Category Archives: Sherman Spotlight

Fox announce team for 2015 U.S. Open: Gus Johnson, Simon Cowell, Regis and Frank Caliendo as guess who?

Posted on by

So how is Fox Sports going to bring “a new and innovative” approach to golf, beginning with its first U.S. Open in 2015?

Don’t write in that Joe Buck will be manning the 18th tower just yet. Even though it is mostly about the U.S. Open, this is multi-tournament deal for Fox, covering several other USGA events. Fox needs to find its voice of golf, much like Jim Nantz, Dan Hicks and Mike Tirico.

I would expect Buck will have a role in the Open. Perhaps as a host like Bob Costas does for NBC.

Anyway, it is anyone’s guess at Fox’s opening lineup for 2015. Given that it is Fox, here are some possibilities.

Lead announcer: Gus Johnson. Hey Gus, forget about soccer and start brushing up on golf. Gotta have Gus at the Open. “IT’S IN THE HOLE…IT’S IN THE HOLE…AWOWOWOWOWOW…” Of course, that’s Johnson describing a tap-in for par.

Lead analyst: Simon Cowell. “That shot was horrible. The worst I’ve ever seen. What a choke. What a colossal choke.” Come to think of it, sounds a lot like Johnny Miller. Cowell also could fill the role of the British/Aussie/Irish voice that the networks need for golf.

17th Tower: Regis Philbin. “Where’s Jimmy Demaret? Has anyone seen Jimmy Demaret?”

16th Tower: Terry Bradshaw. “So you’re telling me the guy with the lower score wins? I still don’t get it.”

15th Tower: Tim McCarver. “In this situation, Mickelson wanted to hit the ball as close to the hole as possible…”

On-course reporter: Jay Glazer. “I just got off the phone with Brian Urlacher and can confirm that he is playing Medinah today.”

Jack Whitaker guy: Bill O’Reilly: Will be very popular with PGA Tour players; 98 percent of them lean to right.

Family Guy: Seth McFarlane: Hey, you take your chances when someone is willing to give you $100 million per year. However, might want to warn Tiger Woods in advance. Statute of limitations haven’t expired when it comes to racy jokes about his former life.

Chris Berman: Frank Caliendo. We can’t watch a U.S. Open without him, right? That’s Berman, of course. However, for many, Caliendo’s version might be more palatable

Special innovation: Glowing golf ball. Naturally.

*******

Matt Yoder at Awful Announcing has his view of Fox’s potential coverage. As for a mascot:

Digger!  What better way to reach out to golf fans than by including Fox’s lovable NASCAR rodent as an homage to Caddyshack.  Also, Fox will employ Jackie Mason as one of their hole announcers as an homage to Caddyshack II.

*******

If you have any suggestions, please feel free to contribute.

 

Is USGA saying NBC/ESPN are old-school when it comes to U.S. Open coverage?

Posted on by

Update: Scott Van Pelt had this tweet about USGA’s remarks:

The notion of ‘brand new” golf tv is funny. Like what, Glen? There’s only so much innovation. But 100M = 100M. Which is fine

******

You certainly could make that leap based on the statements coming from the United States Association in announcing the move of the U.S. Open to Fox Sports.

USGA president Glen Nager had this comment in the official release:

“This is an exciting and remarkable day for the USGA, as our partnership with the FOX Sports is a game-changer for our organization and for the game of golf,” said USGA President Glen D. Nager. “The game is evolving and requires bold and unique approaches on many levels, and FOX shares our vision to seek fresh thinking and innovative ideas to deliver championship golf. This partnership will help us to better lead and serve the game in new and exciting ways.”

And then there was this from Doug Ferguson’s story in the Associated Press:

USGA spokesman Joe Goode said in an email that signing with Fox was not a reflection on NBC or “simply the financials.”

“Rather the decision is consistent with our strategy for delivering golf in new and innovative ways, which can be achieved with a partner that has a completely fresh perspective on the game,” he said.

So NBC/ESPN were old and stodgy? Are you saying that those networks weren’t capable of “delivering golf in new and innovative ways?”

Forgive NBC and ESPN if they are a bit miffed today. They poured their heart and soul into televising the U.S. Open. NBC golf producer Tommy Roy has brought production of the Open and the game itself to new levels.

Sorry, but both NBC and ESPN deserved better here.

