Category Archives: Sherman Spotlight

Hey Rovell, you need to get facts straight about Blackhawk rating for double OT game

Posted on by

Update: When the Hawks scored winning goal in OT, an estimated 843,000 homes in Chicago were watching.

Also, the game did a 37 share in Chicago. That means of the people who were watching TV last night, 37 percent–almost 2 out of 5–were tuned into the game.

Just adding a bit more “perspective” to Rovell’s tweet.

********

Among Darren Rovell’s blizzard of tweets Sunday was this one:

4 out of 5 people in the Chicagoland area did not watch the Blackhawks on TV last night.

The ESPN sports business reporter is a Twitter machine, sending a seemingly infinite stream of facts about his beat. This one, though, is totally out of context.

Restaurants were empty last night in Chicago because everyone was watching the double OT thriller. I should know. The place we went to (don’t get on me, previous commitment) usually is jammed on a Saturday night. But there were plenty of tables available.

Here’s the reason: Game 5 of the Chicago-Los Angeles series did a 19.6 local rating. That means an average of nearly 700,000 homes tuned in during the telecast.

And while I don’t have the exact number, I’m betting the local rating was deep into the 20s during the two overtimes. Those are numbers usually are reserved for the Bears in this town.

And let’s not forget, it was a Saturday night. I’m sure the bars were jammed with happy Blackhawks fans.

Furthermore, the 19.6 local rating was the highest for a non-Stanley Cup Final game in Chicago. Nationally, the game did a 2.9 overnight rating on NBC, the network’s highest ever for a conference final.

I’m not going to get into an analysis of how the ratings work, but those numbers are huge. To suggest nobody cared in Chicago is flat-out wrong.

C’mon Darren, you know better.

 

 

 

Q/A with Hub Arkush: On what happened to Pro Football Weekly; how brand still might return in some form

Posted on by

During its peak, Pro Football Weekly was a must-have for NFL fans. The Houston Chronicle’s Lance Zierlein summed it up in a nice tribute:

When it came to football information and updated news, nobody beat PFW for years. This was the one publication that lived and breathed football at every waking moment before there were so many outlets doing it. As a sports society, many fans transitioned from football to basketball to baseball (some to hockey) seamlessly, from season to season. The hardcore fans had a chance to follow football year-round thanks to PFW.

What made PFW cool to me back in the ’80s and ’90s was that they were able to give you an overview of the entire league, but they were still able to devote space to your own favorite team. They were unique in that way. You could get the macro and the micro view in that magazine and you always felt like you were getting info from true insiders.

Yet that was then. Yesterday in my Chicago Tribune column, I wrote about why Pro Football Weekly had to shut its doors last week. Here is more from the Q/A I did with Hub Arkush, the magazine’s editor and publisher.

What happened?

Our corporate parent (Gatehouse Media) saw us as an opportunity to experiment in new media. Something they could monetize with a popular subject that is the NFL. In 2010, they invested $2 million in the new media operation. We got everything you’re supposed to have for the next wave.

People loved everything we were doing. We were projected to have 750,000 mobile app users. We had 1.3 million. We were projected to have 150 million video views. We had 260 million. We tripled the traffic on our website.

The problem is, nobody wanted to pay for it. The initial projection was that we would get 40-60 percent in paid apps. Well, 98 percent were free. People will pay for games, but not content.

We wanted to charge 99 cents per month, or something like that. We found out that people don’t want their credit cards floating out there. We found tremendous resistance.

In video, we generated the same numbers all the big guys are trading on. You would think advertisers would line up. We sold 10 percent of what we were projected to sell.

How frustrating was it?

That’s the hard part of all this. We beat every projection in terms of content and delivery. These pay walls don’t work. Nobody wants to pay (for content).

What about the magazine?

In this marketplace, I don’t see how you can make it as a magazine. It isn’t just us. We’re no different than The Sporting News or Newsweek. The weekly print model doesn’t work.

What happens from here?

I have been contacted by people who are interested in putting together a group to purchase (the assets) and have some version of Pro Football Weekly. There is tremendous equity in the Pro Football Weekly brand. If there was a new version, it would have to be more of a daily news gathering operation.

When things get quiet in the next couple of weeks, we’ll try to figure out what comes next.

What about the legacy of the magazine?

I think about my dad (Arthur) every day. He graduated from DePaul, and even played for Ray Meyer. He went to the Sun-Times, where he was a crime reporter. (In the mid-60s), he saw the NFL merger was coming and that football was going to be popular. He had the vision. When he launched the magazine (in 1967), the only employee was his mother, Rose. She was a talented bookkeeper.

When he died in 1979, I was 25, and my brother, Dan, was 26. We had no idea what we were doing, but we knew it was a dream of his to do this. Dan and I both met our wives at Pro Football Weekly. I guess we broke the rule of not dating employees.

