ESPN used fake names to secure Emmys for ‘College GameDay’ stars | The Boneyard

ESPN used fake names to secure Emmys for ‘College GameDay’ stars

SixRings

SixRings

Joined
Jun 11, 2013
Messages
1,472
Reaction Score
2,900
theathletic.com

ESPN used fake names to secure Emmys for ‘College GameDay’ stars

Kirk Herbstreit, Lee Corso, Chris Fowler, Desmond Howard and Samantha Ponder were among those given the ill-gotten awards.
theathletic.com theathletic.com

Per The Athletic today. Very sketchy.

“That request was one of many ESPN made of some of its biggest stars last year after the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS), the organization that administers the Emmys, uncovered a scheme that the network used to acquire more than 30 of the coveted statuettes for on-air talent ineligible to receive them. Since at least 2010, ESPN inserted fake names in Emmy entries, then took the awards won by some of those imaginary individuals, had them re-engraved and gave them to on-air personalities.”
 
Last edited:
FiveRings said:
theathletic.com

ESPN used fake names to secure Emmys for ‘College GameDay’ stars

Kirk Herbstreit, Lee Corso, Chris Fowler, Desmond Howard and Samantha Ponder were among those given the ill-gotten awards.
theathletic.com theathletic.com

“That request was one of many ESPN made of some of its biggest stars last year after the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS), the organization that administers the Emmys, uncovered a scheme that the network used to acquire more than 30 of the coveted statuettes for on-air talent ineligible to receive them. Since at least 2010, ESPN inserted fake names in Emmy entries, then took the awards won by some of those imaginary individuals, had them re-engraved and gave them to on-air personalities.”
Expand ...
Who would vote for an imaginary entry?
 
uconnfan68 said:
Who would vote for an imaginary entry?
Expand ...
Did you read the article? The on-air talent weren't eligible to win trophies if the show won, since hosts, analysts, and reporters have other categories they're nominated for. So ESPN submitted some additional fake names (ostensibly people in eligible roles) so they could convert them to trophies for the hosts. The entry that anyone could actually vote for, College Gameday, was not imaginary, obviously. No one voting for it actually cares about the name of some guy who purportedly did lighting or something.
 
.-.
This is bizarre.

They made up fake names, grabbed the trophies, had then re-inscribed for on air talent who were ineligible for the awards.

They did it for more than a decade.

finance.yahoo.com

ESPN returns Emmys and disciplines staff after submitting for awards under fake names

ESPN returned dozens of Emmy statues and “disciplined” employees after an investigation disclosed Thursday found that the sports network had submitted fake names to the awards organization in a bid to secure trophies for on-air personalities who had been ineligible to receive them.
finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com
 
McLovin said:
Why would someone want a trophy for an award they didn’t actually win? Are these people that shallow? (rhetorical question - the answer is obviously, yes)
Expand ...
ive change my mind on this. when a movie wins best picture only the producers take home the oscars. the director and actors dont get them b/c they too are eligible in their individual capacities.
 
bendm said:
ive change my mind on this. when a movie wins best picture only the producers take home the oscars. the director and actors dont get them b/c they too are eligible in their individual capacities.
Expand ...
I do think it’s pretty dumb that they weren’t eligible to win as “on air hosts” because they were eligible for other categories (especially now that they changed that rule), but I personally wouldn’t want an award if it wasn’t legit.

And there is no way these on air hosts weren’t aware of that (they claim they weren’t, but these people never did a quick Google search or checked with the NATAS? I call BS)…
 
.-.
Leebo said:
Did you read the article? The on-air talent weren't eligible to win trophies if the show won, since hosts, analysts, and reporters have other categories they're nominated for. So ESPN submitted some additional fake names (ostensibly people in eligible roles) so they could convert them to trophies for the hosts. The entry that anyone could actually vote for, College Gameday, was not imaginary, obviously. No one voting for it actually cares about the name of some guy who purportedly did lighting or something.
Expand ...
That makes more sense now. Thank you.
 
Leebo said:
Did you read the article? The on-air talent weren't eligible to win trophies if the show won, since hosts, analysts, and reporters have other categories they're nominated for. So ESPN submitted some additional fake names (ostensibly people in eligible roles) so they could convert them to trophies for the hosts. The entry that anyone could actually vote for, College Gameday, was not imaginary, obviously. No one voting for it actually cares about the name of some guy who purportedly did lighting or something.
Expand ...

