More love (not!) from Deadspin editor Tommy Craggs: Calls me ‘Dumbest F-ing guy in sports media’ in podcast with Leitch

Well, I got quite a New Year’s greeting from a couple of old pals.

Thanks to some readers, I’m just catching up with a Will Leitch Experience podcast with Deadspin editor Tommy Craggs via Sports on Earth. No surprise (Hi, Tommy), they weren’t effusive with praise about yours truly.

However, it was a surprise that at around the 28-minute mark, the podcast suddenly veered towards me. Talk about ruining a podcast, right?

Leitch interrupted Craggs to say he wanted to tell an “Ed Sherman story.”

Leitch talked about me contacting him in July, 2012 when I noticed the Illinois alumni magazine put the Deadspin founder on their cover. I thought it was an unusual choice, given Deadspin’s edgy content and that the magazine is generally very conservative.

I wrote in the post:

Every quarter, I receive the Illinois Alumni magazine. The issue focuses on notable graduates, such as scientists, business leaders, economists, etc. Prominent alums, to be sure.

So imagine my surprise when I received the summer issue of Illinois Alumni and saw Will Leitch on the cover. Yes, Will Leitch, the founder of Deadspin.

I reached out to Leitch because I knew he would have a funny response. He did, replying in part:

Ha. I had no idea I was going to be on the cover and had honestly forgotten about the interview until someone told me about the story on Twitter. I suppose it’s an honor, but I can’t help but think that the honor, as a concept, is lessened by the fact that it was bestowed upon me (no club that would have me as a member, all that). I really do hope it doesn’t cause anyone to cancel their subscription.

It was an amusing post. Nothing more.

However, in the podcast with Craggs, Leitch made it seem like I was badgering him for a comment.

“He said, ‘I just wanted to see if you had a comment about the University of Illinois putting you on the cover of their alumni magazine?'” Leitch said. “I said, ‘I think I’m OK with it. If you ask me to make a big thing of it, I will say I’m not against it.'”

Leitch said he never dealt with me before that contact. Evidently, he forgot I had talked to him about his 2010 book, Are We Winning? I actually read the book, which focused on being a Cardinals fan and his relationship with his father. It was an entertaining read, and I did a Q/A with Leitch while I was with Crain’s Chicago Business.

Anyway, in the podcast, Leitch theorizes that my exchange with him was the start of my feud with Deadspin.

“Something about that set him off, and I think you guys (Deadspin) are getting the brunt of it,” Leitch said.

Totally not true. But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Leitch then went on to say, “He’s an amusing little figure that keeps popping up.”

One of those amusing little things was my critique of a Leitch column on Darren Rovell last February. The column was a vicious attack that went over the line. I wasn’t alone in that view.

However, as a result, Leitch now has reason not to like his fellow U of I alum.

Craggs, meanwhile, took the opportunity to call me some not-so-nice things.

“He might be the dumbest fucking guy in sports media,” Craggs said. “That’s saying something. I’m willing to go out on that limb.”

Well, at least I’m No. 1 in something.

You see, I also have been critical of Deadspin from time to time.

“He seems to have figured out that there’s a percentage for him to be the guy on the Internet who’s always ripping Deadspin,” Craggs said.

Yes, much like Deadspin’s strategy in aggressively covering ESPN.

“He seems to labor under the delusion that the reason we don’t like him is that he has criticized us in the past,” Craggs went on. “If that were our criteria for not liking somebody, we wouldn’t like anybody.

“He’s such a hack through and through. He only can see the world through a hack’s eyes. He thinks we’re responding to him the way he responds, i.e. hackily. He can’t fathom the idea that we hate him because he really sucks at what really should be a cool job.”

Hackily? So, Tommy, if I praised Deadspin’s work, they’d still hate me? Somehow, I don’t think that would be the case.

Later, Craggs wrote about how he and John Koblin noticed how I tend to use the phrase, “No surprise,” or in the “the no surprise department.”

“He’s this incredibly savvy guy who can’t be surprised by anything,” Craggs said. “The unflappable Ed Sherman.”

All I can say is that I’m truly surprised Craggs and Leitch spent so much time talking about me. I think they would agree with me that they might want a mulligan there. Surely, there were better things to talk about it.

But hey, I appreciate it. Thanks for the pub, guys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time to put an end to sportswriters voting for Hall of Fames, other awards

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University also is an annual ritual for me: Sportswriters need to get out of the business of participating in Hall of Fame votes and for other awards.

Today, the big story in sports will be who gets voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. The same people who will write that story will have determined the outcome: The sportswriters. As a result, they cross the line and become a big part of the story today.

Here’s why I feel it isn’t right.

********

You may not have noticed, but the recent weeks have revealed an annual winter ritual for baseball writers. Throughout the country, writers have disclosed their ballots for the upcoming Baseball Hall of Fame class of 2014.

Dan Shaugnessy of the Boston Globe wrote about his choices. He still isn’t voting for Barry Bonds. Ken Davidoff of the New York Post went the other way, giving yes votes to Bonds and fellow steroid cheat Roger Clemens.

Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports wrote about his selections, while the Chicago Tribune, where I work as a contributor, dedicated an entire page of the Sunday paper to allow its five voters to explain their ballots. ESPN.com did the same with its 17 voters.

It all leads up to Wednesday’s official announcement of who will be going to Cooperstown. Unlike last year, when the New York Times sports front used a blank page as a commentary to illustrate how no candidates got in thanks to the residue of the steroid era, two, maybe three or four players figure to be enshrined this year.

As has been the custom, voters eligible from the Baseball Writers Association of America, will again be the gatekeepers in determining who gets through the Hall of Fame’s front door.

Thus, my annual column on how sports journalists shouldn’t be voting for Hall of Fames, and awards such as the Heisman Trophy. Once again, my argument falls under a basic rule of the business: Journalists don’t make news; they report the news.

