Category Archives: Sherman Spotlight

Negative vibe: Will American TV viewers warm up to troubled Olympics in Sochi?

Posted on by

NBC has been covering the Olympics since 1988, but it never has faced a challenge like this one.

It’s hard to remember an Olympics with a more negative vibe: Terrorist threats; Russia’s horrid civil rights policies; an uninspiring locale for a Winter Games; disgust for Vladamir Putin, who spent $51 billion to build up Sochi while so many people in his country can’t put food on the table; and really, really bad hotel rooms, to name a few.

Reporters who couldn’t drink the terrible water over there weren’t the only ones who had bad tastes in their mouths about the prospect of these Games. I do, too, along with many other Americans.

Yet NBC has two things going for it: The brutal weather in most of the country will keep most everyone indoors and in front of their televisions; and it’s the Olympics.

NBC has an investment of nearly $1 billion in these Games. It is hoping that the spirit of the Olympics will trump all the other problems that came with the misguided decision to be in Sochi this year instead of Salzburg, Austria.

During a teleconference, I asked Jim Bell, NBC’s coordinating producer for the Olympics, if he had concerns about Americans warming up to the Games in light of all the negative talk and the security issue.

“I think the short answer is that we don’t know and that’s certainly a fair question,” Bell said. “There has to that balance between the security which everyone expects and wants to be very rigorous, but not to the degree that it stifles people’s enjoyment of the Games.

“We think the plan in place is good, but again, we’ll have to see when we get there once the Games really start off. It has definitely created awareness.”

Still, will it all be forgotten, or more accurately pushed aside, when NBC airs the opening ceremonies tonight? Americans have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize the bad stuff so they can enjoy the good stuff.

After all, these are the Olympics, which always produce great drama and the quest for gold that exists only once every four years.

Dan Patrick explained the essence of the Olympics:

“I think you look at a two-week period every four years depending and you may not follow these sports before or after. But during, you bring it to the nation’s and the world’s attention. So you’ll fall in love with the sport.

“You know, when you look at Eddie “The Eagle” Edwards with ski jumping, you may not have followed ski jumping, or if you see curling in the outfits that they’re going to be wearing. There’s a fascination there that you just can’t script.

“We’ll tell the stories but the stories tell themselves. You sort of gear up for it, and then you’re in it, and then you’re disappointed when it ends. And it happens every time we have the Olympics. You’re like, ‘Wow, it’s over already.’ It will be Opening Ceremony and then it will be Closing Ceremony. It will go by that quickly.

“And you’ll probably have five to seven, either events or people that you’ll take – you’ll extrapolate from the Games and you’ll go, ‘I remember that person or I remember that event.’ And that’s what great about the Olympics. It’s the memories. We all have those memories growing up and we’ll continue to have those. It’s our job to make sure that they are firmly implanted in your minds.”

The torch gets lit tonight.

 

 

 

 

Broadcaster for hire: Former Padres announcer on market just prior to start of season

Posted on by

Yes, it is a tough business.

Andy Masur recently got a tough reminder. A couple of weeks ago, the San Diego Padres informed him that they “were moving in another direction,” and that he wouldn’t be part of their broadcast plans for 2014. He spent seven years with the team.

“The timing of this move is not ideal obviously since spring training is starting next week,” Masur wrote in an email.

Masur, a Chicago native, asked if I could help him get the word out that he is available and ready to work somewhere else.

He writes: “I’m exploring all options, and I’m trying to get the word out to as many people as possible about my situation to cast a very large net over the industry in hopes it will bring my next great opportunity.  I’d love to stay in baseball, but I may have to forgo that this season and try again next.”

On his site, Masur wrote a farewell note to Padres fans. He writes:

I’m sure you’ve heard by now either via social media or somewhere else, that I am no longer with the San Diego Padres organization.  I was not offered a new contract after mine expired at the end of the 2013 season.  I was notified a couple of weeks ago, that there had been a “restructuring” of the broadcasting department and that I would not be a part of things moving forward.  It was very disappointing to hear this news, as I did not want to leave the Padres organization.  Today, I’m thinking back to all the good memories from my time with the team, to dwell on the “other” seems counterproductive. 


It’s been an emotional time for me, what with the passing of dear friend Jerry Coleman and now with the thought of saying so long to so many great people, it’s been rough.  I welcome a challenge, it’s something I’ve always done, something my parents taught me.  I will be fine. Trust me.

Masur is a solid announcer and a class guy. His phone will be ringing.

 

My new book, Babe Ruth’s Called Shot: Answer to ultimate question isn’t as simple as yes or no

Posted on by

Imagine my surprise Sunday when I saw a nearly two-page spread in the New York Post dedicated to my new book, Babe Ruth’s Called Shot: The Myth and Mystery of Baseball’s Greatest Home Run. What, it was a slow sports news day in New York Sunday?

Many thanks to Larry Getlen for doing the write-up. Much appreciate him taking the time to give a thorough examination to the book. The book currently is available via Amazon and will be in bookstores later this month.