The guy who did lighting does, but what people are missing is that nobody actually lost out on any awards because of this. This was ego-stroking by ESPN. They handed fake awards out, but the program itself won, and every eligible member of the team got an award. It was a corrupt but victimless scheme.

It's one of those things that sounds terrible -- ESPN FRAUDULENTLY CHANGED NAMES TO GET AWARDS! -- until you actually read the article. Judging by the comments on the Athletic, we're in the minority of people who did.
 
McLovin said:
Why would someone want a trophy for an award they didn’t actually win? Are these people that shallow? (rhetorical question - the answer is obviously, yes)
Expand ...

So here's what happens:

Game Day wins an Emmy. ESPN hands out trophies to everyone associated with the program. Somebody gives one to Kirk Herbstreit without telling him it was actually awarded to Herc Curbstreet because he was ineligible.

Is he supposed to check the Emmy eligibility requirements, or is he just going to say thanks and stick the trophy on his shelf? I suppose there's a possibility that some of these folks knew but that's not in the article.
 
bendm said:
ive change my mind on this. when a movie wins best picture only the producers take home the oscars. the director and actors dont get them b/c they too are eligible in their individual capacities.
Expand ...

That's not a totally fair comparison because only 3 producers can take home an Oscar. In this case, basically everybody but the on-air personalities got trophies. The only way they could get away with it was because there were like 20 trophies being handed out. So insofar people are suggesting that Desmond Howard should know he wasn't eligible for a trophy like Daniel Day-Lewis knows he's not eligible for a Best Picture trophy, I think that's a big stretch.
 
I’d
nomar said:
So here's what happens:

Game Day wins an Emmy. ESPN hands out trophies to everyone associated with the program. Somebody gives one to Kirk Herbstreit without telling him it was actually awarded to Herc Curbstreet because he was ineligible.

Is he supposed to check the Emmy eligibility requirements, or is he just going to say thanks and stick the trophy on his shelf? I suppose there's a possibility that some of these folks knew but that's not in the article
Expand ...
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d assume these guys (and also their agents) would know what industry awards they are and are not eligible for…
 
nomar said:
It was a corrupt but victimless scheme.
Expand ...
How about all the industry people who did follow the (arbitrary) rules (that it's reasonable to think should change, I guess.)

According to the same article, the talent clearly thought having the statuettes was of some value, and they got that value for a time, while others did not.
 
.-.
Leebo said:
How about all the industry people who did follow the (arbitrary) rules (that it's reasonable to think should change, I guess.)

According to the same article, the talent clearly thought having the statuettes was of some value, and they got that value for a time, while others did not.
Expand ...

Who didn't get one that's broken up about it? The value is minimal. It's a trophy on a shelf. The satisfaction comes from being one of the on-air personalities of an Emmy-winning program. Being able to call yourself "host of the Emmy-winning Game Day" is a lot more valuable than a trophy.

Don't get me wrong. It broke the rules and was wrong. But I just don't think anybody suffered from it.
 
nomar said:
Who didn't get one that's broken up about it? The value is minimal. It's a trophy on a shelf. The satisfaction comes from being one of the on-air personalities of an Emmy-winning program. Being able to call yourself "host of the Emmy-winning Game Day" is a lot more valuable than a trophy.

Don't get me wrong. It broke the rules and was wrong. But I just don't think anybody suffered from it.
Expand ...
I would say you don't have to be aware of the negative effect of someone's cheating for it to have affected you indirectly (you had slightly less "clout", real or imagined, than the cheaters), though I agree that the effect was likely small.
 
nomar said:
So here's what happens:

Game Day wins an Emmy. ESPN hands out trophies to everyone associated with the program. Somebody gives one to Kirk Herbstreit without telling him it was actually awarded to Herc Curbstreet because he was ineligible.

Is he supposed to check the Emmy eligibility requirements, or is he just going to say thanks and stick the trophy on his shelf? I suppose there's a possibility that some of these folks knew but that's not in the article.
Expand ...
Okay, but you’re glossing over it. They changed the inscribed names on the trophies. You cannot think that was anything other than complete wrong+doing. That’s not Kirk’s malice but some people at ESPN are guilty of some ridiculous behavior.
 
I’m actually impressed with the idea.

Harmless way to get a few trophies for talent that deserve it.

Victimless crime
 
Totally bizarre. In the grand scheme of things who cares about these awards. But they are a source of pride to those who get them because peers do the voting. I know because my son has 3 of them in the documentary category. One personal and the others were for work done by his company with one for a division of his company and those people each got their own statues .i got to see one event in person. The documentary and news event is nothing like the prime time event. Cocktail party, no meal, but well known news media personalities present the statues.
 
