS. I saw the one on the Colts band was being repeated as well as The U. In fact...here is the link to the schedule: http://30for30.espn.com/schedule.html

The Iverson one was interesting because as a Syracuse grad and a Miami Heat fan I have been hating on Iverson for more than 15 years without ever really understanding his background. I understand more now, but it doesn't do enough to make me change my opinion of him. I put him in the category of Latrell Sprewell. He's a guy I dislike so much that I would stop rooting for my team if they ever signed him.

Run Ricky Run was fascinating just for his agent's perspective that there isn't a person that Ricky knows that he hasn't frustrated at one point or another. I don't see Ricky as a "weirdo." I see him as someone who is much too innocent in his outlook on life and other people's expectations of him. That puts him at serious odds with the rest of the world, and I don't think he can get out of his own head long enough to truly understand how much he has let people down. Not just his team and their fans, but his friends and loved ones and his personal relationships with his family seem to be fraught with disappointment. I don't excuse him or feel sorry for him, I just shake my head and wonder what he is thinking.

The one on the fantasy baseball was covered well above. I read the book in high school and tried to get friends in college to play. No one wanted to take the time to do the stats by hand. Finally in grad school I found the right geeks to play with and did so for 8 years until I had kids and prioritized playing with them over studying baseball stats. While others may have come up with the concept, and those guys wrote the book, it wasn't until ESPN and CBS Sportsline came up with the framework so that any idiot could play on the internet without the need for friends or mathematics skills that fantasy sports became what it is today.

I love these...keep em coming!


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

Wilhite said:


> Oh, and on June 18th, the premiere of June 17, 1994. I have high hopes for this one.


Per the site - it actually premieres on the 16th


----------



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

MegaHertz67 said:


> For some reason my SP missed the 30 for 30 on Allen Iverson, and I was able to get it on repeats. They will repeat them on all of their different platforms like ESPN2, ESPNU and ESPNNEWS. I saw the one on the Colts band was being repeated as well as The U. In fact...here is the link to the schedule: http://30for30.espn.com/schedule.html


Ah, I see my problem. DirecTV decided that ESPN Classic shouldn't be in the regular package of programming and moved it to the Sports package a while back. That's why I'm not seeing some of the older ones being repeated.

Burn in hell D*!!


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

No one has commented on the last 3.

Guru of Go - thought it was pretty good.

The 16th man - I enjoyed this one more than I thought I would, thought it was better than the movie Invictus.

Straight outta LA - what a bunch of crap. LA got what was the Oakland Raiders - 13 years later Oakland got back the LA Raiders and it's been down hill ever since.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I'm generally not a sports watcher(*), but I watched the one they showed on ABC. (I *think* it was officially this show, even though on ABC and not ESPN.) The one about the USFL. I thought it was fascinating that Trump was involved, and how the 'big player' was also on the Celebrity Apprentice.. that wasn't mentioned in the documentary, but in retrospect, I think a bunch of the stuff he & Trump were talking about referred to the past they had together.

(*) The Olympics, sometimes the Little League World Series, FF through the Super Bowl for the commercials, and MAYBE part of a World Series game now and then.. Other than that, I mostly avoid sports like the plague.. (I guess that means I don't consider poker a sport, since I would gladly do without ESPN & Comcast SportsNet.. EXCEPT for the poker shows..)


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Did anyone watch the latest one (June 17, 1994)? Truly fascinating stuff...might've been the best one so far. I had forgotten how weird that day was...one of the few "I remember where I was when" days we have (although clearly not as important as the JFK assassination or 9/11).

The podcast was pretty interesting, because one of the things that they couldn't put in the show was that there was a fight in the NBA Finals game that never got aired (it was during one of the breaks where NBC went to OJ coverage). The NBA gave the director all the footage, including the behind-the-scenes stuff that never went to air, hence why we got to see footage of Bob Costas talking about the transitions between he and Tom Brokaw. But the NBA refused to allow the fight footage to be used in the final cut of the film.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I saw it. Thought it was pretty good too. I had forgotten that OJ was so suicidal.


----------



## deli99 (Nov 12, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> Did anyone watch the latest one (June 17, 1994)? Truly fascinating stuff...might've been the best one so far. I had forgotten how weird that day was...one of the few "I remember where I was when" days we have (although clearly not as important as the JFK assassination or 9/11).
> 
> The podcast was pretty interesting, because one of the things that they couldn't put in the show was that there was a fight in the NBA Finals game that never got aired (it was during one of the breaks where NBC went to OJ coverage). The NBA gave the director all the footage, including the behind-the-scenes stuff that never went to air, hence why we got to see footage of Bob Costas talking about the transitions between he and Tom Brokaw. But the NBA refused to allow the fight footage to be used in the final cut of the film.


Yeah, this was one of the best of the series. And I too can remember exactly where I was, watching the NBA game at a bar, when the 'chase' was being aired.

Next week's should be good too, about the Escobar brothers. I just read "Killing Pablo", so I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## DavidJL (Feb 21, 2006)

Sparty99 said:


> Did anyone watch the latest one (June 17, 1994)? Truly fascinating stuff...might've been the best one so far. I had forgotten how weird that day was...one of the few "I remember where I was when" days we have (although clearly not as important as the JFK assassination or 9/11).


