Category Archives: Sherman Spotlight

Snore Classic: Baseball, Fox need to break numbing trend of short World Series

Posted on by

Forget about all the talk of Boston-St. Louis being a great match-up in the World Series.

If given the choice, Fox Sports and MLB would take a Seattle-San Diego series that goes 7 games over a one-sided 4- or 5-gamer featuring two of baseball’s most storied franchises.

It’s all about games, namely 6 and 7 in the postseason. Those have been in short supply for baseball, which has suffered through a remarkable string of bad luck with its World Series.

Since 2004, when the Red Sox took four straight from the Cardinals (seem to recalling hearing something about breaking an 86-year drought), only 2 of 9 World Series have gone more than five games. There have been four sweeps, including last year with San Francisco running over Detroit; and three five-game series. The lone seven-game series was in 2011 when St. Louis rallied to beat Texas.

By comparison, the NBA has seen three Game 7s since 2004, and 6 of the 9 series went to six or more games. The NHL even has fared better. Since 2001, 6 of 12 Stanley Cup Finals have gone the full 7 games, allowing viewers to hear Mike Emrick, the game’s best, to enhance the drama with his wonderful gift for play-by-play. Only two series failed to reach six games.

Fox’s Joe Buck only wishes he was as fortunate. When Buck was asked about this year’s supposed dream match-up, he tempered his answer.

“Year after year, we talk about the match-up, and who the networks want, and the major markets,” Buck said. “To me, if it isn’t a compelling series, if it is four or five games and out, it doesn’t matter who is playing. If you don’t get down to the games that make it fun, like at the beginning of the post-season where it is win or go home…That’s when the game gets exciting. That’s when the game is great.

“We had Boston in 2007 and they won in four straight (over Colorado). The ratings went down. You don’t have to be a genius to figure it out.”

Indeed, last year’s World Series averaged a 7.6 rating, an all-time low. The previous low was an 8.4 for the 2008 Phillies-Rays and 2010 Giants-Rangers series, which each went five games.

Meanwhile, the 2011 Cardinals-Rangers World Series averaged a 10.0 rating for the full run. As Buck said, you don’t need to be a genius to see how the run of short series have hurt baseball and Fox.

Given Buck and Tim McCarver’s ties, they certainly will be accused of favoring the Cardinals.That would be wrong. They only are pulling for one thing during the World Series: Getting to call a Game 7.

 

 

 

 

Golf Channel could feel revenge from Chamblee’s ‘golf cheat’ allegations about Woods; Woods’ camp is irate

Posted on by

I want to catch up on a story that likely has a few more rounds left in it.

Late last week, Brandel Chamblee did a column for Golf.com, handing out grades for the 2013 golf season. Of Woods, he writes:

Tiger Woods: When I was in the fourth grade, I cheated on a math test and when I got the paper back it had “100” written at the top and just below the grade, was this quote, “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!” It was an oft-quoted line from the epic poem “Marmion” by Sir Walter Scott, and my teacher’s message was clear. Written once more beneath that quote was my grade of “100”, but this time with a line drawn through it and beneath that an F. I never did ask my teacher how she knew I cheated and I certainly didn’t protest the grade. I knew I had done the wrong thing and my teacher the right, but I never forgot the way I felt when I read that quote.

I remember when we only talked about Tiger’s golf. I miss those days. He won five times and contended in majors and won the Vardon Trophy and … how shall we say this … was a little cavalier with the rules.*

100 F

Chamblee then gave himself a F for being inaccurate with his picks for the majors. However he added, “But at least I earned this one honestly.” Clearly, it was another jab at Woods.

It should be noted Woods was the 14th golfer listed in the column. However, Golf.com used his F in the headline and there was a picture of Woods with a red-circled F.

Naturally, Woods’ camp was irate. Last Friday afternoon, Woods’ agent, Mark Steinberg, even threatened a lawsuit in an interview with ESPN.com’s Bob Harig.

“There’s nothing you can call a golfer worse than a cheater,” Steinberg said. “This is the most deplorable thing I have seen. I’m not one for hyperbole, but this is absolutely disgusting. Calling him a cheater? I’ll be shocked, stunned if something is not done about this. Something has to be done.

“There are certainly things that just don’t go without response. It’s atrocious. I’m not sure if there isn’t legal action to be taken. I have to give some thought to legal action.”

Geoff Shackelford tries to imagine a Wood v Chamblee trial.

I’m not sure about the legal recourse here. Defamation of character? Woods probably doesn’t want to go there, given all the doors that likely would open in his personal life.