McLovin said:
I do think it’s pretty dumb that they weren’t eligible to win as “on air hosts” because they were eligible for other categories (especially now that they changed that rule), but I personally wouldn’t want an award if it wasn’t legit.

And there is no way these on air hosts weren’t aware of that (they claim they weren’t, but these people never did a quick Google search or checked with the NATAS? I call BS)…
Expand ...
I agree with you on this. A dumb rule and a dumb response. But they absolutely deserve recognition as they were major players on the field for those shows.
 
.-.
nomar said:
The guy who did lighting does, but what people are missing is that nobody actually lost out on any awards because of this. This was ego-stroking by ESPN. They handed fake awards out, but the program itself won, and every eligible member of the team got an award. It was a corrupt but victimless scheme.

It's one of those things that sounds terrible -- ESPN FRAUDULENTLY CHANGED NAMES TO GET AWARDS! -- until you actually read the article. Judging by the comments on the Athletic, we're in the minority of people who did.
Expand ...
They seemingly disagreed with the awarding organization's policy and responded by setting in motion corporate resources to alter the effects of the policy on their company.

They engaged some number of their employees in cooperating to decide the scheme and then created sound-alike pseudonyms; deceitfully present those names to the organization whose policies they did not respect; and thereafter managed the intake of the falsely claimed awards in such a way as to presumably hire some entity (or entities) to create facsimile physical nameplates with the real names of those they wanted to be honored. Thereafter, some personnel removed the genuinely-manufactured but strategically fake-named plates and affixed the counterfeit-manufactured but preferred true-named plates, all presumably done under some level of false pretense and under cover of some level of secrecy for multiple reasons within multiple employment labor categories including management, administrative, and line workers. "Victimless" doesn't begin to address any of this.

More so than the common 'cover-up being worse than the (not literal) crime' label, this was an instance akin to the coverup being the crime.

Even for something petty and vain, it still constitutes quite a web of deceit, and it was arguably perpetrated on NATAS. I don't know what damage they'd claim, but it would seem to be harmful to the integrity of their efforts and to their likely good faith throughout the process.
 
Hans Sprungfeld said:
They seemingly disagreed with the awarding organization's policy and responded by setting in motion corporate resources to alter the effects of the policy on their company.

They engaged some number of their employees in cooperating to decide the scheme and then created sound-alike pseudonyms; deceitfully present those names to the organization whose policies they did not respect; and thereafter managed the intake of the falsely claimed awards in such a way as to presumably hire some entity (or entities) to create facsimile physical nameplates with the real names of those they wanted to be honored. Thereafter, some personnel removed the genuinely-manufactured but strategically fake-named plates and affixed the counterfeit-manufactured but preferred true-named plates, all presumably done under some level of false pretense and under cover of some level of secrecy for multiple reasons within multiple employment labor categories including management, administrative, and line workers. "Victimless" doesn't begin to address any of this.

More so than the common 'cover-up being worse than the (not literal) crime' label, this was an instance akin to the coverup being the crime.

Even for something petty and vain, it still constitutes quite a web of deceit, and it was arguably perpetrated on NATAS. I don't know what damage they'd claim, but it would seem to be harmful to the integrity of their efforts and to their likely good faith throughout the process.
Expand ...

I agreed it was corrupt. I just don’t think it’s the crime of the century.
 
FiveRings said:
Okay, but you’re glossing over it. They changed the inscribed names on the trophies. You cannot think that was anything other than complete wrong+doing. That’s not Kirk’s malice but some people at ESPN are guilty of some ridiculous behavior.
Expand ...

I don’t think that. I’m just pointing out that people didn’t lose awards because of it, which was the insinuation and some people’s immediate takeaway. That’s not glossing over the rule-breaking scheme.
 
nomar said:
I don’t think that. I’m just pointing out that people didn’t lose awards because of it, which was the insinuation and some people’s immediate takeaway. That’s not glossing over the rule-breaking scheme.
Expand ...
Who thought anyone lost an award because of it?
 
How many times have you heard someone on TV announce someone as "8 Time Emmy winner" so and so. It must feel weird when no one says that about you, but you've got ten trophies on your shelf.
 
nomar said:
I agreed it was corrupt. I just don’t think it’s the crime of the century.
Expand ...
Mine was not any criticism of you for disagreeing about the corrupt nature of the scheme.

Neither do I regard what ESPN did as the crime of the century. I don't recall anybody characterizing it that way.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,617
Messages
4,585,794
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom