Tom Verducci did a terrific piece at SI.com on the slow-play slog that now is baseball.

It should be noted that Verducci isn’t just a baseball writer these days. He is on Fox’s new A team for MLB and is frequently seen on MLB Network.

Usually, network executives and many announcers downplay the slow-play problem, as if we in the media are blowing it out proportion. Verducci even does that somewhat in his piece.

Complaints about games taking too long generally come from media people who’d rather be somewhere else than the ballpark.

Not true. I haven’t covered a game in years. My complaints are from the perspective of a spectator, TV viewer, and father of two teenage boys who don’t watch nearly as much baseball because the game moves too slow.

Regardless, Verducci has the numbers that show baseball is moving in slow motion. He writes:

In just 10 years you have added 29 minutes, 11 seconds of dead time per game while scoring 13.3 percent fewer runs.

Does that get your attention? It should, because you don’t need to go back to pre-cable, pre-DH days to measure the deceleration of pace of play. How the game is played has changed drastically in a short period of time. The two biggest causes have been:

1. The marked improvement in run prevention methodologies (detailed scouting information, defensive shifts, increased velocity, increased use of specialized bullpens, etc.).

2. The utter disregard players have for pace of play.

And more:

In just 10 years the time in between balls in play has increased 18 percent. What does that mean in actual dead time? You have to wait an extra 32.4 seconds today to see a ball put into play than you did only 10 years ago. Multiply that extra time by the average of 54.04 balls in play per game, and that’s how you get the added 29 minutes, 11 seconds of down time over the course of an average game.

Verducci offers some solutions to the problems that would involve changing the rules of the game. Baseball hates change, but he says the time has come.

Verducci concludes:

Of course, any time you bring up the possibility of changes to the game people get nervous. The default position in baseball tends to be “How can we keep it the same?” not “How can we move it forward?” There is an underlying motive to preserve the quaint myth that baseball has been the same game for 150 years. It’s not true.

The irony is that baseball has changed radically just in the past 10 years with no rules changes or enforcements in place. It has grown like an untended garden, with weeds diminishing its beauty. Let’s clean it up before it gets worse.

Glad to see Verducci take such a stand. He is an important voice.

Hopefully, baseball will listen.

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana is on analysts who make the jump to coaching and newly fired coaches who find landing spots as TV analysts.

************

There is a little-known shuttle that exists in sports. We’ll call it the Doug Collins Express.

The Collins Express is set up for TV analysts who jump to the other side to become coaches and managers. Then once the inevitable occurs and they get fired, the dejected former coach gets shuttled back to a network, where he resumes his work critiquing other coaches as an analyst.

Steve Kerr and Mark Jackson actually passed each other on the Collins Express in recent weeks. Kerr left a terrific position as the lead NBA analyst for TNT, not to mention working the Final Four for the CBS-TNT coverage of the NCAA tournament, to become the new coach of the Golden State Warriors. He replaces Jackson, who took the Express back to ESPN where he promptly was placed back in his old seat with his old pals Mike Breen and Jeff Van Gundy.

Perhaps nobody in the business has taken the shuttle more than Collins. After the Chicago Bulls dumped him in 1989, he did some analyst work for TNT. After getting fired by the Detroit Pistons in 1998, he went to work for NBC and TNT. Then Michael Jordan lured him back to coach the Washington Wizards in 2001. When that gig ended in 2003, Collins jumped on the shuttle and went back to TNT.

Once again, Collins used his frequent traveler pass in 2010, leaving TNT to become the coach of the Philadelphia 76ers. By now, he has been given his own car on the shuttle, which he used again after leaving the 76ers last spring. However, instead of going to TNT this time, Collins went to ESPN.

An interesting dynamic is in play here. The lifestyle for a big-time sports TV analyst is quite nice. Big money, high profile, and nobody telling you suck because your team lost again.

But there’s also the other side: Nobody says you’re great after your team wins.