Woods, though, will be looking to get even, and that could put the Golf Channel in the line of fire. There’s not much he can do to get back at Golf.com. The magazine and site weren’t getting any exclusive interviews anyway.

Woods, though, does appear regularly on interviews during tournaments with the Golf Channel. Chamblee’s main work is with the Golf Channel.

I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Woods might pull an interview boycott with the Golf Channel–at least at the events where Chamblee is on site as an analyst, which are quite a few. It would be a way for the Woods camp to make Chamblee feel the heat.

Remember Woods is wired much like Michael Jordan. Jordan stopped talking to the Sports Illustrated in 1994 when a cover story made fun of his attempt to play baseball.

As much as I like Chamblee, he went over the line here. If he wanted to label Woods a “golf cheat,” he should have devoted his entire column to the subject and not at the end of his piece.

Chamblee knows the ramification of labeling someone as a cheater, the worst allegation possible in the honorable sport.

Alex Myers of GolfDigest.com writes:

While it’s impossible to argue Chamblee’s assertion that Woods “was a little cavalier with the rules,” labeling him a cheater is an enormous leap to make, especially with someone whose every move is followed by millions of people. Besides, would a guy who is perceived to have cheated on purpose get voted Player of the Year by his peers over strong candidates?

It’ll be interesting to see where the story goes from here. Will Chamblee issue “a clarification” on his comments? Surely, there are some phone calls being made.

Stay tuned.

 

Should CBS, ESPN be ticked? NFL showcases Peyton’s best games on NBC’s Sunday night

Posted on by

NBC already had the season opener with Peyton Manning and Denver taking on Baltimore, the defending Super Bowl champs. On Nov. 24, it has Manning meeting his old rival, Tom Brady, in a game at New England.

However, the biggie is on Sunday. Manning returns to Indianapolis for the first time to face the Colts and its ungrateful owner. Jim Irsay apparently forgot that without No. 18, he doesn’t get that shiny new stadium in downtown Indy.

Yes, it is quite the bounty for NBC. The ratings should be huge for Sunday’s game, even with a possible Game 7 in the Boston-Detroit series.

Indeed, the NFL, which always scripts a strong Sunday night schedule, has been exceedingly good to NBC this year. It gave NBC arguably three of the four top games on Denver’s schedule.

CBS did get the Manning Bowl in week 2 with Peyton beating down his brother, Eli, in New York. And it has the two Denver-Kansas City games, which now have much greater significance than anticipated at the beginning of the season.

However, CBS, which has the AFC package, can’t be overly pleased with NBC landing Denver’s prime AFC’s games. The NFL could have tabbed one of Denver’s NFC’s games, which air on Fox, for a Sunday night.

And ESPN? Clearly, the network isn’t happy. Its only shot at the older Manning brother was a Denver-Oakland game in Week 3, a predictable rout that was at Denver, no less.

Mike Tirico wasn’t pleased to be calling a Raider game on a Monday. Last week, in an interview with The Mighty 1090 in San Diego, he voiced his displeasure.

“On Monday night, you deserve to see teams that are good, and the Raiders have not been good for a decade,” Tirico said. “I don’t think that best serves the customer, the NFL fan. You get Peyton Manning. That’s great. You want to see him against a quality opponent in one of his five or six primetime games as opposed to a team like the Raiders, coming off a bad season in a perpetual rebuild….I don’t think the Raiders are a team that America needs to see in primetime on national TV.”

It doesn’t get much better for Tirico and Jon Gruden this week. ESPN has the younger brother for Giants-Vikings on Monday night. Not quite the same. What looked like a decent match-up at the beginning of the season now is a dud; the teams have a combined 1-10 record. You only can generate so much hype for Josh Freeman’s Vikings debut.

Even if the Giants-Vikings were a good game, it isn’t on par with Peyton returning to Indy.

I’ve been told these things have a way evening out over time. There’s also the element of the luck of the draw. With the schedule being released in April, some games turn out better or worse depending on how teams fare during the season.

However, there was little doubt that NBC’s three Denver games would be huge. If it is indeed luck of the draw, then the network was dealt three aces.

********

Earlier this week, NBC did a teleconference for the big game. Note, it occurred before Irsay made his ridiculous statements.

Here are the excerpts.

Tony Dungy on Manning: “I never thought I would see him in a different uniform and certainly wouldn’t think he would be coming back playing maybe the best football of his career — undefeated and putting up such gaudy numbers. But it’s going to be an emotional night, a fun night and a night where we’re going to see great quarterbacking I think on both sides of the field.”

