I am all for what Bell said, and he is right in saying that. Think about the accolades Peavy would get were he on the Red Sox. That said, it doesn't/won't change anything. We all know that ESPN is generated by ad revenue, and in order for ESPN to make the most money possible they have to have the largest audience possible. By talking about large market teams more often, they make more revenue. This is capitalism, pure and simple. With that said, probably the best thing people can do is just not watch ESPN, nor listen to their radio stations, visit their websites, or subscribe to their magazines. In fact, we would all be better off by simply ingoring/not talking about this cancer on sports altogether. However, ESPN is also largely responsible for the current popularity of sports, which I suppose is both good and bad. In the end, the viewer makes a decision of product purchase, or co-signing their broadcasting tactics, by watching the channel. The solution is simple. Besides, local coverage (like comcast) is more exclusive, thusly bringing better coverage to what you care about. For the rest of the teams/games, that information is available widely. ESPN is a mock monopoly at best, and the more we buy into their product the more their obnoxiousness persists in the culture of sports (one could make the argument that translates over to a culture of news, in general, but alas).