I caught this episode at the gym and it really made an hour of cardio fly by. I didn't realize so many other sports stories occurred on or around that day and were just eclipsed by it.

Kinda funny though, considering this forum audience, I wasn't really interested in any of it back in '94. I was looking forward to a sure to be cancelled TV series being given one final shot at continuing. I may be remembering this incorrectly, the day was so surreal. But as I remember a short lived tv show called "Against the Grain" had a few episodes in '93 with poor ratings and was going to show repeats over the summer of '94 to spark interest. The first of those was preempted by OJ in the Bronco and I think that ended the effort.

It was very much like Friday Night Lights, just not near as good, but I had hopes it would get better and get renewed. But it was not to be...

Burn in Hell OJ.................hmmm, that might actually come true.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

JFriday said:


> Straight outta LA - what a bunch of crap. LA got what was the Oakland Raiders - 13 years later Oakland got back the LA Raiders and it's been down hill ever since.


This one was really a waste of time. No clue what they were getting at but I'd like that hour of my life back.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> Did anyone watch the latest one (June 17, 1994)? Truly fascinating stuff...might've been the best one so far. I had forgotten how weird that day was...one of the few "I remember where I was when" days we have (although clearly not as important as the JFK assassination or 9/11).
> 
> The podcast was pretty interesting, because one of the things that they couldn't put in the show was that there was a fight in the NBA Finals game that never got aired (it was during one of the breaks where NBC went to OJ coverage). The NBA gave the director all the footage, including the behind-the-scenes stuff that never went to air, hence why we got to see footage of Bob Costas talking about the transitions between he and Tom Brokaw. But the NBA refused to allow the fight footage to be used in the final cut of the film.


I thought it was really good, but I have a soft spot in my heart for that time period having lived in the NY Metro and having the Rangers parade and the Knicks (probably the last time I really got into the Knicks). This past weekend reminded me of a mini-version of that, at least in the sports world with the World Cup controversy, the Subway series, the US Open, all wrapped around the Oil Spill story. Yeah, not quite the same, but still, a big weekend.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> This one was really a waste of time. No clue what they were getting at but I'd like that hour of my life back.


Totally agree, but maybe I just couldn't relate to it enough, not being from the culture. This and the Iverson story to me were the worst. The one thing got out of the Raiders story, was that the same fans that bought into the whole Raiders mystique when they came to LA are the same ones that ended up chasing them out of town. Oh, and that LA fans are a bunch of front runners


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

deli99 said:


> Yeah, this was one of the best of the series. And I too can remember exactly where I was, watching the NBA game at a bar, when the 'chase' was being aired.
> 
> Next week's should be good too, about the Escobar brothers. I just read "Killing Pablo", so I'm forward to it.


this was my favorite...

where I was: i lived off of the 405 and santamonica blvd; my apt was just off the onramp for the 405S, so my roommate and I were trying to watch the basketball game, which was double boxed, and actually small boxed, on the screen... we saw oj coming up the 405N... so we ran out to the freeway, up the onramp...

traffic on the 405S was stopped. people were standing out of their cars waiting... the 405N was completely empty. and this was in the heart of rush hour, too. there were probably 50 others like me who ran up the onramp.... first we saw the police helicoptors, like 4 or 5 of them. then the bronco, with AC driving... didn't see OJ... then like 15 police cars... they were all going like 50 mph.

then then media vans, then like 10 or 15 media helicoptors. the whole scene was like out of a war movie. pretty surreal.

this is AC... YOU KNOW WHO I AM, GOD DAMMIT!


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Sparty99 said:


> Did anyone watch the latest one (June 17, 1994)? Truly fascinating stuff...might've been the best one so far. I had forgotten how weird that day was...one of the few "I remember where I was when" days we have (although clearly not as important as the JFK assassination or 9/11).
> 
> The podcast was pretty interesting, because one of the things that they couldn't put in the show was that there was a fight in the NBA Finals game that never got aired (it was during one of the breaks where NBC went to OJ coverage). The NBA gave the director all the footage, including the behind-the-scenes stuff that never went to air, hence why we got to see footage of Bob Costas talking about the transitions between he and Tom Brokaw. But the NBA refused to allow the fight footage to be used in the final cut of the film.


Thanks for the heads up about that fight footage, Sparty99.

I also thought that June 17, 1994 was one of the best in the series. That Director was pretty masterful in intercutting all the different events of the day into a solid narrative. It was really interesting seeing some of the raw news footage and live feeds of Costas, etc.

Absolutely worth a watch/DVR for those who haven't seen it. :up:


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

deli99 said:


> Next week's should be good too, about the Escobar brothers. I just read "Killing Pablo", so I'm looking forward to it.


I have no idea who these people are, or what this will be all about. There was no guide data about this on DirecTV. And it's a 2 hour one. Can they get people to watch something they never heard of for 2 hours?


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I have no idea who these people are, or what this will be all about. There was no guide data about this on DirecTV. And it's a 2 hour one. Can they get people to watch something they never heard of for 2 hours?


The two Escobars are Pablo Escobar (i.e., the biggest drug dealer in the history of the world) and Andres Escobar (Colombian soccer player who was murdered 10 days after putting the ball into his own net in the 1994 World Cup). It sounds absolutely fascinating, judging from the podcast discussion with the director.