The writers will be making the news Wednesday. It will be their votes that will be dissected and critiqued. They will be writing stories in which they had a direct impact on the outcome. In many cases, they will be quoted in other stories asking to explain their votes.

An editor wouldn’t allow a court reporter to be on a jury and then write about the case, right? Isn’t this the same scenario? I respect the political reporters who decide not to vote in elections so they can maintain an appearance of objectivity.

 

Ultimately, the writers’ votes not only will be granting baseball immortality to the players selected, they also will be increasing the financial bottom line for the new Hall of Famers. The inductees will be in far more demand to make appearances where they can place “HOF, 2014” after their signatures.

That in itself is a huge conflict of interest. However, the issue now goes deeper.

Thanks to the cheaters, the Hall of Fame voters now are the ultimate judges over the legacy of the steroid era. They will determine whether players like Bonds, Clemens, Sammy Sosa ever get an invitation to Cooperstown. Judging by the initial returns, the answer appears to be an emphatic no.

I’m not comfortable with the writers having so much power here, which puts an even greater spotlight on their selections. The stakes in this exercise have gone much higher.

Ken Gurnick of MLB.com made news yesterday when he disclosed he only voted for Jack Morris. He said he won’t vote for any players who played in the PED era, including Greg Maddux, who never was accused of taking anything.

Sorry, but I have a problem with Gurnick suddenly becoming the story here. It’s not right.

********

Here’s the link to read the entire column.

 

Championship Monday: Tim Tebow show begins on ESPN; Will this be Musburger’s last title game?

There will be several interesting storylines for ESPN during its coverage of tonight’s BCS title game.

It marks the debut of Tim Tebow as an analyst for the network that can’t get enough of him. It also could be the swan song for Brent Musburger, at least as far as calling college football’s biggest game.

First Tebow:

It is a given: Tebow won’t be your typical football analyst. Richard Sandomir of the New York Times wrote about his teleconference last week.

His responses on a conference call were packed with unyielding positivity. Newly hired analysts are usually happy and upbeat. But Tebow was in a different stratosphere. He used “thank” or “thankful” 14 times. “Opportunity” was mentioned 15 times. In using “relationship” 14 times, he reflected only on good ones, past and present. He said “great” 27 times.

Responding to a question about whether he could be a critical analyst despite his relentlessly rosy outlook, he said: “Well, thank you for saying that I’m someone who’s positive. I would love to continue to be someone who’s positive but also be someone that is objective.” He referred to all ESPN executives, men or women, as Mr. or Ms.

So that obviously begs the question: Can somebody that nice be critical of players and coaches who he believes also are nice? Tebow said:

“I would love to continue to be someone who’s positive but also be someone that is objective. I’ve never had a hard time saying what I believed or standing up for something, and hopefully I can continue to be that same person as an analyst and sharing what I believe about players, about teams, about games.

“I will look at it from an objective prism and try to share an insight with the viewers just like I always have any time I’ve had the opportunity to share.”

Really? Do you think Tebow can be candid? I have my doubts that he will be able to step up on such a big stage.

Tebow, though, does have one thing going for him. ESPN is putting Tebow in a situation where he can succeed. He will be the featured player in the new SEC Network, which begins next year. The Heisman Trophy winner from Florida will be play on TV in friendly territory.

However, none of it will matter if Tebow has nothing to offer and/or if he sugarcoats his analysis. As usual when it comes to Tebow, everyone will be watching once more.

*******

A story that bears watching is the future of Brent Musburger at ESPN.Tonight could be his last big game.

Last month, Jason McIntyre of Big Lead reported that Musburger’s contract with the network expires this year. McIntyre writes:

Brent Musburger, who has been a fixture on ABC Sports/ESPN since 1990, is in the final months of his contract with the network and there are increasing signs he could be replaced in the college football booth next season by Gameday host Chris Fowler, sources tell The Big Lead.

Neither ESPN nor Musburger’s agent – his brother, Todd – would confirm when exactly Musburger’s contract expires, but it is definitely up before the next college football season begins, multiple sources say. Musburger, an iconic announcing figure who turns 75 in May, has called the last four BCS College Football Championship game and will pair with Kirk Herbstreit to call Florida State vs. Auburn on January 6th.

Indeed, this is about Fowler as much as Musburger. Fowler, in an interview with SI’s Richard Deitsch during the fall, said he wants to do more play-by-play.

I have a lot more to do and there are other things I want to do that I have not done. I don’t think it is anything secret internally what I want the next step for me to be at ESPN. I don’t think that is a mystery given the landscape. It’s why GameDay is a unique standalone thing for me. It doesn’t act or feel like a studio show. But the live events are the most inspiring, unexplored thing for me.

SI.com: How so?

Fowler: I really have a passion to document live events as they happen. Hosting is wonderful and remains really satisfying but the joy for me is calling big matches and it was very hard for me to give up calling Thursday Night Football on ESPN. It became too much to manage with GameDay’s increased schedule and travel. But giving up calling football in the booth was the toughest decision I have had to make. That remains something I am drawn powerfully to.

Fowler is the best in the business when it comes to serving as a studio host. However, he knows if he truly wants to be the voice of college football, much like Keith Jackson, Verne Lundquist and even Musburger, it has to be doing play-by-play on games.

With the new college football playoff beginning next year on ESPN, this could be the time where the network makes the switch and allows Fowler to be the man for the next run of big games.

The situation might be comparable to what occurred with Notre Dame on NBC. The network moved out Tom Hammond on play-by-play to allow Dan Hicks to expand his role as the Irish’s new play-by-play voice.

Fowler is a highly valuable commodity for ESPN. The network will want to keep him happy. At some point, it becomes time for the next generation to move in.

