Note: I’m going to be out for a couple of weeks. However, I’m leaving behind some gifts for the holidays: The best of my Q/As. I’ll feature a new one each day through Jan. 2. Please check in. Happy Holidays to all.

*********

Posted on Aug. 20

As any good business reporter knows, the element of risk is a theme in many stories.

So now the tables turn on Darren Rovell. Risk now is a part of his story in his recent jump from CNBC to ESPN.

Rovell had the sports business gig all to himself at CNBC. He also had his own sports business show on the NBC Sports Network.

Rovell, 34, landed many high-profile interviews and developed a huge following on Twitter (now in the 240,000 range). He carved out a nice niche at CNBC.

Rovell, though, decided to return to ESPN (he worked there from 2000-06). Obviously, he won’t be the only sports person at the network. While he will have more platforms for his stories, he also will face exponentially more internal competition. It will be more difficult for him to stick out at ESPN.

Money definitely was a factor in Rovell’s decision (ESPN book author James Miller reports he doubled his salary). Interestingly, for someone who talks at length about the cash athletes earn, Rovell declined to go into detail about his financial decision. I guess it is more interesting to talk about other people’s money.

Rovell stressed this decision is about more than just money. A big part, he said, is the ABC component, in which he will do business stories for various shows (Good Morning America, Nightline, ABC Evening News) on the network.

Ultimately, Rovell said of the move, “I just felt this was bigger.”

Here’s my Q/A with Rovell.

Why make the move from CNBC to ESPN?

I was happy with my gig at CNBC. I loved doing my NBC Sports Network show. It was a dream come true. I love working with my team there.

At the end of the day, I felt like being at ESPN was the right move. The ABC part was the deal-sealer.

How much did money have to do with the move?

CNBC did want me back. I was hoping for more interest from NBC Sports to get paid like a host. It didn’t happen.

I won’t do something solely for money. I’m so passionate about my career. Money alone could never get me to go to a place that I didn’t think was the best for me.

I talked to CNN. I talked to other people. I asked, ‘Do I break out? Do I move away from this niche?’ I decided the answer is no. ESPN and ABC can give me the best of both worlds.

Talk about your niche. Why is sports business so interesting to the masses?

I think a flashpoint came when sports became more corporate. Business became more out there, and people wanted to talk about it. Sports fans want to be armed at the water cooler. When you drop a piece of information, it allows you to beat your friend.

There are so many fascinating things about sports business. It touches people more than most people think.

Your career took off when you left ESPN and started at CNBC in ’06. Why?

CNBC gave me a great TV platform, for sure. The difference for me at the time was CNBC was a smaller place to be, but I could be the bigger fish. At ESPN, I was the geek who covered sports business. At CNBC, I was the cool guy who covered sports business.

CNBC wanted me to help turn up the volume. Traders watch with the volume off. CNBC said, ‘Hey, let’s show sports, but you rationalize it as business because it really is business.’

At CNBC and NBC Sports Network, you got so many big interviews with athletes like Tiger Woods and sports executives. PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem appeared so many times, he was practically your sidekick. Will you get that same kind of treatment/access at ESPN?

We didn’t have a hard time getting people to come on CNBC. Our pitch to athletes and agents was, ‘Come on CNBC if you want to reach the wealthiest people in the world.’

Now at ESPN, Tom Rinaldi will have that interview with Tiger. How do I get Tiger Woods for business purposes? Does (agent) Mark Steinberg say, ‘He already did Tom Rinaldi?’

Admittedly, it’s going to be a challenge to get the big stars. But that’s the challenge of working in a bigger system compared to being a one-man machine. It’s a challenge I’m willing to accept. I still think I can get the big interview.

You’ve become Mr. Twitter. What has that meant to your “brand”?

It’s become a tremendous distribution platform. If all I did was just about sports business, I’d have about 10,000 followers. People like to have something different in their feed. When something happens in sports or otherwise, I’m thinking, ‘How can I inject the business aspect into it?’

When I was at ESPN (the first time), they had so many writers, I used to think, ‘If I write a great story, will it get on the front page (of ESPN.com)?’ Now because of Twitter, placement is not as much of a concern. It’s harder for something to get lost. Going to the Web site isn’t the only place to find the story. If I write a good story, somebody will link to it again and again and again.

It hasn’t all been smooth sailing. You’ve gotten into some notorious feuds on Twitter. Other people also have taken shots at you as your profile has increased. How do you feel about that?

Twitter allows people to reach out to you. Negative stuff is going to happen. Anything is fine. Anyone who is in the public eye has to deal with some negativity. It comes with the territory.

So where will people see you at ESPN/ABC?

I’m going to be the sports business reporter covering the beat. I’ll be working out of the ABC office in New York, but I’ll be in Bristol quite frequently. ESPN is going to be my main responsibility. I’ll write for ESPN.com, be on radio, SportsCenter. I do intend to be on ABC quite often.

I love to put the pedal to the metal. I go 24 hours a day. The only way to not get burned out is to change things up. The ABC outlet allows me to stay fresh, to stay hungry.

Note: I’m going to be out for a couple of weeks. However, I’m leaving behind some gifts for the holidays: The best of my Q/As. I’ll feature a new one each day through Jan. 2. Please check in. Happy Holidays to all.

********

Posted on Nov. 26

At one point during our interview, Dino Costa said, “I don’t want to sound braggadocious.”

I’m thinking, he doesn’t want to sound braggadocious? This is a guy who has been telling me for the better part of an hour that he is the best thing going on sports talk radio. And the vast of bulk of programming in the format, he says, is a bunch of “homogenized garbage.”

Then again, listeners of The Dino Costa Radio Show wouldn’t be surprised.

His evening show on the Mad Dog Radio channel on SiriusXM (7-11 p.m. ET) is the sports talk version of UFC: Anything goes. Supremely confident and “fearless,” Costa has a strong opinion about everything and anything, and that includes slamming the guy whose nickname is the title of the station, Chris Russo.

Recently, Costa called Russo “a has been.” And that was on Russo’s show.

Costa, 48, has had a curious life and career. He didn’t even break into the business until he was 33. It is all well-documented in a piece by Michael Hastings in Men’s Journal. Hastings has a great description of Costa’s style:

Costa makes Colin Cowherd or Skip Bayless, two of ESPN’S best-known Angry Male alphas, seem mild and  reasonable. Compared with them, Costa is more like a militia leader broadcasting direct from Ruby Ridge under siege, an army of liberals blasting away from the other side of the barbed wire.

The fact that Men’s Journal did a story on an evening sports talk host on satellite radio shows the impact Costa is having in the market since he joined Mad Dog in 2009. And since it hasn’t come easy for him, and since he wants a much bigger slice of the pie, if not the whole thing, he feels compelled to blow his horn as if it were an air raid siren.

Drawing the inevitable sports radio comparsions to Rush Limbaugh (“a huge compliment”), Costa can be extremely polarizing and hardly is for everyone. But despite all of Costa’s personal slams, even Russo concedes ”he’s a helluva host.”

Here’s Part 1 of my Q/A with Costa in which he takes apart the sports talk radio industry.

