Category Archives: Sherman Spotlight

Author Q/A with Rich Cohen on ’85 Bears: Believes ‘big book’ on fabled team hadn’t been written

Posted on by

Mike Ditka had the same question for Rich Cohen that I had: Why write another book on the ’85 Bears?

When Cohen met with Ditka, the coach, as only he can, gruffly said, “Do you know how many people have written about this team?”

Cohen was up to the challenge. “I told him, ‘Why did you run the same offense all those years? Because you believed you could win with it and do it better than anyone else.”

“Good answer,” Ditka said.

I covered the ’85 Bears as a young, somewhat naive reporter for the Chicago Tribune. I always say if I could go back to one year in my life, it probably would be 1985. It was a 24/7 thrill ride from the first day of training camp through the Super Bowl.

Yet even I had some ’85 Bears overdose in recent years. When I heard there was another book coming out on the team, I can’t say I was overly excited.

Well, Cohen’s Monsters: The 1985 Chicago Bears and The Wild Heart of Football isn’t just another book on the fabled team. It is a skillfully written portrait of not only that group of highly compelling and wacky players and coaches, but also of the Bears as a franchise and the impact that team had and still has on Chicago. Cohen devotes many pages on George Halas, who laid the foundation for ’85 by hiring Ditka as his last act.

Cohen, who grew up in the Chicago suburbs, weaves in his perspective as a 17-year old fan who somehow managed to snag a ticket to the big game in New Orleans. Then more than 25 years later, he connects with the players he worshiped, including a memorable encounter with his hero, Jim McMahon.

I recently met with Cohen. Not sure it was my best interview, as I tended to dominate the conversation with my stories about that year. Guess being around the ’85 Bears will do that to you. Thankfully, Cohen didn’t seem to mind.

Here’s my Q/A:

How did this book come about?

It happened in a roundabout way. I owed Harper’s a story about my father. I realized I can’t write about my father. The editor said, ‘Why don’t you write about the Knicks?’ I hate the Knicks. She said, ‘Has there ever been a team you really loved?’ I said, ‘The ’85 Bears.’

I talked to Doug Plank, who wasn’t even on that team but was the spirit for 46 defense. He had been coaching with the Jets. We talked for four hours. He was so smart and funny. I thought maybe enough time had gone by, where they might be reflective and tell you what really went on.

Were you concerned that the ’85 Bears already had been covered extensively in books and documentaries?

I spent a lot of my life trying to find stories nobody had written about. I realized it was a mistake. You should write about stories you care about. There’s a reason why these stories keep getting written.

I’m a different kind of writer. I would give it a different kind of treatment. If you do it well, it wouldn’t matter how many books had been written, because this would be unlike any other book.

What was your approach?

I just don’t think the big book of the ’85 Bears had been written. It almost took someone a little younger from a different generation who was a little bit removed. I didn’t have experiences with McMahon or Ditka. I came in clean.

It’s a coming of age story about me, but it’s really not about me. It’s about the role a great team plays in your life as you get older. These guys get older too.

I love writing sports. I love all the Shakespearean stuff. The patriarch angle in this story. Halas and Ditka. Halas and his grandsons. Ditka and McMahon. I mean that stuff is out of The Godfather.

My father’s favorite book was The Boys of Summer. I thought maybe I could do the same kind of book where you try to capture the team and the era.

What stood out for you?

It’s an intellectual history of the game, and the Bears were at the center of it. You see this big arc of the 46 defense. Halas was Bill Walsh. He created the modern NFL offense. With the T-Formation, Halas made the quarterback the coach on the field. Then Buddy Ryan, a defensive coach, realizes the importance of the quarterback. He believes, rather than cover 10 guys, let’s just kill one. Plank said, ‘Our game plan was, we’re going to get to know your second-string quarterback today.’

It’s ideological look at Bears history. I didn’t know anything about that as a kid.

What was it like meeting McMahon? Was meeting him your reason for writing the book?

He was my favorite athlete. It was unreal to meet him.

Brian McCaskey helped me get an interview. McMahon emailed me and said, ‘Sure, c’mon out (to Arizona).’ He wrote me a lot of funny emails.

I spent a bunch of time with him. I heard what kind of a mess he was. When I saw him, he was all there. He recalled things from specific games. We sat in his office. He chewed tobacco, spit in a cup and answered questions. It was great.

