mens nfl jerseys cheap online, buy basketball uniforms , nfl shop cheap jerseys review , fake replica football kits , madina grill cannon street , red white and blue baseball jersey
has another week to be a super bowl. The new England patriots against the Seattle Seahawks, the two teams is the strongest league teams, regardless of who claim the championship will be a great game. Super bowl is a special game, not a powerful side will win, there are a lot of great teams in the history at the end of the super bowl.
10, 1988 Cincinnati tigers
regular season 12 wins and 4 losses that year, the tigers took no offense to revolutionize the way to super bowl. But in the face of San Francisco 49 people when the offensive group is panic, only a touchdown, but they are still in the leading 16-13. Unfortunately, Joe Montana was in 49 people and finally killed the tiger with 20-16.
9, 1978 season Dallas cowboy After the
1977 season, the cowboy team ended the 78 - season regular season with 12 - 4. Super bowl against Pittsburgh Steelers, once in 35-17 behind, finally to 35-31, but ultimately did not have enough time to claim the championship.
8, 1969 season Minnesota Viking In the last year of the merger between
AFL and NFL, the Vikings were 12 - 2 in the regular season, and the super bowl against the chief of Kansas City. In the game, the Vikings scored only once, and the attack and defense were not good. Finally, 23-7 lost the game.
7, 1983 season, Washington Red
14 - 2 in the regular season, and the defending champion red skin wanted to win again in the 83 season, and the Super Bowl faced the Losangeles Raiders. The red skin team was backwardness, only got 1, and finally 9-38.
6, 2004 Philadelphia Eagle
then the eagle with 13 wins and 3 negative end of the regular season, the super bowl for the new England patriots. The eagle was backward throughout the field and rebounded slightly at the end of the year, but eventually it was 24-21 no enemy to the Patriots.
5, 1984 season Miami dolphin
with the most powerful passing attack at that time, the dolphin ended the regular season with 14 wins and 2, and was successful in the super bowl. In the face of one of the strongest teams in history, the dolphins once took the lead of 10-7. But the 49 were doing very well at both ends of the attack and defense, and the dolphin was finally defeated by 16-38.
4, 2001 season Saint Louis rams
was 14 - 2 in the regular season, and that year's win was much higher than the Patriots. But Biliqieke tactics and the second half of the key shot make the rams with 17-20 defeat. So far the ram has not recovered from the loss.
3, 1990 season, buffalo Bill
regular competition 〉NFL????|??????NFL?????????????|?????
rookie anthropometric data is an important index of the draft reference, here is the best test performance of over the past ten years
1. Byron Jones (Byron Jones) (Jiao Wei)
School: Con Nedig University
draft: first round (twenty-seventh CIS), Dallas cowboy
Jones created a new world record in last year's NFL body measurements (informal), standing long jump 12 feet 3 inches (373 cm) results, in the past ten years, more than second records of 8 inches. At the same time, this distance may also be a world record, because the standing long jump is no longer an Olympic event since 1912, so the relevant records are incomplete. The Norwegian Arne Tvervaag jumped 12 feet and 2 inches in 1968. It was regarded as the world record. Before 1968, the record was from the Olympic Games in 19001904 and 1908. Ray Ewry jumped 11 feet, 4 and 1/2 inches in 1904. With the same good vertical jumps (the third best in the past ten years), Jones's draft status has been raised to a round.
2. Chris Johnson (Chris Johnson) (runaway)
School: Dongkalailuona University
draft: first round (twenty-fourth CIS), Tennessee Titan
Johnson has been sprinting for 4.24 seconds for 40 yards, which has been maintained for 8 years. Last year, J.J- Nelson (J.J. Nelson) was 4 milliseconds from the record. Archer and Dri Archer were closest to this record 4.26 seconds ago. If the in vivo test, someone can beat Johnson 40 yards sprint record, Adidas will provide $1 million as a reward (but the reward rules are required to wear Adidas shoes can break the record winning).
3. Steven Pyle (Stephen Paea) (Defense section)
big 〉's 25 - point patriot, who was once behind, completed a fantastic reversal of the big score - and it was all known to all. In addition to the well known hero win Tom Brady, count on the right-hand man Julian edelman. Edelman
completed a catch brilliant history of the super bowl. After Robert Alford smack in the NFL, Edelman magic ball fixed in their own hands, and then the body floor.
the ball make twitter shocked, but after the game Tom Brady also praised the Edelman, said: "this is the best I have seen".