How would you explain your show to people who haven’t heard it before?

I can answer in a way that talks about the industry of sports talk radio. On balance, all sports talk radio sounds exactly the same. There is a status quo that underwhelms me. It’s homogenized garbage that deals with the lowest common denominator. The predictability is frightening. The same subject, same comments every day. It stays in the same lane and drones on and on.

I’m amazed at people who think this is good sports talk radio. I find most people involved in the format are completely bankrupt from a creative point of view.

You look at the people they are bringing in for (the new CBS and NBC Sports Radio Networks). There isn’t a compelling 3-4 hour block in there. It’s all the same. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think there is some kind of conspiracy out there.

I heard you once devote the bulk of your show ripping Jim Rome. He’s wildly successful in sports talk radio. Why would you have issues with him?

Jim got in on the ground floor when sports talk radio was starting to flourish. His show is highly overproduced. There is a significant amount of authenticity that is lacking. I find his show to be scripted and then he turns it over to a bunch of callers he calls “clones.” How is this compelling radio? It’s the same stuff every day.

What about Mike and Mike at ESPN Radio? They do big numbers.

I have great respect for them, but that is an incredibly over produced show. It’s broken up into segments, and they have 10-11 guests, most of them the same people from ESPN. It’s the same stuff over and over again. They never say anything controversial. They stay within the politically correct line.

There’s just a lack of courage in this business. Everything is a carbon copy. What I do is distinctly different from the status quo.

OK what do you do? Let’s gets back to the original question of how would you describe your show?

I present a completely different look and feel to sports talk radio that is absent anywhere else. The show is unique in that it attracts more than the hardcore sports fan. I’ve had people tell me, ‘I don’t listen to sports radio, but I listen to your show.’ That’s the biggest compliment I can get.

My show transcends the craft of sports talk radio. I resonate with people. It doesn’t matter if you love or hate what I say, the bottom line, people listen to me. The show is impossible to ignore.

SiriusXM provides a forum for the most liberated kind of sports talk. There’s no calibrator. Nothing is taboo. As a talk show host, I find it incredibly liberating.

It’s about two hours before your show. What is on the agenda for tonight?

I don’t know. It’s completely organic. I have some thoughts that I want to discuss in my mind, but it is a stream of conscious kind of show. This is a national show. In order to do it properly, I read up to 100 newspapers per day. I’m constantly taking notes.

I could go an hour without taking calls. I don’t have many guests. I get emails from people saying, ‘Stop with the guests. We want to hear what you have to say.’ I’m a different beast. I’m way outside the box.

If your show and presentation is so unique, why has it taken you this long to get on this stage? You’ve had several stops along the way.

Good question. In terms of style and format, there’s been a great reluctance by upper management to embrace somebody as opinionated and irreverent as I can be. I’ve talked to many people in the industry about this question. One person, who I respect, told me, ‘With your show, you put people at risk in upper management.’

Programmers aren’t intelligent. Oh, they’re intelligent in selecting people who won’t have people complaining about them. They make the same predictable hires, and it’s all so vanilla.

You take a wildcard like me, you’ve got to be willing to let the phone ring or field the complaints.

You had to try out for your show on Mad Dog and weren’t even hired initially. Again if you’re so good, why didn’t you get hired right away?

That was a big mistake on their part. I give (program director Steve Torre) a lot of credit. He recognized that I could be something big. I’m going to be the best hire SiriusXM ever made.

You did meet with NBC. How did that go?

I (also) met with ESPN three times. The fit at NBC wasn’t a good one. It would have been a truncated relationship.

When I met with NBC, I asked, ‘What are you going to do that is different to distinguish yourself from ESPN and CBS? Is adding Dan Patrick going to be your big move?’

They said they needed people who are representative of their brand. What does that mean? Does that I mean I can’t criticize the commissioner of the NFL? They told me I would have to reposition my commentary within the guidelines of acceptable criticism. I couldn’t do that. I refuse to let some kingmaker try to define me. I’d have to castrate my show to provide them with the same corporate radio I often complain about.

How do you envision your future?

I do want a bigger platform that allows me to become the dominant voice in sports talk radio in America from a national standpoint. I think it’s possible.

Note: I’m going to be out for a couple of weeks. However, I’m leaving behind some gifts for the holidays: The best of my Q/As. I’ll feature a new one each day through Jan. 2. Please check in. Happy Holidays to all.

*******

Posted on Sept. 24

Rich Eisen tried stand up comedy in a former life. Humor is a big part of his repertoire as the signature host of NFL Network.

Viewers, though, saw another side of Eisen last Tuesday. Eisen was visibly emotional in announcing the death of NFL Network President Steve Sabol. Here’s the link.

Eisen knows how much Sabol meant to his life. Without Sabol, he said, there would be no NFL Network.

Eisen has been there from Day 1 in 2003. He brought the channel on the air, saying “Your dreams have come true.”

Nine years later, it has become a dream job for Eisen, who took a considerable risk by leaving a fairly great gig at ESPN. In addition to his hosting duties on NFL Network, he also has a popular podcast that allows him to hang with stars like Larry David, Matt Damon, Jon Hamm, among many others in Los Angeles. And he ventures even further out of football by hosting a reality show, The Great Escape, on TNT.

In my part 1 of my interview, Eisen discusses Sabol, his on-air reaction, the progress of NFL Network and working with Deion Sanders.

What was is it like going on the air to announce the news of Sabol’s death?

I’m like everyone else my age. I grew up on NFL Films. My love of the game was stoked by NFL Films. I had the fortune to actually meet the man, and call him my colleague and know how he affected my career. Without him, the NFL Network never gets on the air. It wouldn’t be an embryo without him and his dad (Ed Sabol).

So to be the person on NFL Network given the assignment to break the news, it was moving to say the least.

How did you feel about becoming so emotional?

I got a call earlier in the day that this could happen. On the drive in, I’m thinking, ‘Is this really happening? He’s larger than life.’ It just caught me.

My philosophy in broadcasting is if there’s an emotion to the story and you’re feeling it, there’s no shame in showing it. I didn’t even give it a second thought.

Were you thinking about how he impacted your life?

It wasn’t just me. I always have Twitter open. I love to see the reaction from everybody on Sundays. Sabol was trending on Twitter within 15 minutes of the announcement. There was a collective mourning, and people were tuning into our network as if they were laying a wreath on a public memorial.

When I wrote my book about joining NFL Network, I asked Steve to write the foreword. Within 90 hours, it was in my hands. And it was a take on a topic of the book that I never would have thought of.

He’s one of those types of people who are inspirational. I’m not talking about professionally. I’m talking about personally. When we first went on the air, I never met the guy. Within six weeks, there’s an envelope. And it’s a hand-written note from Steve Sabol, saying, ‘Great job.’ Wow, to think this guy would take the time to do it. It was inspirational.

You took a big step leaving ESPN in 2003.

In the grand scheme of things, you could say that. But at the time, if you were going to bet on a start up, a channel about the NFL, run by the NFL, specifically Steve Bornstein, you’d make that bet.

How far have you and NFL Network come in nine years?

