ESPN vs. Deadspin

Sports fans have little choice as to where their news comes from. Whether it's television, radio or websites, ESPN has dominated for three decades. The Internet has smaller independent sources, few of which generate even a sizable fraction of the hits ESPN.com garners daily. There is one fierce competitor, however, that is threatening to take over the sports blogging universe.

Say hello to Deadspin.

Launched in 2005 by columnist Will Leitch, Deadspin has gone from being an alternative blog to a legitimate news source. This site broke such stories as the controversial photographs of NFL quarterback Matt Leinart partying in New York, former MLB outfielder Matt Lawton's suspension for a positive drug test, and Mark McGwire's brother claiming to have injected him with steroids. ESPN actually cited Deadspin as its source for the McGwire scoop.

In the TV world, ESPN's competition includes the regionalized Fox Sports Net and league owned-and-operated networks. On the radio, local shows and syndicated programming compete with ESPN. Not only are these shows often more opinion-based than news-based, but they are too fragmented to measure on a national scale. The Internet battle between ESPN and Deadspin, however, can be more accurately tabulated.

Popularity:

ESPN.com is ranked by traffic detailer Alexa as the 82nd-most visited site on the Internet. Out of billions of webpages, this is a very high rank. It is easily the most frequented sports website.

Deadspin is ranked at number 8,486. While not the most popular sports site, it is the number one sports blog. But it is nowhere near the status of its rival.

Winner: ESPN

Functions:

ESPN loads its site with the top news of the day from its own reporters. These are the same headlines discussed on their TV shows, namely "SportsCenter." It also features polls, statistics, scores and its blog section, "Page 2." The stats and scores can be found elsewhere, such as league websites, but make for useful pages nonetheless.

Deadspin talks about the news, both front-page and obscure, in a blog format. The editors may attach some sarcastic remarks, or even a full opinion piece. Its news is usually pulled from other print sources, which are credited and linked. The site earns many bonus points for its wide-open comment forums on every post. The commenters offer humor and insight into what the fans think.

Winner: I choose Deadspin, but it is subjective

Bias:

This is a subject of contention between fans of both sites. In fact, supposed ESPN bias was a primary basis on which Deadspin was founded.

In all of its divisions, ESPN tends to favor large markets. New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles teams often receive more coverage. West Coast readers have chastised them for favoring East Coast cities. "Superstar" athlete coverage is disproportionate. Zack Greinke of the Kansas City Royals started this season 8-1 with an 0.82 ERA, the best start in nearly 100 years. His starts are tracked well enough for fans to keep up with them. But if he pitched for the Yankees, they would all be televised and closely monitored, and there would be a new feature on him every week.

Meanwhile, Deadspin's tagline is "Sports News Without Access, Favor or Discretion." All people in all places are covered fairly. They pride themselves on being unbiased and reporting items otherwise uncovered. How else would I have known that fans are not allowed autographs at the new Yankee Stadium? Or that a high school pitcher threw over 200 pitches in a playoff victory?

Winner: Deadspin

Credibility:

ESPN establishes itself front and center at every major sporting event. Their live coverage, in time and numbers, is unparalleled. Its staff can upload breaking stories from a World Series or Super Bowl in a matter of minutes, then post video featuring highlights and analysis. Its access and legitimacy are top notch.

Deadspin admits to having no access, though at times its editors will blog live from big events. We can just call its access limited and leave it at that.

Winner: ESPN

Tiebreaker: Site Design/Navigation:

I recently left the web design field to pursue a journalism career. So I would like to think I know something about this. We'll see.

ESPN.com is flooded with headlines, images and advertisements. Its home page is following the trend of using Flash-based slideshows to display top stories. The ads can be unnecessarily massive, such as one for the iPod that covered more than half of my screen. It uses different colors and dividers to fragment the site into sections, meeting the unwritten limit of three colors to a page. The site leads visitors to what they want, but there is still a bit too much going on. It's like the rest of ESPN: too flashy.

Navigation-wise, there are basic links horizontally placed at the top. They drop down into lists of more specific links, which condenses numerous links into a small space. Headline links are emphasized and take readers right where they want to go. Though crowded, ESPN.com has good structure.

Deadspin is not nearly as crowded with links and gimmicks. Top stories are fittingly at the top, followed by recent posts. It only uses white and gray for backgrounds and mostly black type. While white screens strain the eyes, black backgrounds are unfavorable on professional websites, so white works. Plus the plain look is a big deviation from ESPN. Deadspin visitors go to read, not stare. Thus, the type is bigger and easier to read. The look does its job.

Navigation is fairly simple. Just click on a headline and you have your story. There is no complication to it. Commenting just requires logging in and typing in the text box at the bottom of the page. This is a big winner.

Winner: Deadspin

Deadspin defeats the ESPN goliath, 3-2. I would like to see others' opinions on this matter as well, to gauge the public's views.