According to Deitsch, ESPN isn’t planning any tributes to Musburger tonight. Given all that he has meant to the network and sports TV, perhaps the network gives him a few more big college football games before he calls it a career. Musburger still has his fastball, and few announcers can elevate the level of a big-game call like he does.

Definitely a story to watch.

 

 

 

The year in sports media: Incomplete for Fox Sports 1; Up for Olbermann, down for Beadle

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University reviews the year in sports media. It never was dull.

*********

Wow, that was fast. At this time a year ago, we had no idea Manti Te’o was mourning a fake girlfriend; that Keith Olbermann would be in again at ESPN and Michelle Beadle out at NBC; and that a new sports cable network would trot out an 81-year-old Regis Philbin as an example of new and innovative programming.

Yes, 2013 has been quite a year for sports media. Some ups, more than a few downs, and many in-betweens. Here’s my review.

Fox Sports 1: Easily, the biggest story of the year in sports media, and it figures to have an effect on the landscape for many years to come. As you would expect, Fox came out blazing for its new sports cable operation with a big promotion campaign, promising a fun alternative to that stale bunch in Bristol. Some of the new stuff looks promising (Canadaian import anchors Jay Onrait and Dan O’Toole) and some was just puzzling. (Regis in a scattershot afternoon show?)

However, given ESPN’s 35-year head start, Fox Sports 1 faces quite a climb. Not surprisingly, early ratings lag far, far behind.

Fox, though, didn’t get into this as a short-term play. It signaled its intentions by boldly stealing away golf’s U.S. Open from NBC/ESPN, beginning in 2015. Expect more to come from the network. This story is only beginning to be told.

Olbermann: The presence of Fox Sports 1 proved beneficial to Keith Olbermann. He became a prime ESPN counterpunch to the new network. Old is new, and you can come home again. Despite “napalming” those bridges with his messy exit many years ago, Olbermann found his way back with a lively and compelling new show on ESPN2.

Michelle Beadle: Things looked promising for the big hire for NBC Sports Network with the debut of a new show, “The Crossover,” during Super Bowl week. The first attempt with a partner was a disaster, and Beadle going solo also didn’t work. The show was cancelled in September, and she looks done at NBC SN.

Deadspin: The edgy site produced the scoop of the year with the Manti Te’o story. It beat ESPN to the punch by working the nuances of social media. The story also raised questions about whether reporters should have done more to verify if Te’o’s late girlfriend actually existed.

While the “80-percent” source quote (alleging Te’o was in on the conspiracy) was a major flaw in its initial story, landing me on the site’s enemy list for my critique, Deadspin, for better or worse, showed how a non-traditional outlet can become a player for big news in the new media age.

Jason Collins: Sports Illustrated, though, still is capable of delivering. Its coverage of Jason Collins’ coming out as the first gay player in a major professional sport not only dominated the news cycle for several days, it also showed the magazine making a more dramatic shift to digital by releasing the package initially at SI.com.

League of Denial: The groundbreaking work on concussions by brothers Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru became a source of controversy for ESPN. The network abruptly decided to pull out of a PBS “Frontline” documentary based on the book, which portrayed the NFL going to great lengths to deny that there is a problem. ESPN president John Skipper cited a lack of editorial control, but the lingering and damaging sentiment is that the network caved to pressure from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Regardless of what ESPN says, perception is reality for many people in this case.

World Series: Despite a stellar match-up between Boston and St. Louis, and several terrific finishes, the Red Sox’s victory in six games failed to break a 9 rating (8.9), let alone get into double digits. The ratings showed the continuing decline in appeal for baseball’s biggest October games. Meanwhile, baseball fails to address the prime factor; mind-numbing slow games that seem to go on forever.

Tim McCarver: He ended his long run as the lead analyst for Major League Baseball for several networks with this year’s World Series. He went out with class with some understated comments in his final telecast.

NFL Ratings: The league has ratings for preseason games that rival some for baseball’s postseason. Despite all the significant concerns about the concussion issue, viewers are able to compartmentalize, as they continue to tune into the games in huge numbers.

Super Bowl: The lights went out in New Orleans and for CBS. It wasn’t the best moment for either, as CBS was pounded for the lack of a true sideline reporter to cover the news. A few weeks later, Tracy Wolfson showed the value of sideline reporters when she covered Kevin Ware’s horrifying broken leg in the Louisville-Duke game.

NBC Sports Network: On the plus side, ratings are strong and growing for the NHL, and its coverage of the Premier League has received high praise. However, the Beadle show was a big disappointment, and the network still lacks a strong studio presence, especially after 7 p.m. NBC SN needs to do its version of “SportsCenter.”

FiveThirtyEight: ESPN made a big hire by snaring Nate Silver. He currently is developing a new version of FiveThirtyEight that will cover many areas, including sports.

Jason Whitlock: Speaking of big hires and going home again, ESPN bought Whitlock back into the fold. He is helping to develop a new ESPN.com site geared toward African-American sports fans.

It didn’t take long for Whitlock to get in hot water at ESPN. The network gave him a public rebuke after he slammed Sports Illustrated’s Thayer Evans for his reporting in the Oklahoma State investigation.

Bleacher Report: The site has undergone a major transformation since being purchased by Turner in 2012. With high profile hires of Mike Freeman and Howard Beck, it appears to be veering into a site that will compete with ESPN.com, Yahoo! Sports and the rest.

MMQB: In order to entice Peter King to stay on, Sports Illustrated gave him his own branded NFL site. Following in the footsteps of Bill Simmons’ Grantland, this could be a trend of big-names in the business getting their own sites.

Amy Trask: The former CEO of the Oakland Raiders became the first woman to be an analyst on a pregame show, joining CBS Sports Network’s new, “The Other Pregame Show.” She quickly excelled with her candor.