What these former players and coaches miss the most is the competition. Not only is there the thrill of victory, but there’s something to be said for the agony of defeat. The swings of emotions is the only thing they’ve known all their lives, dating back to when they put on their first gym shoes as kids.

It was that pull that eventually lured Kerr to the sidelines. It also could cost NBC its No. 1 hockey analyst.

Once again, Eddie Olczyk is being linked to coaching vacancies, this time at Carolina. He downplayed the speculation, but there appears to be no doubt that he will jump back in at some point.

Olczyk talks repeatedly of “unfinished business” stemming from his short stint as coach at Pittsburgh. The Penguins fired him in December 2005.

Last spring in an interview with me, Olczyk said, “I’m a hockey guy. There’s the unfinished business with the way I left Pittsburgh that’s always going to be there. Whether the opportunity presents itself remains to be seen. It’s always going to an enticing thought. It’s always going to be a stone I’m looking under.”

It is interesting to note that two notable lead analysts in their sports have resisted the urge to jump on the Collins Express: Jeff Van Gundy and Jon Gruden. Reports circulated over the weekend that Memphis Grizzles were interested in Van Gundy, but coach Dave Joerger decided to remain with the team.

It hardly is the first time Van Gundy’s name has been tossed in the rumor mill since he left the Houston Rockets sidelines in 2007. Since then, he has shined as ABC/ESPN’s lead analyst on the NBA.

Van Gundy had a standard line when asked if he would go back to coaching.

“My dad gave me good, sound, solid advice when I was coming out of college,” Van Gundy said. “He always told me, ‘Don’t worry about your next job. Just do the job you have as well as you can.’ That served me pretty well, and I’m trying to stick with that.”

Gruden, meanwhile, has enjoyed life in the ESPN’s Monday Night Football booth since being fired by Tampa Bay after the 2008 season. Most NFL observers didn’t expect him to last more than a year before returning back to coaching. Now he is about to enter his sixth season at ESPN.

At age 50, and given his burning intensity that he brings to the booth, it still seems to be just a matter of time before Gruden jumps back in again. In an interview with 95.7 The Game, Gruden’s former quarterback with Oakland, Rich Gannon, contends his former coach does have the itch.

“I think he’s gonna coach,” said Gannon, now an analyst for CBS Sports. “I think he wants to coach, but he’s in a great situation. He’s making a ton of money at ESPN, he’s watching his kids grow up, he’s getting to spend more time around the home which I think has been important to him and to Cindy. But trust me, I’ve had conversations with him. We seem to have them every off-season. He talks about he still has a desire to come back and coach and how competitive he is.”

Then again, another former Raiders coach, John Madden, walked away from coaching at the age of 42 and never returned. Let’s just say things worked out very well for Madden as a TV analyst.

Madden, though, seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Even though the lifestyle as an analyst is tremendous, the temptation to get back in the mix often is too great to resist.

It also works the other way. Once the coach gets fired, life as an analyst provides a perfect landing spot.

The Doug Collins Express operates 24/7 and travels to places near and far. All aboard!

No, this won’t be like Andy and Barney hanging out at Floyd’s barbershop in Mayberry.

Here is the first episode. I’ll let Fox Sports explain what this is all about.

BACK OF THE SHOP’s premiere episode features Red Sox slugger David Ortiz, Yankees outfielder Alfonso Soriano, New York Knicks swingman Iman Shumpert and NBA legend Larry Johnson. Set in Jordan Sport Barbershop in the Bronx, Oritz, Soriano, Shumpert and Johnson chat about their current and former teams, the way locker rooms and clubhouses used to be, and much more. Episode 1 was taped last September, and filming for subsequent episodes resumed in April.