We did have some success. We had two principles. We believe in journalism. We believe you had to be right, honest, and fair. The second principle is that we were a family business. We wanted the readers to be part of that extended family. Whenever there was an issue that impacted the game, we approached it from the angle of what does this mean for the fans? What is best for them? I think that’s why the audience we had was as devoted as they were.

What has the past few months been like for you and your family?

It’s been a mixed bag. On the one hand, it’s been our entire family’s entire life. On the other hand, it has taken a tremendous toll on certain members of the family. It would be irresponsible not to take a step back and evaluate what we want to do.

The outpouring of support has surprised me. When you publish for 46 years, you reach hundreds of thousands in print and I suppose millions in broadcast. You don’t think about how many people are reading and listening when you’re doing it. You just hope you do it right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frank talk from Doris Burke on stereotypes for women in sports TV; ‘Better have thick skin’

Posted on by

Part 2:

I tell Doris Burke how much I admire her work.

She responds, “I appreciate you saying that. It isn’t unanimous.”

Indeed, it hasn’t been easy being a trailblazer in TV sports. As an analyst on NBA and men’s college basketball games, she has heard it all from various segments who object to a woman in that role.

Burke (link to her bio) also has faced questions from colleagues about whether she is hindering her analyst career by also being a sideline reporter, a job typically done by women.

In part two of my Q/A, Burke talked frankly about all of those subjects on the eve of serving as the sideline reporter for ABC’s coverage of the NBA Finals. In part one, she discussed the challenge of trying to do an in-game interview with Gregg Popovich.

How do you answer questions about  sideline reporters and the perceptions that those jobs go mainly to young, attractive women?

I was in a college classroom. We did a Q/A at the end of the session, and a couple of women said, “It’s ridiculous that (looks) are the only criteria they use to fill those jobs.”

My response is always the same. If you enter television, and you allow yourself to be bothered by the reasons you believe someone was hired, then you’re wasting energy. I tell young women who want to be in the business–in fact, I implore them–to be as professional as possible.

This is a visual medium. Are women evaluated differently than men? Is an attractive woman likely to get the job ahead of someone who is perceived as less attractive? Well, the answer is probably yes.

My whole thing in 23 years of being in this business is that I try to be prepared and professional as possible. I can’t worry about why this woman may have gotten the job and I didn’t. You just keep plugging. The reality is, if you don’t have a thick skin, this is going to be a tough business for you.

How do you respond to criticisms about your work?

I so appreciate you saying you think well of my work. It’s not unanimous. Opinions about announcers are very subjective. I get blown up on social media all the time. “She’s ugly.” What’s a woman doing the NBA?” “She has no credibility.”

It’s the nature of it. People will like you or hate you. If you allow that to bother, boy…

My kids get more upset about it than I do.

Really, you’re telling me the criticism and cheap shots don’t bother you?

I’m not going to sit here and tell you it doesn’t hurt. We all want to be well liked. We all want to be thought of as exceptional on the job.

Does it hurt? Of course it does. But it can’t have an impact when you go to do a job.

How do you like being an analyst compared to a sideline reporter?

Yeah, it’s an entirely different job. I have come over the course of time to appreciate the value of the sideline role. I grew up in the business as an analyst. Obviously on much lesser games, but that was my background. I was not a communications major. My strength always was breaking down the game. So I had to learn a few things when I was asked to do sideline work.

The first person I called was Al Trautwig. He gave me the best piece of advice. I have to remember it sometimes. He said, ‘There are going to be days when you get off the air as a sideline reporter, and you’re going to feel like you were an integral part of that telecast. In fact, you helped raise its level.’ He said, ‘There are going to be far many more nights when you get off the air and you say, ‘They just paid me do to that?'”

You have to be willing to sit there and know you researched and worked as hard as the play-by-play and color man, and you’re not going to get 90 percent of your content in. You have to be OK with it.

My preference is to be the analyst. You have far more input. You’re so much more engaged.

But the day I worked the Celtics game as a sideline reporter and Rajon Rondo tore his ACL, I had all this information and I was on all the time. That’s the nature of this assignment.

Given your work as analyst, do you come in with a level of credibility that might be higher than other sideline reporters?

I don’t know about that. I have had colleagues who have asked whether I should keep being a sideline reporter. They have questioned whether that hurts my credibility. I recently asked Jeff Van Gundy about this. I said, “I don’t think it does, but do you think it does?” He said, “Absolutely not. No way.”

Do your colleagues think you’re getting pigeon-holed as a sideline reporter?

Perhaps. I think that’s their suggestion.

Both jobs require some level of relationship of the people you’re covering. So the more Tony Parker sees me on NBA coverage in either role, he’s more familiar with the job that I do. As long as I am completely professional in both jobs, I think it helps me in the long run.

And finally, Burke talked about her roots in the business.