I’m thrilled with the way everything has turned out. I love being at the center of the NFL. The idea of the NFL as a year-round venture has become more of a mainstream idea. At one of my last SportsCenter idea meetings in April, ’03, somebody brought up an NFL story and was laughed out of the room. Now ESPN has two live NFL studio shows. This network was created to raise all boats for the NFL.

It’s been great and getting to plant a flag on the podcast. I love the free-form format.

How important is it for the network to go from 8 to 13 Thursday night games?

We all understand it is a valuable commodity. The fact we’re entrusted with more games means a lot. Means more travel. It means a lot of work. But we all understand the value of live NFL programming.

To me, what we do on our postgame show is very special. Watching the players run off the field and come to our set. Some of them just want to hear from Deion, Marshall and Irvin. ‘Tell me how we did.’ That’s great.

We’re in a good place now with 13 games and our Sunday morning show. I’d put that show up against anybody’s. And our game coverage. We’re all very proud of it.

What is it like to work with Deion Sanders. Is he the same off camera?

He’s the same. The most successful people I’ve met are the same on and off the air. Chris Berman. That’s not an act. When I got there in ’96, I observed Berman do a SportsCenter. He only did a couple a year at that point. And the guy who walked into the room for an idea meeting was the same guy I had seen on TV for a decade.

Deion is the same thing. He’s a great broadcaster and teammate. He’s always aware of what other people want to say and how to set it up. Some of my favorite converations with him are about baseball. Listening to him about riding the bus in the minors. I just love everything about him. I’d go through the wall for him.

Note: I’m going to be out for a couple of weeks. However, I’m leaving behind some gifts for the holidays: The best of my Q/As. I’ll feature a new one each day through Jan. 2. Please check in. Happy Holidays to all.

******

Posted on May 21

If Jim Rome talks smack in the forest, but nobody hears it, does it count as smack?

Rome is well into his second month hosting his new show Rome on CBS Sports Network. Thus far, the latest version of Rome has evolved into a fast-moving show that continues to attract big-time guests: David Stern, Aaron Rogers, Matt Kemp, Justin Verlander, Charles Barkley among others.

“It’s early on, but I am as proud of this show as any show I’ve ever done,” said Rome in his distinctive tone during a phone interview with me.

Yet having said that, Rome is well aware of the reality of his new situation. CBS Sports Network doesn’t have any ratings data for Rome’s new show, but you don’t have to be a Nielsen expert to know it is a fraction of what it was at his former home on ESPN.

I tell Rome my boys, ages 16 and 14, used to watch his show all the time. They came home from school, turned on ESPN and took in the late afternoon block of programming. So much for homework.

They haven’t altered their routine to accommodate Rome’s switch. Television viewing is habitual, I tell Rome, and at 5 p.m. (Central), they are watching SportsCenter instead of flipping to CBS Sports Network for Rome’s show.

“I get it,” Rome said. “I need a buy-in from those kids.”

Then Rome said, “If you want, I’ll tell them myself.”

Unfortunately, the boys weren’t home on this day, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they eventually get a call from Rome. He is so passionate about his new endeavor, he would go door-to-door to attract viewers.

Rome actually is counting on the conventional methods (word-of-mouth and promotion) to build an audience. He knows it will take time and that he may be playing to a mostly empty room for a while.

Rome, though, remains confident he made the right decision, and he continues to stress there is more involved to this move than just the CBS Sports Network show.

Here’s my Q/A with Rome.

What’s your assessment of the show thus far?

I was ready for a new challenge, ready for a new show. We’re hitting it hard. It’s early on, but I am as proud of this show as any show I’ve ever done.

We’re putting so much more into it. I always liked the last show that I did, but it became kind of static. Four burns off the top of the show. Then you’d get an interview. Then you’d get a panelist. Then you’d get one burn at the back end of the show.

This is much more labor intensive. We’re trying to get 7-8 burns at the top. Then we’ll do an interview. If there’s not a good interview, then we’ll double up on the panel. A lot more content. It feels like it moves faster. It feels like the 2.0 version of what I was doing.

Could you have done the same thing for ESPN? Could you have said I want to change the format of the show?

It’s a real interesting question. We just thought we were doing as much as we could do. Everyone was happy with the show. It never came up. At one point they came to me and said, instead of having two people on your panel,. go ahead and have one person. We always thought we were giving as much as we possibly could. It wasn’t until I left where we all said, ‘Look, you can’t do the same show you’ve always done. You’ve got to do more and be better.’

For the millionth time, what were your motivations for the move?

I felt like I had done same show for so long. At this point in my career, I said I could keep doing the same thing. I thought there is risk inherent in not trying to stretch and try something new. On top of that, let’s be honest. If it was just a straight swap, simply moving show to CBS Sports Network,  maybe that’s something I wouldn’t have done. They’ve offered me so many other things. They put me on Letterman. I was on the set of the Final Four; I was on the pregame show for the AFC Championship game, and there are more opportunities, including a show on Showtime. When CBS calls and offers you that, you don’t say no.

Do you consider yourself a person who likes to take risks?

Am I a risk guy?  Doing nothing would have been a greater risk. But I’m pretty calculating. Sometimes, you have to push yourself.

I’m trying to get in and hopefully make a difference. It’s a big swing. Guys like us who have done this a long time, you’ve got to take a shot.

You mention a Showtime program. What will that be?

It’s going to come out in the Fall. I’m not trying to hide anything, but there’s really not anything new at this point.

What was it like to see all the billboards and ads promoting the new show?

They had this unbelievable roll out when they made the announcement. In my entire career, I never had that kind of promotion in radio or TV. That in of itself was an incredible thing for my career, for my brand.

When I got to New York to do Letterman, I saw a billboard of myself. Somebody took a picture of me standing next to it. I emailed it to my wife. She literally cried. She couldn’t believe it. It was an amazing feeling, and a surreal feeling. It made me want to do well for these folks because they put it out there for me.

You’ve had great guests thus far.

Maybe, it’s the relationships I have with these guys that they want to come on with Rome, whatever that show might be. They’ll get a fair interview and hopefully a smart interview. But it feels good.

How do you reach the viewers who turn on ESPN and leave it on?

You’re exactly right. It’s the De facto channel. You don’t have to find anything. You just turn your TV on. My feeling is, I only can do what I can do. I’m constantly trying to say this is where we are, this is what we’re doing. I try and use Twitter and my radio show to get the word out.

Look, they’ve got a 40-year head start on us and everyone else. ESPN is ESPN. It’s a monster. I understand it isn’t going to change overnight. I’m determined to keep grinding it out every day and do everything I can to get your kids to tune into that network.

There aren’t any ratings for your show. How do you know if people are watching?

I hear from the radio listeners. I get the feedback through Twitter and the radio show. That’s how I know people are seeing the show. We have to tell people where to find it. That’s the challenge. Exactly where are you and when are you on? That’s the challenge thus far.

Do people still say to you, ‘You’re crazy, why did you leave ESPN?

Yeah, little bit. Once in a while. It’s not just the one show. It’s the whole platform. It’s been great. They were very good to me at ESPN. I had a great run there. CBS has been awesome. It’s a great company to work for. They give me a lot of support. I’ve never once looked back.

