One year ago Saturday, ESPN’s “Around the Horn” signed off for the last time, ending a 23-year run that helped define the modern sports debate format.
When it debuted in 2002, the high-octane, rapid-fire debate show drew heavy criticism from sports media followers, including a Los Angeles Times column that described the show as “30 minutes of hell orchestrated by a blathering self-important loudmouth.”
That “loudmouth” — former ESPN personality Max Kellerman — cleverly carried out the vision of then-ESPN executive Mark Shapiro, who championed daytime programming that would encourage and embrace bold, controversial takes.
Yet by its finale, the show had changed dramatically. Gone was provocateur Jay Mariotti, whose abrasive style gave the show an undeniable — and at times uncomfortable — edge. Kellerman had also long left the show, replaced in early 2004 by the genial Tony Reali, whose sunny disposition transformed “ATH” from an aggressive shouting match to a more nuanced, good-natured show about sports and culture.
As the shift became more evident over time, different criticisms emerged. This time, detractors claimed the show had become too serious, too liberal, too boring.
“It’s not Meet the Press,” said Mariotti in a 2003 New York Post interview. “It’s sports.”
The show proudly welcomed new and diverse voices, abandoning the principles that helped bring it to prominence.
“We never manufactured arguments for the sake of virality,” said longtime panelist JA Adande during a recent episode of the Sports Media Watch Podcast. “Maybe we were guilty of just having a lot of people who viewed things the same way, but I also give our show producers credit for not forcing it for the sake of argument.”
Would “Around the Horn” still be on the air if it hadn’t mellowed its approach? No one can really say for certain. What can be said, at least from ESPN’s perspective, is that the show wasn’t connecting with a broad audience.
“During the day, it’s about relevance and brand,” ESPN president of programming Burke Magnus said last year to The Washington Post. His comment suggests “ATH” was canceled because despite decent ratings for its time slot, it didn’t move the cultural or social media needle.
Now, one year after the show’s finale, the question is still worth asking: what kind of sports talk connects with the masses?
In 2026, modern debate programming increasingly rewards conflict over curiosity, anger over analysis and outrage over insight. The industry no longer treats disagreement as a byproduct of conversation; disagreement is now the product itself.
No figure embodies that evolution more than Stephen A. Smith, undeniably one of the most influential voices sports media has ever produced. He also stands at the center of a television ecosystem that thrives on confrontation.
Over the past several years, Smith’s public disputes with NBA players have become recurring programming pillars. Kevin Durant has sparred with him repeatedly over personal attacks. Last year, LeBron James confronted Smith during a game over commentary involving James’ son, Bronny. Smith once called former NBA star Ben Simmons “one of the weakest, most pathetic excuses for a professional athlete we have ever seen.”
Other bold-faced names like Zion Williamson, Ja Morant and Kawhi Leonard have found themselves drawn into the orbit of televised commentary cycles that often feel more personal than analytical.
These feuds generate clicks, some TV ratings and endless reposted clips. They also reveal how sports television increasingly blurs the line between journalism, commentary and wrestling-style entertainment. The deification of Michael Jordan has given way to the degredation of all who have come through since. Some of the most accomplished superstars in sports have been reduced to the role of recurring character in manufactured television and social media drama.
Fans often claim to dislike this style while continuing to consume it in (relatively) massive numbers. Networks have adapted accordingly. A two-minute segment with insightful, reporting-based commentary from a credible journalist cannot compete with a fiery and baseless accusation delivered from an unknowledgeable personality.
Though it lacked the sizzle of other television shows, “Around the Horn” still held a certain place within the sports media landscape. If nothing else, it provided a lighthearted break from the nonstop bloviating that fills the airwaves.
When debate becomes aesthetic rather than substantive, predictability follows. Every topic becomes existential. Every playoff game result becomes an indictment on someone’s legacy. Every athlete becomes either overrated or disrespected. Not only does this kind of content produce cheap imitators on YouTube, it damages relationships between athletes and the media.
Yet, there is reason to be encouraged.
Excellent commentators still exist across the industry. There are numerous former athletes who continue to bring tactical analysis viewers genuinely appreciate. And there are still many within sports television who daily choose credibility over histrionics.
The end of “Around the Horn” serves as a useful marker symbolizing more than the cancellation of a television show. It marked the fading of a format that believed sports arguments could still be spirited, informed and occasionally fun without plummeting into constant combat.
Sports television will always need personalities. The question is whether those who produce and those who watch can find a balance between perspective and performance.
Plus: Breen’s “BANG” still hits
For decades, some of the most memorable shots in the NBA have been accompanied by play-by-play announcer Mike Breen’s “BANG!” It’s the perfect catchword — succinct, exciting and punchy. When a close game approaches the end of the fourth quarter or overtime, viewers can expect a “BANG!” on a made jump shot. During Game 1 of the East Finals, however, Breen almost belted his signature call prematurely.
With three seconds left and the game tied at 101, Cavs G Sam Merrill missed a three, forcing Breen to cut his “BANG” short.
“The ‘B’ came out and maybe a little part of the ‘A’ before the ball quickly bounced out,” Breen told Sports Illustrated earlier this week.
A signature word or phrase enables an announcer to develop a unique bond with an audience. Think of Bill Raftery’s “ONIONS!” or Dick Vitale’s “AWESOME, BABY, WITH A CAPITAL A!”
For a play-by-play voice, a signature call means a connection to history. Breen’s “BANG” is linked to some of the NBA’s most iconic moments: Kobe Bryant’s game-winner to defeat the Suns in Game 4 of their first round series in 2006; Ron Artest’s three vs. the Celtics in Game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals; Ray Allen’s game-tying three in Game 6 of the 2013 Finals; Derrick Rose’s bank shot to beat the Cavs in Game 3 of the 2015 East Semifinals.
And this year marked 10 years since the “double bang” Breen delivered when Steph Curry nailed a 38-footer at the buzzer to defeat Oklahoma City in a regular season classic.
Mike Breen has always been a measured play-by-play announcer. But every broadcaster needs a moment when he or she is invited to lean into the drama. His “BANG” call holds weight because it signals to the viewer that something truly significant has happened. Deployed selectively — it is not every three or clutch shot that merits the distinction — it has the power to elevate certain moments into NBA lore.