Verne Lundquist: The veteran CBS announcer celebrated his 50th year in the business. As a present, he got to call the incredible finish to the Alabama-Auburn game. Another one for Lundquist’s vast highlight package.

Nine for IX: ESPN highlighted women sports with a series of documentaries during the summer. A film on the struggle of women sportswriters, “Let Them Wear Towels,” should be shown in every sports journalism class from this moment forward. Hopefully, ESPN will continue this series in 2014.

Farewell: Pat Summerall and Ken Venturi died within days of each other. Both men spent years together covering golf for CBS.

Summerall arguably was the voice of sports for his generation. Nobody did play-by-play on more Super Bowls, and he excelled on golf and tennis.

Summerall succeeded because of two main assets: A wonderful deep voice that punctuated his wonderful sense of brevity. He didn’t overwhelm a telecast. Rather, he melted into it, providing the ideal sound track to accompany the hum of the venue and the pulse of the action taking place down below. Many thanks, Pat, for a job well done.

 

Why aren’t people buying League of Denial? Terrific book merits wider audience

I was really surprised, and even depressed as someone who has a book coming out next year, to hear the news about disappointing sales for League of Denial.

Daniel Kaplan of Sports Business Daily reports:

“League of Denial: The NFL, Concussions and the Battle for Truth,” the heavily hyped book on the NFL’s response to concussions, has dominated conversations since its early October release. What it has not done is dominate book sales.

Since its release on Oct. 8, the book has sold fewer than 10,000 print copies, according to Nielsen BookScan, placing it well outside the top 200 books sold. “League of Denial” sold 3,300 copies in its first week, which made it for that week the No. 1 sports and recreation seller, according to Nielsen. Currently, it ranks 19th in that category for the year, with 9,400 sales.

Later Kaplan writes:

“League of Denial” was published by Crown Archetype, a Random House group. In a statement, Random House contended that Nielsen BookScan’s figures represent less than half of total sales.

“We have looked into the complete sales history for the book including sales in multiple formats, print books and e-books, and have calculated that actual sales to date are in excess of 21,000 copies: print and e-book editions combined.”

Nielsen BookScan is believed to cover 85 percent of the print book market.

The Random House statement also suggested that some books have a message that is more important than just how many copies are sold.

“‘League of Denial’ brought a voice to an important issue in professional sports that is not going away,” the publisher said. “Since the book’s publication we have heard that it has had influence on how colleges and high schools are looking at their football programs. We have also heard from several important neuroscience journals who were eager to learn of the authors’ reporting.

“That being said, we take great pride in publishing such a powerful work of investigative journalism in book form, and we expect the book to continue to sell well into the new year, and to be a focal point in many future discussions about head injuries in professional football.”

Clearly, this book, written by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru, deserves a much wider audience, whether the number is 9,400 or 21,000. While the PBS documentary was outstanding, it told only a fraction of the story. The book goes to a much higher level, detailing many more layers on this crucial issue.

It reveals the damage suffered by these players, especially Hall of Famer Mike Webster; the discovery of CTE in these players; and the alarming way the NFL tried to deny that there was a problem. Not only is the book full of critical information, it is written in a way that builds suspense as researchers try to get out the truth.

It is easy to see why Hollywood is thinking about a movie about the book. This would be the football version of The Insider, the 1999 movie starring Russell Crowe about 60 Minutes trying to do an expose on Big Tobacco.

Quite frankly, this is one of the best sports books I’ve ever read. Put it on your holiday gift list and get a copy for yourself.

If you care about what is happening in football beyond your fantasy football league, you need to read League of Denial.

 

 

Quite frankly, it is one of the best sports book I’ve ever read.

OTL, ESPN receive prestigious duPont Award for series on youth football

ESPN vice-president Marcia Keegan, who oversees Outside The Lines, has read the charges that ESPN isn’t committed to solid journalism. She begs to differ.

“Sometimes, the people who make those criticisms aren’t paying attention,” Keegan said. “We put through the time, effort and resources into covering the tough stories. We do tell the stories that need to be told.”

Now Keegan and OTL can make their points while holding broadcast journalism’s highest honor. Today, ESPN will receive the prestigious duPont Award for OTL’s series stories on youth football. It is the first time the network has won the duPont.

The duPont committee from Columbia University said: “This important investigation added to the growing body of coverage about concussions and football with stories that graphically illustrated the problems and featured exclusive interviews with those involved in the controversies.”

It is a stunning package of stories that is heart-breaking (a piece on young boy paralyzed in a game) and downright scary (stories on adults gambling and a bounty program in youth games).

The duPont comes at a time when ESPN has been under fire for pulling out of PBS’ League of Denial documentary and for shifting OTL to an early, less desirable time on Sunday mornings. Keegan believes the award speaks to the quality of journalism that is being performed at the network.

“We do take our journalism seriously here,” Keegan said. “Getting an award like this is a validation for all the hard work. It’s a good moment for us.”

Dwayne Bray, the senior coordinating producer for OTL said: “Our work placed a big bright spotlight on safety in youth football and showed how a few misguided coaches have taken advantage of the children in their care. Any time you can expose those sorts of people, it’s a good year.”

The key to the youth football stories was getting all the principles to agree to be interviewed on camera about highly sensitive subjects, Keegan said. It’s wasn’t an easy task.

“Our reporters find the right people and get them to talk,” Keegan said.

Vince Doria, ESPN’s director of news, believes the series on youth football is just the beginning of the network’s coverage of what likely will be a hot-button issue.

“I want to do more in this area,” Doria said. “I think this is where some of this concussion story is going to be landing now. It’s a harder sell maybe to our audience, because it’s not about the NFL as such.  It’s not about players that they know and recognize.  But it’s a story that I think touches a lot of people potentially.”