What was it like meeting Ditka?

The day before I met him, I had lunch with (former Bears linebacker Jim Morrissey). He said, ‘Ditka is going to give you a hard time.’

I said, ‘Yeah, he’s tough guy, but with a heart of gold.’

Morrissey said, ‘No heart of gold.’

He’s intimidating, intentionally intimidating.

I talked to him a lot about the ’63 team. He wanted to talk about ’63. He said, ‘Why does everyone always want to talk about the ’85 Bears?’

What about the rest of the Bears?

Plank was a great guy. I kept going back to him to check stuff. He drew me the 46 defense. I’ve got the 46 defense drawn by 46.

Brian Baschnagel was great. Emery Moorehead was terrific. Otis Wilson was very forthcoming. Kurt Becker. There were a lot of great guys to talk to.

I also talked to guys on other teams: Danny White, Joe Theismann, Cris Collinsworth. They all said the ’85 defense was the best they’ve ever seen.

Was there anybody you wanted who you didn’t get?

I couldn’t get Dan Hampton. Jeff Pearlman’s (biography on Walter Payton) made it hard for me. Hampton was upset with the way it came out.

Steve McMichael also was upset about the (Payton) book. He wouldn’t sit down with me, but I talked to him a lot.

What is the legacy of that team?

Think about the league now and there’s no defense anymore. You used to want the defense to come on first. The defense scored. The defense did crazy things. Every play, you didn’t know what was going to happen.

That excitement when you saw Joe Theismann look up and it seemed like the Bears had 40 guys in his face.

They transcended the sport. I tried to capture that in the book, but even still I don’t understand it exactly…There are great teams, but they don’t exactly go with the city. That team somehow expressed something about Chicago. The way people think about themselves in Chicago.The music, the people, and the comedy. It doesn’t happen very often.

Also, it always seemed like they were having so much fun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heated debate: Does Angell deserve baseball writer’s top honor at Cooperstown over Bisher, Durslag?

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana is on an interesting debate occurring in the sports writing fraternity.

From the column:

********

The National Baseball Hall of Fame has been awarding the J.G. Taylor Spink Award annually since 1962, recognizing career excellence as a baseball writer. Spink, the long-time publisher of the Sporting News, was the first winner, followed by giants like Grantland Rice, Ring Lardner, Damon Runyan, Red Smith, Jim Murray, to name a few.

The honor doesn’t mean there’s a bust of the writer wearing a team cap at Cooperstown. However, there is a nifty plaque with the roll call of winners. All in all, it’s pretty nice to have your name on that plaque.

Usually, voting for the award flies way below the radar. But not this year in the sports fraternity.

The finalists for the Spink are: Roger Angell, Furman Bisher, and Melvin Durslag.

At issue is whether either of the two long-time newspaper columnists (Bisher in Atlanta and Durslag in Los Angeles) who wrote on tight daily deadlines should get the nod over Angell, whose brilliant, if not iconic, prose appears only occasionally in the New Yorker and book collections of his essays.

Interestingly, the debate is taking place on Twitter and Facebook, light years away from when the three candidates began their careers lugging typewriters up to the press box decades ago.

As much as anybody, Dave Kindred is responsible for launching the conversation. In a Facebook post, he said that he voted for Angell over the late Bisher, his long-time friend.

Kindred wrote:

I’d be thrilled if Furman won. I’d go to Cooperstown for the ceremony. Hell, I’d make the speech for him if asked. Both Angell and Furman are Hall of Fame-worthy, but one’s a magazine/book guy, one’s a newspaper columnist — so their work is judged by different standards.

It just seems to me that Angell should have won this thing 25 years ago; few journalists ever wrote baseball with greater understanding for a wider audience.

Naturally, sportswriters being sportswriters, weighed in with their diverse opinions in the comments section of Kindred’s post.

Here’s some samples:

Mark Purdy: That’s one magnificent trio of nominees. But I have to go with Furman on my ballot. I suppose it’s partially because as a daily newspaper hack, I’m inclined to side with those facing multiple weekly deadlines rather than one every two or three months. And it’s not as if Angell, a wonderful writer, has been ignored in the awards department. He’s been honored by organizations that would never salute the likes of Bisher or Durslag. Angell was elected a Fellow to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, for crissake (other fellows include Thomas Jefferson, Jonas Salk and Duke Ellington). Props to him. Spink to Bisher.

