What is happening with ESPN?

So I let ESPN's "Who's Now?" segment, a feature that attempts to crown the most celebrified athlete in the world (but basically America), slide simply because there wasn't a sports blog on the internet that didn't have a complaint about it. Enough had been said on what proved to be a new rock bottom for the once infallible station. But I came across another feature on their website that attempts to project which 50 players in the game today have the best chance to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. They call it "Cantonized," for the town where the game's greats become enshrined. The list started off good with a bunch of no-brainers. But it wasn't long before the list became flooded with OK players, players early in their careers, and even players who have yet to play an NFL snap. And on top of that these players took the spot of others who deserve consideration.
The creators of the list, Thomas Neumann and Scott Symmes, created a scientific formula to predict these future Hall of Famers. And like most times when someone tries to scientifically quantify and predict the future in sports, or any aspect of life for that matter, they fail miserably. Because the beautiful thing about sports; and what makes fans come back year after year, generation after generation; is that it is unpredictable. That is why we watch. We can speculate, but to begin to try and put science behind those predictions is counter-active to the appeal of sports. This formula was broken down into five categories where each player was rated. Twenty points was possible for each category, for a maximum score of 100. The five categories are: Mortality (injuries), Statistics, Team Success, Upside, and Intangibles.
The first ten on the list probably won't be argued by anybody. But then again, it's not hard to name ten of the best players in the game. Brett Favre unshockingly topped the list. However, he maxed out at a score of 78. So you get a sense of the scale of scoring. If this was a school course, there would be a major curve, unless the professor was Mr. Hubert....what an asshole. Anyway I digress. Anyway, the top ten was rounded out by the likes of Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Larry Allen, Ray Lewis, and LaDainian Tomlinson, to name a few. No complaints here.
Things start to get fishy at the 21st prediciton: Shawne Merriman. Now, yes, Merriman may be the best defensive player in the game, but he has been in the league for two years. That's barely enough time to judge whether a draft pick is a bust or not, let alone if the guy will be considered one of the best to play the game in it's rich history. One thing you've got to remember is that the Hall of Fame is for people who were great their entire careers. But still, I had no idea what I was in for further down the list.
At 32, we have Randy Moss. Now I'm a guy who thinks that character should play a part in whether or not a guy is Hall of Fame worthy. But even disregarding all of his character issues, he's simply not worthy to be "Cantonized." He simply hasn't done anything since leaving Minnesota, which was in 2004. While there, he was great. Maybe better than any other receiver ever. But he is now on the down side of his career, and six years does not make a Hall of Fame career. That fishy smell I smelled at 21 was starting to get pretty strong.
And it didn't take long for that smell to go from strong to unbearable. At number 34 is none other than, last year's second overall pick, Reggie Bush. Granted, the guy has tremendous upside, but is that enough to predict a hall of fame career. His rookie season wasn't even worthy of that kind of recognition even if it was projected over a 10-15 year career. 155 carries for 565 yards and 6 TDs. The only reason his rookie season wasn't pitiful was because of the 88 receptions for 742 yards; quite good for a back. We don't even know if his small frame can withstand the pounding that a Hall of Fame running back is bound to take.
It was about this time that I started thinking the list couldn't get any worse. That, and where the hell is Donovan McNabb on this list. Then I saw Vince Young followed by Calvin Johnson. With Young it is the same story as with Bush: too early to tell. But, it's a very different story with Johnson. Johnson, THIS YEAR'S second overall pick, has yet to play a snap in the NFL and these guys are putting him in the Hall of Fame. How do they possibly defend this? Well they give him a middling score of 10 for mortality, but combined with perfect 20s in upside and intangibles, he has a score of 50, and enough to make the list (and he didn't just squeak on either). I agree that this guy has amazing upside, but where does the perfect score for intangibles come from? We simply have no idea what he will accomplish on the field, let alone what kind of leader he will be. Cut intangibles in half, and give him a MAX score of 40.
At this point I'm feeling sick. I think that fish smell is actually a rotting whale under my desk. Now, I'm just going through as fast as possibly (noticing names like Matt Leinart, Steven Jackson, AJ Hawk, and Adrian Peterson)to see McNabb's name on the list and at least keep the lunch in my stomach. I won't keep you all in suspense any longer...he wasn't on the list! (cue dramatic music now). Oh, but ESPN did classify him as "on the bubble." I feel so much better now.
I'm sure Thomas Neumann and Scott Symmes would defend their predictions by saying they objectively based on a scientific formula. But I don't buy it. This whole experiment, in the same vein as "Who's Now," is just another effort by ESPN to turn athletes into celebrities. Over the past number of years, they have been trying desperately trying to transform into Entertainment Tonight. You don't have to be a marketing major to know that ESPN's primary demographic is males between the ages of 18-35. And you can probably narrow that down even more by saying single men. Now who out of this demographic cares who Alex Rodriguez is dating, or who's in Matt Leinart's entourage? Without sounding too misogynistic, the answer is no one. This is a perfect example of ESPN's disgraceful attempt to gobble up more advertising revenue, while leaving there core, loyal audience out in the cold. But if they keep doing this, who knows how loyal that audience will remain.