*******

Here’s the official citation from the duPont Award:

With solid writing, reporting and research, this series of three reports uncovered serious problems with youth football in America, where three million children play annually, including a player paralyzed after being coached to use a dangerous tackling technique, coaches offering cash prizes for big hits and rampant gambling. This important investigation added to the growing body of coverage about concussions and football with stories that graphically illustrated the problems and featured exclusive interviews with those involved in the controversies. ESPN’s reporting had an impact by identifying abuses and policy gaps that launched an 18-month police investigation into corruption and gambling.

Tom Farrey, Paula Lavigne, reporters; Greg Amante, Simon Baumgart, producers; Michael Sciallo, associate producer; Nathan Hogan, Steve McCarthy, Erik Swanson, editors; Chris Buckle, senior editor; Dan Hardy, Trent Kamerman, Marc Lustig, Bill Roach, photographers; Nick Waligorski, animator; Dwayne Bray, senior coordinating producer; Tim Hays, Carolyn Hong, coordinating producer, Vince Doria, senior vice-president, director of news.

Flexing: Bears-Packers could be moved to primetime for week 17

NBC should thank Detroit. The Lions’ loss to Baltimore opens the door for Chicago-Green Bay to moved to prime time for NBC on the last Sunday of the season.

The flex rules for week 17 give the NFL (not NBC!) until Monday to make a decision. NBC, though, definitely will have input. The idea is to ensure Al Michaels and Co. have a meaningful game for the grand finale.

What could be better than a winner-take-all Bears-Packers game for the NFC North title in frigid Soldier Field? Throw in the likely return of Aaron Rodgers, the league’s oldest rivalry, and you’ve got plenty of storylines to satisfy Bob Costas.

Detroit’s loss dropped the Lions to 7-7, behind the Bears (8-6) and Packers (7-6-1). If the Bears beat Philadelphia; Green Bay defeats Pittsburgh; or the Giants beat Detroit on Sunday, the stage is set.

It would mark the second straight week the Bears would be flexed to Sunday night. Now a move from an afternoon game to night on Dec. 29 would be a major inconvenience to the many fans from Wisconsin who will be coming to Chicago to see the game. Bears fans will say, even more reason to shift the game.

Another candidate for week 17 is Philadelphia at Dallas for the NFC East title. That’s assuming the Cowboys don’t blow Sunday’s game at Washington, a definite possibility.

Option 3 would be Baltimore at Cincinnati for the AFC North title. That’s assuming the Ravens can get by New England Sunday, a big if.

However, No. 1 on NBC’s wish list to Santa has to be Bears-Packers. Dress warm, Al and Bob.

 

 

Q/A with author of book on ’70s Steelers: Examining unique bonds of ‘best team ever’

The Bears weren’t very good when I was a kid growing up in Chicago in the early ’70s. The Abe Gibron era left something to be desired.

As a result, I gravitated to another team. In 1972, I actually started to root for the Pittsburgh Steelers, pre- “Immaculate Reception.” Mainly, I liked their uniforms and this new young quarterback named Terry Bradshaw. It doesn’t take much more than that when you’re 12.

Officially, I like to think I was an early rider on the Steelers’ bandwagon. Soon I had plenty of company for a team that was beloved beyond the city borders of Pittsburgh.

Gary Pomerantz revisits those Steelers in a terrific new book, Their Lives Work: The Brotherhood of the 1970s Steelers, Then and Now. He tells the story of how the dynasty was built and then revisits the players more than three decades later. He shows that the bonds created from those great teams still remains strong.

Highly recommended.

In an email Q/A, Pomerantz discusses the book:

What were the origins of this project? How did you get involved?

I first met these Steelers in summer 1981 – 32 years ago. I was an impressionable, 20-year old sportswriting intern at The Washington Post, and my editors handed me a dream assignment: Go to the Steelers’ training camp in Latrobe, Pa. and spend a couple days to see if the NFL’s 1970s dynasty was finally finished.

Nearly all the team’s stars were still there. I interviewed Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, John Stallworth, Lynn Swann, Coach Chuck Noll. As I interviewed Mean Joe Greene, I thought, This guy’s bicep is wider than my thigh! All of these players moved with swagger. They were historic and knew it.  And they were all great interviews. They seemed lit from within. The array of talents and personalities on that team was arresting. Even a 20-year-old-sportswriting intern couldn’t miss that. Though I didn’t know it at the time, the seed for this book was planted way back then.

Now football is under the microscope.  With the game’s violence under scrutiny, the attention is on brain injury, surely football’s highest cost. I decided that if I was going to examine football for what it gives, and what it takes, who better to use as a case study than the best team I ever saw, those men I met in Latrobe 32 years ago?  In my narrative I would follow these men across the decades, through middle age and beyond, to explore football’s gifts and costs.

Why were those Steelers teams so special?

Well, it helps to have nine Hall of Fame players, including four selected in the first five rounds of the 1974 draft (Swann, Stallworth, Jack Lambert, Mike Webster), a drafting feat that has never been equaled.

The defense was the centerpiece of the Steeler empire with Mean Joe Greene, a destructive force of nature, as the alpha leader of the Steel Curtain defensive line. Study the Steeler defensive lineup in 1976: of those 11 players, 10 made the all-pro team at least once, and the eleventh, defensive tackle Ernie Holmes, was, when healthy, an annihilative force.

On offense, the Steelers running game was strong; running back Rocky Bleier was a fireplug lead blocker for Harris – “like having a third guard,” as Noll once said. As the NFL’s rules changed in the late 1970s, opening up the passing game, the Steeler offense necessarily evolved.  It possessed just the right components to make that adjustment: a more mature leader and downfield passer in Bradshaw, plus Swann and Stallworth as wide receivers; in the first two seasons under the new passing rules, this tandem caught a combined 213 passes for 33 touchdowns.

