Punched by ESPN's Iron Fist

As a serious sports fan, I have no choice but to consume ESPN. The TV network is the only place to turn for game coverage and extended highlights, while the website is the most comprehensive and up-to-date of its kind. Nobody holds a candle to Bill Simmons, the PTI guys, the ESPNNews network and the extremely helpful ESPN Motion online highlight player. So what's not to like about our all-providing mothership? ESPN has started to abuse it's status as a monopoly, becoming more obnoxious in its bluster. Here's my "Top 5 Reasons You Can Blame ESPN For Going Too Far":

* Blowhard talking heads: Why do we need a dozen commentators for every sport? Here's a partial roster of their NFL-specific on-air commentators: Clayton, Pasquerelli, Smith, Schlereth, Salisbury, Jaworski, Golic, Hoge, Irvin, Young, Woodson, Jackson, Theismann... and that's not even including the field reporters (like the ubiquitous Ed Werder) and website columnists (too many to list). Because all of of these hires, I guess the network feels the need to give them as much face-time as possible so that they can yell as loud as possible. The viewer is left with a cacophony of obvious soundbites and a splitting headache. Regardless of sport, no matter what time of year it is, Sportscenter viewers cannot avoid these ex-jocks howling in oversized, garishly-colored suits.

* Beating dead horses: It's bad enough that Terrell Owens is in the process of poisoning his third NFL team. But ESPN makes itself part of the story, fanning the flames with daily updates, conjecture passed as breaking news. Let's face it, it's in ESPN's best interest to make the story as sensationalistic and drawn-out as possible. Whether it's T.O., Barry Bonds, the Super Bowl, the Duke Lacrosse scandal or Alex Rodriguez, you can always count on ESPN to keep a plotline alive, regardless of an information void. Hey, who needs actual news to keep a story going?

* The insidious Insider: Over the past three years, ESPN has slowly and unflinchingly put nearly all of its original online content behind the "Insider" fence. Most of the relevant columns (except those on Page 2) are now given the "Insider" tag, forcing consumers to pay up for columnists who can't match the talented writers that SI.com offers for free.

* ESPN "the brand": It's bad enough that the ESPN logo often appears in three different parts of the screen during a game broadcast. But now the ESPN brand has seeped into content on other networks. The whole "ESPN on ABC" experiment requires a suspension of disbelief. I understand that Disney wants to re-brand , but must it be at the expense of logic? It's just "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" all over again.

* The hype machine: I knew that ESPN would bring it's usual bluster when they secured the rights to Monday Night Football. But I shook my head when I read about the network's plan for five and a half hours of pregame coverage-- every week. It's sad that sports fans were orignally drawn to the network for it's sports, but the network now thinks that ESPN itself is the star of the show.