The reality is that this decision wasn’t based on innovation. Here’s what Nager should have said in the release:

“Can you believe Fox is willing to give us $100 friggin’ million dollars per year for essentially one tournament?”

All in all, considering this announcement also was made on the eve of the PGA Championship, it was poor form by USGA.

 

 

 

 

Return of Jay Mariotti: Launches own site that includes M-F radio show

Posted on by

He’s baaackkkkk.

After what he describes as a “much-needed” break that lasted three years, Jay Mariotti is jumping back in.

This morning, the former Chicago Sun-Times columnist and member of ESPN’s Around The Horn launched Mariottishow.com. In an email, Mariotti writes:

“We’re launching a national multimedia site that we think is innovative because it wraps my three-hour national daily radio show around a site of my 24/7 content — columns, short opinion hits, videos, audience interaction via Twitter and email, a travelogue of sports and restaurants and who knows what.”

Mariotti writes that he is teaming with Genesis Communications, a Florida company that is “paying me for the content and the show.” The Genesis site has six channels with programming, featuring numerous shows.

Day 1 for Mariotti’s new site has columns on Alex Rodriguez (“tragic”), Johnny Manziel (“crashing”), and the upcoming battle between ESPN and Fox Sports 1 (“LOL”). It also has a video comparing Michael Jordan and LeBron James (“please”). As usual, Mariotti has plenty to say.

The M-F radio show will begin Monday, running from noon-3 p.m. ET.

With a few exceptions, Mariotti has been mainly on the sidelines since a domestic violence incident with a woman in 2010. He lost gigs on Around The Horn and as lead columnist for AOL.

Mariotti writes that he has had discussions with several outlets, including ESPN and Fox Sports. Instead, he says he wants to be “fiercely independent,” building a personally-branded site that he hopes will include hiring other writers.

He writes:

“I should note I’ve had meetings with ESPN and Fox about joining their operations, and candidly, I think they’re too corporate, while they have their own opinions of me. Point being, I can’t be The Man if I’m working for The Man and The Man has a close business arrangement with the subjects of my commentaries.”

The above quote is part of an open letter to readers. It is 2,726 words, which will be 2,726 words more than many of his detractors will want to read from him.

Mariotti touches on his legal issues; what he has been doing with himself; his view of sports in 2013; and why his site is needed in the new media landscape.

Here are some of the highlights:

*********

Making the scene: I’m kind of bored in paradise. I’ve seen my sunsets in Santa Monica, eaten at every restaurant from Silver Lake to Malibu, spent nights on Abbot Kinney and Ocean Avenue, done the scenes and parties and museums, cruised my bike from Pacific Palisades to Palos Verdes, been to the Dodgers/Angels/Lakers/Clippers/Kings/USC/UCLA/Beckham. I’ve done the Hollywood Bowl. They got me to the Greek. I’ve chatted with Owen Wilson, talked sports with Pittsburgh homeboy Michael Keaton, viewed paintings by the Incubus singer at a gallery and watched the paparazzi harass poor Lohan in Venice. I’ve been to a holiday party in Orange County where President Obama’s face was a dartboard target. I stop everything when I see the Grilled Cheese Truck. I’ve been to Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Napa, Yountville, Santa Barbara, San Diego, La Jolla, Palm Springs, San Francisco, Carmel, Sausalito, Big Sur, Pebble Beach and the original In-N-Out Burger in Baldwin Park. I’ve done my California. Sharknado wasn’t real.

Time to work. With a portable studio — how I love 2013 — we’ll be doing the radio show from L.A., Florida, the Super Bowl, a Mexican bullfighting ring, anywhere and everywhere. I can’t wait to renew my fascination with the bigger planet.

********

His legal issues: While the Internet paves new avenues of media creativity, it also enables the irresponsibility of hacks. I know this too well, having come off a legal case filled with countless lies and accompanied by lazy, reckless, inaccurate, incomplete news coverage. As the father of two wonderful, successful daughters, I abhor domestic abuse and never have or would strike a woman. The hard lesson I’ve learned is not to let another person’s problems become mine and to be careful about my associations, particularly as a figure in the public eye.

********

The landscape: Fox ended up downsizing its digital effort into a silly-season site, featuring such nonsense as a National Enquirer report that Lindsey Vonn is worried Tiger Woods will sleep with his ex-wife. It’s a bizarre approach as Fox Sports 1 launches in an attempt to compete with the ESPN empire. Wouldn’t you want a strong news site to support your fledgling network? Consider it another example of why independent sites can thrive today. Other than ESPN.com, which is pumped with enough resources and care to remain the gold standard, and the New York Times, which has monetized an elaborate site and features a deep roster of skilled writers, the digital sports landscape is teetering.