Episode 1 of BACK OF THE SHOP makes its television debut on Saturday, May 24 (7:00 PM ET) on FOX Sports 1 before re-airing in its regular time slot on Tuesday, May 27 (8:30 PM ET). Episode 2, featuring hip hop legend Snoop Dogg, Seattle Mariners superstars Robinson Cano and Felix Hernandez, Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant and New York Giants defensive end Jason Pierre-Paul, premieres Tuesday, June 3 (8:30 PM ET).

QUOTES FROM BACK OF THE SHOP – EPISODE 1

David Ortiz: “I told my boy (Soriano) the other day when we were playing at Fenway, I saw my man, he looked right in that (Yankees) uniform. I swear to God, that’s the uniform – he looked legit. He looked gangster.”

Iman Shumpert: “What about the Cubs, though?”

Alfonso Soriano: “They always prepare for the future, and the future never comes. In New York, it’s all about the present, all about now.”

—–

Shumpert: “What do you all eat in the clubhouse? You all eat chicken and beer? I heard stories.”

Ortiz: “Man, let me tell you, when that story came bout about the chicken and beer in the clubhouse, let me tell you, since I remember, the clubhouse always had chicken and beer. Why are they making a big deal about it now? I’m like, what’s going on? What’s different? Now we don’t have no chicken and no beer. What’s going on? Now I feel like there’s something wrong here because I’m used to seeing that. It’s like a game without a baseball bat.”

—–

Larry Johnson: “When I first stepped in the NBA, in the locker room at halftime, you could fire up a cigarette.”

Shumpert: “Yeah?”

Johnson: “Oh the NBA was like that. They have men in the NBA, man.”

—–

Shumpert: “I don’t want none of that baseball action, that’s for real. They be getting hit with pitches and all – I’m not with that.”

Ortiz: “Any athlete from any other sport, that’s all they worry about – getting hit by a pitch. I was talking to a couple of friends of mine that play for the Patriots that were like, no man, I prefer being crushed on the field than getting hit by a baseball. I was like, man, I see you guys getting knocked the hell out, and you’re going to tell me that a baseball hurts more than that? No way.”

Shumpert: “I don’t like elbows either, but I know that’s coming. When you play certain players, you just know, I’m gonna catch an elbow. Metta World Peace – he’s trying to win. If it’s a loose ball and you’ve got to go for it with Ron, he don’t care. People be like, he’s dirty. He ain’t dirty, he just wants that ball.”

Working in this business for more than 30 years, I have been fortunate to meet some incredible people. I hung with George Bush (41) and Michael Jordan on the same day at a Ryder Cup; stupidly turned down a ride from Clint Eastwood at Pebble Beach; spent two hours with Ernie Banks looking at his picture file at Tribune Tower.

However, never in my wildest dreams, from the day I first held Babe Ruth’s homer-laden card while playing Strato-O-Matic as a kid, did I ever imagine that I would have dinner with someone who calls him “Daddy.”

Yet there I was last Friday with Julia Ruth Stevens, still going strong and talking proudly about her famous father at the age of 97. We were joined by Julia’s son and the Babe’s grandson, Tom Stevens, his wife, Anita, and my wife, Ilene (All pictured above).

I interviewed Julia for my book, Babe Ruth’s Called Shot: The Myth and Mystery Behind Baseball’s Greatest Home Run. While she wasn’t at the famous Game 3 of the 1932 World Series, there never was a doubt her mind about her father’s intentions.

She heard direct testimony from a couple key witnesses at the game: Her mother, Claire, and Francis Cardinal Spellman, the long-time Archbishop of New York. “Daddy certainly did point,” Julia said. “He always seemed to rise to the occasion. He just wanted to beat the Cubs. If he had missed, he’d have been very, very disappointed. (Cardinal Spellman) said there’s no question that he pointed. I’ll take his word and my mother’s.”

The Cubs invited Julia and Tom to Friday’s game as part of its Wrigley Field 100th anniversary celebration. It was Babe Ruth bobblehead day. Julia threw out the first pitch and she and Tom sang “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” during the seventh inning stretch.