Philip Hersh: I went with Roger. At his best, pure genius on a page. But Mark’s argument is solid.

Claire Smith: I honestly do not think I would have recognized the magical connection between beautifully crafted prose and the sport that was made for writers if it were not for Roger Angell. Good choice, Dave. Will follow your lead.

Orange County Register column Mark Whicker engaged in a spirited Twitter debate with Kindred. Whicker is pro-Bisher. One of his tweets said: “My view is the Spink is not a Pulitzer. It should go to those who regularly wrote about the game, on mundane and profound days alike.”

Indeed, a big issue is the exact criteria. Is the Spink supposed to be limited to beat reporters or columnists? Or can it include someone like Angell?

On his blog, Joe Posnanski notes there are no instructions on the ballot.

Posnanski writes:

Everyone is just supposed to know what it is all about. But I’m not 100% sure so I looked it up. The award is given for “meritorious contributions to baseball writing.” What does that mean? As you know, we in the BBWAA love to parse words so that “most valuable” doesn’t necessarily mean “best” so let’s take a look at the words here.

Meritorious means “deserving reward or praise.” That’s pretty simple.

But “contributions to baseball writing” is trickier. What the heck does that mean?

Actually, the “contributions to baseball writing” makes the task quite simple here, in my view. It has to be Angell. As Kindred says, it is stunning that his name wasn’t engraved on that plaque a long time ago.

Sure, Angell doesn’t write on deadline and has months to polish his essays “into glistening jewels,” as Posnanski writes. That shouldn’t matter. To suggest that you could come close to writing like Angell with the extra time is like saying with a lot of practice, you could get a hit off of Sandy Koufax.

Indeed, perhaps there’s your comparison. Angell is the baseball writing equivalent of Koufax, a one-of-a-kind artist on the game. Fortunately, unlike Koufax, Angell’s career has spanned generations. At age 93, he still is writing about baseball as only he could for the New Yorker.

Here’s a passage from Angell on one of Mariano Rivera’s final games at Yankee Stadium:

Mariano came on with one out in the eighth, and surrendered a single but no runs, and along the way gave us still again his eloquent entering run from deep center field; the leaning stare-in with upcocked mitt over his heart; the reposeful pre-pitch pause, with his hands at waist level; and then the burning, bending, famed-in-song-and-story cutter. All these, seen once again, have been as familiar to us as our dad’s light cough from the next room, or the dimples on the back of our once-three-year-old daughter’s hands, but, like those, must now only be recalled.

Angell’s writing blows me away now the same way it did more than 35 years ago when I discovered his work as a young kid who aspired to be a sportswriter. I still have memories of being held captive by his first book, “The Summer Game.” Angell’s writing on baseball truly inspired me, and as Claire Smith says, I’m sure many others too.

This isn’t a vote against Bisher, one of my all-time favorites on a professional and personal level, or Durslag, who had a distinguished career. And memo to the Hall: Time to get Dave Anderson of the New York Times on the ballot sooner than later. He’s certainly worthy.

Rather, more than anything else, it really is time to give Angell overdue recognition at the game’s most revered address. When you talk about someone who contributed to baseball literature, how many people rank higher than him?

Angell deserves to have his name on that Spink plaque, along with Rice, Smith, Runyan, Lardner, Murray and the others.

 

 

Candid MikeTirico: ‘Not a lot of good football being played right now’; weary MNF hoping for upgrade with Bears-Packers

Posted on by

Give credit to Mike Tirico for being blunt.

“”There’s just not a lot of good football being played right now,” he said.

Tirico and Jon Gruden hope they get a significant upgrade tonight with Chicago at Green Bay on ESPN’s Monday Night Football. Aaron Rodgers should be solid, but it’s no sure thing for the Bears with journeyman Josh McCown making his first start of the season at quarterback.

Anything, though, should be better than the last couple of weeks for MNF crew. Last week, you almost could feel Russell Wilson’s pain through Gruden, as the quarterback barely got out of St. Louis in one piece. The week before, Minnesota-New York Giants went to new levels of ineptitude.

During the third quarter, Tirico flat out said the play was “terrible.” Howard Cosell would have been proud.