Consider the estimable Yahoo Sports, filled with meaningful content but always dependent on the whims of whoever is running the company today. Or USA Today, which has committed to a revamped sports division but also is facing a clock in which profits must be turned. A lot of companies and entrepreneurs are investing in sports media, but too many sites are hiring inexperienced writers cheaply or aggregating news from other sites — what happened to competing instead of giving each other credit for shared story links? It’s still difficult to monetize news and commentary digitally, but by 2015, it’s estimated that 85 percent of media revenue will be digital-based. The sites positioned for advertising’s eventual full-blown shift to digital will succeed in the end.

******

And finally: Evolution is what’s fun about this business. The Mariotti Show is a site firmly planted in 2013 yet detached from the government-like climates of corporate media. I can tell the truth about any subject I want, anytime I want, and no one can summarily spike content because your boss is friendly with a commissioner or owner, your company is in business with a league or team, your newspaper has a comped suite at the ballpark or your network has a rights deal through 2082 with a major college conference.

Hope you enjoy our venture. I’m enjoying it already.

******

So will you enjoy it?

This is a man who once performed on the biggest platforms in sports media. Now he is looking to make a comeback, starting from if not the ground floor, a much, much lower floor.

Mariotti may be back, but he still has a long way to go.

More to come.

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 


 

Perception issue: Tribune ownership of Cubs primer for Red Sox’s Henry owning Boston Globe

Posted on by

In my latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center site at Indiana University, I look at what is in store for the Boston Globe sports staff in the wake of Red Sox owner John Henry purchasing the paper. I write from my experience at the Chicago Tribune during its ownership of the Cubs.

Here are some excerpts:

********

Upon hearing the news that Red Sox owner John Henry plans to buy the Boston Globe, I reflected back to the first time when I directly encountered the issue of the Tribune Co. owning the Cubs.

In the winter of 1987, as the Chicago Tribune’s beat writer for the White Sox, I joined manager Jim Fregosi and a few players for a caravan through Central Illinois. Nothing like Peoria in February.

Fregosi was doing a Q/A for a group when someone asked, “Why does the Tribune favor the Cubs over the White Sox?”

Fregosi, one of my all-time favorite guys in 32 years covering the sports, knew he had just been served a hanging slider. Turning in my direction, with a very mischievous grin on his face, he said, “Yes, Ed Sherman, tell us why the Tribune favors the Cubs over the Sox?”

Now Fregosi wasn’t trying to make a point; he never complained about the Trib’s coverage as it related to the Cubs. Rather, he enjoyed putting me on the spot and watching me squirm.

I tried to plead my case, saying the Tribune, not the Sun-Times, had made the trip on this cold winter night. I insisted there wasn’t any pro-Cubs bias in the sports department and the Sox got a fair shake in terms of coverage.

The Sox fans in Peoria didn’t want to hear it, responding to my response with a collection of non-believing groans. I’m fairly sure it made Fregosi’s night.

It was the first time I had to deal with the perception issue between the Tribune Co. and Cubs. And it wouldn’t be the last.

The sports staff of the Boston Globe is bracing for a new day when Henry officially takes over ownership of the paper. Several writers voiced their apprehension in an article that ran over the weekend in The New York Times.

“This was the last circumstance anyone would want,” said longtime column Bob Ryan, who still works as a contributor to the Globe. “It’s nothing anyone would wish. It’s scary, to say the least, for all involved.”

Indeed, it is difficult to think of a larger conflict of interest. Not even if the Mayor of Boston bought the Globe because the Red Sox are much bigger in the Hub. From this point forward, the Globe now will be covering the team owned by the paper’s owner.

Welcome to our world, Boston.

********

I worked as an associate sports editor for the Tribune during a period in the 90s. If anything, my recollection is that we almost bent over backwards to give the Sox better play over the Cubs at times.

When I would hear about a Cubs bias, I used to tell people that the Tribune sports desk had many more Sox fans than Cubs fans. I was among a South Sider legion that included Bob Vanderberg, who continues to write books about the Sox. We all have fond memories of Dan Moulton, a cranky but beloved character nearly popping a vein after a Sox reliever blew a save.