Just how good were the 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers? When the NFL named its 75th anniversary all-time team in 1994, these Steelers placed five players on that team: Webster, Greene, Lambert, Mel Blount, and Jack Ham.   Think about that: Of all the players who had played in the NFL across 7 ½ decades, FIVE were selected from the 1970s Steelers. By comparison, Lombardi’s 1960s Packers, the defining dynasty of the NFL’s first half-century, placed only two men on that team.

It seemed like there was an unique dynamic at the top. Owner Art Rooney was so open and friends with the players, while Chuck Noll was distant, aloof. How did those relationships impact the Steelers?

The 1970s Steelers players shared a love for Art Rooney Sr. (aka The Chief). On a team of great characters, the Chief was the greatest character of all. As the Steelers’ founding owner, he had been a lovable loser for 40 years. As a horse-playing gambler, though, he rated among the very best in all the land. It’s interesting to consider that the Chief’s initial investment in the franchise, $2,500 in 1933, less than he was wagering on some horse races, has paid off handsomely; the franchise’s value today has been estimated as high as $1.2 billion.

The Chief occasionally invited to his house for dinner some of his favorite Steeler players – Bradshaw, Greene, Harris, Dwight White, and their wives. Once he took Ray Mansfield and Andy Russell to the Belmont Stakes, and gave them a few bucks to wager. He remembered the names of his players’ wives and kids, and their birthdays, too.

Art Rooney Sr. was an American archetype, Irish-catholic, up from the streets of Pittsburgh’s north side, his leather-bound prayer book in one hand, the Daily Racing Form in the other. His players wanted to win one for the old man, and by the end of the decade they won four for him.

If the Chief was like a lovable Irish uncle, Noll was more like a stern taskmaster. He kept his emotional distance from his players, running the team more in the manner of a corporate chieftain. It mattered more to Noll that his players were close to each other than to him. Decades later, his former players aren’t close with Noll, but they view him with deep respect.

Talk about the bond that existed with the Steelers back then and still exists today.

Too often we hear it said that a team is like a family.  I don’t buy that, never have. Players and coaches bring widely varying biographies to the locker room. The share only a uniform, and a common purpose. They are NOT a family.

But brotherhood?  Oh yeah, I absolutely believe in that, and with the 1970s Steelers players that brotherhood remains authentic, deep, and impressive.

What did football give these Steelers? More than those four Super Bowl rings, it gave them each other.

Today’s NFL players will never know the depth of camaraderie that the 1970s Steelers had, and still have.  NFL players today jump from team to team for bigger and better contracts.

But the 1970s Steelers played in the years before free agency. Here is a remarkable statistic: Eight Steeler players – Joe Greene, L.C. Greenwood, Terry Bradshaw, Donnie Shell, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Jack Lambert and Jack Ham – played a combined 100 seasons in the NFL, a full century. Every one of those seasons they spent as members of the Pittsburgh Steelers.

They were teammates for a decade and more, and so they knew each other intuitively. They knew the women they loved, their favorite brands of beer and cigarettes. They saw each other bloodied and exultant, especially the latter as the greatest team of their time.

You can see and feel their brotherhood today in a hundred different ways. As Joe Greene spoke with me about his old friend Dwight White’s death in 2008 following back surgery, he wept.  Frenchy Fuqua and Reggie Harrison still talk twice a day, and have each other on speed dial. Mansfield and Russell hiked mountains together in the far west after they retired, and travelled the world together, too.  Stallworth kids call Donnie Shell “Uncle Donnie,” and Shell’s kids call Stallworth “Uncle John.”

Franco Harris hosts private dinners for his old Steeler teammates and their wives to commemorate the big anniversaries of the Immaculate Reception (1972) – the 25th, the 30th and just last December the 40th. Franco and his wife Dana rent out a nice restaurant in Pittsburgh, foot the entire bill, and hand out special keepsakes, once pearl necklaces for the wives, and last year cut-glass footballs from Tiffany’s engraved for the occasion. Franco told me that he is thinking about hosting these dinners for teammates every year because, as he said, “We are getting older and five years is a long time to wait.”

Who were your favorite interviews among the ex-Steelers? Also, was there anybody you wanted to talk to, but couldn’t get?

I conducted more than 200 interviews (in seven states) for this book. One Steeler player I’d hoped to interview but didn’t was Lambert.  I left a message on Lambert’s cell phone, but he didn’t get back to me. That’s been his way since he left the game thirty years ago.  He has showed up at a few Steeler reunions, but not many. He’s become more like a hermit, the J.D. Salinger of this team.

A few of my favorite Steeler players to interview?  Terry Bradshaw, Mean Joe Greene and John Stallworth stand out. Here’s why: In their own unique ways, they were all-in, engaged and engaging.

I interviewed Bradshaw at a Beverly Hills hotel where I discovered him registered under the name of Gary Cooper, a nice Hollywood touch.  Terry didn’t back down from any questions, and never has. He took on every one of them. He was fun and frisky, but also full of complicated emotions about his days with the Steelers.  Greene, who played the game with rage, remains emotional, except now he is emotional in a different way. Greene is, at 67, the only surviving member of the Steel Curtain front four. He has eulogized Dwight White, Ernie Holmes and, just a few months ago, L.C. Greenwood. He wept at all three of those funerals. Joe is a straight-up guy, no B.S. in him. He remains all about the team. Together, we watched a DvD of Super Bowl IX against the Vikings in his living room, and as the Steelers asserted control, Greene, watching from his couch, became joyful, and started chanting, “Here we go, Steelers, here we go!” He was young again, and frankly it was beautiful to see.

Stallworth was a Hall of Fame receiver, everyone knows that. But Stallworth also was a highly successful businessman. He earned his MBA while playing for the Steelers, and after retiring from the NFL in 1987, he returned to Huntsville, Ala. There, he built an information technology firm in the aerospace industry, which he later sold for $69 million. Stallworth is now a minority owner of the Steelers.  He is deeply thoughtful and introspective. He spoke of his former teammates with such devotion.