It’s a big picture thing. I’m not so locked in that it’s just the TV show. I’m reaching so many different places across the platforms. Once I made the decision, once I’m in, I’m all in. It might sound trite, but I’m trying to do the best TV show I can do every single day. That’s what I’m focused on. It’s going to take some time. As long as I can do a TV show I’m proud of, that’s the only thing that matters.

So no buyer’s remorse?

I’m not like that. I thought about this for a long, long time. Once I decided to do it, I was all in. No buyer’s remorse at all.

I know what I signed up for. I understand where I am right now. I know I’m supposed to help drive the eyeballs to this network.

I’m going to be out for a couple of weeks. However, I’m leaving behind some gifts for the holidays: The best of my Q/As. I’ll feature a new one each day through Jan. 2. Please check in. Happy Holidays to all.

*******

Posted on Oct. 29

The email in my inbox had a familiar name: Jay Mariotti.

Earlier that day a couple weeks ago, I had written a post about Mariotti. I wondered why he had taken two years off and if anybody would hire him again?

The email read: “You’re welcome to ask me questions. Don’t have to guess when I can give you context.”

Mariotti has a point. If I am going to comment and speculate about him, I should allow him to give his side. That’s the way I operate.

I followed up, asking if he was up for doing a Q/A. Prior to sending out questions, I did read his book on Amazon, The System: A Manual on Surviving Liars, Loons, Law, Life. Much of the book is Mariotti’s account of a domestic violence incident with a woman he was dating in 2010. He gives a condensed version in this Q/A.

Mariotti has been mostly on the sidelines ever since. However, he says he is ready to jump back in, and that there are opportunities out there for him. And if you think Mariotti has mellowed, well, guess again.

So here is “context” from Mariotti.

Why have you been off for two years? Obviously, you know the speculation out there. People don’t believe it is by choice.

Mariotti: “People” need to stop guessing when they really have no clue about me and what’s happening in my life. How irresponsible is that? They don’t realize what a great life I have here in Los Angeles. As I write this, I’m sitting under a blue sky by the pool in Santa Monica, with the ocean a few yards away. I read, write, ride my bike and work out here every day. Not really missing two bogus Sun-Times deadlines in Green Bay, eating bratwurst at halftime and getting back to Chicago at 4 a.m. That was a kamikaze mission for a failing newspaper — this is the good life.

When I’ve written more than 6,000 columns, done 1,800 TV shows on ESPN and 1,000 radio shows, covered 14 Olympics and 24 Super Bowls and dozens of golf majors and seen the world – and made a very comfortable living doing so — what possibly is wrong with voluntarily taking some time off in a beautiful place? I’m fortunate to not have to work, and I’ve taken advantage and cleared my head with two wonderful years away from the media business. I’ve had a rewarding and successful career, and not unlike some people in sports and Hollywood, I’m chilling until the opportunities are just right. I poured about 50 years of hard work into two decades. I’m preparing wisely for my next two decades in media.

Taking this break HAS been my choice, and whatever the speculation is, I can’t say I care when my two daughters are healthy and well and I don’t have to work for a corrupt Chicago newspaper as I did for 17 years. I’ve never been in better physical shape, and I’ll be back in sports media when the timing is right.

And just because I haven’t worked in sports media doesn’t mean I haven’t worked. I’m thick into a documentary project, for instance, and being in L.A. has opened new avenues to creativity. I’ve spoken to virtually all the big players in national sports media, including some the last few weeks. Right now, I’m mulling over three possibilities — all terrific jobs. If they happen, great. If not, Mumford & Sons are coming to the Hollywood Bowl next week. I would pay to see Alvin and the Chipmunks at the Hollywood Bowl — not exactly Tinley Park, you know?

Why did you decide to do the ChicagoSide columns? What was the reaction?

Jon Eig, the editor, is a best-selling author who wants to do a smart, responsible sports site. I like smart, responsible sports sites because there are too many bad, amateur-hour sites that are sludging up the business like rat feces. Jon asked me to do pieces when the urge strikes. He said the reaction has been great and the site traffic off the charts. I suggested a piece on the White Sox when they were in first place so I could show people I’m not the anti-Christ of the South Side.

What happened? The Sox choked out here in Anaheim and faded away. I had to write it. Can’t win with that franchise.

Jon then suggested a piece on why I still love sportswriting. It attracted national attention, and I did an hour on Sirius/XM Radio about it. No doubt I still resonate, and I very much appreciate all the nice words from folks.

Do you want to work again? And in what capacity?

Again, I have been “working” — I’m doing documentary work, wrote a detailed book about my career and court case and have a standing offer to do another book. When I regularly return to the sports media, I assume it will be in a mutimedia capacity — TV, radio, writing. And maybe for more than one employer — I’ve always worked for two or three at a time.

Have there been any previous offers? If so, why did you turn them down?

Yes. I’ve turned down some sports media things. One would have required a cross-country move to do a daily afternoon-drive radio show. Another involved a book that didn’t interest me. Someone wanted me to invest in a restaurant — thought about it, said no. I’d actually like to be a roadie for the Black Keys, but they haven’t asked. I have an agent out here at Octagon, a Chicago native. He talks to people all the time about me.

How have/will your legal issues impact your ability to get hired? For lack of a better word, are you “tainted”?

That’s a fine word. And the answer is no, I’m not tainted. Anyone who knows the real story, as I’ve written in meticulous detail in my Amazon/Kindle book, knows I was victimized by a system that enabled a troubled and vindictive woman to lie about me, abuse me and stalk me in the neighborhood in which I live. I’m pleased that top executives at some major media companies have taken time to read the book — one said it was commendable that I spent many months trying to help the woman, who was broke and had personal problems after being fired from her advertising job and going through a divorce.

Ever see “Fatal Attraction,” the movie? I often felt like Michael Douglas. But that doesn’t matter in post-O.J. Simpson L.A., where even a battered man doesn’t stand a chance when a couple is arguing on a street and a third-party witness calls 911. Prosecutors saw an opportunity for a quick series of headlines in the L.A. Times. They never wanted to hear my side of the story; they just funneled me through a preliminary hearing and left it up to me to take it to a trial, not caring about the invaluable witnesses we brought to the courtroom and my $250,000 in legal expenses, plenty of which made its way to a financially ailing city via outrageous court costs. I could have taken the case to trial, but what a circus that would have been. How do I know a jury wouldn’t profile me unfairly, as an opinionated ESPN commentator of Italian heritage, and assume guilt regardless of the truth? I chose to take a no-contest plea bargain for one low-level misdemeanor, which allowed this person to stalk me in attempts to entrap me and cause me more trouble.

It appeared I was headed back to work for AOL, where I was the lead sports columnist. It was the best job in the business, with unlimited travel and terrific camaraderie among the staffers, unlike the Sun-Times insane asylum. But the company suddenly cut me a large financial settlement while not telling me or anyone else that it was dumping the sports site while doing a lucrative deal with Arianna Huffington. I was not “fired” because of this court case. That hasn’t stopped sleazy bloggers from writing otherwise. Wish these guys would take some journalism classes and stop being reckless gossips.