However, I feel I need to clarify a key point in Getlen’s story that I “debunked” Ruth’s grand gesture in  during Game 3 of the 1932 World Series. The perception stems mainly from the headline: “Journalist debunks Babe Ruth’s legendary Called Shot.”

Getlen writes:

In a new investigation, veteran Chicago Tribune journalist Ed Sherman spells out the relevant events of the day, interviews people who were there and pores over other eyewitness accounts to determine whether Ruth’s called shot was one of baseball’s greatest achievements or simply the most loved and lasting of the sport’s outsized myths.

Indeed, my goal for the book is present all sides of the story, not to mention the many twists and turns that helped produce the legend. In Getlen’s piece, he focuses on the items from my research that suggest Ruth didn’t call his shot. They include naysayers among eyewitnesses and even Ruth’s own quotes in which he wavered on whether he had the audacity to point to centerfield during his at bat with Charlie Root.

However, the book also presents evidence from other eyewitnesses who insist it happened. There was a decided split among people who attended the game. Pat Pieper, the Cubs’ legendary PA announcer, had a perfect perch to take in the scene, sitting in the first row behind home plate. He once told the Chicago Tribune’s David Condon:

“Don’t let anyone tell you that Ruth didn’t call that shot. I was in a perfect position to see and hear everything.

“With two strikes, Ruth lifted his bat, pointed toward the center field flag pole, and dug in for Charlie Root’s next pitch. That was the most terrific home run I’ve ever seen. It went out of the park at almost precisely the same spot that Ruth had indicated. As far as I’m concerned, that ball is still traveling. ‘You bet your life Babe Ruth called it.'”

Much of whether The Called Shot is true is left up to interpretation. When people ask me, I always reply it isn’t as simple as a yes-no, black-white answer. There is much gray area in there. Obviously, I have my own views. You’ll have to read the book.

One thing is for sure: Something of considerable magnitude occurred during the fifth inning of Game 3. There is a tendency by people who dismiss the the Called Shot to make it sound as if this was a normal at bat with Ruth merely facing Cubs pitcher Charlie Root.

Far from it. Ruth was being taunted by Cubs players who actually were standing on the field. The crowd was in a frenzy, as the Cubs finally seized momentum to tie the game at 4-4. Ruth responded vehemently with not one but several dramatic gestures, suggesting he was going to do something bad to the Cubs. Then he hit one of the longest homers in Wrigley Field history, which effectively sealed the World Series for the Yankees.

Quite simply, this was the most unique at bat in baseball history. A seminal moment by the greatest player and showman ever to play the game. There’s good reason why we’re still discussing it more than 81 years later.

Coming soon: More on the book, including some excerpts.

 

 

 

 

Please: Time to eliminate president interview during Super Bowl

Posted on by

The most dishonest thing I heard Sunday came from President Obama when he said to Bill O’Reilly: “Great to be with you.”

Pretty sure O’Reilly was as welcome at the White House as a stomach virus.

I’m here to say, enough is enough. Time to do away with the president interview during the Super Bowl pregame show.

This isn’t about politics. I felt the same way about the presidential interview with George Bush as I do with Obama in the Oval Office.

During Fox’s pregame show Sunday, O’Reilly went at Obama with the same fervor as  Seattle’s defense against Peyton Manning. O’Reilly’s pursuit of the truth, if you want to call it that, would have been fine if the program was the O’Reilly Factor.

But it wasn’t. This interview occurred during a program that celebrates the biggest sporting day of the year in America.

How out of place was Obama’s interview? The previous segment was a song by Phillip Phillips.

C’mon. It makes as much sense as inserting a LeBron James interview during a political convention.

To those who say the Super Bowl provides a large platform for a presidential interview, well, so does the Oscars, which pulled in 40 million viewers last year. Since ABC does that telecast, let’s have Diane Sawyer interview the president just after one of the big musical numbers.

Of course, we have Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and a slew of other outlets for 24/7 coverage of the president. Do we really have to be subjected to a political rumble during the Super Bowl?

Also, if you insist on having the president appear during a Super Bowl, wouldn’t you at least ask him some football questions? Seems like getting Obama’s views about the concussion issue would be fairly timely.

It is NBC’s turn to do the Super Bowl next year. If the president’s PR machine was smart, tell him to pull a Marshawn Lynch and say he’s not talking.

The only way the president should be part of Super Bowl Sunday is if he has inside information about the game.

 

 

 

 

 

Did Charley Haley’s treatment of media keep him out of Hall again? Aikman slams process

Posted on by

Update: I added comment below from Scott Michaux of the Augusta Chronicle, who did not enjoy covering Haley.

********

It looks as if some football reporters are continuing to get their revenge on Charles Haley.

For the fifth time, Haley failed to get into the Hall of Fame Saturday. This is the same Haley who treated the writers like absolute jerks while playing for Dallas and San Francisco.