"I don't know he caught the ball. I thought he was out of hand or what." Brady said.Mar 23, 2018Well, its time. After two years and a few thousand hours consuming ESPN content via all sorts of platforms and devices, my term as public editor comes to an end with this column. And, to close out, Im taking on the oh-so-simple subject of ESPNs future, something only a few million people have weighed in on over the past few years.Theres a reason for that, of course. ESPNs future hasnt been this uncertain since it emerged from its humble beginnings to become one of the dominant media properties of its generation. Changing business models, shifting media distribution patterns and a plethora of new competitors have weakened a base that once seemed unassailable.For perspective, the key word, of course, is "weakened." Because there are only a handful of companies on earth that wouldnt accept the "weakened" state of ESPN. It is still the primary owner of the shared live sports experience, maintains massive audiences on air and online, and still brings home annual profits that would make shareholders giddy if they hadnt been used to larger profits before. So, while ESPN performs the necessary work of evaluating and adjusting its business model, it does so with real assets in hand.I should note that Ive tried to write this column four times. My first attempt was delayed in November by ESPNs announcement that it would be laying off 150 employees. Before writing, I felt it was important to see what departments would be affected since, as Ive written before, layoffs speak to a companys true priorities in a way no public statement or sound bite can.After the layoffs were announced, I began writing again. Soon after -- for a brief period -- ESPN was pulled into the #MeToo movement when sexual harassment allegations were made against a few ESPN employees. I decided to tap the brakes again to see whether there would be additional allegations that would need to be addressed in this final piece.When no further allegations surfaced -- at least publicly -- I turned back to the column for the third time. In an hourlong interview for this piece, then-company president John Skipper was extremely bullish about the future of ESPN and covered more ground and spoke with more passion than in any other interview Id had with him. In that discussion, I asked him whether this had been the toughest time hed been through in his role. "Yes, this has been the most challenging stretch," he said.Four days later, on Dec. 18, t cheap nfl jerseys free shipping hings got even more challenging, when Skipper stunned the media world -- not to mention his ESPN colleagues -- by resigning so he could address a substance abuse problem. The move came just one month after Skipper had reportedly signed a contract extension through 2021.If the first two column delays were more cautionary, the third was seismic. Suddenly, ESPN was without the man who had been president since 2012, and someone many credit with turning it into a strong journalistic entity.Eventually, I came to the realization that this might well be an indicator of what ESPNs future looks like: increasingly frequent seismic changes that lead to a more-frequent need to adapt. After decades of steady but strong growth -- in influence, revenue and staffing -- ESPNs future is now looking like one that will be as much a cultural challenge as an economic one. As technology continues its peripatetic march forward, the need to quickly adjust to new tools, distribution patterns and competitors will surely increase. To me, the issue really isnt whether ESPN will figure out how to continually make money -- I strongly suspect it will, though at what level remains to be seen -- but whether its culture can adapt quickly enough to keep up.The good news for ESPN, though, is that it became the powerful company it is today by brilliantly navigating a new platform almost 40 years ago: cable television. "No matter what you think of perception of our size, the company represents people who started in trailer trucks," said Rob King, ESPNs senior vice president of original content, newsgathering and digital media. "The one word you could never accurately use about this place is complacent."Complacency is certainly not a risk right now, as ESPN employees -- and those who cover the network -- are eagerly awaiting the first moves of James Pitaro, named ESPNs new president on March 5. The timing of Pitaros appointment makes writing this column more complicated, especially when it comes to assessing the future of journalism inside ESPN.Skipper was a driving force behind ESPNs emphasis on producing more high-quality journalism. He oversaw a significant expansion of ESPNs investigative and enterprise units, was behind the networks acquisition of FiveThirtyEight, launched The Undefeated and drove the development of ESPN The Magazine. Thats not to say there werent journalistic slip-ups during his time: The Undefeated didnt launch for years after the announcement of its formation; the networks withdrawal from a "Frontline" partnership around an NFL concussions documentary remains a black mark; and some of its Deflategate coverage has driven what appears to be a permanent wedge between ESPN and a large portion of New England