Since then, the woman and her attorneys have demanded money. I have refused to pay a cent. If my fellow journalists do their due diligence instead of just assuming I’m guilty — or, worse, WANTING to assume I’m guilty — then they’ll see what this was: a desperate money grab. I was put through a hellish ordeal despite never going to jail or pleading guilty. I was exploited as a public figure, lied about by bloggers who don’t corroborate their wild guesses — one said I was going to jail for 12 years — and harassed by lawyers who wanted to make a quick buck in a settlement. I’m proud to say I didn’t budge, but that decision still hurt me because the woman then told more lies to police and prosecutors, who were all ears. All of these details are in my book. Thank God it’s over, and shame on the legal system for allowing the chaos to interrupt my life.

Everyone makes mistakes — and mine was getting involved with a person who clearly was using me. It’s no coincidence that since I wrote the book, everyone has gone away — lawyers, prosecutors, the person herself — while the presiding judge says he is strongly considering an expungement of the entire case so that it’s completely wiped off my otherwise clean record. In more than two decades of marriage, we never had such problems in a loving, peaceful household in suburban Chicago. The LAPD is reckless. The system out here is a money-gouging, plea-bargain machine. And it didn’t help that the Times — owned by the Chicago Tribune, my rival for 17 years — was basically re-running the district attorney’s press releases.

I don’t hit women – never have, never will. As the father of two daughters, I abhor domestic abuse. In truth, I was the one abused in the relationship; one night, she punched me 22 times in the chest, right against the stent inserted during my 2007 heart attack. I’ve discussed all of this on two Fox Sports podcasts and in a Sirius/XM interview. I’ve written a book about it. Now it’s time for everyone to move on and realize that men, too, can be victims of domestic abuse. Sometimes life can be so messed up, you have no choice but to smile, be happy that you and your loved ones are well and just enjoy another beautiful day in paradise.

I read your book and your version of what went down. However, the vast majority of people won’t read your book. All they know is that you were involved in a domestic violence incident. Is there any way for you to undo that perception about you?

The book manuscript was sent to a couple of thousand people — family members, friends and media. While it’s available on Amazon, I didn’t feel it was appropriate to aggressively market it. It’s a for-the-record narrative that corrects the preposterous lies and reckless investigative work. Once I return to the media, I assume more people will read it. I just want it out there to counter all the lies that were reported.

Perception? Only two people know what actually happened. One is a successful sports media personality with two successful, well-adjusted daughters; the other was broke, jobless, abusive and emotionally unbalanced. Shame on anyone else who pretends to know more than they do, which is nothing.

And who says no one is reading the book? The numbers were excellent initially, but when you change the pricing and update content on Amazon, the sales numbers start over. I wasn’t consciously monitoring sales, but one day, an alert popped up and said I’d cracked the top 30 among media authors, ahead of Dan Rather and Chuck Klosterman. My mother must have bought extra copies that day.

You wrote columns about athletes involved in domestic violence issues. Has your perspective changed? I’m coming at it from the angle of the rush to judgement and people not knowing both sides of the story, as you feel was the case in what happened to you.

Uh, remember Tiger Woods and the SUV? I wrote that night that we shouldn’t rush to judgment. Turns out I was too soft initially on his marital infidelities, which shows it’s wrong to categorize me as an impulsive hatchet man. I’ve criticized athletes for many transgressions, and most deserved it. But I sure will think twice — or maybe three or four times — before assuming guilt in the future.

Yes, after my first brush with the law in 50 years of life, I now have a keener understanding of how the truth can be manipulated for financial motives. I’ve met a few bad people in my life, many in the media or wanting a piece of my wealth as a media person. Away from the public eye, it has been nice to meet terrific people.

Could you write a column about domestic violence given what happened to you?

No one is better qualified. I know what it’s like to be physically abused. Remember Chuck Finley, the former major-league pitcher? People in sports laughed when he was abused by Tawny Kitaen, the actress. Well, guess what? It’s 2012. Men are abused, too, by women who know they can manipulate the system. Know how many times I wanted to call the police or a hotel front desk? I couldn’t because I worried about the fallout, even if the headline might say, “ESPN analyst accuses woman of domestic abuse.” Even that would have been frowned upon in Bristol. Such is the pressure.

How do you feel about ESPN?

I’ve been to Bristol twice this year. Starting with John Skipper, they’ve been very supportive. The network has a zero-tolerance behavorial policy because of its powerful brand name and recent issues with personnel, and I made the mistake of not getting out of a toxic relationship when I knew a person could hurt me professionally. I always had been extra-careful about my associations in the public eye, but I had a blind spot in this case. ESPN had every right to be disappointed in me, but our chats have been very positive.

I am concerned about the network and its ability, with so many business deals in place with sports leagues, to let its commentators have editorial freedom. That might be a bigger issue in my situation than you think. People such as Bud Selig and Jerry Reinsdorf weren’t happy I was on a five-day-a-week TV show on the flagship, and if ESPN really did reject Stan Van Gundy because David Stern didn’t want him on the air, I’m frightened for the network’s future. Somehow, I lasted eight years there.

For now, I’d like Adam Schefter and Kirk Herbstreit to stop posing in front of those little football helmets in their home-office studios. They look like little kids. What will we see next, their Hot Wheels collections?

Much has happened in the last two years in our industry. What stands out for you?

A softening of commentary. Rather than writing the tough piece for the readers, too many writers are writing marshmallowy crap for each other. And those with the guts to speak their minds with conviction — Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith — are maligned for it. Please. When did the business become so mushy? Are people that scared for their jobs? On the sleazy side of the spectrum are these numbnuts who put $12,000 in a paper bag for alleged pictures of Brett Favre’s penis. I hope that blogger’s parents are proud of him, but I doubt it.

More distressing is the lack of investigative sports journalism. Other than the new USA Today initiative, documentaries and profiles on HBO, the New York Times and a few people at Yahoo, who is busting big stories?

You wonder why I’ve taken my time returning. It’s not as if sports media is a sacred cause. There are some good, genuine, honest people in the business. But there are more sellouts, creeps, liars, cowards and lazy asses.

Do you think you still have your fastball? After being out for two years, do you think you’ll be able to summon the same fire/passion for a topic.

Theo Epstein is a fraud.

Curt Schilling should be in jail.

Too many people are piling on Lance Armstrong and forgetting the great work he has done in the cancer fight, which still outweighs his shame as a juicer.

The Bulls are doing Derrick Rose an injustice by not surrounding him with better talent. Why do the Lakers have four major stars and the Bulls one? When did Chicago stop acting like a major market?

Without Michael Jordan, whom he inherited, Jerry Reinsdorf would be 1-for-62 as a sports owner. That percentage would make him a bum if he owned teams in his native New York.

Until the Bears beat a real good team, slow down on the Super Bowl jabber. I still don’t trust Cutler and Lovie in the biggest moments.

The Sun-Times will die in 2013. The Tribune will die in 2015.

Fastball up near 100.

Will you be working in 2013?

Yep, assuming I’m alive.