Thursday, I did a post with Leonard Shapiro, the former Washington Post NFL writer who was a long-time HOF voter. I wrote:

“He was surely, mean, arrogant. A rotten man,” said Shapiro, who was a long-time football writer for the Washington Post. “I thought he was despicable and a discredit to the game.”

Shapiro never voted for Haley during the 29 years he served on the committee. When asked to assess Haley as a player, “He’s in the hall of great. Whether he’s a Hall of Famer is debatable.”

Would Haley already be in the Hall of Fame if he was a good guy to the media? He definitely would have a better chance.

Shapiro said there are plenty of voters in the selection room who feel the same way he does about Haley’s treatment of the media.

“Are there guys in the room who think, ‘What an asshole, I’m not going to vote for that guy,’” Shapiro said. “You’re damn right there are guys who think like that.”

Haley clearly isn’t a slam-dunk Hall of Famer. However, it appears as if he isn’t going to get the benefit of the doubt from football reporters required to put him in the Hall.

In David Moore’s story in the Dallas Morning News, Troy Aikman knocked the process. Moore writes:

Haley’s abusive behavior during his playing days won few friends in the media.

Aikman has the same questions.

“I don’t like the process,” said the quarterback who joined the Hall in 2006 in his first year of eligibility. “I don’t like the way that it’s done.

“I do believe he should be in the Hall of Fame. I’ve said that. I’m biased because I watched him every weekend. I’m amazed that he’s not in the Hall of Fame.

“I’m sorry, but if him being rude to some writers or not being accommodating to those in the media keeps him from being in the Hall of Fame, then I really disagree with the process, because that’s not what this is about. I don’t know what happens, but I know he was largely responsible for a big amount of the success that we had during those years.”

You know what they say? What goes around comes around.

*******

From Michaux:

He was not merely “rude” to the media. He was hateful and treated media (and others) as if they were beneath him. I say this as a rookie writer during his prime who tried (and failed) to cover him and share his successes with the folks he grew up with at his hometown newspaper.

The Hall of Fame should require more than just skill between the lines. Being a Hall of Famer should require some measure of human decency, even from football players asked to put that aside 60 minutes a week. You don’t have to be accommodating or quotable or even nice. You just have to treat people with respect if you want to ultimately be respected in the end.

The HoF process certainly has its flaws, but holding people accountable for ALL of their actions as representatives of the NFL isn’t one of them.

 

 

Will Charles Haley’s bad guy act with media keep him out of Hall of Fame?

Posted on by

Earlier today, I posted an interview with Leonard Shapiro on the voting process for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Here’s more from the former long-time voter on the human element and how it might keep Charles Haley out on Canton.

********

Unlike baseball, where character is a consideration for enshrinement in Cooperstown, Shapiro says the football voters are only supposed “to care about what happens between the lines.”

But Charles Haley could be a case in point of why it doesn’t always work that way.

Haley will be a finalist for the fifth time Saturday. He was a pass rush dynamo who played on five Super Bowl winners for Dallas and San Francisco.

And he was a complete jerk to the media.

“He was surely, mean, arrogant. A rotten man,” said Shapiro, who was a long-time football writer for the Washington Post. “I thought he was despicable and a discredit to the game.”

Shapiro never voted for Haley during the 29 years he served on the committee. When asked to assess Haley as a player, “He’s in the hall of great. Whether he’s a Hall of Famer is debatable.”

Would Haley already be in the Hall of Fame if he was a good guy to the media? He definitely would have a better chance.

Shapiro said there are plenty of voters in the selection room who feel the same way he does about Haley’s treatment of the media.

“Are there guys in the room who think, ‘What an asshole, I’m not going to vote for that guy,'” Shapiro said. “You’re damn right there are guys who think like that.”

This situation isn’t unique to Haley. Shapiro said the character issue almost kept Lawrence Taylor from being a first-ballot Hall of Famer. It should have been a slam dunk, as Taylor might have been the greatest defensive player in NFL history. At the very least, he’s in the top 5.

“It got very heated over Taylor,” Shapiro said. “He had a history of drug problems and other issues. He wasn’t the world’s great citizen. The voters aren’t supposed to take the character issue into account, but it did factor in for LT. One guy said, ‘I don’t care, I’m not going to vote for him.'”

Taylor did get in. There’s no way they could keep him out.

Haley, though, is a different story, as his credentials aren’t as clear cut. Shapiro isn’t so sure the fifth time will be the charm for him.

“There is human nature involved,” Shapiro said. “(As much as it isn’t supposed to be that way), you can’t take that part out of it.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inside selection room: Former voter on why there won’t be any Deadspin controversies coming out Pro Football HOF process

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University provides a glimpse into what will take place during the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection meeting Saturday. While the process isn’t perfect, it is much better than what occurs in baseball.

From the column:

***********

The 2014 Pro Football Hall of Fame class will be unveiled Saturday. Here are some things you won’t be hearing about the selection process.