Cris Collinsworth on Luck: “There’s going to be a great tribute [to Peyton Manning], but there’s also going to be a great passing of the torch. Andrew Luck, if you watched him play at all, you know what a fantastic player he is — his mobility, his brainpower, his ability to do so many other things that Peyton did early in his career, and arguably even at a better level.”

Rodney Harrison on Manning: “He is truly the best quarterback that I’ve faced in my career and I’ve had the privilege of going against so many great Hall of Fame quarterbacks. But Peyton Manning is something special. You can’t game plan around Peyton Manning. You just kind of hold your breath, try to do a few things right and hopefully you don’t get beat. Just to see the type of football that he’s playing at this stage of his career is absolutely amazing.”

 

 

Losing: Sagging ratings, expensive right fees have WGN-AM looking to rework deal with Cubs

Posted on by

My latest Chicago Tribune column is on WGN-AM 720 and the Cubs.

You also can access via my Twitter feed.

From the column.

*******

If the Cubs want to continue their long relationship with WGN-AM 720, dating back to 1925, they likely will have to do it at a reduced price.

Strapped with an expensive rights deal and sharply declining ratings because of the Cubs’ struggles on the field, WGN is exercising an option to re-open their contract with the team.

Broadcast sources say WGN is losing significant money on the Cubs broadcasts, with listeners and advertisers tuning out a team that has lost 197 games in the last two years.

Cubs games still will air on the station in 2014, but beyond that, the two sides will have to agree on a new deal.

WGN-AM President Jimmy de Castro declined to discuss any of the specifics of the situation. However, he stressed several times that he hopes the Cubs continue to be on WGN.

“Like any contract, there are periods where you do a business analysis,” de Castro said. “Both the Cubs and WGN are looking at it. We love our partnership and we hope it continues forever. The contract calls for us to take a look at it and we’re going to do that.”

In other words: Forever will end abruptly if the money isn’t right for WGN.

Broadcast insiders say the current contract calls for WGN to pay as much as $10 million per year to Cubs (“Maybe more,” said one source), making it one of the most expensive in Major League Baseball.

The Yankees recently signed a deal with WFAN in New York, calling for an annual payout estimated in the $15-20 million range.

The Cubs reportedly did a new contract with WGN in 2009 in advance of Tribune Co. selling the team to the Ricketts family. Back then, the Cubs were one year removed from back-to-back playoff appearances in 2007-08. They still were considered a hot commodity, attracting strong ratings on both TV and radio.

Well, not so much in 2013.

Baseball playoffs: Time to do away with day games during the week

Posted on by

I have changed my stance. Previously, I thought there was something special about important October baseball games during the day on Monday through Friday. Old school.

This year, though, I came to a realization: I never can watch those weekday games.

I work during the day, as do most of you (when you’re not reading Sherman Report). Yesterday, I wasn’t able to tune in to the Boston-Detroit game until 6 p.m. Central. By then, the game was in the eighth inning. The same probably will be true for this afternoon’s St. Louis-LA game.

There’s a reason why Major League Baseball finally shifted World Series games to night in 1971: That’s when people are home to watch them.

It really doesn’t make sense to play your most important games of the year on weekdays. Imagine the NBA or NHL airing conference final playoff games on weekdays.

The day playoff games aren’t about serving the fans; it’s about serving the networks. MLB obviously doesn’t want to have the two LCS games competing against each other on Fox and TBS in primetime.

However, in the process, the set-up limits the audience for the weekday game, especially on the West coast.

I’m a channel flipper. I would love nothing more than to spend the evening bouncing around between two playoff games. Baseball moves at such a slow pace, you wouldn’t miss much from either game.

The concept of airing multiple playoff games at the same time has lifted the Stanley Cup playoffs on NBC’s multiple platforms. It pulled me in, given all the great finishes in hockey. Baseball should take notice.

Here’s a suggestion: MLB should begin the early game at 5:30-6 p.m. ET, instead of 4 p.m. Then push back the late game from 7 p.m. ET to 7:30. Sure, there would be some overlap, but most people still would be able to see the bulk of both games.

The one plus of afternoon playoff baseball is that allows young kids with early bedtimes to watch the games. I’ve made the argument for years that baseball has lost a generation of young fans with the late starts for the World Series. At the very least, the weekend World Series games definitely should begin earlier.

However, I’m not sure the kids are watching anyway. If they are, if LCS games started at 5:30-6 p.m. ET, those young fans still would be able to see plenty of baseball.