Earlier in the week, Tom called and asked if we would like to have dinner with Julia and his wife on Friday.

“We really enjoyed your book and would like to meet you,” she said.

Of course, I said yes and made reservations for Joe’s Stone Crab in downtown Chicago. Scanning the packed restaurant, I thought if people only knew of the history sitting at our table.

Naturally, we talked about her life with Babe. Julia was the daughter of Babe’s second wife, Claire. He adopted her shortly after they got married in 1929.

For all the legendary stories about Ruth’s wild lifestyle in his younger years, he became a changed man, a family man, after his marriage to Claire. Julia recalled how “Daddy” enjoyed staying at home, occasionally inviting friends over. If he did go out, it was to a favorite Italian restaurant nearby.

Ruth became very close to Claire’s brothers, Julia’s uncles. If anything, after a terrible childhood when he was abandoned by his parents, Ruth finally had the family he never had during the years Julia lived with him.

While Julia has vivid images of Ruth as a player, her lasting memories was of him as a father. She recalled how he taught her how to dance.

“Daddy really was wonderful to me,” Julia said.

Ruth died before Tom was born, but he and Anita had vivid memories of his grandmother, Claire. “She truly was a lovely, sweet lady,” Anita said.

Being Ruth’s grandson does have its advantages. Tom recalled going to a Yankees game at the age of 10 with Claire. She arranged for him to meet the Yankees of the Mickey Mantle era in the locker room.

Julia then chimed in. “Oh, I loved Mickey. He was so much fun,” he said.

Indeed, through the years, Julia and Tom have become close with a virtual who’s-who in baseball while representing Ruth at various functions, including the annual Hall of Fame ceremonies. Ted Williams was “a great guy” and the Steinbrenner family couldn’t do enough for them during appearances at Yankee Stadium.

Age is not a friend to Julia now, but she and Tom try to get a few events each year.

“It’s always an honor to represent Daddy,” Julia said.

“We want to continue to tell people about his legacy,” Tom said.

When I told friends about my dinner with Ruth’s family, they all asked what were they like. Well, they were terrific, down-to-Earth people who just happened to be related to the greatest baseball player of all time.

Tom, a civil engineer who builds bridges, has had a fascinating life in his own right, working all over the world, including a long stint in Afghanistan. Anita is a retired school teacher. Julia lives with them outside of Las Vegas.

Throughout dinner, the conversation centered on Tom’s work, their kids, our kids as much as on baseball and Ruth. At the end of the day, we’re all ordinary people with concerns and interests like everyone else. I would like to think Ruth would be proud with how they turned out.

All in all, it was a wonderful evening. As we finished our dinner, I asked Julia and Tom to inscribe my book. Julia wrote: “Thanks for doing such a great job on your book about my Dad. Julia Ruth Stevens.”

Tom wrote: “What a great book. I enjoyed every page. Babe’s Grandson. Tom Stevens.”

I will cherish those inscriptions. They always will serve as my closest connection to The Babe.

I’m a big Jeff Van Gundy fan. Unpredictable and outspoken, he definitely is on the short list for best sports TV analyst.

So I’m not pleased that with the biggest games of the NBA season finally here, ESPN/ABC is turning its excellent combo of Van Gundy and Mike Breen into a three-man set-up by adding Mark Jackson.

ESPN welcomed their one-time analyst and now former Golden State coach back into the fold last weekend. They promptly stuck him on the No. 1 team with Van Gundy and Breen and will keep him there for the remainder of the playoffs.

The trio worked well together for five years before Jackson stepped over the line to coach the Warriors in 2011. Van Gundy, though, has since flourished as a solo analyst act with Breen as his foil.

While listening to the Indiana-Miami game Sunday, I found myself wanting more Van Gundy and less Jackson. That’s not a knock against Jackson, who is very good. It’s just that now is not the time for Van Gundy to be sharing his minutes.