*Griping that many voters haven’t covered a game in years and aren’t qualified to vote.

*Outrage over the NFL’s equivalent of Jacque Jones, a marginal player, getting a HOF vote.

*Refusal of voters to give a nod to players linked to steroids.

*A disgruntled selector allowing fans to determine his vote via Deadspin.

Nope, unlike their baseball counterparts, the NFL selection process isn’t likely to create headlines this weekend. However, like everything else, it hardly is perfect.

Leonard Shapiro was part of the NFL HOF selection committee for 29 years. Now on the outside, the former Washington Post football writer sheds some light on his experience.

“It’s a fascinating process,” Shapiro said. “When I came out of the meetings, I felt a combination of exhilarated and ticked off. It was frustrating when qualified players didn’t get in. Yet it felt satisfying to help get some good people in there.”

The process works this way. A preliminary list of 150 candidates is whittled down to 15 finalists. Then on the Saturday prior to the Super Bowl, there is a meeting where a special panel of football reporters debate and then vote for the eventual entrants into the Hall of Fame.

This year, there are 46 people on the committee; one representative from each city in the NFL along with at-large experts like ESPN’s John Clayton and Sports Illustrated’s Peter King.

Therein lies a big difference between baseball, which had 575 voters for the Hall of Fame this year, and some with questionable credentials. That isn’t the case with the NFL, where Shapiro says the voters have at least 15 years on the beat. And they currently are active in covering the sport.

“It’s a really, really good group of people,” Shapiro said.

During the meeting, the person from the finalist’s city makes a 2-3 minute presentation to the group. Then the panel discusses whether the player did enough to merit being in Canton.

Again, another big difference from baseball. Shapiro said the debates did impact his opinions, one way or another.

“In baseball, you get a ballot, and boom, they vote. There’s no discussion,” Shapiro said. “Here, it’s a free and open discussion. You’re supposed to be honest. If a guy in Seattle saw a player 16 times a year compared someone else who saw him only one or two times, that’s a great help. There were times when I thought a player was a dead-solid cinch, and other people would talk about him, and I’d say, ‘I never thought about that.’ It made you think.”

*******

Here’s the link with more, including Shapiro’s concerns about a lack of transparency in the process.

 

Q/A with Scott Van Pelt: Looking back at decision to stay at ESPN; Radio show remains key component

Posted on by

Back in 2012, ESPN had several prominent free agents: Jim Rome, Michelle Beadle, Erin Andrews, and Scott Van Pelt.

Only Van Pelt stayed. As for the rest…

Rome does have a program on Showtime and has made appearances on CBS’ big national telecasts. However, truth be told, Rome’s daily TV show still barely registers on CBS Sports Network.

Andrews went to Fox. While she still gets the high-profile sideline assignments, including the Super Bowl, her duties as host on Fox’s college football pregame shows are a work in progress at best.

Then there’s Beadle. Well, let’s just say things didn’t quite work out as planned with NBC.

With SI’s Richard Deitsch reporting that Beadle is set to return to ESPN, it seemed to be a good time to break out the Q/A I did with Van Pelt during a recent trip to Bristol. The One Who Stayed is very happy with his decision.

You had a decision to make. you were on the market and you stayed.

Van Pelt: Uh‑huh, I did.

A few of your former colleagues left, and they have had mixed results.

Van Pelt: I wish everyone all the best.

I know you do.  When we were here last time (April, 2012), you were up in the air. Now it’s been more than a year. How do you feel about the way things have worked out?

 Van Pelt: It was great to be able to take inventory of my life professionally and ask myself, what do I do, what do I want to do, and it was flattering that other people were interested in offering up something different to do.  You know, the best thing that happened was that they were willing to help me create a little bit more of a life.  Picking it up there, just the idea ‑‑ the best thing that happened was I was able to talk with a group of people here and say, you know, I’d love to do some college football.  I’m not trying to take Chris Fowler’s chair because he’s awesome.  I’m not trying to take Rece Davis’ chair, also awesome.  But if there’s a spot at the table that I could just pull up a chair and do something that’s of any value, then great.  So we carved out a thing with Gameday, and it’s great.

You do a daily radio show, SportsCenter, and Gameday during the fall. And there’s the golf majors during the spring and summer. That’s a pretty full schedule.

Van Pelt:   Any one of those would be a job.  Here’s the best thing, the most important thing for me to make clear here.  Every entity here has done a great job of making it like a symbiotic thing.  Everyone is on the same page.  Everyone works to say, okay, well, what day can we lose him on radio, Tuesday or Wednesday, cool.  The Gameday guys say, look, we need you to be there on‑site, or hey, we can do the piece but get out of there, go home, so we don’t need you to be here.  You know what I mean?  Everyone is reasonable.  It’s an unreasonable thing to take on, but I asked to do it.  You know what I’m saying?

You asked to do all this?

Van Pelt: I did.  Look, I love the radio piece.  SportsCenter,  and Gameday I think is the best show that ESPN does.