MLB, though, likely won’t make any changes to the format. Too much hassle with the networks.

That means more afternoon playoff games that I and many other baseball fans won’t be able to see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ten years later, Bartman remains No. 1 on interview wish list

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University notes the one and only time the world saw Steve Bartman.

*********

It is odd how things work on the beat. If you asked sports journalists about the one interview they truly would like to land, a bucket-list subject so to speak, it would be with an individual who never played in a game or even sat on the sidelines as a coach.

He appeared on our TV screen for 30 minutes, if that long, before disappearing completely from sight. Come to think of it, we’ve never heard this person speak.

And still haven’t a decade after he was unwittingly thrust into our public consciousness.

No. 1 on most of our dream interview lists: Steve Bartman.

Monday marks the 10th anniversary of the night Bartman’s life changed forever. On Oct. 14, 2003, during the top of the eighth inning of Game 6 of the Cubs-Marlins series at Wrigley Field, the meek-looking fan with the geeky headphones was transformed into a symbol for a century-plus of futility for the Cubs. All because he reached for a foul ball.

The story has been told many times over and continues to be told. In Chicago, Comcast Sports Net will air a documentary, “5 Outs,” Tuesday night on that ill-fated 2003 Cubs team.

Both the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times came out with 10th anniversary stories. ESPN Classic re-aired the 30 for 30 documentary, “Catching Hell,” throughout the weekend.

Even though I have seen the film many times, I had to watch again. And then again. The incredible random nature of what happened to Bartman, an ordinary fan among 40,000 people on that night, arguably makes it the strangest, if not the most compelling sports story of all time.

The aftermath only served to take the story to an even higher level. The following day, a devastated Bartman issued a statement, apologizing to Cubs fans for his misdeed. That was it. No interviews. No nothing.

Bartman completely faded from view. In fact, during the “Catching Hell” documentary, ESPN’s Wayne Drehs said if you saw Bartman walking around the mall without his Cubs cap and headphones, you probably wouldn’t recognize him.

The Tribune‘s Paul Sullivan writes: “Bartman has remained Sphinxlike, staying out of the public eye, ignoring interview requests and monetary offers and basically keeping a low profile, becoming the J.D. Salinger of sports fans.”

Indeed, that’s part of the on-going fascination with Bartman. In an age when everyone seems to be running towards the spotlight like moths to a flame, he wants nothing to do with it. Bartman has turned down six-figure offers to do interviews.

In the Tribune piece, Sullivan quotes Frank Murtha, an attorney who spoke on behalf of Bartman: “Because of the kind of person he is, he has continued to live his life in a manner with the same moral fiber he had going into this incident. He continues to work. Has this incident posed challenges to him? Yes. Has he more than overcome them? Yes. But he has been bigger than those who have commercially exploited the incident.”

After his story appeared, I contacted Sullivan, a long-time Chicago baseball writer, about what he would ask if he had the chance to interview Bartman.

“If he did talk, of course I would love to be the one he goes to,” Sullivan said. “I guess I would ask him how he refrains from being bitter at the fans and media; how he feels about the ball being blown up; if he considered changing his name; if any good came out of this and of course if he thinks the Cubs will win in his lifetime?

“Many other questions depending on his answers, but those would top my list.”

All relevant questions to be sure. However, there is a part of Sullivan who hopes Bartman never answers them from him or anyone else.

“Actually I think Bartman has gained immense respect for not talking and for not cashing in, so I would hope he continues to remain out of the public eye,” Sullivan said. “The response I have received so far has basically cemented my thinking that his decision to disappear was the correct one.”

To some extent, I can see his point. There is a certain nobility in Bartman’s desire to remain in the shadows. He owes the public, and specifically Cubs fans, nothing. If anything, they all owe him an apology for the intense reaction that altered his life forever.

Yet it’s been 10 years. I think it would be great to hear from Bartman himself. I want to know how his life is going and his thoughts about what happened on that night and the following days after Game 6. There’s a possibility an interview would serve as some sort of closure for him–and perhaps us.

Who knows if it will ever happen? In Sullivan’s piece, Murtha said, “Steve has no intention to personally speak about it. When and if he did, it’d be under his terms and conditions.”

Until then, sports journalists will keep Bartman’s name high on their wish list.

Costas on Redskins nickname: It is an ‘insult, slur’; Gets ripped on Twitter

Posted on by

Bob Costas became the first big-name commentator to weigh in on the Redskin nickname controversy within the context of a NFL game involving Washington. He did it last night at halftime on NBC.