Yet despite my protestations, people always thought the Tribune was in the bag for the Cubs. The paper owned the team. Hence, whenever the Cubs won (rarely, I might add during the Tribune‘s main ownership tenure), the newsroom surely exploded in a chorus of  “Go, Cubs, Go…”

No matter what you say, people are going to believe what they want to believe. Perception easily was the biggest issue the Tribune sports staff encountered when it was the main owner of the Cubs.

The perception wasn’t just limited to fans. Malcolm Moran, director of the National Sports Journalism Center, recalled he had questions when he left The New York Times to join the Tribune during the 90s.

“When I started at the Tribune, I had to sign a series of documents, many of which related to ethical requirements,” Moran said.  “As I signed one after the other, I remember thinking, ‘You own the Cubs, and you’re telling me about ethics?’ There is a fine line between a conflict of interest and a perceived conflict, and both are dangerous. I never saw any evidence of favoritism. But I did wonder, in that tainted home run summer of 1998, whether the assignment of writing about Sammy Sosa’s hop was the result of a corporate agenda.”

*******

And there’s more. Here’s the link to the entire column.

 

 

Bob Ryan on Red Sox owner buying Boston Globe: ‘It’s scary for all’

Posted on by

Dan Shaughnessy had this opener to a notes column Saturday:

Picked-up pieces while reminding all of you that John Henry’s greatness has been vastly underappreciated.

Ah yes, it is a new day for Shaughnessy and the Boston Globe sports staff upon the news that Red Sox owner John Henry is buying the paper. And think about this: Henry spent more on signing on one player, Dustin Pedroia ($100 million), than he did to purchase one of the top publications in the country ($70 million). And unlike Pedroia’s contract, the Globe deal doesn’t expire in seven years.

If that isn’t a sobering statement about the state of newspapers, nothing is.

Naturally, Globe sports staffers aren’t thrilled about the situation. The New York Times’ Peter May got their reaction over the weekend.

“This was the last circumstance anyone would want,” Ryan said Saturday of Henry’s purchase of The Globe and other media properties from The New York Times Company for $70 million. “It’s nothing anyone would wish. It’s scary, to say the least, for all involved.”

This is what scares Ryan:

The team’s stunning collapse in September 2011 was followed by a Globe investigative piece by Bob Hohler, revealing that pitchers John Lackey, Josh Beckett and Jon Lester had been eating fried chicken and drinking beer in the clubhouse during games. Hohler also wrote that management had concerns that Francona’s deteriorating marriage and his use of painkillers may have affected his performance.

In a radio interview at the time, Henry said of the article, “It’s reprehensible that it was written about in the first place.”

Henry would now be in a position to kill such an article, which concerns Ryan, who retired from The Globe in 2012 but who has a verbal agreement to write up to 40 columns in 2013.

“Anyone in this situation has to look at it with a great deal of trepidation,” Ryan said. “It’s uncomfortable and it puts the Globe sports department, especially the Red Sox writers, in a potentially uncompromising position.”

Then there was this from Shaughnessy:

Dan Shaughnessy, The Globe’s lead sports columnist, has written critically about Henry since he became the principal owner of the Red Sox in 2002.

“There’s an inherent conflict of interest which no one can do anything about,” Shaughnessy said. “All we can hope for is that everyone is allowed to do his job professionally and that we are able to keep our independence.”

Shaughnessy and the former Red Sox manager Terry Francona wrote a book, “Francona: The Red Sox Years,” which detailed Francona’s ugly exit from the team after its collapse in September 2011. The book was highly critical of the Red Sox ownership group, and Shaughnessy said it was “not exactly a party-starter” for Henry.

Globe sports editor Joe Sullivan hopes it will be business as usual with the new owner:

“We don’t know what the new situation is going to be in terms of hierarchy, but I would hope to be able to continue to cover the Red Sox the way we always have, “ the sports editor, Joe Sullivan, said.

Good luck, Joe, Bob and Dan.

Check back for more of my views on this development. After all, I used to work at the Chicago Tribune, which to own majority interest in a certain baseball team.

 

 

 

Are that many people watching NASCAR? New Fox, NBC rights deals worth $8.2 billion

Posted on by

I debated whether to say this, and I know I am going to get ripped to shreds for saying it.

However, I have said stupid things before and will again. So here goes.

I don’t know anybody who watches NASCAR. Nobody. I never have had a friend or acquaintance say, “Did you see that race on Sunday?”