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't know that you're totally getting the gist of this documentary series. ESPN intentionally didn't pick the 30 biggest stories of the last 30 years. They picked 30 stories that happened in sports in the last 30 years that are interesting in their own right that some people may not know a whole lot about. The topics may not strike you as interesting (although it seems you're not particularly interested in anything that happens outside of the NY metro area), but they've done 20 or so episodes and 1 of them has been crap (the one on the L.A. Raiders).

Give them a chance. And I'd strongly recommend the podcasts as well.


----------



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> ...I'd strongly recommend the podcasts as well.


I haven't heard anything about the podcasts. Available through the iTunes store?

The only one that I've watched so far that I didn't care much for was the Straight Out Of LA one. And, I'm 99.9% sure that it's because I'm a white boy that is from a much different background and don't understand the culture.


----------



## max99 (May 23, 2004)

Wilhite said:


> I haven't heard anything about the podcasts. Available through the iTunes store?


Yes. Available through iTunes.


----------



## deli99 (Nov 12, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> The two Escobars are Pablo Escobar (i.e., the biggest drug dealer in the history of the world) and Andres Escobar (Colombian soccer player who was murdered 10 days after putting the ball into his own net in the 1994 World Cup). It sounds absolutely fascinating, judging from the podcast discussion with the director.


"The Two Escobars" was fantastic. Probably my favorite in the series so far. It's 2 hours, and 95% subtitled, but thoroughly engrossing. As a bonus, you get to see the most amazing save by a goalie EVER!

BTW: I was wrong in an earlier post when I said they were brothers. They are not.


----------



## ThreeSoFar'sBro (Oct 10, 2004)

"Escobars" was intriguing. In fact, my 20 yr old son watched the entire thing, even with the subtitles. It was that riveting!


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Wilhite said:


> I haven't heard anything about the podcasts. Available through the iTunes store?
> 
> The only one that I've watched so far that I didn't care much for was the Straight Out Of LA one. And, I'm 99.9% sure that it's because I'm a white boy that is from a much different background and don't understand the culture.


I like me some rap, although I can't pretend to have a full understanding of the culture, but I just didn't think this one was any good. The connection between all the problems in inner-city L.A. and the Raiders just struck me as really thin.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> The two Escobars are Pablo Escobar (i.e., the biggest drug dealer in the history of the world) and Andres Escobar (Colombian soccer player who was murdered 10 days after putting the ball into his own net in the 1994 World Cup). It sounds absolutely fascinating, judging from the podcast discussion with the director.
> 
> I don't mean to be rude, but I don't know that you're totally getting the gist of this documentary series. ESPN intentionally didn't pick the 30 biggest stories of the last 30 years. They picked 30 stories that happened in sports in the last 30 years that are interesting in their own right that some people may not know a whole lot about. The topics may not strike you as interesting (although it seems you're not particularly interested in anything that happens outside of the NY metro area), but they've done 20 or so episodes and 1 of them has been crap (the one on the L.A. Raiders).
> 
> Give them a chance. And I'd strongly recommend the podcasts as well.


I get the gist. But, on the other hand, I'm not sure if ESPN will be able to draw fans in for a story that means absolutely nothing to anyone IN the US. Maybe as a feature film with a lot of hype (something like Invictus comes to mind), but as a documentary with so much other stuff going on in sports? Not sure how well something like this will do.

Obviously I have more interest in stuff that I have a passion for. Who wouldn't? It's why the basketball stories didn't grab me, although I did like the one about Len Bias. Personally, I would have done more stories that have a cultural significance to their core audience rather than these esoteric stories, but that's just me. They chose the way the wanted to go. I just don't see the audience for them.

That said, I'll probably watch this one, at least for awhile and see if it grabs me.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

deli99 said:


> "The Two Escobars" was fantastic. Probably my favorite in the series so far. *It's 2 hours, and 95% subtitled*, but thoroughly engrossing. As a bonus, you get to see the most amazing save by a goalie EVER!
> 
> BTW: I was wrong in an earlier post when I said they were brothers. They are not.


Thanks for the warning. I'll make sure I watch this one while I'm wide awake. Trying to watch and read subtitles while half asleep isn't going to work well.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I get the gist. But, on the other hand, I'm not sure if ESPN will be able to draw fans in for a story that means absolutely nothing to anyone IN the US. Maybe as a feature film with a lot of hype (something like Invictus comes to mind), but as a documentary with so much other stuff going on in sports? Not sure how well something like this will do.
> 
> Obviously I have more interest in stuff that I have a passion for. Who wouldn't? It's why the basketball stories didn't grab me, although I did like the one about Len Bias. Personally, I would have done more stories that have a cultural significance to their core audience rather than these esoteric stories, but that's just me. They chose the way the wanted to go. I just don't see the audience for them.
> 
> That said, I'll probably watch this one, at least for awhile and see if it grabs me.


You don't understand why running a story that focuses on one of the darker moments in World Cup history would be run (and advertised heavily) during the World Cup? Seems pretty obvious to me.