I’ll be honest, I was a good player at Providence College. I was an All-Big East player at a time (when the conference) wasn’t as powerful as it is today. I think it would be a lot more difficult for me to get in the business now. I was not an All-American. I was not the face of my sport, so to speak. I think those that are better known have a better chance of getting these jobs today.

I entered the business at a time (1991) when women’s basketball coverage was exploding. I had patient people who helped me overcome my mistakes and teach me along the way. I always will be indebted to Madison Square Garden. They taught me TV.

My timing was great. I feel fortunate for the opportunities I’ve gotten.

 

 

 

 

 

Q/A with Doris Burke: Her ‘angst’ at dealing with Gregg Popovich; Admires coach despite ‘turnovers’ moments

Posted on by

A man approached Doris Burke while she was taking a tour of St. Jude Hospital in Memphis during the Western Conference Finals.

“This gentleman said, ‘(The in-game interview with) Gregg Popovich is my favorite part of the game,” Burke said. “I said, ‘I’m glad you’re enjoying it.'”

For Burke, it always is a thrill ride with a distinct possibility of a crash landing. And guess what? Burke will get another full dose of the San Antonio coach during ABC’s coverage of the upcoming NBA Finals. She will be in her usual role as sideline reporter.

There will be no turning away when it comes time for Popovich’s in-game interviews. Not after a now infamous exchange between Burke and Popovich during the Western Finals. Popovich tersely said “turnovers” twice in response to Burke’s questions.

The interview received quite a bit of attention, and Popovich was roundly criticized. Not that it matters to him.

However, it does matter to Burke. She is one of the best sideline reporters in the business with her direct questions and observations about basketball.

In the first of a two-part interview, Burke discusses her in-game experiences and relationship with Popovich; dealing with LeBron James; and the value of the in-game interview.

How do you approach an NBA Finals that you know includes Greg Popovich?

There’s no coach in the league, including Phil Jackson when he was in the league, where I feel more angst for the (in-game interview) than Gregg Popovich. Do I go into the finals with the idea in the back of my head that seven more times at the end of the quarter I have to interview him? You bet you I do. There’s no question about it.

I try very hard not to take his reactions personally. I’ll be honest with you. It is not easy.

What is your relationship with him?

He makes it clear in every conversation we have how much respect he has for me.

Gregg Popovich is one of my favorite coaches in the league in terms of his approach and what he stands for. I’ll give you a contrast when it comes to me and Gregg Popovich. He’s responsible for one of the greatest moments of my career. And one of my worst.

The worst was the first time I had to interview him for his in-game interview. Keep in mind, I have great admiration for him. Instead of just asking him a simple question, I tried to be smart. In doing so, I think the final line, the lead-in to my question was, “What was the problem with your defense?”

Well, he crossed his arms, he got the scariest smile on his face I’ve ever seen, his face got a little red. I really do not have any recollection what he said. When I went back to my seat, the producer came in my ear and said, ‘Doris, do you mind if we don’t run it?’ I said, ‘Thank you for not humiliating me.’ It literally was that bad.

Well, fast forward three years and I’m doing the color analyst work. A different job. We go to his office during the pregame. Some subject came up, and he looked directly at me, ‘Doris, you’re a basketball person. You know what I’m talking about.’ He wouldn’t remember it, but for me, a woman doing that job, he’ll never have any idea how much that meant to me. And how much confidence that gave me.

Has he ever told you how much he doesn’t like doing the in-game interview?

Well, it’s blatantly obvious how much he objects to it. He wants to be in the huddle with his team. It’s not optional for him. Unfortunately for the sideline reporters, it’s not optional for us either. If he doesn’t want to do it, he has to effort that kind of change with the league. We’re going in whether he wants to do it or not.

I think he has a great feel for human beings. He could sense if you’re less than secure. Or he could sense if the person asking the question is making it about (the interviewer) and as opposed to being about the game.

My worry is how he comes across to the viewing public. The one-word answer isn’t the true representation of Gregg Popovich, the man. In fact, it’s 180-degrees from the man.

You mentioned Phil Jackson as someone who also caused you “angst.” How so?

When the in-game interview first was instituted, so many coaches objected to doing it. They made it clear by the brevity of their answer or their tone of their answer, or their body language.

Phil is like Gregg Popovich. If you come with a question he doesn’t feel is appropriate, he will not hide his displeasure.

Who are the players and coaches who get it?

When Indiana upset the Knicks, David West in the post-game interview, gave me two well-thought, interesting responses. I don’t remember specifically what he said, but as he was leaving the court, I made a point of saying to him, “David, I so appreciate you taking the time to think about my question.” It was that good.

Doc Rivers is tremendous. If he’s angry, he’s going to let you know. He’s going to lay it on the line.

How about LeBron James?

I give him a lot of credit. He’s the big star and he has to answer questions after every game. It’s basketball. You can’t reinvent the wheel, and there’s only so many ways you can ask a question.