sports fans. And although Skipper launched the beloved Grantland site, he also later shuttered it.Because of his fingerprints on Grantland and The Undefeated, Skipper also amplified more cultural coverage, a path that helped open the door to more discussion of politics on ESPN properties -- which in turn created internal and external problems for the network, as I previously wrote.Speaking of politics: Since my role here is to address editorial coverage and editorial products, Im not going to spend much time doing a deep dive on ESPNs business prospects. But I want to restate something that has been frequently misconstrued -- intentionally, I think, in many cases. Yes, ESPN has struggled with the increasing collision of sports and politics. But some have taken my columns on this topic as proof that the politics of ESPN have had a significant impact on its business. That is something I never said and do not believe to be true. Yes, there are surely people who have canceled ESPN because they think it has chosen a political side. But its clear that ESPNs core business concern is -- and will continue to be -- the unbundling of its cable television consumers. The networks cable subscriber number has dropped from its peak of just over 100 million in 2011 down to fewer than 87 million as of last May, according to Nielsen.That doesnt mean ESPN shouldnt take seriously the thoughtful criticism of its perceived political move leftward. As Ive written in previous columns, sports, culture and politics have always overlapped, so screaming that ESPN should "stick to sports" might feel good, but its not based in reality. That said, in these troubled political times, I suspect consumers are looking to sports for escapism more than ever. So, while ESPN will, and should, cover the overlap of sports and politics, I see no need for it to force its way into politics when the connection is not direct. Additionally, ESPN needs to do better at reflecting points of view from across the political spectrum.Pitaro held his initial company-wide meeting in Bristol Wednesday, and responded to a question about the perception of liberal bias at ESPN."I do not believe that we are a political organization," he said. "I know that a lot of conversation has happened within this company in the past year and I believe that we netted out in the right place, which is we are a sports media company. Of course, there is going to continue to be an intersection of between sports and politics and were going to continue to cover that. Were going to cover it fairly and honestly. But we are focused on serving the sports fan."Lets pull back to the state of ESPNs journalism. At the moment, the lineup ESPN can journalistically bring to bear on any story remains impressive. I wrote in August that the network was consistently breaking big stories, launching impressive investigative efforts and publishing beautifully written features. Despite the November layoffs, that remains largely true. But, in talking to journalists inside ESPN, its clear Skippers departure left many of them more than a tad nervous. ESPNs operations have been scaled back by two major rounds of layoffs in the past 11 months.Will Pitaro have the same appetite for the kind of journalism -- and the headaches it can cause the networks business partners -- that Skipper did?Pitaros vision for the company will certainly unfold in coming weeks and months. When asked about his commitment to journalism at the ESPN employee meeting, Pitaro noted his role in helping build Yahoo Sports and praised ESPNs creativity and approach to news coverage, adding, "One of the core business drivers going forward has got to be quality storytelling and programming."Theres little doubt the challenges of the moment are different from those of the past. In an interview before Skippers departure, Burke Magnus, ESPNs executive vice president of programming and scheduling said: "I think [our history] has been a constant disruption, but before this, theyve been more ancillary developments fueled by technology rather than a direct disruption to the core."Magnus also was one of a handful of employees who pointed to a less obvious factor that has affected ESPN: "The biggest difference has been the external coverage of the company," he said. "Were not used to being under the microscope on a daily basis. Its a lot more interesting to read about subscriber loss than different packaging of products. Weve become the proxy for a disrupted industry. Thats a very different aspect than Ive seen at any other time at ESPN.. Im not suggesting its undue; its fine, and part of the mantle we wear."Related to that issue is the seeming glee some are taking in ESPNs struggles, an issue well laid out by The Ringers Bryan Curtis this past May. The level of animus many have toward the network is something Ive been surprised by during my tenure as public editor, and I can safely say the level of that anger seems to have increased during that time.This means ESPN needs to be increasingly careful about how it communicates with its audience, and that hasnt been a strength of the network. ESPN serves its fans in the sense that it delivers to them more content across multiple platforms than they could ever consume on a daily basis, but thats a one-to-many