Note: I’m going to be out for a couple of weeks. However, I’m leaving behind some gifts for the holidays: The best of my Q/As. I’ll feature a new one each day through Jan. 2. Please check in. Happy Holidays to all.

*******

Posted on Aug. 7

Jeremy Schaap has one clause specifically written into his contract with ESPN: The network has to send him to the Olympics.

So why isn’t he in London? And why wasn’t he in Vancouver in 2010?

As fate would have it, his wife, Joclyn, gave birth to couple’s first child during the last Winter Olympics, and they welcomed a boy Monday morning.

As a result, Schaap had to stay home again and watch on tape delay on NBC like everyone else.

“I had to call and say, ‘Hey guys, you know that whole Olympic thing? Sorry about that,” Schaap said.

Schaap, though, has plenty to keep him busy. He is hosting his own radio show, The Sporting Life and is a correspondent for E:60, among his other endeavors.

The radio show finally is available on podcast. It’s terrific. It features excellent long-form stories and interviews that go way beyond the Tebow-Sanchez debate. The show is a nice refuge from the shrieking that dominates sports talk radio.

As was the case with his father, Dick, I’ve been a long-time admirer of Jeremy. His bio on ESPN’s site lists his many honors, which includes six Emmy awards. It makes journalists like me feel inadequate. Stop being so perfect, Jeremy.

When I started my sports media site, he was high on my wish list of interview subjects. I recently had lunch with him in New York.

Here is my Q/A:

Is it hard not to be at the Olympics?

Na. I relish it, but I’m pretty jaded about the Olympics in general. There’s still something about the Olympics. I grew up in a house where the Olympics were a big deal. My father did books on the Olympics.

In this day and age, they don’t have quite the same meaning that they had. During the Cold War, let’s face it, it was us against them. There was a drama that’s lacking today.

Some of the stuff the IOC does. The fact that they won’t honor the Israeli athletes. The thing that’s objectionable to me is that I suspect if it were any other country, they would do it. But because it’s Israel, they won’t do it.

The IOC ignores the Olympic charter. Not just the Arab world, but in most of the Muslim world, women aren’t allowed to compete. How can Saudi Arabia be in good standing with the IOC?

What is your objective with the radio show?

We’re trying to tell stories. Four segments and it ends with an essay from me. I do a lot of interviews with authors. The books that are being written are great stories. So much works goes into putting them together. I like the publishing industry. I’d like to help these guys sell a few books.

It’s also the only place where I have the opportunity to do those cultural interviews. People I’ve known for a long time who I want to have on. For instance, the Olympics. I’ve known Bob Beamon my whole life. So I have him on with (fellow Olympic great) Ralph Boston.

There are things that they make fun of me up in Bristol. There are things that are of interest to me that are of less interest to other people in the building. I always say you have to include (discus thrower) Al Oerter when you talk about clutch performers. They start laughing. I say, ‘Al Oerter won four consecutive golds and each time with the longest throw of his life. You can’t be more clutch than that.’

The radio show is Al Oerter for me. I get to talk about the stuff I want to talk about.

Is there a place for storytelling on radio?

There has to be a place for it. Look at the success of NPR. If we could come close to approximating what they do on those show, in terms of storytelling on radio, that’s great. The show gives us another platform to get some storytelling out there.

I think we’ve done good work. I’ve gotten a chance to do longer versions of the TV pieces I do. One I liked the best: I did a piece on the 20^th anniversary of Douglas-Tyson. It was a long TV piece: 10-11 minutes. But we had so much good stuff we did a 20-minute version for radio.

What kind of feedback have you received?

The show has gotten a lot of awards. That’s a big deal in our business.

It’s niche programming for ESPN Radio. It’s certainly not a rating grabber. I know that. If they wanted ratings, they wouldn’t be putting this show on the air. Some of the affiliates probably air it between 3-5 in the morning.

Nobody does what we do on (sports talk radio). We’re different.

How do you feel about the podcast?

This is exactly the show that should be podcasted. It’s evergreen. You could listen to what we’ve done six months from now.

With all the work that goes into the pieces and all the storytelling we do, it’s nice to have an opportunity to push it into another platform.

Talk about your work on E:60. What do you have planned for the upcoming season?

We’re putting a lot of pieces together right now. There are a few I shouldn’t talk about because of the competition. I’m doing something on Rob Gronkowski. I’m doing something about a soccer team in Israel.

I like human rights related stories. That’s what I’m always looking for. Sports is the starting point, and it gives us this platform to do these kinds of stories.  We’re working on athletes and insurance. I think of health care as a human right. To me, that’s a human rights story.

The Arab spring is something that’s not often talked about on ESPN.  It gave us an opportunity to educate our audience about what’s going on in the Middle East through the story of a few soccer players in Bahrain who have been tortured by their government.

Does ESPN take full advantage of their resources to do the long-form stories? Should the network do more?

To me, that’s what I do. I understand, it’s not what drives the ratings, although we (E:60) hold our own. Our commitment to journalism is there. In the conversation about what’s on ESPN, the focus is going to be on the less edifying stuff. But I don’t think we’re there as a counterweight. I think there’s a sincere interest in doing this kind of journalism.

How do you feel about where you’re at during this stage of your career?

You do the work because you think it’s important and you hope that it resonates with people who watch. It’s a great platform. I don’t tell them this during negotiations, but I think I have the best job in the country.

Over the years, there have been opportunities to work full time in Bristol or to do the debate stuff. It’s not what interests me, and ultimately that’s not what they want me doing.

One baby arrived during Vancouver. The next during London. Should we put you down for baby No. 3 for Sochi in 2014?

No, that would be too fast. Perhaps, Rio for 2016.

Note: I’m going to be out for a couple of weeks. However, I’m leaving behind some gifts for the holidays: The best of my Q/As. I’ll feature a new one each day through Jan. 2. Please check in. Happy Holidays to all.

*******

Posted on Oct. 15

The biggest threat to the future of the NFL is the repercussions of increasingly bigger players banging into each other at increasingly higher speeds.

Not to be a doom and gloomer, but if something truly catastrophic happens during a game, it will cause the country to re-examine this thing called football.

So it’s big news that the league-owned NFL Network just hired Andrea Kremer to cover the one issue that threatens the entire sport.

Sunday, Kremer made her debut on the network as the new “health and safety” correspondent. She did a story (here’s the link) on Oakland receiver Darrius Heywood-Bey, who recently had to be carted off the field after a concussion. Heywood-Bay talked openly about what happened, and Kremer’s interview with a doctor at Cleveland Clinic showed with graphics what happened to Bey’s brain. Sobering stuff, to be sure.

Kremer is an important hire for the league and the network. It begs many questions about the motives and how much she will be allowed to do.

A long-time reporter for HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, Kremer is one of the best in the business as an investigative journalist. Given the subject, her reports on “health and safety” could make things uncomfortable for the NFL and football, in general. She said her domain will span the entire spectrum, including youth programs.

Kremer also is anxious to learn some of the answers. Several times she used the phrase, “cautiously optimistic” about her work with NFL Network during an interview with her last week.

How did it come about?

The NFL Network decided they wanted to launch this unit covering health and safety issues. When I first heard about it, my skepticism oozes out from every fiber of my being. What? Why?

