You may have clicked on this link earlier today while on Page 2 at espn.com. I rarely read stories on Page 2 that aren't Bill Simmons related. Once in a while I will but mainly because of stories like this I hardly ever do.

What we have here is a legitimate news story, granted it's not going to make headlines all over the globe but stories of clashes between league bigwigs and players and coaches regarding dress code have a surprisingly high interest/news value. (MJ's original sneakers, Jim McMahon, all the fines regarding uni's in the NoFunLeague, etc) And baggy shorts, if you listen to some people, are the cause of the decline of Western Civilization.

So what does ESPN do to cover it? They slap a 'staff report' (read- interns) together, briefly mention the actual newsworthiness behind the story and then it's fucking amateur hour with Photoshop and unfunny punch lines.

I do think that there is a story here. Like I said, it's not Watergate but it's a story. Coach Nolan wants to honor his father and class it up but the league doesn't want him to because it's basically an ad for all of the gear that you can get on nfl.com or where ever NFL merchandise is sold.

I get why the league does this, so I'm not really hating on them, they aren't in business to make Nolan get on the cover of GQ; they are trying to get paid. Understandable.

It's also understandable why espn would cover this story the way they did. They don't want the NFL to get pissy at them. The fall out and reaction from "Playmakers" was the clearest example I can think of. They cover the NFL so they aren't going to criticize their own. I know that ESPN is a business too. They actually did mention in the article that the decision was based all about money so they didn't miss the entire point. But in the end, they need to cover their own ass as well. I understand all of this. I don't need you telling me, "Zach, that's the way sports work, it's a business." I get it. The word 'Sport' was in the name of my major at college, so yes, I understand.

But, the bigger story, I think, is ESPN just rolling over and making lame jokes out of it. Shouldn't a coach's preference to what he would like to wear and it being denied because of marketing obligations be somewhat of a big deal? If you want to cling to the belief that sports was oh so much more pure back in the day, wouldn't Nolan wanting to honor the past and getting flat out denied, strictly so the NFL can push some gear, wouldn't that peeve at least some readers of espn.com?

I guess my main beef is that when people just accept everything that ESPN throws at you under the guise of a news organization instead of Disney's most profitable commodity. If you don't realize the difference, then you as a consumer of news, are being misled. Yes, it's partially your fault. You can stop watching and reading. But you won't and neither will I. It's a necessary evil to take in whatever ESPN is selling. You have to sit through the Silver Bullet Six Pack of questions or the Budweiser Hot Seat and the controversey of the day to see some box scores or some highlights.

You can recognize that when they call themselves the worldwide leader it's probably true. As the leader in covering sports, I'm not so sure, marketing and packaging products for the consumer, on the other hand, is probably more likely.

(note to any HR workers at espn, this was posted by someone else, I, Zach Fields would not mind at all working at espn. Thank you)