This platform is highly relevant since Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is part of the entity that owns the copyrights to the telecast: The NFL.

Costas, though, is Costas. Obviously, he didn’t believe he could let the issue go by without making a statement.

It seems as if Costas measured his words for a NFL telecast. He was very careful not to offend Snyder or fans that support use of the nickname. He might not have meandered as much if the commentary came on a non-NFL platform.

Costas, though, eventually weaved his way to his main point at the end:

“Still, the NFL franchise that represents the nation’s capital has maintained its name.  But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others.  Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group.

“When considered that way, “Redskins” can’t possibly honor a heritage, or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term.  It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent. It is fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But, if you take a step back, isn’t it clear to see how offense “might” legitimately be taken?”

Naturally, Twitter blew up with Redskins fans who were outraged over Costas’ position.

Yep, should be an interesting Monday for Costas.

*********

Here is a transcript of the commentary:

With Washington playing Dallas here tonight, it seems like an appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name “Redskins.”

Let’s start here. There is no reason to believe that owner Daniel Snyder, or any official or player from his team, harbors animus toward Native Americans or wishes to disrespect them. This is undoubtedly also true of the vast majority of those who don’t think twice about the longstanding moniker. And in fact, as best can be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended.

But, having stipulated that, there’s still a distinction to be made. Objections to names like “Braves,” “Chiefs,” “Warriors,” and the like strike many of us as political correctness run amok. These nicknames honor, rather than demean. They are pretty much the same as “Vikings,” “Patriots,” or even “Cowboys.” And names like “Blackhawks,” “Seminoles,” and “Chippewas,” while potentially more problematic, can still be okay provided the symbols are appropriately respectful – which is where the Cleveland Indians with the combination of their name and “Chief Wahoo” logo have sometimes run into trouble.

A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections. The Stanford Cardinal and the Dartmouth Big Green were each once the Indians; the St. John’s Redmen have become the Red Storm, and the Miami of Ohio Redskins – that’s right, Redskins – are now the Red Hawks.

Still, the NFL franchise that represents the nation’s capital has maintained its name.  But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others.  Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group.

When considered that way, “Redskins” can’t possibly honor a heritage, or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term.  It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent. It is fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But, if you take a step back, isn’t it clear to see how offense “might” legitimately be taken?

 

 

 

 

 

Keteyian: ‘Trust equals access’; lessons, insights from revealing new book on college football

Posted on by

My latest National Sports Journalism Center column is an interview with Armen Keteyian on the reporting he did for his new book.

Here’s an excerpt:

*******

Armen Keteyian called Jeff Purinton, the Alabama associate athletics director and the gatekeeper to Nick Saban.  Keteyian explained he was working on a book on college football and requested to talk to Wesley Neighbors, a low level staffer for Saban. He wanted to talk to Neighbors for a profile of how Saban operates at Alabama.

“Jeff said, ‘That’s not going to happen,’” said Keteyian, noting the coach is known for not making his staff available.

Keteyian, though, did a piece on Saban for CBS while the coach was with the Miami Dolphins. They formed a rapport. Saban hadn’t forgotten how he was treated by Keteyian.

Sure enough, a few days later, Purinton called back Keteyian. He told him Saban gave the OK to talk to Neighbors.

“Jeff said, ‘What do you have on Nick?’” Keteyian said. “I said, ‘I don’t have anything on Nick.’ What I had was his trust.”

Trust and relationships were at the core of the reporting Keteyian and Jeff Benedict did for their new book, “The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football.” The book isn’t an expose about the evils of the sport, although there’s plenty in there that might make you want to take a shower after reading it.

Rather, it is an in-depth, behind-the-scenes portrait of how college football works, for better and worse. Each chapter details another inside look into the game from the perspective of coaches, players, prominent boosters, insiders, and people who have benefitted and been burned by “The System.”

Yahoo! Sports’ Dan Wetzel had a terrific label for the book’s approach: “Saturation reporting.”

Indeed, the book is a journalism lesson on the importance of access. How did the authors get to spend so much time with the normally reclusive Saban? How did they convince a former Tennessee female student, known as “The Closer” to open up for the first time about the hostess role in recruiting players? How did they land an interview with all the principals involved in an assault case at Missouri?

Keteyian has a simple mantra in his reporting.

“Trust equals access. Access equals information. Information equals perspective,” Keteyian said.