relationship. Its the one-to-one relationship that ESPN needs to get better at, in my opinion. In my experience talking to many consumers of ESPN content, they tend to know a lot about the network yet dont feel connected to it. This is an area where competitors such as Bleacher Report, Barstool Sports and Deadspin consistently have done better.But theres one crucial thing ESPN has in far greater amounts than any of its competitors: consumers.On digital platforms, according to Nielsen, ESPN reached 84.9 million U.S. consumers via digital platforms in January, almost 20 percent more than second-ranked CBSSports.com. In December, ESPN reached 93.1 million U.S. consumers. If you expand that to worldwide users, the network says that it reached an average of 119 million per month in 2017 -- spiking at 149.9 million in one month -- and that the last four months of the year were its best ever.Although the core of the business -- television -- isnt what it used to be in terms of ratings or revenue, ESPN is still one of cable televisions main draws: In January, ESPN -- powered by the college football national championship game -- was the most-watched cable channel in the United States, averaging 2.9 million viewers a day. ESPN still routinely draws almost 2 million viewers per day, and, according to ESPNs communications team, the network was responsible for the 10 highest-rated cable broadcasts of 2017 (and 16 of the top 20).That leads me to the issue of sports rights: Call me old-school, but I still believe spending money on rights is smart business, provided the price isnt crippling. In a world where appointment viewing is dying a painful death, one of the few great shared experiences remains live sports. "The communal aspect of it is there," said Stephanie Druley, ESPNs senior vice president of event and studio production. "Live sports is one of the few communal viewing things left."Now, the good news -- or bad news if you think the networks rights deals are an albatross -- is that ESPN doesnt need to negotiate new contracts for its three major professional league deals for a bit. NFL and MLB rights are not up until 2021, the NBA not until after the 2024-25 season. Additionally, Wimbledon rights dont expire until 2023, and the US Open and the college football playoff rights dont come up again until 2025.The planned acquisition of Foxs regional sports outlets -- still awaiting regulatory approval -- would seem to show a doubling-down of ESPNs commitments to rights, as Foxs 22 regional sports channels carry 44 professional teams games. In addition to providing more scale for advertisers, this acquisition will also limit the competition when national sports rights deals come up for renewal, in the same way newspapers buying up more newspapers has both expanded scale and reduced competition for subsequent purchases. Disneys proposed purchase of Fox would also strengthen ESPNs rights and content portfolio around the world.If you believe live sports will continue to resist the media trends that have compromised so many other types of events, then ESPNs belief in rights makes sense. What will happen to the price of those rights remains the largest open question. Although ESPN would surely prefer to pay less when its rights deals come up for renewal, Im equally sure that the leagues and organizations theyre negotiating with will push for more. Even with the constant disaggregation of media during the past seven years, the total price of sports rights deals reportedly has climbed from $11 billion to $19 billion.The other closely watched upcoming company effort is the planned launch of ESPN Plus, the networks direct-to-consumer streaming service, which is expected to debut in the coming months. In August 2016, Disney, ESPNs parent company, spent $1 billion to buy a 33 percent share of MLBAM Tech, Major League Baseballs video streaming service, and it then bought another 42 percent this past August to become majority owner.BAM Tech -- which partners with HBO, the NHL, the PGA and Sony, among others, and already provides the technology for the digital distribution of ESPNs linear channels -- will provide the back end for Plus, a $4.99-per-month service thatll broadcast live events, live programming and other ESPN content, such as 30 for 30.Because of rights issues, ESPN Plus will provide additive content and wont stream live events that currently appear on the networks broadcast channels, which -- at least for a while -- will limit its appeal. But the network says Plus will broadcast approximately 10,000 live regional, national and international games and events per year, and will include Major League Baseball, the NHL, Major League Soccer, Grand Slam tennis, boxing and college sports. So, although its full potential might take some time to suss out, Plus will at least give ESPN an alternative for fans who dont want -- or cant afford -- a full cable package but still want their fill of sports.These experiments are important, and although they might seem like no-brainers based on changing media patterns, many legacy news organizations have utterly failed on the experimentation front. To ESPNs credit, I have always found the company to be willing to experiment, even if the moves fail to pan out. Innovation when youre