After the Heat won last year, I asked him, ‘Put this championship in perspective in light of everything you’ve gone through.’ I don’t have the exact quote, but it was excellent.

He is another very thoughtful guy. He tries to respond to the question that is asked as opposed to going in the direction he wants to go in.

How do you feel about the purpose of the in-game interviews?

I don’t think my feelings are necessarily important. There are times where we get great answers. What the percentage is relative to poor answers or pat answers, I don’t know. I will say this: I know that ESPN is very proactive in terms of focus groups. They are constantly asking viewers about what they like and don’t like. My sense is the in-game interviews get some positive feedback. Otherwise, they would serve no purpose.

The fans want to hear from the coaches, from the players. The only thing I’m trying to do when I ask a question is, “What would I be curious about if I was watching the game at home?”

As difficult as it was when Popovich said, ‘Turnovers, turnovers’ to me, I got three different texts from people in the business who said, ‘It is must-see TV.’ They understand the kind of reaction Popovich is going to have, and for them, it is entertaining content.

Part 2: On whether being a sideline reporter hurts Burke’s credibility as an analyst?

 

 

Sunday’s books: Q/A with Robert Weintraub, author of ‘Victory Season’; Baseball after WWII in 1946

Posted on by

Some baseball seasons stand out more than others. It’s hard to beat the significance of 1946.

In an excellent new book, The Victory Season, Robert Weintraub (author of House that Ruth Built) looks at the country struggling to regain some normalcy after the end of World War II. For baseball, it marked the return of its stars, many of whom came back as changed men after seeing action in combat.

The 1946 season had no shortage of storylines with Ted Williams and Stan Musial ultimately leading their teams to the World Series. Meanwhile, a young kid named Jackie Robinson played that season for Brooklyn’s top farm team in Montreal, setting the stage for what would take place in 1947.

Here is my Q/A with Weintraub:

How did you come up with the idea for this book?

Combining WWII and baseball seemed like a natural–two great tastes that go great together, at least in terms of books.  More intriguing than MLB during the war was what became of the players when they left for the service, and even more so, what happened when they came back.

What was the impact of the War on players returning to the game?

It differed from person to person, of course, but in the main they certainly got some perspective (a dreaded cliche but in this case it’s true).  Bob Feller said he felt little pressure pitching in Yankee Stadium after being fighting across the Pacific on a battleship for several years.  Warren Spahn was a pitcher who was his own worst enemy before the war, but after “sleeping in tank treads” he realized baseball meant little in the greater scheme of things, relaxed mightily, and went on to a Hall of Fame career.  On the other hand, there were players like Joe DiMaggio who mainly spent the war tabulating how much money they were losing out on.

The Mexican League made a serious bid to lure players, including Musial. How serious was the threat to MLB?

The Mexican League in and of itself was not much of a threat, because playing conditions were so poor.  But the threat of an outsider exposing the game’s inherent indentured servitude was a major scare to the owners.  A secret report issued in 1946 essentially admitted that the Reserve Clause, the part of the standard player contract that bound player to team, would never hold up in court if seriously challenged, as the Mexicans threatened to do.  In large part the Mexican threat prodded ownership to make some concessions to the players, though they managed to keep the Reserve Clause in place and their grip on the levers of power firm for another couple of generations.

Obviously, there was no shortage of storylines. What stood out for you?

Certainly the incredible story of the European Theater of Operations “World Series,” a baseball tournament played by American servicemen in the conquered spiritual home of Nazism, the Hitler Youth Stadium in Nuremburg, Germany.  Even more amazing than the spectacle of 50,000 American soldiers watching baseball being played right where Hitler used to scream out his hate was the fact that the winning team, a unit based in France, actually featured Negro League players.  It was an out of town preview of Jackie Robinson’s coming debut, and a successful one at that.

How much was the country aware of what was going on with Robinson in Montreal?

He was heavily covered at first, then sort of forgotten about as the country turned its attention to the big leagues, then covered heavily once again as the Montreal Royals won the minor league championship and everyone wondered if Jackie would get called up to Brooklyn to put them over the top in the pennant race.  Obviously once he cracked the majors the following season he was thrust into the nation’s consciousness more thoroughly.

What struck you about Williams and Musial? They were strikingly different personalities.

No question–Ted was essentially an artist, and thus tempestuous and short with anything that kept him from his canvas.  Stan was personable, chatty with strangers, and a beloved teammate.  The interesting thing I found was that at the time, Musial was considered the greater all-around player–perhaps not the hitter Williams was, but better in every other phase of the game.  But after they retired, Williams gained currency from his war service (Korea as well as WWII) and his bluff, Marlboro Man appeal.  As greatness on the field was increasingly tied, in the public and literary mind, at least, to an irascible if not downright angry personality, Williams’ flaws were recast as necessities to his brilliance.