I talked to Mark Quenzel, (senior VP of programming and production). He says to me, ‘Look, we feel we need to do more substantive stories. And the key issue is health and safety.’

They are hiring my credibility, my reputation. I didn’t build that–put it in parentheses over 30 years–to have it reduced to propaganda. That’s not the way it is going to be.

My role isn’t to take anyone down. My role is to present the issues out there. We are not bereft of ideas.

What were behind your initial reservations?

You don’t want to be a mouthpiece for the NFL. There are a lot of issues that exist. I view this as trying to enlighten the audience about these issues in a deeper way. It’s that simple. There is a lot of stuff out there about concussions. What can we show differently about it? There is a lot of concern and misinformation about concussions.

This is like a managing editor position. My job is to generate content. We walked into a brain-storming meeting with 12 very smart people in the room. I have this huge file in my hand. I go, ‘You guys have been thinking about this for about 10 days. I’ve been thinking about this for about 20 years.’

When you talked to Quenzel, what did you say to him? What kind of assurances did you get?

There are never assurances for anything. There’s always good faith, but it’s not as if I had anything written in my contract. I know what I’m comfortable with and not comfortable with. It’s a fluid situation. We’re working on a case-by-case basis. I go back to what I said: ‘I didn’t spend my entire career building up my credentials to have it tossed out here.’

The best way to put it is that I’m cautiously optimistic. I have no reason to not think I won’t be able to bring a different level of programming and ideas to the network.

What kind of statement is NFL Network making by hiring you?

I give them a lot of credit. I know there are people there who said, ‘Do you understand what you’re doing by hiring her? Do you understand what you’re getting yourself into?’ That was respectfully, not negatively. They said, ‘Yes, we do. If we’re going to be credible, taken seriously, this is what we need to do.’

I sense the network is fully aware that this is a huge issue. They have not fully dealt with it. They need to deal with it from a journalism perspective, and they will. But it’s definitely a learning curve for them.

Former players have filed lawsuits against the NFL. Will you be able to report on stories on an NFL-owned network when the league is a defendant?

I haven’t been told (she can’t). Dealing with the lawsuit would be no different than how the NFL Network–or quote-unquote–TV partners with the league dealt with the CBA, handled the refs, or other issues. You had plenty of people at the NFL Network pining about how poorly the refs were. The commentators have been very honest with their assessment.

That’s part of what’s going on. If there’s a former player we wanted to profile who had a number of significant issues, in my mind, as long as we go to somebody at the league or with the players association, if we can find that person to tell their side of the story, then we’ve presented both sides. Our job is to provide the audience with enough information to reach their own conclusion.

Are you concerned that people will view your reports through the prism of the NFL Network? As a result, people might not feel you are totally objective.

I learned through the Twitter universe there’s nothing I can do to mold people’s opinion if they have some agenda.

I can say this: Not only have I been given any indication of censorship, I’m sure not being given any special treatment. I’m not going to get people just because I work for the NFL Network. I’ve been trying to work on a story, and I’ve put in requests and I’ve been rebuffed.

I know how I’m going to approach my job. I know my comfort level; I know what my obligations are, and that’s what I’m going to adhere to.

You’re a top reporter. If you found a story that blew the doors off this issue, are you confident you would be able to run it on NFL Network?

It’s so hypothetical. Here’s all I can say: I’m going to try.  I am cautiously optimistic that we’ll be able to do something that’s impactful.

Chicago viewers might want to set their DVRs for this one Sunday. From Comcast Sports Net:

Rocky Clark: The Legacy Lives On, hosted by SportsNet Central’s Pat Boyle, chronicles the tragic story of this promising 16-year-old high school running back, who was paralyzed in a game against Oak Forest High School in September of 2000 when he was tackled just four plays into the contest.  He immediately suffered two broken vertebrae in his neck and a devastating spinal cord injury.   From that moment forward, his life changed forever.

With a deep faith and a determination to rise above this tragic setback, Rocky never gave up.  With his heroic mother Annette at his side, Rocky graduated from Eisenhower H.S., attended junior college at South Suburban College and even helped coach his old high school football team…all the while receiving around-the-clock medical attention.  However, Rocky’s story gained national attention in 2010 when his school’s $5M insurance policy had reached its cap.  Annette received a two-sentence letter from the insurance company notifying her of that fact.  Just 16 months later, Rocky passed away at the age of 27.

This impactful look at Clark’s life and death, featuring numerous interviews with his family, friends, coaches, nurses, state representatives and others who all called him one thing – an “inspiration” – premieres Sunday, December 23 at 7:30 PM CT exclusively on Comcast SportsNet.  In addition, viewers are urged to visit Comcast SportsNet’s website, CSNChicago.com, for video excerpts from Rocky Clark: The Legacy Lives One immediately following the 7:30 PM debut airing.

Produced and edited by Comcast SportsNet’s Sarah Lauch, Rocky Clark: The Legacy Lives On will also re-air on the following dates/times:  Christmas Day/December 25 (9:30pm), New Year’s Eve/December 31 (9:00pm), January 5 (7:00pm) & January 7 (7:00pm).

Note the following quotes from Rocky Clark: The Legacy Lives On premiering Sunday, December 23 at 7:30 PM on Comcast SportsNet:

 

ANNETTE CLARK (Rocky’s mother) on receiving the insurance letter:

“I got the letter. It was a two-sentence letter. It said Rocky’s insurance was gone. I let things upset me and he wouldn’t. I said the nursing care is gone now. When he sees me upset, he would tell ‘it’s going to be all right,’ but he thought he would be taken care of for the rest of his life. That is why I am hoping this bill is passed because someone else will get hurt. Don’t put a cap on their life. Let them live. Rocky said he was being penalized for living too long.”

ANNETTE CLARK on Rocky’s final day:

“He (Rocky) said, ‘Mama…I love you’ and I said ‘I love you too.’ I talked to the lord and I had asked him many times before to let me have him because he would have been gone and he would give him right back to me, but this time was for Rocky to go ahead on and I said to the lord ‘thy will be done.’  I said let go and let god, baby. I said let go and let god…that is all I could say. The lord had already comforted me and said this world is not our home. My son had to get hurt and die to try to make a point. That makes me angry every time I think about it. My children were supposed to bury me.”

KARITA LOGGINS (Rocky’s home nurse) on Rocky’s final minutes:

“We were there for the last minutes of his life and I just remember him saying ‘I love you’ three times.  Then he asked me to help him.  I said ‘how can I help you?’ He kept saying, ‘help me.”

COACH GREG WALDER (Rocky’s Eisenhower H.S. coach) on the hit:

“I never saw how this happened. I can see the play in my head. It is a normal tackle. There were ten hits in that game that were more vicious that that hit. I don’t know how it happened.”

COACH GREG WALDER on the Insurance scenario being Rocky’s legacy:

“The awareness about insurance for high schoolers will be his legacy now. We don’t know what the caps are. It is a tragedy that he didn’t get the coverage. It is not anyone’s fault, but it needs to be fixed right now. Nobody talked about it until the insurance company cut it off and it’s too late at that point.”