“I don’t want to try to deceive the fans,”Tirico said. “If the game is bad, it’s bad. I’m not trying to embarrass people, but you have to say it.”

Why has the play been so ragged, especially on Monday night? Part of it has to do with the match-ups, Tirico said.

“In NFL, scheduling is more challenging than ever,” Tirico said. “You can’t forecast from year to year. Look at the Giants and Steelers. They’re scheduled for prime time a bunch. St. Louis was 7-8-1 last year. They have Jeff Fisher, who has coached in a Super Bowl. They looked like they were building. The reality is they lost their QB and they only have one running back and receiver who has been in the league more than two years.

“Meanwhile, you have Kansas City (at 9-0); they were 2-14 last year. I don’t think NBC was counting on Houston being 2-5 for Sunday’s game.”

Next week, Tirico and MNF face another huge keep-’em-interested challenge with Miami at 0-9 Tampa Bay.

“Yeah, you thought Greg Schiano had Tampa on the right track,” Tirico said. “It’s hard to forecast more and more. You take what you’ve got and try to be honest with the viewers.”

So what are some of the factors involved with all this inconsistent play?

“Football is feeling the effects of the new CBA,” Tirico said. “There’s less padded practice, less time for work during the off-season. Teams are tinkering with the read-option offense. And then you have injuries on top of that. Seattle was missing their two offensive tackles. When you go up against a good pass rushing team like St. Louis, you’re going to be exposed.

“One of the things I look at when I do a game is the number of first-year players. More often than not, you’ve got 16-18, even 20 players. There’s a very transient nature of the NFL. You multiply that by the complexity of the game and what defenses are doing, and it results in seeing not as much cohesive football.”

The scheduling flex option isn’t in place for MNF, so they are stuck with they’ve got. Fortunately for them, it does improve after Miami-Tampa Bay.

Nov. 18: New England at Carolina now looks like a strong match-up thanks to the resurgent Panthers.

Nov. 25: San Francisco at Washington.  RGIII might be finally hitting his stride.

Dec. 2: New Orleans at Seattle. Big game with home field advantage riding in playoffs.

Dec. 9: Dallas at Chicago. Match-up with possible playoff implications.

Dec. 16: Baltimore at Detroit: A chance to showcase Megatron.

Dec. 23: Atlanta at San Franciso: Looked like a solid game at beginning of season. Not anymore.

Regardless of the match-up and the quality of the game, Tirico, Gruden and the rest of the MNF crew will be there. Usually, most of the viewers remain on board, even if the ride is bad.

“Whether it’s fantasy football or the gambling nature of the game that appeals to people, the popularity of football is strong,” Tirico said. “People still like to watch the game. We only can control what we can control. We do our best to cover it and it’s a privilege to be a part of it.”

 

 

Real story about 2013 World Series ratings: Think Mendoza Line for historical lows

Posted on by

Please fellow colleagues,  stop writing that the World Series was a huge success for Fox and Major League Baseball.

The reports talked about how ratings were up 17 percent from 2012 for the Boston-St. Louis series. Fox called it, “A Grand Slam” in a press release, and others ran with it, as if to say all is well with the game.

Well, here is the real story.

Yes, the final rating of 8.9 was up 17 percent from the 7.6 in San Francisco’s sweep over Detroit in 2012. But that series was an all-time low.

The ratings had nowhere to go but up. Not to pick on my old White Sox pal Adam Dunn, but proclaiming a 17-percent ratings increase is much like boasting about him raising his average 45 points from 2011 to 2012. Of course, he went from a horrific .159 to a bit less horrific .204.

Indeed, the recent ratings suggests, like Dunn, baseball is treading along the Mendoza Line.

Baseball now has failed to break double-digit ratings in three of the last four World Series, and it barely got there with a 10 for St. Louis’ victory in seven games over Texas in 2011.

If you’re looking for a recent comparison, go to the Yankees’ six-game triumph over Philadelphia in 2009. That series did an 11.9 rating. The 2013 Series was down 26 percent compared to that number.

And don’t give me that it was the Yankees. The Red Sox also have a massive national appeal. Heck, when they swept Colorado in 2007, the series still did a 10.6 rating; it was a huge 15.8 for their curse-breaking victory over St. Louis in 2004.