Keteyian said he had to “cash in a few of his credibility chips” to gain access to subjects in the books. He and Benedict worked months to land interviews with NCAA investigators.

“If the NCAA doesn’t trust you, you’re not getting in the door,” said Keteyian, adding, “I’m pretty good at getting people to trust me.”

The same holds true for Benedict. Keteyian says his co-author has a certain “honesty and integrity” that resonates with his subjects. The chapter about the Missouri assault case hit home even more because everyone talked.

“Nobody is going to throw their doors open and say, ‘Come see us so we can talk about the assault case (at Missouri),” Keteyian said. “We are in the trust business. If you get their trust, doors open.”

 

Rich Eisen, former Chicago Tribune stringer: ‘Couldn’t have done it without watching Wheeling High School football’

Posted on by

My latest Chicago Tribune column is on Rich Eisen. He explains why Chicago always will have a special place in his heart. He also discusses the impact of NFL Network on its 10th anniversary.

You also can access the column via my Twitter feed.

From the column.

********

Everyone starts somewhere. If you played high school football and basketball in Chicago in 1993-1994, there’s a chance Rich Eisen, long before he became the Rich Eisen, reported on one of your games.

As a graduate student in journalism at Northwestern, Eisen covered high schools Fridays and Saturdays for the Tribune.

“It helped put a few bucks in my pocket,” Eisen said. “I’d go to Palatine, Schaumburg, wherever they sent me. Collect the stats, get a quote and then phone it in to the desk.”

Eisen has fond memories of his short Tribune stint; there’s even a line about it in his NFL Network biography.

“I’m proud of it,” Eisen said. “I couldn’t have done it without watching Wheeling High School football.”

Thursday, Eisen returns to Chicago to cover another football game. He will anchor NFL Network’s pre- and postgame coverage of Bears-Giants from Soldier Field. Brad Nessler and Mike Mayock will be on the call for the game.

NFL Network is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year. It was Eisen who brought the network on the air in November 2003.

The notion of a 24/7 channel dedicated to the NFL seemed ludicrous back then, especially since it didn’t have any live games. People also thought Eisen was crazy to leave a terrific gig at ESPN to hook up with the fledgling network, which opened with only 11 million subscribers.

Now in 70 million homes, Eisen believes NFL Network changed the sports landscape.

“Ten years ago, the NFL was not considered a year-round venture,” Eisen said. “Right before I left ESPN, someone suggested doing a NFL story in the spring. The person was laughed out of the room. Now you have live football shows daily on multiple networks. There’s no question in my mind, without this network, there would not be the sense that football is talked about every single day. There was no idea to do it. People didn’t think it would work. We showed that it can.”

Broken stopwatch: Despite big day, 4:19 game shows what’s wrong with baseball

Posted on by

I know I am going to get shouted down here for complaining after what was a big day for baseball. Dramatic homers; a no-hitter into the eighth; and Sandy Koufax hugging Clayton Kershaw.

But I’m diving in anyway. As good as Monday was, a 4-hour, 19-minute game that lasts only 9 innings underscores everything that is wrong with baseball.

Yes, Tampa Bay’s 5-4, not 15-14, victory over Boston broke my stopwatch. I mean, you’ve got to be trying really hard to play any slower. The finish might have been exciting, but getting there felt at times like a long slog through the Florida swamp.

It was the second 4-hour, 9-inning game in as many nights for baseball. Sunday, the Dodgers’ 13-6 victory over Atlanta stretched to 4:01.

I’m on a mission during the postseason to highlight the maddening slow pace of baseball. Check out my interview last week with Jim Kaat, the quick-pitch artist who also believes something needs to be done.

When I started to complain about the never-ending game last night on Twitter, several fans told me to shut up.

Tweeted back Chris Lake: “At this point no one cares about time of game… Great unpredictable ending…worth every second.”

Yes, but how many people got to “this point?” I wish Chris had been watching the game with my 18-year-old son. I wish Bud Selig and his crew also were with us.

Bored by the slow pace, my squirming son kept wanting me to switch to the football game. I can assure you many viewers in that key young demographic felt the same way. That’s the demo that is tuning out baseball.

By comparison to Tampa-Boston, the Dodgers’ 4-3 win over Atlanta felt brisk at 3:19, which still is too long. And did the St. Louis-Pittsburgh game really get done in 2:36? Now that’s the way it should be.

Too bad the St. Louis game will be an anomaly during the postseason, the rare finish under three hours. Heck, forget about three hours. At this rate, four hours might be the new standard.

I’ve got you on the clock, baseball. More to come.