Musial was great, but since he wasn’t nearly as tortured, it was easy to overlook him.  Plus, the deification of the military and veterans helped Ted mightily.  Williams was an ace pilot–Musial drove a water taxi at Pearl Harbor during the war.  As I put it in the book, Williams was Chuck Yeager; Musial merely Chuck Taylor.

Looking back, how important was that season in the history of baseball?

Very important–you had the first playoff series to decide a pennant, Country Slaughter’s “Mad Dash” to cap one of the game’s most dramatic World series ever, plus Robinson’s debut, the Mexican threat, the first glimmering of labor strife, and pretty much everything that would come to define baseball–and sports in general–getting its post-war beginnings.  An alternative title to the book was “Baseball Year Zero”–because everything that had come before, pre-war, was pretty much left aside as modernity hit the game.

Anything else?

I would only add that a very interesting part of the story is the difficulty the US had in adjusting to the immediate post-war environment.  The influx of millions of servicemen and women made life in America very difficult in 1946.  Labor strife abounded, there were massive shortages in housing, transport, and basic goods, a large black market thrived, and the threat of both a renewed depression and another war, this time with the Soviets, loomed over most people’s daily lives.  Baseball proved to be a great outlet for millions of people who craved a return to normalcy but were denied it that summer.

My First Job: ESPN’s Vince Doria had quite 3-man staff in Ashtabula, Ohio

Posted on by

I recently ran into Owen Youngman, one of my former bosses at the Chicago Tribune. It reminded me I had yet to post Vince Doria’s entry in the My First Job series.

Doria has enjoyed an illustrious career. He was the sports editor of the Boston Globe in the 1980s, when the section hummed with big names like Will McDonough, Peter Gammons and Bob Ryan. He served as a top editor at The National and ultimately landed at ESPN, where he now is senior vice-president and director of news.

Yet as is the case with virtually everyone else, it started humbly for Doria. Back in the early 70s, he was the sports editor of the Ashtabula (Ohio) Star-Beacon.

It turns out his small fledgling staff included the young Youngman brothers: Owen, who went on to become at top editor at the Tribune; and Randy, the long-time sports columnist for the Orange County Register.

Here is the latest edition of My First Job:

*********

I was just out of school at Ohio State and planned on going to law school. I was working part-time for the Columbus morning paper. I walked in a fraternity house and this guy has a want ad. It was for a job as sports editor in Ashtabula. I said this might be a lark for six months before I go to law school.

I’m not expecting much at that paper. One of my staffers was this kid who still was in high school. Owen Youngman. He’s keeping statistics. He’s got this matrix for the high school tennis team.

His brother Randy was writing for the paper. Both went on to do some pretty good things in the business. We had a great sports section, unlike anything ever seen in Ashtabula, nor seen since.

The sports editor did everything. You wrote columns, you covered games. You laid out the paper. You edited all the material. The paper was very sports oriented. We ran all these big tournaments; golf, tennis, etc..

If you were the sports editor, you also ran all of those tournaments. On a typical day of a tournament, you’d come in at 6 in the morning and put the paper together. It would go to print at 10. Then you would go out and run the tournament. It would go all friggin’ day until 7-8. Guys would be drunk, everything else. Then you’d come back in and write up the whole thing.

They also had a wire service. After writing the story, you had to put it out on this old teletype machine that looked like it was leftover from WWII. Now it’s about midnight. We’re in there, and Owen and Randy and I have all these tennis balls. Nobody goes home. We’re throwing tennis balls all over the place.

I tell Owen, ‘I bet you when they took that press out, they found some tennis balls.’

I got to do everything. As much as the writing aspect, the ability to lay it all out was a terrific experience. I went from there to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

We had a great time in Ashtabula. By the way, there was an 8-year kid who lived down the street: Urban Meyer.

 

 

Sunday books: Striking portraits of old Comiskey Park; must buy for White Sox fans

Posted on by

I truly can say I grew up at old Comiskey Park.

My father gave me my introduction to baseball there in the late 60s. A North Side Sox fan, my friends and I took the train to the South Side to watch games in the 70s, a time when that really wasn’t done.

Then as a vendor during my college years, I logged countless miles walking up and down the stairs trying to sell my stuff.

My professional career was kicked started as the Sox beat writer for the Chicago Tribune from 1986-88. Finally, it came full circle when my father and I attended Comiskey Park’s finale in 1990.

So naturally a new book, Portraits From The Park, really hits home for me. It also will for fellow Sox fans who still have fond memories of the old place.

Published by Columbia College Press, the book features vintage photos by Thomas W. Harney. Beginning in 1973, Harney, whose family had deep roots as long-time Sox fans, began to take pictures at old Comiskey. He continued to the day it closed on Sept. 30, 1990.

However, you won’t see baseball action photos or player portraits in the book. This is about the people who gave Comiskey its soul: The fans. They rocked the place on hot summer nights. As Harry Caray would say in ’70s, “Listen to the crowd.”