Now that 15.8, if not 10.6, seems like a pipe dream. Consider that a compelling six-gamer in 2013 featuring two of baseball’s most storied franchises failed to even pull a 9 rating. It was the fourth-lowest rating of all time.

Privately, I bet Fox and MLB executives had to be disappointed that this series didn’t do at least a 10 rating. Back in the mid-2000s, the number probably would have been closer to 15.

As I wrote earlier in the week, the erosion in the World Series ratings is a recent trend that really began in the mid-2000s. Viewers began to tune out the Fall Classic, and many of them haven’t come back.

How bad has it gotten? Take a look at this passage from Sports Media Watch:

For the fifth time in six years, the World Series was outdrawn by the NBA Finals. The Heat/Spurs series averaged a 9.7 rating and 16.2 million viewers through six games, and a 10.5 and 17.7 million for the full seven. The NBA Finals also averaged a 7.1 rating among adults 18-49.

Keep in mind, the NBA Finals are in June, when fewer people are watching TV. Long gone are the days when the NBA Finals barely registered compared to the World Series. Now it is somewhat of a benchmark.

Indeed, the bar has been lowered significantly when people are celebrating an 8.9 rating for a compelling World Series. That’s the real story here, colleagues.

 

 

 

 

Chamblee was contrite, but didn’t apologize; Woods needs to be careful with next move

Posted on by

In case you missed it, Brandel Chamblee addressed his Tiger Woods-cheating column for the first time last night on the Golf Channel.

Chamblee said:

You know, in offering my assessment of Tiger’s year and specifically looking at the incidents in Abu Dhabi, Augusta, Ponte Vedra and Chicago, I said Tiger Woods was cavalier about the rules. I should have stopped right there. In comparing those incidents to my cheating episode in the fourth grade, I went too far. Cheating involves intent. Now I, I know what my intent was on that fourth grade math test. But there’s no way that I could know with one hundred percent certainty what Tiger’s intent was in any of those situations. That was my mistake.

Chamblee also said a few other things. He stressed he doesn’t have a vendetta against Woods. It’s all there in the video.

However, the one thing Chamblee didn’t do was issue an on-air apology to Woods. He previously apologized via Twitter for inciting the debate about whether Woods cheated during several instances in 2013. But even he then, he didn’t apologize for the content of the Golf.com column that stirred everything up in the first place.

Even last night, Chamblee didn’t completely back off his theme. He said, “There’s no way that I could know with one hundred percent certainty what Tiger’s intent was in any of those situations.”

Not 100 percent certain? So Brandel, are you still saying there’s a possibility Woods is guilty of cheating?

This much is certain. The Woods camp is furious, and Wednesday’s on-air session likely didn’t appease them.

It appears as if Woods and agent Mark Steinberg will continue to pursue the matter. They feel they were grossly maligned here by Chamblee. Being labeled a cheater is the worst accusation in golf.

However, there is a public relations risk here. If they go forward, they have to make sure they are perceived as the victim. There is the potential that Woods could be viewed as a bully trying to use his power to extract revenge over Chamblee.

It’s already happening. Gregg Doyel at CBSSports.com wrote earlier in the week:

Tiger Woods plays dirty, but then, we already knew that. And Brandel Chamblee wrote it. And here comes Tiger, confirming it.

By passive-aggressively trying to get Chamblee fired.

This is a bad-guy move Tiger is pulling, trying to use his power and influence — let’s be clear; his power and influence in golf are formidable — to get a TV golf analyst fired for something the TV golf analyst didn’t even say on TV. Chamblee wrote for Golf.com that Woods’ grade for the 2013 season should be an ‘F’ for being “a little cavalier with the rules.”

The next move is up to Woods and Steinberg. And make no mistake, there will be another move.

 

Next media wave: Bears to explore possibility of launching team owned radio station via HD Radio

Posted on by

In my latest Chicago Tribune column, I report that the Bears are looking into starting their own radio station via HD Radio. The Pittsburgh Penguins, Dallas Cowboys, and Philadelphia Phillies already have their stations, and more franchises are expected to jump on board before 2020 with the new technology.

You also can access the column via my Twitter feed at Sherman_Report.

Here’s an excerpt of the column.

*********

The Bears already have two de facto sports talk stations in town. The daily dissections, not to mention overreactions, drive WSCR-AM 670 and WMVP-AM 1000 during the football season.