I liked the Escobar story, but it seemed that there was a flaw in the story. Pablo Escobar seemed to bring order to Colombian soccer, so without his influence the individual team owners put out threats to build up their own players' exposure. This led to the team playing tight and scared and perhaps legitimately cost them the World Cup. But earlier in the story they mentioned how Pablo killed a referee because he felt he had cost his team a championship, while the other owners were viewed to not be like that. Wouldn't there still be some level of fear in the players that if they didn't come home with a championship that there could be deadly repercussions? They had never known failure under Escobar. If they don't win the World Cup could Pablo have killed the coach?


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I thought "Little Big Men" was one of the best ones so far.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Anyone watch the one about Jordan playing baseball? I have tried to record it 3x already and each time there was a game of some sort that ran long and I missed it. One more shot at it and a 1 hour pad and hopefully I'll get it this time.

Little Big Men is about Little League?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Anyone watch the one about Jordan playing baseball? I have tried to record it 3x already and each time there was a game of some sort that ran long and I missed it. One more shot at it and a 1 hour pad and hopefully I'll get it this time.
> 
> Little Big Men is about Little League?


I have Jordan Rides the Bus recorded, but haven't watched it.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I watched it. It was good but not great.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

JFriday said:


> I watched it. It was good but not great.


The just was not anything to the Jordan story I didn't already know. The Little League one was good because of the perspective they used to present the story.


----------



## Mark W (Dec 6, 2001)

Wow, what a dissapointment the Little League one was for me. My god could they be any more heavy-handed in the presentation? The whole thing had this serious, wow how much pressure this was for the boys overtones, and in the end did not deliver that in the story. It was so slow and plodding that my 10 year old son quickly lost interest. If they had no more material than that, it should have been 30 minutes.


----------



## kcarl75 (Oct 23, 2002)

flyers088 said:


> The just was not anything to the Jordan story I didn't already know.


I agree. With all of the footage and news stories that must have been logged, there was almost no personal "on the bus" footage. No info from teammates. It could have been much better.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Mark W said:


> Wow, what a dissapointment the Little League one was for me. My god could they be any more heavy-handed in the presentation? The whole thing had this serious, wow how much pressure this was for the boys overtones, and in the end did not deliver that in the story. It was so slow and plodding that my 10 year old son quickly lost interest. If they had no more material than that, it should have been 30 minutes.


I agree that it was disappointing, but for a different reason. Here they've got Cody Webster sitting there saying, "They were focusing all the news footage on me and all I could think was that it was a team game and why were they focusing on just me?" And yet, the entire film focused on was Cody Webster. They should've called the thing Little Big Man.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Well you probably missed the point, it was about all the pressures put on superstar 12 year olds. What I found funny is he basically makes his living off elite travel teams that basically live off parents dreams.


----------



## jstack (Mar 26, 2005)

Wow, tonight's episode was awful. It felt like I was watching a MTV documentary instead of ESPN. What the hell happened to 30 for 30 being sports documentaries?

The comic style, the over the top spoken word bits, who at ESPN approved this?


----------



## calitivo (Dec 6, 2002)

That was the first time I ever heard anybody refer to Mike Tyson as "extremely articulate." This episode was terrible.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

I found the Tyson/Tupac documentary. It would have been interesting if they had looked into the aftereffects of Tupac's death and whether or not it had anything to do with his fall from the height of boxing.


----------



## ThreeSoFar'sBro (Oct 10, 2004)

Agree with previous posters--B-O-R-I-N-G and I didn't enjoy the presentation whatsoever.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

That was on par with the L.A Raider gang one, horrible.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I haven't seen the last three or four. The main showings are conflicting with higher shows on my SP, and when I re-record them on ESPN2, some game is always running over. Are they streaming these anywhere? Netflix perhaps?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I haven't seen the last three or four. The main showings are conflicting with higher shows on my SP, and when I re-record them on ESPN2, some game is always running over. Are they streaming these anywhere? Netflix perhaps?


Lots of them are re-airing on ESPN Classic. But that brings up my complaint about this show. It airs at random times and on random days. It airs on a network devoted to sports but that doesn't show very much live sports. It seems that they'd be able to fit in dozens of re-airings of each of these shows in order to allow people to see them. But instead, they air once or twice on ESPN and/or ESPN2, and then they get relegated to Classic (which I don't get) or disappear for good. Kind of frustrating.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Lots of them are re-airing on ESPN Classic. But that brings up my complaint about this show. It airs at random times and on random days. It airs on a network devoted to sports but that doesn't show very much live sports. It seems that they'd be able to fit in dozens of re-airings of each of these shows in order to allow people to see them. But instead, they air once or twice on ESPN and/or ESPN2, and then they get relegated to Classic (which I don't get) or disappear for good. Kind of frustrating.


I don't get Classic either since D* moved it over to the sports pack which is a total waste of money (and last I checked not in HD either). To me, this would be perfect to re-air during a week day instead of showing NFL highlights for the 150th time in a 24 hour period or the same old stale news. You already have an all news channel, at least use ESPN and ESPN2 to show some real stuff. But instead, they reair it in the middle of the night after some game that almost always runs over, thus, you don't get to see it.


----------



## swinca (Jun 19, 2003)

JFriday said:


> That was on par with the L.A Raider gang one, horrible.