The shots are phenomenal. They underscore the passion and grit that defined Sox fans compared to the wine and cheese Cubs fans. At least back then.

The photos also provide wonderful perspectives that will remind veteran Sox fans of the views from the old park: The picnic area in left field; the faraway centerfield bleachers; the old upperdeck that hung over the field; walking in from 35th and Shields. I remember it like it was yesterday.

Harney’s work is presented in black-and-white. That’s as it should be. It allows the shadows to be highlighted in a way that would be ruined by color.

The photos also show the rough edges of old Comiskey Park. Paint was peeling and the seats looked old and worn out. Alas, it wasn’t a museum piece like Wrigley Field, and it was time to say farewell in 1990.

Yet Harney’s photos will remind Sox fans of what they once were like and what they once had at old Comiskey Park. It was a special place. It was our place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maddening: Too many two-day gaps in NHL, NBA playoffs

Posted on by

I really don’t understand it. The NHL compressed its season to jam in 48 games. The schedule required players to play several back-to-backs.

Then the playoffs roll around, and the pace is reduced to a leisurely stroll.

Take the Chicago-Detroit series. After Game 1 on Wednesday, May 18, there was a two-day break until Game 2 on Saturday. Then after playing Game 3 on Monday, there is another two-day break until Game 4 tonight.

The Pittsburgh-Ottawa series already has had two 2-day breaks. Boston-New York Rangers had two days off between Games 1 and 2 last week.

If you think that is bad, after playing Game 2 on Tuesday night, the San Antonio-Memphis series has a three-day break until Game 3 on Saturday in Memphis.

What’s the reason for all this? Of course, television.

(Note: In the case of Chicago-Detroit, Game 2 had to be pushed to Saturday because of the possibility of a Game 6 in the Chicago-Miami series that would have been Friday night in the United Center.)

The networks are trying to package these series so they can maximize ratings. That means spreading them out to minimize multiple games on the same day.

However, the long gaps interrupt the flow of these series for fans. I don’t know about you, but it annoys me to have to wait two or three days between games.

I also think the gaps provide a competitive advantage for older, veteran teams who can benefit from the extra days of recovery. I’m sure Tim Duncan and the Spurs aren’t complaining.

At least the NBA is ahead of the NHL. Thanks to the lockout, there’s a long way to go before anyone lifts the Stanley Cup.

You would think there would have been a greater sense of urgency to accelerate the NHL playoffs for an earlier finish. The finals now could extend into late June. Really, will anyone care by then?

 

Rudy’s back! At least here: Martzke still critiquing telecasts; hopes TV Sports column continues at USA Today

Posted on by

For more than two decades, Mondays meant turning to Rudy Martzke’s weekend reviews in USA Today. So it seems right that this interview should run only on a Monday.

For months, I had Martzke on my list of story ideas. I finally decided to get it done after I did a Q/A last week with Martzke’s replacement, Michael Hiestand, who recently took the buyout from USA Today.

Histand said: “The first thing I think about with Rudy is that whenever I talked to someone in the business, they all felt like they had to tell me a Rudy Martzke story.

Indeed, there will never be another Rudy Martzke in our business, both in terms of personality and for the power of his TV Sports column. Especially on Mondays, when Martzke reviewed the weekend coverage. A harsh critique could ruins a broadcaster’s or an executive’s week. Heaven forbid someone should get a “Dreaded Glitch Award.”

In 2000, John Walters wrote about him in Sports Illustrated:

While it may be argued that Rudy Martzke is to journalism what Rudy Ruettiger was to football, there is no denying that his Sports on TV column has influenced the fate of many a talking head. “Network executives, every one of them, don’t breathe until they read him in the morning,” says CBS college basketball analyst Billy Packer. “They’ll never admit it, though.”

Readers couldn’t get enough. They still ranked Martzke as their favorite columnist in USA Today years after he left the paper in April, 2005.

Martzke, 70, now lives with his wife in a retirement community in Florida. When I talked to him last week, he just came off the golf course, where he shot a 90, “two strokes better than my handicap.”

Martzke still has his hand in the business, doing some consulting work. And yes, he still watches TV sports with a critical eye. Who knows? Maybe he’ll even publish his thoughts again one day. I offered him the opportunity to vent at Sherman Report. Everyone should consider themselves warned.

Here is my Q/A:

So what is Rudy Martzke doing these days besides playing golf?

When I retired from USA Today, I had some entities that asked me to do some consulting for them. I did some work for the Pro Bull Riders Association. I watched some of their show and gave them reviews. What they did well; what they didn’t do well.

I do some work for a sports agent agency. I’ll recommend some announcers for them.

I’ve got a card that says, ‘Martzke Consulting: Media and Marketing.’ I put in a few hours a week, not a lot.

Why did you decide to retire in 2005?

I did the column for 23 years. I enjoyed it immensely, but I worked it quite hard. For a while, I wrote it five days a week. We only came out five days a week. I always was on call. People would call me with tips and I always wanted to get the scoop.

One day, I called human resources. I asked, ‘What would my pension be?’ They said it would be this much. I’ll say this, it was pretty surprising. I said, ‘OK, I think I’ll retire.’

I thought it was time.

How did it feel? Did you suffer through any withdrawal?

Yeah, there was somewhat of a withdrawal. But there also was a sense of relief at deadline time.

My day used to start at 9 a.m. I’d get on the phone and call all the PR folks. I always checked in with everyone every day.

One time, I put in a call to Mike Tirico. I finally got a call back. We’re talking and I hear a whoosh. I said, ‘Mike, are you playing golf?’ He said, ‘Yeah.’ I said, ‘Mike, are you in the rough?’ He said, ‘Yeah.’

How did it feel to have all that power while you were doing the column?

In 2000, Danny Sheridan and Mike Gottfried organized a roast for me in Mississippi. It was for charity. Tim Brando was the MC, guys like Cris Collinsworth, Lee Corso, Randy Cross, Brent Musburger, Billy Packer were there.

Corso got up and said, ‘We’re all here because we’re afraid of the little SOB.’

I didn’t expect any of this. I just enjoyed being home and watching sports on TV during the weekends. I started writing about the good and bad I saw. I had pet things like ‘Dread glitch’ and ‘Say what?’ It just took off.

I had people tell me if they made a mistake, they hoped I wasn’t watching.

How do watch sports on TV now. Do you still critique things?

Yes, I still do. I’ll wince if I see something I don’t like. I also like it when someone gets off a good line or there’s a good production angle.

I can’t watch sports on TV without watching it like I used to. I guess there’s something in my system.

Who do you like now?

There are a lot of new people coming up. It’s great to see. However, during the last Sports Emmys, who were the guys getting the big nominations? Al Michaels, Bob Costas, Jim Nantz. Those were the top guys when I left.

I took a lot of pride in touting guys before others did. One of them was Cris Collinsworth. I knew he was going to be good. Now he’s the top NFL analyst.

Another guy I caught in his infancy was Dick Vitale. I remember one time early on, we were driving. He was complaining (starts to imitate Vitale), ‘Rudy, I don’t know if I can make enough money in this business.’

I said, ‘Dick, you’re good. Just keep at it.’

Sure enough, the guy now is making millions.

What strikes you now about the business?

You look at what has happened to newspapers. There have been a lot of changes and a lot of people have lost jobs.

My feeling is that there always will be room for newspapers as long as they move with the times. It took longer than it should have, but a lot of them have caught on.

You covered rights fees for a long time. Do the massive right fees astound you?

Yeah, it does astound me, but at the same time, it shouldn’t. I remember when negotiations would begin, the networks would say, ‘There’s no way they are getting that kind of money.’ They always would.

Sports is the dominant force for the networks. It’s going to be that way for a long time.

Do you spend much time reading what’s out there on the Internet?

No, not really. I’ll read the Sherman Report (thanks, Rudy).

I just don’t read a lot of media stuff. I’m involved in a lot of fantasy sports leagues. So I stay up on that. We travel a lot. So I read a lot of newspapers when I’m on the road.

Do you know there is a Twitter account in your name? It started as @FakeRudyMartzke, but now it is @RudyMartzke2013.

Yes, my son told me about it. At first, I thought, ‘He’s trying to copy me.’ Then people told me it’s almost like a badge of honor.

I’ve got no complaints with it. It’s a compliment that someone still remembers me.

Hiestand has departed at USA Today. The sports media column has been a staple at the paper. What do you think they will do?

I was very pleased Michael came in and was successful at it. I’m proud of the tradition of the TV Sports column at USA Today.

Early on, I remember once I was in on a Sunday, and the sports editor said, ‘We have no room for your column on Monday.’ Later on, the sports editor called me in. He said Gannett did a survey, and it showed my column was the most read thing in the paper after the weather page. So I was in every Monday after that.

I would hope USA Today continues the column at some stage. If there are stories involving network TV and broadcasting, somebody should write it.

Rudy, it’s been great catching up. If you ever get the itch to vent about something, my space always is available to you at Sherman Report.

Thanks. I might take you up on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q/A with Sports Illustrated editors: Clearing air about vision for magazine, SI.com

Posted on by

Last year, Chris Stone was sitting at a Starbucks in Manhattan. At the table behind him, there were two ESPN sales people.

Obviously, they had no idea that the managing editor for Sports Illustrated was within earshot.

“They were discussing strategy for a meeting,” Stone said. “I remember one of them was hammering home this point. He said, ‘You have to let them know, ‘ESPN is about what is going to happen next. Sports Illustrated is about what already happened.'”

Stone said with more than a bit of disgust. “I’m thinking to myself, ‘They’re still rolling out this lazy trope?'”

Yes, they are, and it isn’t just those sales people. Last month, in an interview with me, ESPN editor Chad Millman said virtually the same thing.

“We have two different approaches,” Millman said. “They often cover what just happened. We cover what’s going to happen.”

Stone said he didn’t want to engage in a debate with Millman, who served a stint at Sports Illustrated. But Stone did say, “I don’t buy that for a second.”

Indeed, there is an evolution taking place at Sports Illustrated. It was underscored in how they rolled out their recent scoop on the Jason Collins story.

The magazine told the story with an impressive cover package that featured Collins’ first-person piece and S.L. Price weighing in with an analysis of the social significance.

The rollout, though, occurred at SI.com on Monday morning of that week before the magazine had even hit the presses.

Tearing down the walls between the magazine and digital is the mission for Paul Fichtenbaum, who took over as the editor of the Time Inc. Sports Group last fall, and Stone, who was named the magazine’s managing editor.

During a lunch last week in Manhattan, Fichtenbaum and Stone talked about the Collins story and how it relates to the vision for the entire SI enterprise.

When did you first learn about the possibility that you might have the Collins story?

Stone: It came to us on Easter morning. Franz Lidz called and said, ‘Would you be interested in a story about an active athlete coming out.’ Ah, yeah.

Franz (and executive editor Jon Wertheim) flew out to California on Wednesday April 24 still not knowing the identity of the player. There still was a chance he could back out.

But the negotiations were very smooth. There were no conditions. They never even asked to see the cover. Franz came up with the idea of running Jason’s story in first person. It was his story, not our story.

After the interview, Jon called and said, ‘I can’t think of a more perfect individual to do this.’ I knew we had a story that exceeded all of my highest expectations.

Sports Illustrated has broken many stories through the years. However, this one was bigger than most. What did it mean to SI?

Fichtenbaum: It’s really important and reaffirming to the brand. We’ve been an iconic brand for almost 60 years. We’re a trusted outlet. It means a lot to us that Jason trusted us to present his story in a responsible and meaningful way.

Why did you decide to break the story on SI.com as opposed to waiting until the magazine came out?

Fichtenbaum: We knew it was a very important story. How do we use our best resources to tell it? We knew it was a story we had to get out right away.

One of my favorite parts of the whole rollout was (on that Monday morning). How were we going to present this story on the website? When I got over there, I saw Chris and (executive editor) Jon Wertheim already were talking to the producer. It was sort of a eureka moment for me. I was proud to see how the best of both worlds put their heads together to present this story in the right way.

What is happening on the digital front with SI?

Fichtenbaum: It’s an identity we’re forging. How do we create one work force where the best of the magazine and the best of the website work together for one goal?

A couple years ago, there was a no-hitter, or something like that. In a span of three days, we had five different pieces about that one game. We weren’t an integrated unit. Editors were assigning stories to different people without knowing what other people were doing.

That doesn’t happen now. We’re tearing down the walls to make sure everyone is in line. We do things in unison. The website is a magazine and the magazine is a website.

The biggest change is that your writers no longer write once a week for the magazine. Now they are reporting regularly on SI.com. How is that working out?

Stone: If Ohio State plays Michigan on a Saturday, and our writer turns in his story, why should the reader have to wait five days to read that story?

For all these writers, it’s in their metabolism to do this. They’re not learning a new skill. They are reacquainting themselves with an old skill. There’s incredible value in this for us.

We don’t think of someone as he’s a website guy or a magazine guy anymore. Those distinctions are going to diminish over time and we’re better off for it.

Fichtenbaum: We know from our research, readers want our takes from our writers. It goes back to the trust factor. It’s all about access and knowledge. Our writers have it and our readers want it.

It’s pretty good if Tom Verducci is writing off a no-hitter or a special event, or if Lee Jenkins is writing off (an NBA playoff game). If you read that coming in on the train, you come away saying, ‘I found out what I needed to know.’

What about the magazine?

Stone: What we’re doing is we’re taking those live stories which once appeared in the magazine and by putting them on-line, they have that distinctive SI stamp. We’re turning the magazine into something else. With the exception of a few very big events (Super Bowl, Master, etc.), we’ve gotten away from that type of coverage completely. We’re giving you a differentiated longform experience.

We want every story to be different than anything else you’ve read on the subject. It used to be the end of the magazine was always a bonus space. I’m a big believer in running multiple bonus pieces. I want the front of the book to be about strong commentary and point of view. It moves a little quicker.

I want the back half of the book to be about narrative storytelling. We want every story to be special. We’re not going to get them all right, but we’re going to try.

Fichtenbaum: That’s the critical thought. At the heart of what SI always has done is emotional storytelling. We need to take that idea and run it through everything we do.