bringing in billions -- yes, billions -- in profits is a cultural challenge, and whether its launching its own branded phone, rolling out city sites, expanding its global digital footprint, launching SportsCenter on Snapchat or other experiments, ESPN has been willing to take calculated gambles.And it needs to be more experimental now than ever. This is no time to be conservative. The question for ESPN now isnt whether it will have challenges to deal with but what they'll be and how frequently theyll come. For some, like Magnus, thats just fine."Thats actually the fun part," he said. "Think about when online emerged. We were literally a TV network. Then there was the advent of mobile, and HD vs. SD. When these changes have occurred, its always been invigorating. I think people feel the same way now."As for the journalism ESPN produces, its lineup has been weakened by two rounds of layoffs. But, all things considered, it still has more journalistic firepower now than at almost any time in its history. Beyond the obvious question of whether that commitment will be maintained under Pitaros leadership, theres still a lot ESPN can do to improve its journalism and its products. Here are a few suggestions:Engage better with consumers: Its complicated for a company the size of ESPN to maintain close ties to its millions of consumers. But I also dont sense that ESPN has truly tried to provide engagement opportunities for its consumers. As with many legacy media brands, ESPN's engagement with its community feels more tangential than essential. This opening has been expertly exploited by sites such as Deadspin, Bleacher Report and Barstool Sports, where engagement and connection sit front and center, not as afterthoughts. Research shows that younger consumers are more likely to do business with companies they have some emotional connection to, which makes ESPNs arm's-length relationship with its consumers not just a cultural challenge but potentially a financial one.David Finocchio, CEO of Bleacher Report, put it well in a Business Insider piece this past fall:"Just talk to a 24-year-old. Our social content is better because we have a more peer-to-peer voice. We connect with younger people like they're texting their friends, not like a classic media company shouting out."Back in November I asked Skipper about whether a deeper connection to fans was something he thought was important. "In the position Im in, I would never trade success at the level weve had for a little more community and fun," he said.Although I understand the desire not to put the ESPN franchise at risk in exchange for more engagement, I dont think this is an all-or-nothing proposition. Why couldnt ESPN create a sub-brand that tries to lift from the successes of some of its cheekier competitors? Yes, Disneys ownership might limit how far ESPN can stray, but I believe the lack of meaningful engagement opportunities for fans remains a risk for the network. ESPN has always made it focus serving sports fans, but I think much of its future lies in its ability to turn sports fans into ESPN fans.No more LaVar Ball (or whatever the obsession of the moment is): I get it, Ball stories are traffic and ratings gold. But media obsessions always run the risk of alienating thousands of core consumers at the expense of millions of drive-by gawkers. The complaints about LaVar Ball coverage -- and that of Tim Tebow before -- have been almost as plentiful as, well, LaVar Ball stories. And as ESPN increasingly moves toward an unbundled world, itll need to do whatever it can to serve the fans who pay for its products, and tracking Ball across the globe -- yes, ESPN actually had a reporter in Lithuania covering the Ball family -- strikes me as a distraction from what most fans want. Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr said it well in a postgame rant in January:"Theres nothing interesting about that story. Do you know how many parents of my players have probably been at home like, Man, he should be playing my kid. And yet, were sticking a microphone in his face because, apparently, it gets ratings. I dont know who cares, but people care. Or else ESPN wouldnt be spending what theyre spending to send reporters to Lithuania, when they laid off people who were writing really substantial pieces."Although its hard to directly connect LaVar Ball traffic to ESPN layoffs, Kerrs point is valid. Covering LaVar Ball at a time when ESPNs journalism lineup has thinned gives an impression of a lack of seriousness. For a company thats long been fighting to enhance its journalistic reputation, lack of seriousness is never a good thing. Good journalism requires the discipline to dig and find stories people dont know about, and the discipline to stay away from easy clicks.Transparency: ESPN needs to make this a higher priority. No one expects the network to openly discuss everything inside its walls, but there are times when ESPN has hurt itself publicly by not explaining decisions or failing to make important corrections in a timely manner. An obvious example of the latter was the year-plus-long delay in correcting a Chris Mortensen story about Deflategate that allowed the story -- and the anger of Patriots fans -- to build to an explosive level.A more current