That was one of my favorites so far. I'm not a Raiders fan, but I was (and remain) a big fan of NWA, Snoop, Ice Cube, etc. I lived in L.A. during the rise of the Raider Nation, but was more familiar with it from the gang/rap music side than the sports side. It was like a walk down memory lane.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

swinca said:


> That was one of my favorites so far. I'm not a Raiders fan, but I was (and remain) a big fan of NWA, Snoop, Ice Cube, etc. I lived in L.A. during *the rise of the Raider Nation*, but was more familiar with it from the gang/rap music side than the sports side. It was like a walk down memory lane.


You mean the demise of the Raider Nation, they turned to crap in L.A. where they remain today. The Raiders actually had a history prior to L.A.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

swinca said:


> That was one of my favorites so far. I'm not a Raiders fan, but I was (and remain) a big fan of NWA, Snoop, Ice Cube, etc. I lived in L.A. during the rise of the Raider Nation, but was more familiar with it from the gang/rap music side than the sports side. It was like a walk down memory lane.


Guess if something hits home with you, you might enjoy it more. I am not into any of that, so for me, the episode fell flat. As I'm a huge Rotisserie baseball nut, the episode about the beginnings of that was one I really loved, yet most people here hated it. Of course if they screw up details and you are very familiar with something, then you may hate it even more.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I don't know why, but I never watched any of these even though they seemed potentially interesting. I finally watched the Vlade Divac/Drazen Petrovic episode and it was very interesting. I liked it a lot. One misunderstood incident, politics and repressed ethnic hatred tore apart a friendship. It was nice to see Vlade with Petrovic's parents at the end.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

So I've been catching up on some of these lately and I thought I'd see if anyone else was keeping up:

-Unmatched (Martina & Chrissie): Meh. Interesting to a point, I didn't realize they were so close or that they played so often, but not really my cup of tea.
-The House of Steinbrenner: Struck me as a bit of whitewashing of Steinbrenner's life, but it's been a bit since I saw it.
-Into the Wind (Terry Fox, amputee marathon man): Kind of sad, but again, not really my thing.

The three that really got me:

-Four Days in October (2004 Red Sox): I was so torn on that one, because I distinctly remember those games (except for Game 4 because I had to go to bed early for a flight the next morning) and just being somewhat in awe of what was happening, and how it was something we had never seen before. At the same time, it gave birth to the smug Red Sox fan, so I was watching it with a bit of annoyance as well.
-Tim Richmond To The Limit: Fascinating tale about a guy who didn't fit in with the establishment and fought against the stigma of his disease. I sat there wondering if Richmond had come out with the fact that he had AIDS if it would've brought attention to the disease earlier (since it really didn't get the attention it needed until Magic was diagnosed) or if Richmond would've been ostracize or even if it would've damaged NASCAR.
-The Best That Never Was (Marcus Dupree): I love the "what could've been stories" and this one didn't disappoint. It seems funny that it aired right as we're going through all the allegations with Cam Newton, as it seems highly likely that Dupree got paid to go to Oklahoma. What was funny is that I dug up an old Sports Illustrated article and the Oklahoma faithful were up in arms over Switzer's salary and what he was doing with his money. His salary at the time was $56,000, which comes out to less than $123,000 today.

Great work on the series and I'm still waiting to watch a few, but I just heard that they'd be releasing the first half of the series in a DVD box set on December 7. I can't wait.


----------



## jstack (Mar 26, 2005)

The episode that aired about a month ago, Once Brothers with Divac and Petrovic, was easily the best of the series.


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

We saw the Tim Richmond one the other day and really liked it. Haven't seen any of the others yet - but we have the Terry Fox one recorded.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

jstack said:


> The episode that aired about a month ago, Once Brothers with Divac and Petrovic, was easily the best of the series.


I agree. Though as a Terp fan, the Len Bias one brought back a lot of memories.

I wasn't too impressed with the Marion Jones one, as I was hoping she'd come more clan and get into the PED story more. It was more of a feel good, bounce back story. Meh.

Frank


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

jstack said:


> The episode that aired about a month ago, Once Brothers with Divac and Petrovic, was easily the best of the series.


I've got that one in my Now Playing List so maybe I'll fire it up tonight. It's going to be hard to top the June 17, 1994 episode for me though.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I have about 5 of these saved up. I'm sure this will be Christmas week viewing when nothing else is on TV. I'm still catching up from the baseball post season


----------



## tony touch (Jul 16, 2004)

I've heard quite a few people rave about the Marcus Dupree one (2 hours!).


----------



## NoCalME (Aug 11, 2005)

> I've heard quite a few people rave about the Marcus Dupree one (2 hours!).


I've seen all of the 30 for 30 specials and IMO "The Best That Never Was" is second only to "The U". It is riveting television and you will not be disappointed.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Just watched the Once Brothers episode. Talk about such a small thing to ruin a friendship. Then again, I've never been involved in such a volatile political situation.

Very good episode by the way.


----------



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

I finally got to watch "Into The Wind" last night.

Sure was dusty in my bedroom....


----------



## Wilhite (Oct 26, 2003)

And, for those of you who are wanting to catch up and have ESPN Classic, it appears that they will be showing 17 of the episodes on Sunday November 28th.

http://30for30.espn.com/schedule.html


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I recorded the Marcus Dupree one last night and hope to get a chance to watch it soon. I still haven't finished the Tim Richmond one from a few weeks ago.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Wilhite said:


> And, for those of you who are wanting to catch up and have ESPN Classic, it appears that they will be showing 17 of the episodes on Sunday November 28th.
> 
> http://30for30.espn.com/schedule.html


DirecTV ditched classic for ESPNU. Not sure why we can't have both. 

I'll have to get the ones I missed by other means. I'm surprised they aren't constantly playing these on the deuce late at night.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

The Marcus Dupree was excellent, Barry Switzer seemed like an ass, go figure. I saw him play versus Stanford in 83, at least I'm pretty sure he played, it was the 1st game of the season.

I also really like "Once Brothers" I felt real bad for Vlade Divac.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

ooh, I didn't realize there was a little league one. I watched the Marion Jones one recently. (I had supposedly Tivoed one other one, but the recording ended up being some other sports event.. oh yeah, I think it was supposed to be the Steinbrenner one).

I'm basically a sports hater (with a couple of specific exceptions), so am watching only a VERY few of them. (I like documentaries, and even things like Nova do episodes that I think will be boring that end up being fascinating..)


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

fmowry said:


> DirecTV ditched classic for ESPNU. Not sure why we can't have both.


You can have both, you just have to pay extra for the Sports Pack.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

trainman said:


> You can have both, you just have to pay extra for the Sports Pack.


They've already got me for NFL ticket and HBO. I'm tapped out.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I just watched the excellent Marcus Dupree episode. Watching the old footage of nobody being able to tackle him made the hairs on my neck stand up. Barry Switzer was a dick.

For some reason, I've only watched two of these, this one and Once Brothers. They were both excellent television.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Watched the "Pony Excess" episode stuff yesterday. Good stuff. Of course, maybe I am a bit biased because it all went down here in Dallas.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 4, 1999)

jsmeeker said:


> Watched the "Pony Excess" episode stuff yesterday. Good stuff. Of course, maybe I am a bit biased because it all went down here in Dallas.


I'm 45 minutes into it and I already think it's one of the best 30for30s.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'll make sure I TiVo the Pony Excess episode since it seems like every other tv show is going on hiatus until late January.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

I've done a bad job missing these. Of those I have seen, the Marcus Dupree one was outstanding, and I have DVR'ed the SMU one.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> Watched the "Pony Excess" episode stuff yesterday. Good stuff. Of course, maybe I am a bit biased because it all went down here in Dallas.


Had it on while I was doing stuff around the house, but I enjoyed the parts I caught.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

didn't really know the story about HOW they got the death penalty


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

bryhamm said:


> didn't really know the story about HOW they got the death penalty


Hey. You got caught before. Stop doing it. No. Really, knock it off. Seriously, guys, you should really stop.

For me, I think the most interesting aspect was how a media battle greatly contributed to it their downfall.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> Hey. You got caught before. Stop doing it. No. Really, knock it off. Seriously, guys, you should really stop.
> 
> For me, I think the most interesting aspect was how a media battle greatly contributed to it their downfall.


LOL.

It is kinda scary to think that they wouldn't have really had a case if that defensive player hadn't come forward, or what would have happened if that SMU guy had said that he mailed something generic instead of saying he hadn't mailed anything.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

bryhamm said:


> LOL.
> 
> It is kinda scary to think that they wouldn't have really had a case if that defensive player hadn't come forward, or what would have happened if that SMU guy had said that he mailed something generic instead of saying he hadn't mailed anything.


Yep, trying to claim he didn't mail anything is absurd. Matching handwriting is pretty trivial. Just say you sent him a letter and that you have never sent any athletes money. Of course it's easy to say that from here not being on live TV getting ambushed by a letter with your handwriting on it and trying to come up with an excuse off the top of your head.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

They could have said "Oh... those were some game tickets". Or something.. 

Yeah, "everyone" does it, but what makes the SMU story interesting is the people involved (the Governor of Texas!!) and what the punishment was. It was so destructive and punished so many people who had NOTHING to do with it. For YEARS.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 4, 1999)

Mr. Soze said:


> I've done a bad job missing these. Of those I have seen, the Marcus Dupree one was outstanding, and I have DVR'ed the SMU one.


I missed the Marcus Dupree one. I've heard it's really good so I need to search for it.

The scheduling for these things is kind of strange. I was worried that the Heisman coverage was going to run long and make me miss the end of Pony Excess. I did a search and there isn't another showing for a while (2 weeks at least?). I thought they would show it several times for the next week or so.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Gromit said:


> I missed the Marcus Dupree one. I've heard it's really good so I need to search for it.
> 
> The scheduling for these things is kind of strange. I was worried that the Heisman coverage was going to run long and make me miss the end of Pony Excess. I did a search and there isn't another showing for a while (2 weeks at least?). I thought they would show it several times for the next week or so.


I was watching the heisman presentation live, so I knew to pad out the Pony Excess. Worked out.

Check ALL the ESPN channels you receive. It may be airing on other channels other than main EPSN.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Your listings are way different from mine. Pony Excess is on tonight at 11 pm and Wed. at 9 pm on ESPN2, as well as a couple of times between those airings on ESPNU.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I enjoyed Dan Fienberg's ranking of all the 30 for 30 documentaries (Pony Excess was No. 30).