That’s why it is staggering to me that NASCAR’s new TV deals with NBC and Fox will be worth $8.2 billion. That $820 million per year, beginning in 2015.

Tripp Mickle and John Ourand of Sports Business Daily wrote yesterday about Fox Sports completing its deal:

Fox Sports and NASCAR closed a new $3.8B TV rights agreement that adds three Sprint Cup races, 14 Nationwide series races and two years to the deal the broadcaster cut with NASCAR last fall. The $3.8B price tag is $1.4B higher than Fox had agreed to pay through ’22. The deal pushes NASCAR’s total TV rights haul to more than $820M a year, a roughly 46% increase from the $560M it currently receives annually from Fox, Turner Sports and ESPN. Fox and NBC combined will pay $8.2B for NASCAR TV rights.

Again, if two networks would be willing to shell out $8.2 billion for a sport, you would think I would know at least one person who watches it on a regular basis. And I know a lot of people.

Now a large part of this is due to the fact that I live in Chicago. The town isn’t exactly a hotbed for NASCAR, even though the Chase for the Sprint Cup starts here with the Geico 400 in September. The race draws a big crowd. So obviously some people care.

I just don’t know them.

Obviously, my situation would be different if I lived in North Carolina or in the South. Then I wouldn’t be as stunned to see that two networks are willing to pay $8.2 billion to air NASCAR.

Still, it seems like a ton of money for a sport that basically has a regional following. It underscores the need for live programming on their cable outlets, NBC SN and Fox Sports 1.

Congratulations to NASCAR officials for their windfall. And if you think they did well, just wait until the NBA begins negotiations on its new TV packages, which run through the 2015-16 season. Should be off the charts.

Now I know people who watch the NBA.

 

 

 

 

Major TV crossroads for Cubs: Will they leave WGN? Will they get billion-dollar deal?

Posted on by

My latest Chicago Tribune column examines what the Cubs will do on the TV front. It will have major ramifications for the franchise. Non-Tribune subscribers can access via my Twitter feed.

From the column:

**********

Now that the Wrigley Field package has been approved, the Cubs can turn their attention to another deal that will have dramatic implications for the financial future of the franchise.

Negotiations are expected to heat up between the Cubs and WGN-Ch. 9. Technically, their pact runs through 2022, but the Cubs are exercising a clause to opt out after the 2014 season. At stake for the Cubs is a chance to cash in on exploding local TV rights fees. The Dodgers, Angels, Rangers and Mariners recently have signed long-term rights deals in the billions. Yes, billions.

By comparison, the current value of the Cubs package with WGN-Ch. 9, estimated at $20 million per year for 70 games, feels like utility infielder money. Some projections have the Cubs receiving as much as $80 million annually for those games. The team’s other games will be on CSN through at least 2019.

Yet before Chairman Tom Ricketts starts counting the additional TV cash, there are real questions about whether the Cubs are positioned to receive a windfall of their own; the possibility that WGN might end a relationship that dates back to 1948; and if the team will begin to lay the foundation for its own network.

Nobody from the Cubs or WGN is willing to comment, mainly because there are too many things to figure out.

“At this point, it is really complicated,” said a source close to the situation. “No option has been eliminated.”

Here are some of the issues:

•Still super? There is a provision in the contract that allows WGN to extend the Cubs rights by paying “fair market value.” However, that seems difficult to determine because there isn’t a comparable arrangement in baseball. The other recent deals were for cable, while WGN operates as a free, over-the-air signal in Chicago.

This relationship has defined both the Cubs and WGN. Everything, though, comes to an end.

There is speculation that WGN might go the route of TNT and TBS (which formerly aired Braves games) and become a complete national outlet featuring mainly entertainment programming.

“You could produce a lot of shows for $80 million (per year),” said one source familiar with the network’s stance.

Meanwhile, would the Cubs forsake the exposure of being in 75 million homes through WGN America? The superstation helped the Cubs make millions during the heyday of Harry Caray. However, a proliferation of Major League Baseball games available on various cable outlets has blunted the novelty of the Cubs going coast-to-coast.

Experts believe the Cubs would leave WGN if they could get more money elsewhere. Exposure won’t buy high-priced free agents.

•Leverage problem: The mega Dodgers deal ($7 billion over 25 years) stemmed from having multiple suitors. Time Warner eventually won a heated battle over Fox Sports’ regional station in Los Angeles.

A similar situation doesn’t appear to exist in Chicago. And don’t say: What about moving the WGN games to CSN? There’s no room at the inn at CSN, which has a full slate of White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks games. According to sources, the network isn’t interested in having more scheduling conflicts that would cause spillover games to air on CSN Plus, where they traditionally do much weaker ratings.

So where is the leverage for the Cubs here? There had been some speculation that Fox could become a player, airing games on WFLD-Ch. 32 and WPWR-Ch. 50. However, sources indicate the network hasn’t jumped into the fray yet.

Obviously, that could change, but for now, there appears to be only one network in the race. If that’s the case, what would compel WGN to give the Cubs a big rights increase?

•Cubs network: Forget about the recent sagging ratings. TV observers say the Cubs have enough of a fan base to follow the lead of the Yankees and Red Sox and start their own network.

“When they get good, their ratings are going to explode,” said a source.

The Cubs, though, can’t go on board with their own network until their CSN deal runs out in 2019. However, they could use this current negotiation to lay the foundation for a Cubs channel beginning in 2020.

 

Sports editors be on alert: ESPN could hire away your NFL writer; plans to have bloggers for every team

Posted on by

ESPN could rename itself the Raiders. At least when it comes to its latest initiative.

Queue the NFL Films music and Steve Sabol’s famous lines from The Autumn Wind:

He growls as he storms the country,

A villain big and bold.

And the trees all shake and quiver and quake,

As he robs them of their gold.

OK, perhaps that’s a big dramatic. However, you can sure a few sports editors feel as if they lost some of their gold, thanks to ESPN.

ESPN.com plans to have a blogger cover every NFL team this year. And where are they getting those bloggers? In many cases, they are beat writers and columnists from the major newspapers in those towns.

Almost on the hour it seems, there’s another announcement of reporters talking of making the jump.

Yesterday, there was this tweet from Jeff Legwold, now formerly of the Denver Post:

It’s official, I’m excited to join the already deep NFL roster at ESPN. I’ll cover the #Broncos so I don’t actually have to change seats…

Last week, Rob Demovsky, who spent 16 years at Green Bay Gazette, departed to cover the Packers for ESPN. After staying only a month, John Keim left the Washington Post to become ESPN’s Redskins insider.

Keim sent out this amusing tweet:

I’m telling people that Shirley Povich and I combined for 75 years (at the Post).

Yesterday, Rob King, ESPN’s senior vice president for content, digital & print media, told Andrew Beaujon of Poynter, of the plans for ESPN.com. All told 19 writers will be hired to go along with those ESPN already has in place.

From the post:

The idea is basically to give fans more content about the teams they obsess over, King said. ESPN.com Editor-in-Chief Patrick Stiegman looked at the site’s data for how much time users spent on the top 100 teams it covered. Of the 32 teams at the top of that list, 31 were NFL teams.

The Jacksonville Jaguars were the only NFL team that didn’t make that list, King said, but he said ESPN decided to cover all the teams anyway. Had ESPN made a selective foray into more intense local coverage last year — a move he said it considered — it might have skipped covering the Indianapolis Colts, he said. “We would have been absolutely wrong,” he said, citing Andrew Luck’s fantastic 2012 and coach Chuck Pagano’s battle with cancer. “Who’s to say they couldn’t have an incredible season?” King said of the Jaguars.

Here’s where it makes even more sense for ESPN.com. The individual team coverage will be available for free on the site. Meanwhile, many newspapers are behind a pay wall for their content.

From Poynter:

King said ESPN’s motivation is not eating dailies’ lunch; it’s more a matter of filling the “buckets of content” fans expect when they register with the site and say what their favorite teams are.

“We’re not doing that because we’re trying to compete or invade anybody’s market,” he said. “We just feel like the way we build stuff now drives us to getting to this level of coverage.”

Yeah but, those fans only have so much time to devote to reading about their teams. ESPN.com definitely will be looking to make inroads in those markets.

Meanwhile, if you’re a sports editor, it can’t be a good feeling to lose your beat writer or a key member of your staff for the local NFL team just before the start of the season.

And if ESPN.com hasn’t filled its spot for your local team, sports editors should be sure to keep their beat writers extra happy in the upcoming weeks.

 

 

 

 

Will he be good? Brian Urlacher to join Fox Sport 1 as analyst; Will Glazer help bring out best in him?