example was controversy surrounding Mark Schlabachs Feb. 25 piece on alleged FBI wiretaps between Arizona mens basketball coach Sean Miller and Christian Dawkins, a key figure in the FBIs investigation of corruption in college basketball. As well laid out by Deadspin, theres a legitimate question regarding the actual date of the wiretaps and whether it fits into the broader timeline of Arizonas recruiting of DeAndre Ayton. On March 1, Sports Illustrated reported that a source "familiar with" the corruption investigation had backed Millers account of events. At this point, ESPNs response has been to issue the traditional "we stand by our story" statement. At this point, ESPNs response has been to issue the traditional "we stand by our story" statement. But that well-worn phrase is better used when someone has objected broadly to a story, not when specific facts have been presented that cast doubt. ESPN owes more than a "we stand by our story" and, in general, needs to open up when confronted with challenges to its journalism. Organizations with strong journalism reputations must be the first ones to clear up confusion that emanates from their reporting, or else that reputation is put at permanent risk.Focus on stories, not stats: Im as much of a stat geek as the next guy, but what people connect with are great stories, not great stats. (If you need an example, watch this piece, and dont tell me you didnt tear up a bit. Now tell me how many points per game this guy averages. No, you dont care, do you?)Yes, the ubiquity of highlights has forced changes to ESPNs signature SportsCenter franchise, but recent adjustments to that show reveal a move back toward the highlight as a meaningful atomic unit. I think the similar move back toward storytelling is an equally important one."One of our greatest attributes is storytelling; its so important," Druley said. "But we can also tell stories inside our events. I may not care about the University of Georgia when they play Auburn, but if I tune in for 10 minutes and you give me a reason to watch or a person to root for or make me pick a side, Im going to be more engaged."A typical example: When ESPN broadcast the Texas vs. Oklahoma college football game in October, it told the story of Texas freshman quarterback Sam Ehlinger. Sams father, Ross, had desperately wanted to play football for Texas but never did. And, sadly, Ross also never got the chance to see Sam play for Texas, drowning during a triathlon in 2013."Going into a break, we told that story with some amazing pictures," Druley said. "The last picture was the kid when he was 5 years old. We encapsulated the entire story that would normally be told in 4-5 minutes and [because it was during a live game] we did it in 15-20 seconds."This instinct to find and tell great stories -- whatever the time constraints -- is a smart one. Stories remain the lifeblood of journalism, whether you have two hours (30 for 30), 30 minutes (Outside the Lines), 15 minutes (ESPN The Magazine), six minutes (SportsCenter) or 20 seconds (during a game).The line between ESPNs journalism and its business partners. Its the most perilous border in ESPNs journalistic territory, and it needs to be constantly and aggressively patrolled. There was a reminder of that in December, when Major League Baseball complained to ESPN about Dan Le Batards aggressive interview of MLB commissioner Rob Manfred. Its unclear whether that conversation had any impact on how ESPN covers Major League Baseball, but to some extent, it doesnt matter. Its the mere fact the conversation took place that rightfully gives fans and ESPN critics pause.It should be said that ESPN is not the only journalistic entity that also owns sports rights. But it is the most prominent, and, because of history such as the Frontline mess, critics justifiably point out these kinds of potential issues, if for no other reason, to keep ESPN on its toes. As public editor, I can say that its difficult to definitively prove that specific coverage is affected by business relationships. But its equally hard to believe it isnt, at least to some degree. It would be beneficial for ESPN to occasionally talk publicly about how it manages the intersection of its business relationships and its journalism.Some viewers have raised frustrations around ESPNs many talk shows, such as First Take, Pardon the Interruption, Around the Horn and others. There are two reasons I didnt really tackle this issue: (1) These arent really journalistic entities; theyre entertainment with an occasional dash of journalism, and (2) these shows, despite the enmity some have for them, arent going anywhere. They attract viewers. The simple solution for those who detest ESPNs talk shows is not to watch them. But clearly millions do, and so the roots these shows have are only growing stronger. Although Im personally not a frequent consumer of these shows, I also cant overlook the economics. The success of these shows is part of how ESPN funds efforts such as its larger investigative teams, and thats a tradeoff Im comfortable with.Now, a few closing thoughts.The most highly charged issue I wrote about in my two years in this role began when then-SC6 host Jemele Hill called President Donald Trump a "white supremacist" on Twitter. My