If ESPN wanted to add Jackson to the mix immediately, the studio show would have been a better fit.

Also, interesting to note that Jackson signed a multi-year deal with ESPN. Putting Jackson on the No. 1 team for the playoffs could have been a preemptive strike from TNT snagging him as a replacement for Steve Kerr.

For more on Jackson returning to ESPN, here’s Richard Deitsch at SI.com.

And Bob Raissman of the New York Daily News.

PBS produced a hockey card of George Plimpton to commemorate its American Masters film, Plimpton! Starring George Plimpton as Himself (Friday, 9 p.m. ET).

It is fitting that PBS chose hockey over football, which produced Plimpton’s more famous Paper Lion. He was a complete failure as a quarterback for the Detroit Lions.

However, Plimpton was far more successful when at age 50, he played goalie for the Boston Bruins in a preseason game against the Philadelphia Flyers. Sure, he flopped around the ice and looked woefully out-of-place. But on a penalty shot, deftly set up by the Bruins, he somehow managed to stop the Flyers’ high-scoring Reggie Leach.

As Plimpton skated off the ice to a standing ovation to the crowd, you could see the absolute joy in his face. He definitely was a man who lived life to his fullest.

And what a life.

The PBS documentary goes over the many facets of a true American original. While he was known in literary circles for being editor of the Paris Review and was close friends with Robert Kennedy, he made a huge impact as a participatory journalist with his best-selling books and work for Sports Illustrated.

I did a Q/A with Jerry Barca, one of the producers, on Plimpton’s work in sports. And I highly recommend the film.

What attracted Plimpton to sports? 

First and foremost, George had a boundless curiosity. He also liked to play sports growing up. Then you combine the curiosity and the enjoyment of the games with his talent as a writer and it becomes natural for him to craft these very unique sports stories.

Then to follow up, why do you think he went with participatory angle?

There are two key elements. As a writer, George really wanted to know what it was like to stand in the ring and take a punch from a boxing champ or get under center as a quarterback, stare at the defense, and bark out the snap count. What better way to write about those ventures than to truly experience them, and experience all the dynamics they entail — the teammates, the locker room comradery, and psychological aspect of having to perform under pressure. The other element is that oftentimes people watch sports, watch these great athletes, and say, “Oh, I can do that.” Well, George’s participatory endeavors in sports show it ain’t easy. As a matter of fact there is a great wide gap between the guy watching sports as a fan and the ones actually doing it. George’s pursuits prove that.

What do you think was his favorite experience from the sports front?

I really don’t know what George would pick here. I’d pick Paper Lion, where he played quarterback for the Detroit Lions. It was a look inside the NFL well before it became the mega-league it is today. There was nothing like it. The book took off with great success, and George became sort of a sex symbol along the way.

What was the craziest?

Well, he had scheduled to fight Muhammad Ali in the mid-1970s, but Ali got injured. Playing an April Fool’s Day trick in 1985 on the country through his Sports Illustrated article on the fictitious New York Mets pitcher Sidd Finch was pretty crazy, too. But, he was 50 years old when he got in goal for the Boston Bruins and faced the Philadelphia Flyers during the Broad Street Bullies era. That’s nuts. That book – Open Net – is my favorite one by Plimpton.

How did the literary folks regard the sports aspect of his life? Did they look down on him because he was a sportswriter?

Some did. For sure. Having read George pretty thoroughly though, he was a great writer, whether it was the realm of sports writing or any writing. On the surface, Plimpton is known for what some might call “stunts”. Those “stunts”, they are the literary devices that serve as the entry point, one where George takes you into the world of each endeavor. Then as you’re reading, at some point you realize, Plimpton is way in the background and you’re left with the complete picture of what it is like to be an athlete in that sport.

How do you view his legacy from a sportswriting perspective?