Now there’s the prospect of another station. And it will be wall-to-wall Bears because it will be run by the Bears.

Bears President Ted Phillips said the team will explore the possibility of launching its own station via HD Radio. He said it could happen next season, but more likely in 2015.

HD Radio is an emerging technology that is expected to have a dramatic impact on the radio landscape. In essence, participating stations have substations within their frequencies that are broadcast in high definition.

In its deal with WBBM-AM 780 and WCFS-FM 105.9, the team has the rights to use 105.9 HD3 as its own exclusive radio outlet.

“How cool is that?” Phillips said. “I can’t say we will do it next year, but the brainstorming will begin next year. In my mind, we’re probably looking at 2015.”

Currently, the Penguins, Phillies and Cowboys have HD Radio stations. More pro franchises, though, are looking at the option as HD Radio is expected to have greater distribution with manufacturers now making them available in new cars. The technology also allows access via smart phones apps and through the Internet.

The Penguins, who launched first in 2009, have Monday through Friday shows airing from 2-6 p.m. Additional programming includes games from the Penguins’ minor league affiliate; college hockey and flashbacks from classic games. It’s all Penguins, all the time, as the team looks to super serve its core fans.

The Bears would have a similar programming lineup for their HD station. They now are positioned to make a move thanks to the opening of a new multimedia facility at Halas Hall, the most advanced in the NFL. Part of a 40,000-square foot addition, it includes fully operational TV and radio studios.

The Bears already produce several shows for television. An HD station is a natural next step in their bid to generate more original content to satisfy a fan base that can’t get enough football. The question is when, Phillips said.

“The HD penetration still is not that high,” Phillips said. “It’s very labor intensive. We have to make sure it is worth it.”

*****

For the latest in sports media and more, please follow me at Sherman_Report.

 

 

 

 

Forget hey day of 70s, 80s; Erosion of World Series ratings is a recent trend

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University focuses on the World Series ratings. Even a compelling series featuring two of baseball’s marquee teams is far behind the ratings for their last meeting in 2004, a Boston sweep over St. Louis. And the decline isn’t just limited to that year.

Follow the trend.

From the column.

*******

Usually the way-back machine is brought out whenever there’s a discussion on World Series ratings.

Last week, Keith Olbermann turned the clock back to 1971. In a commentary, he noted 37 million households out of a possible 61 million tuned in to watch Pittsburgh beat Baltimore in Game 7 of the 1971 World Series. That translates to roughly 50 million viewers.

World Series ratings since 2004 (Baseball Almanac)

Of course, the World Series never will see those kind of ratings again. Olbermann noted that if Fox can average an estimated 25.3 million viewers per game (17 million households tuned in) like it did in 2004 for the Boston-St. Louis Series, “Rupert Murdoch will kiss me on the mouth.”

Sorry if I ruined your day with that visual.

Actually, 2004, not 1971, is the better benchmark to assess the erosion in World Series ratings. Back in the early ’70s, there only were three networks. Viewers had fewer choices. It was World Series or “Love American Style.” So naturally, baseball’s ratings would be higher.

OK, if that’s the argument, why has there been such a decline in the ratings since 2004?

Last year, San Francisco’ sweep of Detroit averaged 12.7 million viewers per game, the lowest ever for a World Series. That’s nearly half of Boston’s sweep in 2004.

Through four games this year, a World Series featuring two of baseball’s most storied and appealing franchises has averaged an 8.4 rating at 14 million viewers per game. The overall number should trend higher with a definite Game 6 and a possible Game 7 on the agenda.

However, barring a major upset, it won’t come close to 2004′s numbers.

Unlike the heyday of the 70s, MLB and Fox can’t roll out the argument that the TV landscape was different nine years ago. It wasn’t, since the cable smorgasbord had been in place for years. In other words, the 2004 World Series still registered despite healthy competition from HBO, CNN, ESPN, etc.

In fact, the World Series was considered to be such a ratings powerhouse in 2004, the NFL didn’t even schedule a Sunday night game against it back then.

OK, you say that Red Sox team captivated the country after rallying from a 3-0 deficit to beat the Yankees en route to winning its first World Series title in 86 years? Well, the following year, the White Sox, my team but hardly America’s team, pulled in an average of 17.16 million viewers per night for its sweep of Houston.