Talk about the radio show.          

Van Pelt: Of course, and the thing that was most important to me staying here. Let me put it this way:  To continue to try to grow the show with (Ryen Russillo) was as important as any single thing.  You know?  All the things that you get to do at ESPN, the totality of that, nothing else could match, and where other places just said, oh, you can do a radio show, that’s fine.  But I couldn’t do a radio show with Ryan anywhere else.

I guess the best way to put it is the thing I was least willing to sacrifice here, moving forward, because of its importance to me was radio. (The show) is in its infancy.  Mike & Mike is 14 years.  They’ve been doing it for a long time.  Colin (Cowherd) is twice as long as we have.  It takes a long time to build that.

What do you like about the radio show?

Van Pelt: It’s just hard as hell to do well.  It’s really difficult to do well.  And as a TV guy, you walk into it with an arrogance that ‑‑ well, I’m on TV, I’ll be fine on radio.  And four minutes into your first eight‑minute segment, you realize that you’ve got three hours left to fill.  I’ve often said, and I’m kidding, like I could do SportsCenter mildly buzzed and I could navigate the terrain because I know the mechanics, and there’s only so much heavy lifting I have to do.

And you’ve done it buzzed a few times.

Van Pelt:  I’ve done it blind drunk several years, several years, just really, really hammered on a nightly basis. (Editor’s note: Just kidding, folks)

Radio, every segment of every hour is a challenge to fill in an interesting way.  What I like the most about it is how challenging it is to do it well.  I have such respect for the people that are great at it, and I’m talking across the board, guys who I would never do shows like, but their ability to ‑‑ and I’m talking in different genres.  The genius of a Limbaugh or a Stern or even here you could say a Cowherd who some people say is polarizing, the genius of people like that is they get people that like them that look to them to nod their head and they get people who are angry at them to listen to be mad.  That’s a genius ‑‑ I couldn’t do it.  I couldn’t just knowingly wink and poke the bear.  I couldn’t do that.  But I respect the ability for people that understand the medium to do it.

When you have to go on SportsCenter at night and you still wear that hat, you can’t just go and be an insane radio person.  You just can’t.  Because there’s a line you straddle, and I find myself on SportsCenter having to remind myself, keep your opinion out of this, right, because this isn’t the forum for it, and then on radio I find myself having to remind myself, no, you’re allowed to go ahead and let it rip.  And it’s tough to straddle the lines and be good at it.

But I think the radio helps the TV because I find myself letting it bleed more in, because I think people are willing ‑‑ I think the one thing people I think know about me is that I’m authentically a fan.  I love sports, and allowing that passion to bleed into the presentation, I don’t think people hold that against you.  In fact, I think Boomer has shown us that it’s okay.  It’s okay to be ‑‑ in fact, it’s not just okay, it’s good to be agnostic.  It’s good to be fair.

So you stayed because of the totality of the whole package?

Van Pelt: Correct, yep.

Aside from the money, ESPN was the only place that would allow you to stay at ESPN, if you know what I mean.

Van Pelt:  I got to talk to really talented, smart, good people at other places, and I said that and I mean that you wish all of them success.  I just think that the challenge for them is herculean. Look I worked for the Golf Channel, right, and I used to joke that when I’d show up to cover a major championship before the Golf Channel had any rights that it was trying to fight a tank with a Popsicle stick.  I’d walk around carrying our own sticks for our shooter, we didn’t have a golf cart, but I knew those golfers, I had relationships with those guys, so I went in there and I fought, and we lost, but I managed some punches for a guy holding a tripod; you know what I mean?  I’ve been on the other side of it, and it’s a hard fight to win.

You have the arsenal of properties that you get a chance to be a part of here, it’s a very difficult hill to climb.  And I mean, you know, you take inventory, and I was proud of whatever little niches that I had carved out.  They were all important to me.

I’m sure wherever you landed, you would be the face of the network, Wouldn’t that have been enticing?

Van Pelt:  I’m not ego‑driven.  Hey, we’re going to put you on billboards and you’re going to have a show.  Awesome.  Then you know what you have to go do?  A show.  And you have to fill that hour and you have to ‑‑ and it needs to be ‑‑ I wasn’t afraid of failing as much as I was confident in succeeding here.  Does that make any sense?  Again, the idea of an ad campaign and billboards, like that’s the icing, man.

The cake is the doing the work every day, and the challenge of that at this point in time, I didn’t think that that was as enticing to me as being able to continue to do things I truly enjoyed doing with people that I enjoy at a place that I valued them and in the end they valued me.  Maybe they valued me more than they were going to have to, what are you are you going to do?  As I told them, I didn’t tell you that my house cost this much, somebody just knocked on the door and said this is what we’ll give you for your house.  Well, then that’s what my house costs.  I didn’t tell you that, they did.

As a highly visible Maryland alum, how do you feel about being part of the Big Ten?