Posted on by

Update: Just wanted to add this thought.

Jay Glazer and Brian Urlacher are tight. The fact that Glazer will be part of the new Fox Sports 1 show definitely will provide a comfort level for the former Bears LB. I’m sure it influenced his decision to give TV a try.

Perhaps Glazer will push the right buttons to bring out best in Urlacher?

*******

Back in the spring, Brian Urlacher downplayed a move into broadcasting.

“I don’t know how good I’d be at that,” Urlacher told Chicago Tribune’s Vaughn McClure. “It would take a lot of work to get me ready for it. But that might be something I look into.”

Fox Sports 1 apparently thinks he has potential. The former Bears linebacker is going to land at Fox Sport 1. Big Lead filed the initial report last night, and Urlacher has confirmed it to the Tribune.

Urlacher will be part of the network’s new Fox Football Daily show that will air at 6 p.m. ET. He will join Curt Menefee, Jay Glazer, Ronde Barber and others.

Urlacher definitely won’t be as colorful as another recently retired linebacker great, Ray Lewis, who hooked up with ESPN. In Chicago, he did a Sunday night show on Fox 32 with Lou Canellis.

Urlacher generally was fairly stiff. Part of that could be due to having nothing left after playing a game. Part of that could be from being stiff.

His most memorable moment occurred last December when he jumped on the fans during his post-game Fox appearance.

“Our crowd was pretty good today for the most part. They were loud for a minute there, the boos were really loud, which is always nice,” Urlacher said. “The only team in our division that gets booed at home is us. It’s unbelievable to me.

“Believe it, don’t believe it, we don’t care. We’re going to go out there and play as hard as we can. The guys that are healthy will play and we’ll do the best we can.”

Fox Sports 1 hopes Urlacher will tap into some of that candor with his new gig.

 

 

 

 

 

Who is next in line? Personally branded sports sites could be the latest trend

Posted on by

In my latest column for National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana, I write about the new sites run by Peter King and Nate Silver and how you might be seeing more personally-branded sports sites on major outlets. You were the first, Bill Simmons.

From the column:

*********

It used to be you could entice a prominent writer to join your staff with an offer of a signature column. Of course, that now is as ancient as somebody shouting out “copy” in the newsroom.

How about a featured role in a TV show? Nice, to be sure, but that still seems so yesterday.

No, there’s a new trend occurring in the sports media landscape. If you really want to attract or keep that big-name star, create a personally branded website. Then to add some extra incentive, give that star complete control over editorial content and hiring for the site.

Call it the sports version of a studio allowing a big-name actor to direct and produce a movie.

ESPN actually started the trend by telling Bill Simmons to conceive and develop Grantland. Monday, Sports Illustrated unveiled Peter King’s new MMQB site which will have its own staff covering the NFL.

Then right on top of that, ESPN signed on Nate Silver and his popular FiveThirtyEight site Monday. Send in those resumes because Silver will be in a hiring mode to fill out his staff.

Obviously, it is a no-brainer for ESPN to exploit Silver’s massive web powerhouse. However, it is telling that Silver said the presence of Grantland helped entice him to choose ESPN over other offers. The template already was in place. Judging by Silver’s comments, Simmons likely recruited him.

“I would say also the importance of Grantland, a successful precedent, was very important for me,” Silver said. ”There were a lot of dimensions I thought about.  This decision took me a long time, but one of the pivotal ones was what I call execution, based on who can actually put this vision into practice, who can be a good partner.  Based on meeting John and Marie Donoghue and Ben Sherwood at ABC and Bill Simmons and David Cho, I have a lot of confidence that they’re going to do this the right way.”

Grantland also is the most-used comparison to King’s new site. Like Grantland, MMQB will be more about telling stories and offering insights rather than tick-tock, nuts-and-bolts coverage of the NFL. King isn’t even sure if his staff will cover games.

“What I like to do, and part of the excitement in this, is to bring people inside the NFL,” King said. “Access. If you look at what I’ve done at Sports Illustrated, that’s a big part of it.”

So what intrigued King about starting his own site at age 56?

“The ability to say this is what I would like to do and here are the people I would like to do it with,” King said. “This is an attempt to stay ahead of the curve and not get crushed by the curve.”

Indeed, if you go to the site’s home page, it clearly states at the top, “MMQB with Peter King.” If that isn’t cool for a lifelong sportswriter, what is?

*******

Check the link for more.