He was phenomenal and groundbreaking. Sports as an industry has changed so much, today you’ll never see what George did back then. Never. People try, and there are great writers that try today. But there are too many handlers for the players and clubs to replicate what George achieved in his era. That unadulterated access Plimpton had is something that is highly unlikely to happen again today, or at anytime in the near future.

As I reported yesterday, Tuesday’s edition of E:60 featured a powerful and important story by Jeremy Schaap and producer Beein Gim about abhorrent conditions for migrant workers who are coming to Qatar to construct the $200 billion in facilities for the 2022 World Cup.

Things are so bad, there are estimates that 4,000 workers could die prior to the start of the matches. All so people could watch soccer.

The E:60 piece (preview above) shows Schaap and the crew defying regulations in Qatar and going to where the migrant workers are being housed. There’s also stark footage of the body of one of the workers being burned at a funeral in Nepal.

The Guardian broke the original story, but the graphic images of the E:60 piece takes it to another level. I talked to Schaap about one of the best pieces of journalism I have seen from ESPN. If you missed it, the E:60 episode will re-air Saturday at 7 a.m. ET on ESPN2. Set your DVR.

What was behind E:60’s decision to do this story?

This was a no-brainer for us. If there’s something we’ve done well at E:60, it is telling the stories of the disenfranchised. This is a story of the poorest people in the world being exploited by the richest people in the world in the service of the world’s most popular sporting event.

You documented the abhorrent conditions where these migrant workers are housed. In the piece, you said you risked arrest by shooting there.

We didn’t have permission to go to any of those places. Technically, we were breaking the law. I wouldn’t say we were nervous. We weren’t in a combat zone. But they could have arrested us and made things uncomfortable. We had to be discreet, or as discreet as you can with cameras and 7-8 people going through there.

I’ve seen wretched conditions before. What was so striking was the way it contrasts with the lives of the typical Qatari. The per capita income of Qatar is more than $100,000 per year. We were just a short drive from the luxury hotels. Everyone drives around $80,000-90,000 Toyota land cruisers. And then you see how these workers are living. It’s an incredible contrast between these two worlds.

How can anyone be allowed to live like this? The Qatari say (the workers) are making more money than they would (in their home countries). That doesn’t mean they should be treated like animals.

The piece went 17 minutes, and there were still so many harrowing things we saw and heard about that we couldn’t get in.

The final scene is intense. You show a body being burned during a funeral for one of the workers in Nepal. What was that like?

I wasn’t personally in Nepal, but Beein and the crew were. Our cameramen (Jesse Edwards, Joel Edwards and Mike Bove) literally were covered with human ashes after shooting that scene.

There are coffins coming back every day from Qatar. On average, one migrant worker per day is dying. That scene was so powerful because of the reality of what’s happening over there.

After this year, Fox Sports owns the rights to the next two World Cups, including the one in Qatar. If ESPN had the rights for the Qatar Cup, would E:60 still have done this story?

Definitely. ESPN still has a World Cup we’re showing in a few weeks. It is the biggest project in the history of the network. FIFA and ESPN work closely together. It’s not as if we’re going out of business. We will be bidding for future World Cups.

I know deep in bones this is something we would be doing regardless of who has the Cup in 2018 and 2022.

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University is on the unknown that awaits NBC with its new deal to air the Olympics through 2032.

********

Consider this when assessing NBC extending its pact to air the Olympics through 2032.

If there were media rights deals for the 1932 Olympics in Los Angeles, an 18-year agreement would have been done before the existence of television.

If an entity had signed an 18-year rights deal in 1972, nobody could have imagined the impact of cable in the 80s and how the Olympics eventually would be showcased on multiple channels throughout the entire day.

If a network had decided to invest in an 18-year extension in 1996, could it have predicted that viewers could watch every minute of every event on something called the Internet at the 2014 Games in Sochi?