We should all be so lucky to have enduring friendships like these.

What was it like to interview Mike Webster’s ex-wife? How did his story play into the overall story of the Steelers?

I conducted multiple interviews with Pam Webster. She is a terrific lady. It’s difficult for most people to comprehend the despair that she and her family suffered. Mike Webster’s demise was slow, and torturous, and tore into the fabric of their family. In our interviews, Pam struggled to hold back tears.

Mike Webster was a Hall of Famer, obsessive in his year-round training regimen. Sometimes he pushed the blocking sled through his snow-filled yard in winter. That was Webby. He played 17 NFL seasons at center, a position no man should play in the NFL for 17 seasons. Sad to say, here is the shorthand summary of Mike Webster’s life: he retired from the NFL at 40, and died at 50, and in between he lost his money, his marriage and precipitating all of that, his mind. Near the end of his life, he lived out of his truck, ate meals bought from vending machines, and Super-Glued decaying teeth back into his mouth. At his death in 2002, he became the first NFL player diagnosed with CTE – Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative brain disease.  Mike Webster took too many hits to the head.

The 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers suffered their share of tragedies. Among Steelers players from the years of empire (1974-1979), twelve died before the age of 60.  They died from a variety of causes – cancer, heart attacks, accidents involving a car, a falling tree. Quarterback Joe Gilliam died at 49 from a cocaine overdose.  Among those dozen, Webster stands apart. The cause of his death was, unequivocally, football.

In a sense, Mike Webster’s death has reshaped, and darkened, the legacy of the 1970s Steelers.  In the archives of their legacy, next to those glorious highlight films and four Vince Lombardi Trophies and 12 busts in the Pro Football Hall of Fame (including Noll, the Chief, and Dan Rooney), must go the stained laboratory slides of Mike Webster’s brain.

On NFL Sundays, Pam and her son Garrett Webster sometimes watch Steelers games together. In front of the TV in Garrett’s apartment, they wear their Mike Webster jerseys. Both still love football.

What will be the legacy of the Steelers of the 70s?

Best team ever.

Q/A with Colin Cowherd on new book: ‘Wanted to add substance to my career’

On a recent New York Times bestseller list that featured Bill O’Reilly, Malcolm Gladwell, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Sarah Palin, and even the ubiquitous Ron Burgundy, there was the name of Colin Cowherd.

Cowherd’s new book, You Herd Me!, checked in at No. 11. Pretty good company for a first-time author.

Cowherd’s appearance on the list speaks to the power of sports talk radio. Nothing like a little promotion on the ESPN brand.

However, it also says something about his following. While he definitely can be polarizing, I had several people tell me they were looking forward to getting his book.

If you like Cowherd’s radio and TV shows, you’ll like his book. It is essentially the written version of his on-air routine taken, he says, to a level he can’t do on radio.

Cowherd, with assistance from Tim Keown, opines on many subjects in his own unique way. He goes off in many various directions, including opening up about some personal things, not to mention exposing himself on the cover.

Here is my Q/A:

How surprised are you to see your name on the New York Times’ bestseller list?

It’s never something I thought I would be able to do. I didn’t want to make a book that would embarrass me. I don’t want to take any shots, but I’ve read some books from other people in sports talk radio and I didn’t think there was enough substance. I put three years into this. It was very substantial work for me.

I had no idea it would sell. People who talk about their books on sports talk radio tend to sell more books. To be on the New York Times bestseller list is pretty surprising.

How about the cover, exposing yourself in boxing trunks?

It wasn’t my idea. The publisher came to me and said, ‘You have a different kind of radio show, let’s do a different cover. You expose yourself. You take a lot of shots from people.’ I was like, ‘Is it too silly?’ However, in the end, that’s what the publishers do for a living. If you can increase sales because it doesn’t look like the typical cover, why not?

You look like you’re in good shape.

I work out a lot.

Would you have done the cover if you looked like, say, Chris Berman?

No comment.

You spout your opinions daily to millions of people on radio. What motivated you to do a book?

There are a lot of newspaper writers that can bloviate in the newspaper. Then they come on TV, and they are some of the funniest people around.

I’ve lived in the other world. I’ve been light my whole career. I wanted to add substance to my career. I wanted to add depth. I wanted to prove I can burrow in on a topic and provide context to things that maybe the PPMs in radio don’t allow you to do.

You know you’re polarizing. People either love you or hate you.

I just am that guy. There’s always going to be people who think it is artificial. But I argue with my wife. I argue with my producers. You just have to be yourself on the air. People know I’m self-deprecating, confident, neurotic. That’s who I am. If I have had any success, it is based on people getting a straight shooter. Sometimes, I’m too cocky, too confident, too shrill.

You have to take my show holistically and in its entirety. If you do, you’ll see someone who is committed, honest, tries to do the right thing, and is not perfect.

You went into some personal stuff in the book. Why?

When you give, people give back. If you unveil yourself to the audience and show your fears, your audience gives back. I don’t want to talk at my audience. I want to talk to my audience. I don’t want to have a wall. If I’m sad or afraid of something, I share it. If I tell my therapist that, why not tell my audience?

If that makes me vulnerable, so be it. I’m seen as a straight shooter. If you’re a straight shooter, you have to expose your flaws, your fears and weaknesses.

What subjects stood out for you in the book?

I think the one where I talk about loneliness. I like where I talk about LeBron and Michael Jordan because I’m not reverential to them. I like when I unveil something that maybe hasn’t been said. I like when I take people, and they go, ‘Wow, that’s interesting I never thought of that.’ Maybe Peyton is his own worst enemy? Maybe Nike is the reason LeBron isn’t as popular as Michael Jordan?