CHICAGO BEARS WR EARL BENNETT on Rocky as a person:

“He was a guy you could go up and talk to. He would tell you the whole incident, about his life. He’s one of those guys that just moved me when I spoke to him.”

COACH TRAVIS MOORE (who selected Rocky to be his asst. at Eisenhower H.S.) on Rocky’s passing:

“Rocky stood for so much courage and strength.  He transitioned from Coach Rocky to super hero.  Normally, you don’t think super heroes could be hurt. Our hero/friend/little brother was taken away.  It was real tough. Probably one of the toughest situations I’ve been through.”

DEACON DON GROSSNICKLE (Rocky’s friend and founder of the Gridiron Alliance):

“They say a cat has nine lives, Rocky Clark had better than 30. The hardest thing was the day when I would lose my friend. Annette did everything possible to keep Rocky alive, but the day did come. It was very hard.”

“We are working with legislators to make a law and the law would be very simple: when high school athletes are performing in any venue, the law requires those that have them perform, insure them. The Illinois High School Association would have to insure all athletes, in all sports.”

To help you recover from the Jets-Titans, there is some good sporting viewing on the agenda, and it has nothing to do with games. Here’s the rundown.

*********

ESPN begins its Notre Dame push with a special primetime Pardon The Interruption tonight.

A new PTImeline will document the past decade of Notre Dame Football.

The 30-minute Pardon the Interruption Special: Notre Dame Timeline will air at 7:30 p.m. ET on ESPN. The video will also be released online via Grantland.com.

Beginning with the decision to fire head coach Bob Davie in 2001 and culminating with this season’s number one ranking and berth in the BCS Championship Game, the new PTImeline will document various Fighting Irish coaching hires (George O’Leary, Ty Willingham, Charlie Weis and Brian Kelly), the controversial “Bush Push” in the 2005 USC game, and the Declan Sullivan tragedy in 2011.

PTImeline is the brainchild of longtime PTI executive producer Erik Rydholm and coordinating producer Matthew Kelliher.

“We’ve been knocking around the idea for years as a way to breathe new life into old content, but never had the people to pull it off,” Rydholm said.

Fortunately, a handful of former PTI employees and interns are part of the Dan LeBatard is Highly Questionable staff, which is also based at the ESPN offices in the Washington, D.C., bureau of ABC News. Rydholm had them pull and arrange clips during some of the non-show days for DLHQ.

Rydholm also credits Grantland’s David Jacoby for making the project a reality by editing rough cuts, preparing the videos for air and supplying graphics and other visual elements.

Rydholm said there is the possibility for more PTImelines down the road.

*******

Real Sports closes its 18th season with its year-in-review show tonight at 10 p.m. ET.

Departing from the show’s regular format, host Bryant Gumbel leads correspondents Mary Carillo, Frank Deford, Jon Frankel, Bernard Goldberg, Armen Keteyian and Andrea Kremer in a spirited roundtable discussion of 2012, touching on everything from favorite stories of the year to the interviews and segments that had the greatest impact on them.

In 2012, REAL SPORTS traveled the world to meet inspiring and memorable people, among them: Jeb Corliss, who jumped off Table Mountain in South Africa in a wing suit and barely survived a crash at more than 120 miles per hour; Alex Zanardi, the former Formula 1 driver who lost his legs in an accident, but never looked back and is now winning races of another kind; and Mark Miller, one of the only Americans competing in the Isle of Man Tourist Trophy, the most dangerous motorcycle race in history, where more than 230 people have died over the years.

In an Olympic year, two stories spotlighted Olympians: U.S. hurdler Lolo Jones, who revealed that her efforts to remain a virgin were more difficult than training for the Games; and former Olympic gymnast Dominique Moceanu, who not long ago finally met her biggest fan – a sister she never knew she had.

REAL SPORTS also looked at big issues and controversies, covering: fan-on-fan violence, sometimes stemming from something as harmless as wearing the “wrong” jersey to a game; the widespread use of the painkiller Toradol in the NFL; and former NFL player Steve Gleason, who unwittingly found himself in the middle of the New Orleans Saints’ bountygate scandal, and today battles the devastating effects of ALS.

*********

This year’s marks the 40th anniversary of “The Immaculate Reception.” I’ll have an interview with the producer tomorrow, but here’s a preview of the NFL Network documentary that runs Wednesday at 8 p.m. ET.

 

Fourth quarter, 22 seconds remaining, fourth and 10 from their own 40 yard line, trailing by one to the Oakland Raiders in the AFC Divisional Playoffs, Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Terry Bradshaw took the snap. What transpired over the next 17 seconds has been described various ways – a myth, miracle, conspiracy, crime, and a detective story.

NFL Network’s Emmy nominated series A Football Life continues Wednesday, December 19 at 8:00 PM ET with the story of The Immaculate Reception.  On December 23, 1972 at 3:29 PM ET, Franco Harris crossed the goal line with what appeared to be 60-yard touchdown reception to give the Steelers a 12-7 lead. However, for the next 15 minutes, Referee Fred Swearingen and his five man crew debated over a play which history says no one saw.

The iconic play had one certainty:  Bradshaw had thrown a downfield pass intended for running back John “Frenchy” Fuqua. All aspects of what took place after Bradshaw released the ball and until Harris crossed the goal line will never be agreed upon. Was NFL Rule 7, Section 5, Article 2, Item 1 violated? Did Harris legally catch the ball? Adding to the intrigue and the historical debate is both what the footage shows and does not show. Also, two days after the game, Raiders head coach John Madden claimed his coaching film revealed his version of the truth. That footage has vanished.

The Immaculate Reception: A Football Life features new interviews with a total of 11 players from both teams who participated in game, including the two Steelers at the heart of the controversy, John “Frenchy” Fuqua and Franco Harris. Each of the Steeler and Raider players provide their perspective of what happened that day in Three Rivers Stadium. Their version of events has spawned four different conspiracy theories which are discussed in detail. Madden refused to be interviewed for the special because the play still draws so much emotion from him forty years later. Furthermore, NFL Films digitally remastered the film to show an additional image and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, General Michael Hayden, analyzes the play.

–  “The Immaculate Reception became the Zapruder Film of sports.” – Stephen J. Dubner

– “I got up and started going ‘what happened?’ – Terry Bradshaw

–  “No one saw what took place.” – Rocky Bleier

–  “Once it was dubbed “The Immaculate Reception”, it took on a life of its own.” – Joe Gordon

–  “If you are cynic, like the damn Raiders, you will never accept it.” – John “Frenchy” Fuqua

–  “You can’t help but be mesmerized by that image; it is an image that made history.” – Andy Masich

–  “We don’t call it the Immaculate Reception; we call it the Immaculate Deception.” – George Atkinson

–  “That play bothered me then, it bothered now and it will bother me to the day I die.” – John Madden from a 1986 NFL Films interview

–  “It would be terrible for football lore if we knew everything that we should know about the play.” – Peter King

I ran a classic cover of Willie Mays when I wrote about The Sporting News shutting down its print operation the other day. I decided to look for some other covers for the legendary magazine. Bring back any memories?