----------



## Gromit (Nov 4, 1999)

lambertman said:


> Your listings are way different from mine. Pony Excess is on tonight at 11 pm and Wed. at 9 pm on ESPN2, as well as a couple of times between those airings on ESPNU.


Turns out my Comcast DVR's search feature just sucks. Add it to the long list. 

Saturday night search - no more showings.
Sunday morning seach - results show more airings on other espn networks.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I enjoyed Dan Fienberg's ranking of all the 30 for 30 documentaries (Pony Excess was No. 30).


I pretty much don't agree with his rankings at all (but I haven't seen all of them yet, so I don't have a ranking). On his Steinbrenner ranking, his mentioning as the Yankees can never be the underdog, well if you know anything about the pre-Steinbrenner Yankees (those of the mid to late 60s and early 70s) then you know the team was in decrepit shape, the town had been completely lost to the Mets (not to mention the Jets and Knicks who were in their glory years), and the Stadium had been empty and in disrepair. And on top of that were threats to move the team. Steinbrenner brought them back from the abyss. But he's an admitted Red Sox fan, so I guess I should have expected that. I also absolutely HATED the Raider Nation one which he ranked pretty high. I thought it glorified the gang warfare in LA and made the Raiders a party to it.

Anyway, I have 5 of these saved up and I plan to watch them during the Christmas TV hiatus.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I thought the worst one was The Raider Nation one. Total crap.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

I'm finding that because sports are so varied in how people see them the rankings generally aren't going to be the same (at least the guy admits that the Red Sox doc ranked so high because he was a Sox fan). I wasn't a huge fan of the Baltimore sic because for all the talk about how Indy had robbed Baltimore of their team, they dud the exact same freaking thing to Cleveland. They're not a sympathetic bunch. And when they addressed it the only thing they seem to say is, "Yeah, but it's different."

I loved the tales I didn't know - Tim Richmond, SMU, Marcus Dupree, the Colombian soccer tragedy. I'd put those at the top of my list.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

To be fair, Baltimore got robbed of the team in the middle of the night and then got screwed out of an expansion team. And then they stole the Browns. 

I agree with the worst of the series, the love fest with Marion Jones. Only caught half of the SMU and missed Marcus Dupree. I'll have to find other means to obtain them.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> I'm finding that because sports are so varied in how people see them the rankings generally aren't going to be the same (at least the guy admits that the Red Sox doc ranked so high because he was a Sox fan). I wasn't a huge fan of the Baltimore sic because for all the talk about how Indy had robbed Baltimore of their team, they dud the exact same freaking thing to Cleveland. They're not a sympathetic bunch. And when they addressed it the only thing they seem to say is, "Yeah, but it's different."
> 
> I loved the tales I didn't know - Tim Richmond, SMU, Marcus Dupree, the Colombian soccer tragedy. I'd put those at the top of my list.


Actually, he ranked Four Days in October pretty low (19 out of 27). He is an admitted Sox fan, but even in his review of that one he pointed out how by the book and devoid of emotion that doc was.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The SMU death penalty one, Pony Excess was two hours. It could have been and should have been one hour. It would have been better.


----------



## sptnut (Sep 1, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> The SMU death penalty one, Pony Excess was two hours. It could have been and should have been one hour. It would have been better.


I was very young when this happened thus I don't really remember other then the death penalty part. So to hear the details of what occurred was good for me.


----------



## max99 (May 23, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I enjoyed Dan Fienberg's ranking of all the 30 for 30 documentaries (Pony Excess was No. 30).


He has Pony Express ranked 13th not 30th.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

max99 said:


> He has Pony Express ranked 13th not 30th.


I meant that Pony Excess was the 30th (and final) film shown in the series, not that Fienberg rated it 30th in his list.


----------



## SUOrangeman (Nov 28, 2010)

I saw that one of the 30 films was coming out on Blu-Ray. Anyone know if the others will get there as well?

Might make a nice box set.

To answer my own question, I saw an ad during SportsCenter this morning showing the first 15 episodes will be sold as a DVD box set. I don't think I saw anything about Blu-Ray (since they are all shot in HD, I presume).

-SUO


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

I loved nearly all of these films and I'm a bit sad that the series has come to an end.
I couldn't agree more with that writer that the "Marion Jones: Press Pause" was by far the worst in the series.

I loved the SMU one. I know nothing about college football, and never thought I would like "The U" either, but loved em both.


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

SUOrangeman said:


> I saw that one of the 30 films was coming out on Blu-Ray. Anyone know if the others will get there as well?
> 
> Might make a nice box set.
> 
> -SUO


ESPN is selling a DVD box set of the first 15. http://www.espnshop.com/product/index.jsp?productId=4416392


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Watched the Terry Fox one last night and thought it was pretty good. What an inspirational story and heart wrenching at the end. I hadn't realized that he only made it about half way. And yeah, I'm pretty far behind.

I hadn't realized that I had my DVR to record only 5 episodes and the last one I got was the Marion Jones one. Which ones were there after that?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

The 'Pony Excess' came after the Marion Jones one.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Watched the Terry Fox one last night and thought it was pretty good. What an inspirational story and heart wrenching at the end. I hadn't realized that he only made it about half way. And yeah, I'm pretty far behind.
> 
> I hadn't realized that I had my DVR to record only 5 episodes and the last one I got was the Marion Jones one. Which ones were there after that?





jsmeeker said:


> The 'Pony Excess' came after the Marion Jones one.