I like people who make you think. Jon Stewart makes you think. Andy Rooney made me think. Interesting writers make me think. That’s the kind of content I wanted to produce.

Tim Keown helped you write the book. How did that work out?

I’m at my worst when I feel like I’m the smartest guy in the room. I’m at my best when I’m in a room where I have to bail water to keep up. That’s what I felt with Tim. He pushed me. He asked me questions that forced me to come up with real answers. We took out the sandpaper and smoothed out the edges.

Will there be a sequel?

That’s a good question. I don’t know. I have an idea for a second book. But I won’t do it without Tim. Basically, I’ve put enormous pressure on Tim.

 

Long-time Heisman tracker: New rule mandating voters don’t reveal ballots is wrong

The Heisman Trophy winner will be revealed Saturday. Strike the pose, Jameis Winston.

There doesn’t seem to be much suspense this year, but that hasn’t always been the case. Take last year, for instance, when Johnny Manziel beat Manti Te’o. As I remember, it wasn’t a sure thing going into that Saturday night.

Usually, the run-up to the Heisman features the voters disclosing their choices in columns or on air. Polls are taken, predicting the winner.

This year, though, is different.

The Heisman Trust is mandating that voters don’t reveal their selections until after Saturday night’s show on ESPN. The reason is obvious: It wants to keep the suspense for viewers until the winner is announced.

Several writers said they couldn’t go along with the edict. Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com wrote a strong column on why he won’t be voting this year.

I have my own views on the subject, which I will disclose later. However, I reached out to Kari Chisholm. Since 2002, he has been tracking the Heisman vote and projecting the winner at StiffArmTrophy.com.

Chisholm’s task is more difficult this year because of the Heisman mandate. Still, he is getting voters to disclose their choices.

I asked Chisholm to weigh in on the situation with his perspective.

********

I come at this from a deep sense of respect for the Heisman, and appreciation for the tough job that each of the voters have.  I fell in love with football as a kid when Marcus Allen wowed the world – first as USC’s Heisman winner, and then moving into the pros as Rookie of the Year and then Super Bowl MVP.

I’ve been fascinated by the Heisman ever since.  I think it’s fair to say that it’s the most prestigious award in all of sport, and one of the most prestigious in the world.  Along with the Nobel, it’s just about the only award that typically gets mentioned in the very first sentence of an obituary.  (Note: “award” means something that is voted on by outside observers, not won on the field of competition, like an Olympic gold medal or Super Bowl trophy.)

Anyway, this all started in 2002, when Carson Palmer was making a late run at the Heisman.  Back then, Google was still new — and I realized that I could Google my way to a significant sample of the votes to predict the winner.  I did it, and then wondered if I could do it again.  And I did.  Over and over.

As a USC guy, I haven’t had a dog in the fight now for quite a few years. And yet, I keep at it – because I love the Heisman Trophy.

I think the Heisman Trust is making a terrible mistake insisting that ballots remain secret.  Just a quick search now will reveal that precious few voters are writing columns about how they voted.  In years past, there have been dozens — in papers large and small — all building the hype for the big announcement.  It can’t be good for the Heisman to silence their biggest fans, their voters.

This year, I am seeing fewer voters disclose their votes in public — and among those who share their votes with me, almost all are asking me to keep it anonymous.  A number of voters are mad about it — Dennis Dodd at CBS resigned his vote; Ryan Brown at WJOX will resign after this year.  I’ve heard that the voters at the Oklahoman newspaper all dropped their votes in protest this year.  The 28-year run of the Scripps-Howard Heisman poll is now over, unceremoniously with a final edition in early November.

Originally, it was the intellectual challenge of projecting the winner.  But over the last decade, I’ve become strongly interested in transparency in college football.  I’m not alone — the college coaches poll now includes revealed ballots in the final poll, for example. (And the transparency means quite a bit of interesting reporting and controversy.)

Transparency and accountability are critical.  There’s a reason election monitors show up in third world countries to observe elections.  Outside verification helps ensure that the vote is done legitimately.  I’m not claiming that the Heisman Trust has their finger on the scale.  But there are people out there that think they do.  We already have enough conspiracy theories in college football.  We don’t need ’em swirling around the most prestigious award in all of sport.

Their move is a big mistake.  After all, what I do is part of the hype machine.  In 2009, the closest Heisman race ever (Ingram/Gerhart/McCoy/Suh/Tebow) led to the biggest ratings ever.  The Heisman Trust even bragged about it in a press release.  There’s just one problem:  If it were up to the Heisman folks, no one would have had ANY idea that it was going to be a close race.  It was MY site that told the world that it would be close.  I led SportsCenter on Friday night that year.  3.78 million people watched the show — and I had 1.3 million page views during the two weeks prior to the show.  I helped create that huge level of hype for them.

In any case, I’d be persuaded to knock it off if the Heisman Trust would release the full ballots – every vote, every voter – after the ceremony.  But they won’t.  Heck, the level of secrecy is stunning.  Consider this:

* They won’t even reveal how many voters there are in each state.  (It’s wildly unbalanced, with a tremendous structural bias against the West Coast. For example, 10 votes for Oregon, 22 votes for Oklahoma — even though the states are the same exact size, 3.8m people each.)

* They won’t list who the voters are in each state.

* They won’t even list who the state chairs are in each state.

* They don’t release the totals below the top 10, or the regional breakdowns after the finalists.

* They never release full ballot tabulation, not even anonymously.  (This would make for awesome statistical analysis — is there regional bias? is there positional bias? what percentage of ballots went to linemen? etc.)

* There are six regional chairmen, and since Beano Cook died and Pat Haden went to USC, they won’t even list anything other than “TBD” on the website, though they have surely replaced them.

I see my role as honoring the Heisman by helping bringing a little transparency to it; doing something that the Trust itself should — but doesn’t — do.