Van Pelt: I think Maryland should be flattered because they were coveted by (the Big Ten). Maryland should be happy that it’s a windfall financially.  But you give up ‑‑ you sacrifice a lot of traditions.

The other thing I did say is that I wasn’t going to have a funeral for something that I thought died in 2004, which is the old ACC.  What I grew up with no longer existed anyway, and the ACC told Maryland that its rivals were going to be Pittsburgh and Virginia, and Maryland and Pittsburgh have no rivalry at all.

I can’t weep for that, but I’ll obviously be nostalgic for what I remember.  I remember it.  But then I go to Cole Fieldhouse and it’s closed.  I grew up going to RFK and it’s not a stadium.  I grew up going to Memorial Stadium in Baltimore, and it doesn’t exist.  If you think about what you grew up with, you can’t even go to the places you grew up to see the teams that you used to watch.  What is the one thing they say about life?  The only thing for sure is it goes on.

Speaking of life, you have a baby now at home. How does that change your perception of things?

Van Pelt:  You’re incredibly selfish in this business, I think.  You work holidays, you work weekends, you sacrifice in many, many ways to do what you do.  And the benefit of being an older dad is that a lot of that work is behind me.  I still will work hard, and I’m still thankful that I get to do this, but my guess is, my hope is that I’ll be able to be present for stuff later in life.  If I’d have done all this when I was 30, who knows what I would have missed?

It’s every cliché there is.  I went in last night after doing SportsCenter, and my daughter was asleep, and ‑‑

This is like 2:00 in the morning?

Van Pelt:  Yeah, it was about 2:30.  She’s asleep, and I just reached in the crib and I held her hand, and I sat there and I stared at her, and I walked in and I laughed when I laid down because it’s like ‑‑ like I said, it’s every cliché there is.

But my favorite part of yesterday was that, you know.  Was that two minutes of silence watching her lie there.  It sounds like a sappy Hallmark commercial, but that was what I did.

 

 

 

 

 

Bring back Playoff Bowl: How about New England-San Francisco playing today?

Posted on by

With the NFL on a quest to seemingly squeeze every last dollar from its TV package, here’s an idea they probably haven’t considered. Or maybe they have.

A few week ago, Ben Koo, the CEO of Bloguin and GM of Awful Announcing, did a tweet saying: “I think this year more than any other, I’d be really game for a third place consolation NFL game.”

I responded to Koo saying that such a game actually existed. “Whoa,” he said. “Had no idea.”

I barely remember the game. I’m old, but not that old. But thanks to our pals, Google and Wikipedia, here’s a look back at the Playoff Bowl.

From the Wikipedia page:

The Playoff Bowl (officially, the Bert Bell Benefit Bowl) was a post-season game for third place in the NFL, played ten times following the 1960 through 1969 seasons, all at the Orange Bowl in Miami, Florida.

All ten games in the Playoff Bowl series were contested at the Orange Bowl in Miami. The games were played in January, the week following the NFL championship game (and the collegiate Orange Bowl game on New Year’s Day), except for the final year, when it was played the day before the NFL title game. The NFL’s Pro Bowl (all-star game) was played the week after the Playoff Bowl.

After the 1959 season, NFL owners faced competition from the newly formed American Football League and wanted a vehicle through which to showcase more of its supposedly superior NFL professional football product on television. At the time, unlike the AFL, which had a contract with ABC-TV for nationally televised games, often double-headers, few NFL games were televised during the season and there was only one scheduled post-season game, the NFL Championship Game. The Playoff Bowl was devised to match the second-place teams from the NFL’s two conferences (Eastern and Western). This doubled from two to four the number of top NFL teams appearing in post-season play on national television.

Can you imagine playing a consolation game the week after the title game? Needless to say, one coach wasn’t fond of his team’s two appearances in the Playoff Bowl.

Vince Lombardi detested the Playoff Bowl, coaching in the games following the 1963 and 1964 seasons, after winning NFL titles in 1961 and 1962. To his players, he called it “the ‘Shit Bowl’, …a losers’ bowl for losers.” This lack of motivation may explain his Packers‘ rare postseason defeat in the 1964 game (January 1965) to the St. Louis Cardinals. After that loss, he fumed about “a hinky-dink football game, held in a hinky-dink town, played by hinky-dink players. That’s all second place is – hinky dink.”

When I did a tweet about the Playoff Bowl in response to Koo, one person tweeted, “Seem to remember Frank Ryan always playing in that game.”

Actually, the Cleveland QB played in two Playoff Bowls. Richard Sandomir talked to Ryan and other Playoff Bowl competitors for a 2011 story in the New York Times.

“It was sort of a fluff game,” said Frank Ryan, the Cleveland Browns quarterback who led his team to the 1964 N.F.L. championship but lost two Runner-Up Bowls.

“That ridiculous game shows how ridiculous the league was in those days,” he said.

At gatherings with teammates, do they reminisce about it?

“It never comes up,” Ryan said.

