here's my 2 cents, take it for what it is and as nothing offensive (or god forbid, sexist).
I don't know anything about football. yeah games are cool to watch if you've got a beer, some wings, and your crew with you but otherwise, not my gig. however, I know of very few chicks who eat breathe and sleep football so much that i cant even be in the same room with them when the game is on because they get too technical and competitive with player stats and whatever the hell else football fanatics talk about.. so, I digress...
I think that there are some women completely capable of handling an interviewing job such as the ones that ESPN provides in order to analyze game performance, ask questions, and talk about players fluctuation of progression through their overall careers and seasons. However, I also believe that ESPN would NOT put an unattractive woman on their network who must carry out these interviewing tasks because they are intended to be aired on live tv for the entirety of the viewing public...
again, this is my opinion.
I know that all of us may have met a girl down the road who could talk football but wasn't the most gorgeous lady at the gathering. And this is not me trying to sweat attractiveness in comparison to knowledge of football, rather, agreeing with some of the posts in this thread as to the fact that most, if not perhaps all, of these ladies' live interviews are indeed produced with scripts here and there in order to engage the audience and players as any previous man sportscaster had done in the past (with the assumption that the men had the experience and knowledge to interview without much assistance from ESPN).
in the case that each of these pretty, full-face make-uped girls with gorgeous hair that I could only dream of, HAVE extensive football knowledge, kudos to them because they would definitely deserve that position.