With that mind, imagine all the possibilities for how viewers will consume NBC’s coverage of the Olympics in 2032. As outlandish as the initial concepts of television, cable and the Internet seemed in previous generations, you can be sure there will be new media platforms that stagger our limited imaginations in the next 18 years.

I mean, how would you have reacted to somebody in 1996 saying that you would be able view the 2014 Olympics on your phone? Huh?

That’s what makes NBC’s decision to commit $7.75 billion to lock in the Olympics through 2032 so intriguing. The network is making a huge investment in an ever-changing media landscape that could be completely different from what exists in 2014.

Don’t rule out the idea of some sort of chip being implanted in our brains that provides instant coverage to our frontal lobes. However, it will be interesting to see how NBC pulls off the tape-delay component of that technology.

NBC is well aware there is a highly unknown element to this new deal. In a phone interview with me last week, NBC Sports chairman Mark Lazarus said his network is ready for anything.

“The set of rights we acquired is for all media, whether it is for things that already have been invented or not even thought of yet,” Lazarus said. “(NBC) is at the intersection of technology and innovation. We’re in a great position to see what will happen and be able to take advantage of it.”

“I still think viewers will default to a big screen and look for quality of picture,” Lazarus said. “There will be a degree of personalization and customization for viewers. But who knows? I think what may happen in 2032 could cause significant brain hemorrhaging.”

Ah ha! So they are developing that brain chip.

Regardless of the technology, Comcast, NBC’s parent company, believes viewers will remain extremely interested in the Olympics for nearly another two decades.

“Although no one can be quite sure what the world will look like in 2032, the one thing our company is very sure of is that the Olympics will continue to be compelling television,” Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said.

Indeed, as a friend of mine in the business said, “This isn’t a deal. This is a marriage.” With good reason for NBC. The Olympics constantly delivers high ratings for the network. Despite all the predictions of doom and gloom prior to the Winter Games in Sochi, viewers still watched in high numbers on their television, computers and smart phones.

The long-term deal virtually guarantees the United States will host at least one, if not two, Olympics in the next 18 years. The last U.S. Summer Games was in Atlanta in 1996 and the last Winter Games was Salt Lake City in 2002.

U.S.-based Olympics always do much higher ratings. With the kind of investment NBC has made, you can be sure the International Olympics Committee will reward the network with a couple of home games.

Wherever the Olympics are, NBC and its vast production army will be on hand to show every event through the next nine Winter and Summer Games. And I’m fairly certain that Bob Costas, who will be 80 in 2032, still will look ridiculously young.

Get ready to read about much lower ratings for this weekend’s Players Championship compared to last year. In 2013, a certain player named Tiger Woods won the title.

Of course, no Tiger this year. Don’t think casual fans will be as excited about Martin Kaymer’s 63 yesterday.

Earlier this week, I did a piece for Awful Announcing analyzing the impact of Tiger-less tournament on golf.

Here is an excerpt:

********

The initial returns from a Tiger-less Masters suggest a major tune-out is on the way, with ratings plunging. The final round did a 6.8 rating, down 28 percent from 2013 when Woods was in contention. To be fair, there wasn’t much in the way of drama on that Sunday.

Nevertheless, put those numbers in the context of what happened to the NBA in the post-Jordan era, and they are right in line. When you have transcendent athletes like Jordan and Woods, whose reach goes far beyond the traditional followers of their sports, you are going to have a potential huge spike in the ratings. When they go away, the spike also disappears. Things revert back to a more normal level.

NBC’s Dan Hicks said it best of post-Tiger golf on TV: “I believe we’re in for a correction.”

“Tiger has given us some unbelievable golf,” Hicks said. “It’s not just the unmatched highlights. It’s also the way he wins golf tournaments. You can talk about (Jack Nicklaus), but nobody comes close to doing what Tiger did. When that goes away, that’s not going to be replaced.”

CBS’ Peter Kostis suggests that Woods presence has inflated expectations for golf. It isn’t possible for the game to sustain the lofty levels that were achieved during Woods’ peak.