Yes, but that was the 60s. The TV stakes are so much higher now. Imagine if today’s schedule featured New England going up against San Francisco today. Wouldn’t you rather watch that than the Pro Bowl?

Actually, the NFL probably would do the Playoff Bowl and Pro Bowl as a doubleheader.

Given that most of the U.S. trapped inside because of the cold, the Playoff Bowl would do a strong rating. With the TV money, the NFL could offer a huge incentive for the players to strap on the helmet one more time.

I know, it won’t happen. The players never would go for it.

Then again, this is the NFL, and the networks can’t get enough football…

 

 

My Q/A with Skip Bayless: Contends he’s never lost a debate; his relationship with Stephen A.; living in a hotel in Bristol

Posted on by

OK, Richard Deitsch. I can hear you. Enough with the Skip Bayless, right?

Earlier today, I posted my Chicago Tribune column on Bayless. As you would expect, I had much more that I could squeeze into 750 words for the newspaper.

Thanks to the infinite Internet, I thought I would share more from my interview with Bayless, which took place at the hotel where he lives year-round in Bristol. It provides more of an idea of what makes him tick.

How did you enjoy your Chicago years?  What struck you about being a columnist in Chicago?

Some of the best years of my career.

Why?

Because it’s the most passionate sports city in America.  The interest stays high 365 days a year for every sport, including the Blackhawks, even when they’re down.  And I loved living downtown.  It was a great experience because it’s such a great place, and what I liked the least about Chicago was the traffic, because I think it might be the worst traffic city in America.

It got worse.

Did it?

You caught the tail end of Jordan, right?

I got ’98.  I got the last year.  Which to me was the best ‑‑ it was the most writable year because of the in‑fighting between Krause and Michael and Phil.  Every day the story just got better and better, and remember, I got Sammy at his height.  And I got Cubs with Kerry Wood rising into the playoffs.  They flamed out quickly against the Braves that year, but it was still a great year.  And then I got the end of (Dave) Wannstedt, who I’d known very well from Dallas, so it was still interesting to me to be that connected to him and the Bears and to watch his struggle and ultimate collapse.  It was a good time to be there.

And then you made a decision to leave.

I made a decision.

And the decision was based on philosophical differences?

Extreme philosophical differences because (of the length of his column).   Over breakfast one morning (editor Anne Marie Lipinski) glanced at her sections spread out before her in the Tribune and realized that the only section without an anchored column on the front was the sports. We believed it gave us the best flexibility. If I had the goods on a story and I had done the reporting on a story that I could go a little longer than 650 words.  I could maybe even write 1,000 words, and it gave (sports editor John Cherwa) the flexibility with the art on the front to be very creative and to, as he often did, win awards with his section front.

She wanted all the section fronts to look alike. So I immediately went in and said, ‘this won’t work for us.’ I liked her a lot, went to lunch with her several times and personally got along with her great. She said, “you will learn to like this.”  That was the quote.  I said, “I will try,”

And I got more miserable by the day because I can’t write 650‑word columns.  It doesn’t fit me.  I wasn’t good at it.  My columns suffered over it.  And I suffered emotionally over it.  It was so frustrating that I knew at the three‑month mark I just wasn’t going to make it, but for the sake of John and because I loved my job so much, I stuck it out for three more months. I got to the six‑month mark, and I told John, “I just can’t do this anymore,”  He knew how miserable I had become.

I told (Lipinski), ‘I tried it, can’t live with it.’ She smiled and said, “Great.  Where are you going?”  I said, “I don’t have a plan yet.”  She said, ‘OK, it was great having you here.’  And that was the end of that.

What does that say about you? You had a great job in a great city, and yet you walked away?

In the big picture, it says that I chose not to have children.  Seriously.  And I knew going in that my career was first.  Every woman I have been with has known my career was first.  My current knows that my career came first, and she was the first one who’s been good with that, which is why we’re so good together.

But my career is my life and my passion.  It’s not a job, it’s just my life.  So I was able to do that when the job no longer fit what I do best.  Then I was able to say, I need to find another one, and I did.

No compromise?

That is correct.  I didn’t want to compromise my work ethic, because John was good for me and to me in that he would encourage me to be a reporter, to not just be an opinionist, and so occasionally I would really dig into something if we had the time, because I always had the inclination, even though I’m writing four times a week, occasionally if you do the reporting as you well know and you have the goods where you can write both a take with some heavy support and maybe you could do an opinion that actually breaks some news, which every once in a while I was able to do, I needed more than 650 words.

How does that work ethic even factor into what you’re doing now?

My work ethic has now found its ultimate challenge because I have never, and I do not exaggerate this, as hard as I have always worked and been known as a hard worker, never have I worked harder than I do now.  This is a relentless insatiable beast. I’ve been only taking two weeks a year off.  I think I might take three this year.