take -- that it wasnt a good look for a journalist to use an inflammatory label when facts were available to make her case -- certainly led to the most controversy I faced in this role. Interestingly, that blowback came largely from a constituency I didnt anticipate: other journalists.Its a sign of changing times -- and, to me, not a good change -- that so many in journalism feel its now OK to substitute opinions for what we used to call facts. Ive been on the digital side of journalism for 22 years now, and while I have taken what is about as far from a traditional path through this industry as possible, I do not believe everything old should be replaced with something new. Opinions are opinions and facts are facts, and I believe any conflating of the two does damage to the credibility of journalism. There are many who think this new type of journalism -- where everyone is open about biases and speaks "the truth" -- is a good thing.But if you believe the proliferation of more opinionated journalism via social media or 24/7 cable newscasts has been good for the profession, look at this chart.GallupAs far as I can tell, as social media has moved to center stage, cable news ratings have soared and the ratio of fact-based journalism to opinion journalism has moved heavily toward the latter, the publics trust in journalism has reached an all-time low. Sure, maybe the most recent plummet has more to do with Trumps incessant carping about the media, but the double-digit-point drop that preceded it would seem to be cause for some concern. So while I have great personal respect for many who disagreed with me on Hills comment -- and even more for Hill herself -- I unequivocally stand by my position.As for the future of the public editor at ESPN, I obviously hope the company commits to the role. There are some internally who feel strongly that the position should be maintained; there are others who feel that the role is unnecessary in light of the many sports sites and social media practitioners critiquing ESPN on a daily basis (a similar point was made by The New York Times when it dropped the public editor role last year).Although it is true that criticism of all journalism is prevalent, that criticism doesnt always come with the context you get by knowing an organization well. Richard Deitsch, who just announced that he is leaving Sports Illustrated and will join The Athletic, and James Andrew Miller, who literally co-wrote the book about ESPN, possess that knowledge and access -- at least through sources. (If you need any more evidence of that, see Miller's scoop about the reason for Skippers sudden departure).But few can go to Bristol or New York and walk the halls of ESPN, and I believe that to be valuable. That doesnt mean there werent people at ESPN who didnt cooperate with me or failed to return emails and/or calls. There were. But they were the minority.Its also worth noting that ESPN is one of the few journalistic entities in the United States that still maintains a public editor position, with PBS and NPR being among the few others. Before The New York Times cut, The Washington Post eliminated its public editor role in 2013. None of the major networks has one, and none of the cable news networks has -- at least to my knowledge -- ever had one. I think having a public editor or ombudsman would keep ESPN in a small club thats worth being a part of.Skipper gave his take back in November: "We now have a culture where there are not a few arbiters of what matters," he said. "Everyones an arbiter. Everyones a publisher. Were OK with being scrutinized. We have an ombudsman, we invite our fans to give their impressions. I think a company this large, this important and this influential needs to have scrutiny."And, finally, thanks to those of you who were willing to engage in debates via email, Twitter or Facebook about conclusions I raised or opinions I expressed. Despite the wave of trolls anyone writing columns must face, beneath it all were many lively debates and discussions about the future of ESPN, the role of journalism at the network and the ethics that should underpin what any journalistic entity does. The debates werent always pretty, and I certainly didnt always keep my cool. But they were productive in establishing the readers point of view.I have also appreciated the thoughtful feedback Ive gotten over these past few years from many inside ESPN, and many more outside. When you become a public editor, your job is to make calls and express opinions. I had no expectation that everyone would agree with me on those opinions; to think otherwise would be not to understand the role. I also never suggested I was right about everything, because most of the topics I tackled were not black and white, they were -- like most issues we face in the world today -- some shade of gray.Those of us who serve in these roles have no monopoly on the truth. No one person does. As Ive always said, those who think they know everything are worth listening to about nothing. So I thank you for listening, and for being willing to challenge me on things you saw differently.Now, would all of you Patriots fans kindly mind getting out of my personal Twitter feed? (And, yes, that was a rhetorical question. See you in September).