Murdoch might not kiss Olbermann if the 2013 series averaged 17.16 million viewers, but he probably would shake his hand.

Since then, only one World Series, the Yankees’ six-game victory over Philadelphia in 2009 (19.4 million viewers), has exceeded 2005. The 2011 World Series, which saw St. Louis win in seven games, averaged 16 million viewers per game. You would expect a higher number since it went the distance.

Consider this: Prior to 2004, the previous nine World Series dating back to 1995 averaged a 15.16 rating (22 million viewers per game). While the presence of the Yankees in six of those World Series definitely helped pull in viewers, it shows ratings in the 15-18 range were considered more of the standard back then in what also was a cable era.

So what caused the erosion in the ratings? There’s enough material to write a book.

In short, a couple of factors come into play. This year marks only the third time in the last 10 World Series it will reach a sixth game. There have been four sweeps and three five-game series. The lone seven-game series was in 2011.

The Series has failed to build on the drama from one year to another, and there’s been a residual effect in a decline in interest.

“We had Boston in 2007 and they won in four straight (over Colorado),” said Fox’s Joe Buck before this year’s World Series. “The ratings went down. You don’t have to be a genius to figure it out.”

There are other reasons, to be sure. However, to me, the mind-numbing pace of games continues to be a big factor in the tune-out. Viewers just don’t have the patience to stay with 5-4 games that last three hours, 54 minutes, as was the case for Game 3. There are so many long pauses and breaks it gives viewers ample reason to reach for the remotes to check out HBO, CNN, AMC, ESPN, etc. You could watch an entire episode of “Homeland” and maybe only miss two innings, if that.

There’s also the issue of the late starting times. Thanks to the endless games, they usually end around midnight on the East coast, past a lot of people’s bedtimes.

Everyone has their theories. However, one thing is clear: You don’t have to go back to the 70s to proclaim that the World Series ain’t what it used to be. It is a recent trend too.

Revenge of fan shot: Fox botches game-ending pick-off

Posted on by

For years, Fox Sports has been criticized for its quick-cut players/fan reaction shots between pitches.Sunday night, the technique came back to bite the network.

As a result, a St. Louis woman holding a rebird hat (puppet?) will forever be a part of one of the most unusual endings ever to a World Series game.

Fox lingered a bit too long on the woman. All of the sudden, Joe Buck yelled out and there was a quick shot of Mike Napoli applying the tag to Kolten Wong from a terrible camera angle. Viewers never saw Koji Uehara turn and make the throw for the dramatic pick-off.

It wasn’t until the replays were shown that we had any perspective of what happened.

The reality is that all the networks show player/manager/fan reaction shots between pitches. So what happened to Fox Sports last could have happened to any of them.

However, the fact that Fox insists on doing so many of them, to the distraction of many viewers including this one, warrants a more intense finger-pointing after what happened last night.

If a similar situation occurs in Game 5, the Fox cameras should just stay with the pitcher. You never know when he will turn and throw to first to end the game.

 

 

Assessing Tim McCarver’s legacy: Record-setting longevity, candor, and critics

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana examines the legacy of Tim McCarver. This year’s World Series marks the end of an unprecedented run in sports broadcast history.

*******

Fox Sports held a teleconference for its World Series coverage earlier this week. Naturally, one of the first questions was directed at Tim McCarver, who will be calling his last series for the network.

“I don’t mind answering a couple (personal) questions, but the emphasis should be on the Series and the players involved,” McCarver said.

McCarver then went on to praise Fox Sports executives and began to get sentimental about his long-time partner Joe Buck.

When it came time for his turn, Buck, trying to lighten the mood with perfect timing, said, “I can’t wait for this to be over.”

Everyone laughed, and Buck paid tribute to McCarver. Then after a couple more baseball questions about the Red Sox and Cardinals, McCarver was asked again to reflect on his career.

McCarver answered and then made another plea: “I would prefer this be the last question about my final World Series, please. I respectfully request that.”

Indeed, if this whole thing feels awkward, it’s probably because it is. It gets to the core of a somewhat complicated broadcast legacy for McCarver.

I’m not so sure McCarver, 72, wants to walk away from his duties at Fox. He continues to emphasize that he isn’t retiring from the booth.