But I love it and I live for it, and I still leap out of bed at 5:30 every morning, but this is a rough one because if you’re doing live, unscripted debate for two full hours five days a week, 50 weeks a year, the preparation for it can be overwhelming, because within the confines of any given debate, it might go places that you’re not expecting or predicting or preparing for, so you have to prepare for every possibility.  If he goes here, I could go there.  Or what if he brings this up?   And you just have to constantly look up, look up, look up, and I feel like I’m back in college cramming for exams.  I cram for an exam every night.

You talk about authentic.  You know the one thing that people don’t necessarily believe is that you’re authentic

They’re all wrong.  They’re all wrong.

They all think that you do this…

Well then they don’t know. I don’t know, I can’t explain.  I’m just telling you the truth.  Whoever says that has no idea what he or she is talking about.

How frustrating is that?

They don’t know me.  It doesn’t frustrate me at all.  I don’t care.  I get asked about it, so it irritates me.

People don’t believe me when I talk about working with you. I know you don’t do anything for show.

It’s 1,000 percent authentic.  It’s as legit as legit can get.  It’s the realest sports TV on TV because it is completely unscripted.  And remember, I’m working with one of the loosest cannons in the history of cannons, and I have no idea where he’s going to go because sometimes he has no idea where he’s going to go.  That’s as real as it gets.

I believe what I believe down to my toes.  Anyone who’s ever worked with me will tell you that’s me.  For better or for worse.  I’m not saying it’s a great thing because I’m stubbornly proud.  But I am proud as proud can be, and I believe everything that I’m going to say on TV with all my heart and soul.  And I have the courage of my convictions.

If you follow our show, I defy you to show me something that I said that you thought was completely outlandish and that I said only for the sake of saying it that did not prove true.  I am often ahead of curves.  And I’m not willing to back off.  I don’t usually get credit for it when it proves true over time, but I’m not stupid, and I’m not doing it for ratings because our audience is sophisticated and smart, and they will see right through that.  They keep coming back because they know I believe what I believe, and yet even though they might occasionally think, that’s crazy, they listen to me explain it and deliver the whys of it, and I think people start to think it makes sense.

But there are people out there who trash you.  It doesn’t bother you?

It doesn’t bother me a bit.  Don’t lose any sleep.

Really?

Nope, doesn’t bother me a bit because I’m so comfortable in my skin because in my heart I know I put in the hours and I am a sports nut.  That’s what people can’t understand.  But I live for this stuff, and I watch games a little differently, maybe, than other people do, because I’m constantly asking myself why did that happen, what’s really going on here.

And I think I bring things every morning to that debate table that people haven’t thought about that prove true.  And I drive my partner crazy with my stubbornness, my stubborn pride, but he respects me just as I respect him.  He has a great mind for sports.  I think I have a good mind for sports, for people.  Maybe my mind is even better for just people, what makes people tick, what are they all about.

What are you and Steven A. like after a show?  Are there times you walk out of there where you guys aren’t talking, or does it ever get that heated?

I love him like a brother, but I do not always like him.  But Ed, again, bottom of heart, I have never taken anything home, any anger home, any sort of brotherly hate or whatever you would call that when you just start to hate each other because you’re brothers over some topic.  From topic to topic, we both get mad.  I’ve gotten mad a number of times.  But we’re so close and we have so much respect that, believe me, we always shake it off in the break.  And you’ll see us come right back the next topic, and it’s just business as usual.

Is he keeping score, too?

Absolutely.  I’ve read quotes from him in the last piece that somebody wrote.  Was it the Washington Post one, I think he said I want to win every debate.  The truth is I do win every debate.

You never lose a debate?

I have never lost a debate.

Come on.

In my mind.

This is where you live during the week?

Yeah.  When we were doing the show in New York, and somebody up here had the bright idea, and I mean that literally, it was a bright idea, why are we doing this?  There was a regime change from the Mark Shapiro years, and so they wanted to keep our show intact but they wanted to save millions of dollars in studio costs in New York.  Why shouldn’t we just bring it up to Bristol?  I can’t blame them.

So they said, hey, why don’t you just stay in a hotel for a couple of weeks until you figure out your living situation, and I did, and here I am ‑‑ it’s been like six years.

And you go down to New York over the weekend?

I do, and sometimes she comes up here occasionally just to kind of break it up a little bit for me.

What do you do about watching all the games during the weekend?

I watch college football from noon to 1:00 a.m. every day.  We’ll go get something to eat for a few minutes, but I watch it, and it’s partly because I love it but partly because I have to watch it. On Sundays, obviously I watch the NFL games.

This job is relentless like that.  And I’ll watch the NBA on Friday night.  Fortunately she likes the NBA.  It’s the one sport she really has come to love, and I like the Spurs, and she’s come to love the Spurs, so she really enjoyed ‑‑ if the Spurs play on a Friday, we will definitely watch that.  But if the Heat play on Friday night, I’m going to watch every bit of it, and she’ll roll with that.

So that’s life with Skip Bayless?

It’s insatiable.  It does not stop.