“I think the golf community got duped into thinking that golf was going to become a major sport when Tiger came along,” Kostis said. “Golf has always been a niche sport, and in my opinion it’s always going to be a niche sport.  When Tiger came along, maybe viewership went up on certain broadcasts and so on and so forth, but it never really translated into more golfers going to the golf course.  It hasn’t translated into an appreciable increase in minorities playing, and now they’re talking about how many billions of dollars golf is going to lose because Tiger is injured.  I don’t see that.”

“I just think that golf is golf, and it’s not going to be baseball, it’s not going to be basketball, it’s certainly not going to be football.  You know, we’re going to settle back into golf’s reality and not the fantasy that people thought it might become when Tiger came along,” Kostis added.

The Sports Emmys were Tuesday night in New York. It is the big annual gathering of broadcasters and sports executives as they celebrate the year in TV sports. You always have to be careful because you might get hit with someone’s ego.

Yet last night, all of these superstars and mega power brokers were dwarfed by one man: Ted Turner.

Turner was this year’s recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. In the announcement, NATAS chairman Malachy Wienges said, “The world of sports and news television has been forever changed by the vision of this one man.”

Indeed, before Turner changed the world TV news and journalism with CNN, he altered the landscape of sports on television. In 1970s, his move in airing Atlanta Braves and Hawks games on WTBS was a forerunner for ESPN and other sports cable networks, national and local, serving fans a 24/7 menu of games, sports news, talk and analysis.

Previous winners of the Lifetime award have included Jim McKay, Dick Ebersol, Howard Cosell, and Pat Summerall, to name a few. When it came time to award this year’s recipient, many on the panel had assumed Turner already had received the honor.

“The initial thought we had was, ‘Why didn’t we think of this before?” said CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus. “When his name was brought up, it was instantaneous. Of course. Look at what he’s done in the world of sports. It was a no brainer.”

McManus then added, “Ted Turner is the kind of person for whom Lifetime Achievement awards are created.”

Turner Sports President David Levy called Turner a true visionary.

“He said, ‘Content is king’ before anyone else said content is king,” Levy said. “He realized sports were a huge part of that content. He really understood the business better than anyone else.”

I had a chance to conduct a Q/A with Turner via email:

Why did you view sports (the Braves and Hawks) as such an important vehicle for WTBS?

Turner: We needed viewers, and Atlanta sports teams came with built-in audiences.  Fans wanted to see the Braves play, and were willing to buy UHF antennas if necessary.  Once they had the antennas, we knew that people would watch not only the Braves, but our other programming as well.

What kind of reaction did people have when you decided to air all the Braves games from coast-to-coast? Eventually, MLB fought you over territorial issues, but early on, did people think you were crazy?

Turner: Sure, people thought I was crazy. But, I knew it would help our ratings, and I was right.  Once the Braves became known as “America’s Team”, my critics stopped calling me “crazy”.

Were you surprised that the games became so popular and that the Braves became America’s Team?

Turner: The Atlanta Braves were initially a losing team, so I really didn’t see airing their games outside of the Atlanta market as a threat to other franchises.  But, I was wrong.  A lot of people didn’t like the idea, but it proved to really pay off for us by increasing ratings and the Braves’ fan base.

What impact did your decision to air Braves games on TBS eventually have on the sports TV landscape?

Turner: It definitely paved the way for ESPN and similar networks because the idea of being able to watch and follow teams of your choosing, regardless of geography, was now possible.  People enjoy having a choice in entertainment – whether it be news, sports or other programming.

This year, Turner Sports aired its first Final Four games. How does that make you feel? Could you ever have imagined your network landing these games way back when?

Turner: I think it’s great.  It’s incredible how far Turner Sports has come over the years, and it’s grown even more in recent years.  Turner Sports has proven itself as a major player, and it gives me great pride to have started it.