Last week, he told Chad Finn of the Boston Globe, “I’m not retiring. I’m cutting back on what I’ll be doing. I won’t be doing the World Series, playoffs, All-Star Game, but I’ll be doing something, stuff that will feed my passions. Plural.”

So why not just stay at Fox? The network could have reduced his regular-season workload, allowing him to be its signature analyst during the postseason.

It didn’t work out that way.

With McCarver’s contract set to expire this year, perhaps he had enough of hearing from critics who haven’t always been kind in recent years. There’s also the sense that Fox wants to bring in new blood in the analyst’s chair to freshen up its baseball broadcasts.

At some point, it’s just time to move on.

So whenever the final out is made next week, McCarver likely will be wrapping up the portion of his career that is unmatched in baseball broadcast history. This marks his 24th World Series as an analyst, a record. Remarkably, he did it for three different networks, beginning with ABC in 1985, when he teamed with Al Michaels and Jim Palmer for the St. Louis-Kansas City series. He followed the national TV baseball package to CBS and then Fox.

You don’t become the lead analyst for a generation without having some considerable talent. Once moving to the broadcast booth, McCarver quickly became known for an uncanny knack of anticipating what would happen in a game. Buck says there’s nobody better.

*******

Here’s the link for the rest of the column.

 

 

Chicago Bears up broadcast ante: move to forefront with new state-of-art multimedia center

Posted on by

I did a big piece in Wednesday’s USA Today on the Bears’ new multimedia center at their team headquarters in Halas Hall. It really is extraordinary, showing how NFL teams now are diving in even deeper as content companies.

This isn’t about controlling the message; it is about monetizing the message.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

********

LAKE FOREST, Ill. — It is late Monday afternoon, and the shade starts to hover over the idle practice field. Halas Hall, the Chicago Bears headquarters, is relatively quiet the day after a tough and costly loss to the Washington Redskins, a game that saw the team lose quarterback Jay Cutler and linebacker Lance Briggs to injuries.

But in another part of the facility, activity is ramping up. Bright lights flash on, and men test four cameras positions in the shiny new broadcast studio. Host Chris Boden and analyst Dan Jiggetts go over their notes for the last time in preparation for Bears Recap, which will air shortly on Comcast Sports Net Chicago.

Jiggetts, an offensive tackle for the Bears from 1976 to 1982, takes a long look at his lavish surroundings, which went live last week. He has memories of playing in relatively spartan digs during an era when owner George Halas, who died in 1983, kept a firm grip on his wallet.

“This is such a huge leap forward,” Jiggetts said. “I wonder what the old man would think of this.”

The Bears, a franchise once accused of being stuck in the 19th century, have taken a bold move into the 21st century by building the most advanced in-house multimedia facility in the NFL. Much of the 40,000-square-foot addition to Halas Hall features state-of-the-art TV and radio studios; deluxe new interview rooms for use by the team and network studio shows; and a technical center, Bears director of broadcasting Greg Miller says, capable of operating a network. There also is event space, allowing the team to bring in studio audiences for shows.

When asked if any team in the NFL has a similar facility, Miller said, “No, but they will.”

********

The in-house setup, though, does raise the question of whether teams such as the Bears are trying to control the message. Is this an attempt to provide a more sanitized perspective to fans?

Phillips denied that media control was the motivation.

“If there’s one thing I’ve learned in 30 years with the Bears, it’s that you can’t control the message,” he said.

Jiggetts, who does analysis for several Bears-produced shows, says the team hasn’t tried to censor him. He discussed Monday the Bears’ shortcomings in their loss to the Redskins, especially with a defense that gave up 499 yards.

“When I played, we used to say, ‘The eye in the sky don’t lie,'” Jiggetts said. “Everyone is sophisticated enough to appreciate the truth.”

Yet there is an element of trying to frame the coverage beyond what the team receives locally and from the networks.

Phillips notes Bears-produced content allows the team to showcase community initiatives and go behind the scenes for features that spotlight a player away from the field.

Irving Rein, a communications professor at Northwestern who has written extensively on sports marketing and media, says in-house production enables the Bears to control and monetize the content.

“I think it definitely is both,” Rein said. “If you are producing the product, you have control over the message. Part of it is in response to what’s going on with the Internet. It’s difficult to get a message through unadulterated. You’ve got a lot of clutter. They couldn’t control the message if a third party was doing it.”