I think the Marcus Dupree one ("The Best that Never Was") was also after Marion Jones, and it is widely regarded as one of the best in the series.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

This is worth a bump...

I haven't purchased a bluray in over a year, but I had to have this.

Best Buy has an exclusive on this FANTASTIC set:

*ESPN 30 For 30 films on Bluray. *
It's every single film they made for the series. Yes, all 30 films in one set.

The sale is for $59.99...regularly $79.99.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Espn+Fi...2228724&skuId=2543759&st=30 for 30 &lp=3&cp=1

But if you buy it in-store, there's an additional $5 off coupon.
http://images.bestbuy.com/BestBuy_US/en_US/images/abn/2011/mm/pcon/movie_coupon_exp0731.pdf

Some of these films are pretty amazing stories.
At less than $2 a film, it's a great price since they oddly sell some of these movies separately for $14.99 each.


----------



## deli99 (Nov 12, 2003)

30 for 30 is back with Volume 2. 

"Broke" aired last week. It was OK, but not anywhere near as good as some of the previous installments.

Tomorrow is 9.79*, about the 1988 Olympic 100 meters w/Ben Johnson. It looks to be pretty good.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I didn't realized they were doing a "Season 2" with this series. But my ARWL picked up "Broke".

I just wish they would show more of the original ones. They seem to replay the same small set over and over and over. There are a few I haven't seen that I want to see. (the one about the Gretzky trade and the one about Tim Richmond)


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Netflix has them if you have that.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

i enjoyed "Broke" quite a bit. It didn't include anything earthshattering and was mostly just a bunch of talking heads, but it's always amazing to hear about the stuff athletes do with their money and how unprepared most of them are to deal with their newfound wealth.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> i enjoyed "Broke" quite a bit. It didn't include anything earthshattering and was mostly just a bunch of talking heads, but it's always amazing to hear about the stuff athletes do with their money and how unprepared most of them are to deal with their newfound wealth.


I enjoyed it too. Amazing guys could make so much money in their careers and end up with nothing. It was sad seeing some of the names on the list of atheletes that filed bancruptcy at the end of the episode.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

JFriday said:


> Netflix has them if you have that.


On disc??? I don't have the streaming plan


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

It'll be interesting to see the Ben Johnson episode. There were some shady things going on with his positive test. I wonder if they interview his coach from back then. It was the Lance Armstrong story before the Lance Armstrong story (they were all dirty and he was the fastest).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> On disc??? I don't have the streaming plan


Yes, I think so.

I am generally NOT a sports person (the Olympics + Little League World Series + VERY rare other times are about it for me).. but I've seen a few of these, mostly the "tangentially related to sports" ones like Broke. I thought it was entertaining.

I was dumbfounded, like I expected to be. I expect someone that earns a couple million at least to be able to live off it for a VERY long time if not the rest of their life.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> On disc??? I don't have the streaming plan


I don't know, I don't have the disc plan.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I just finished watching "Broke". It's shocking to see how those guys blew through so much moey in such a short time but I'll admit that I probably would have acted like a fool and blown a big percentage of my wealth on women and dumb stuff too if I were suddenly very wealthy at age 22.

It was good to see ex-Eagles linebacker Reggie Wilkes is doing so well.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

"Broke" needs to be required viewing at all the rookie symposiums the different leagues put on. These kids will all think that this could never happen to them, and hopefully seeing some of the people they looked up to as kids talking about how easily they lost their fortunes and how careful they should be with their money will wake them up.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> "Broke" needs to be required viewing at all the rookie symposiums the different leagues put on. These kids will all think that this could never happen to them, and hopefully seeing some of the people they looked up to as kids talking about how easily they lost their fortunes and how careful they should be with their money will wake them up.


I thought at least a few of the leagues do exactly that and have financial advice and planning for rookies. Thought I heard it during an E:60 or some other show on Antoine Walker.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

fmowry said:


> I thought at least a few of the leagues do exactly that and have financial advice and planning for rookies. Thought I heard it during an E:60 or some other show on Antoine Walker.


Oh, I'm sure they do have people come and speak and give advice. But I think seeing the magnitude of the problem as presented in this show would be more of an eye opener than just having a single broke athlete come speak, or having a few financial experts explain how these kids should handle their money.

You've got to make them afraid of what will happen if they're not careful, and unless they see all the others this has happened to, they'll continue to have the "it could never happen to me" mentality.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

they specifically address this in "broke"... they have the symposium, but for most of the rookies, it's in one ear and out the other... it's just a bunch of speakers talking, and i wouldn't be surprised if some of them slept through it.

the messed up part was how part of the problem was how the 'league endorsed financial planners' were scamming the players... the players trusted their money with them, and they ended up losing their money anyways... how the league just uses the endorsement as a revenue stream and there was no real vetting of the planners.

but i agree with devdog... this should be required viewing.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

I'll have to record it. I don't think players watching it would leave any more impression than players seeing other players being busted for PEDs or smoking pot or DUIs.


----------

