Essentials for Fox Sport 1: Acquiring NBA rights; develop its own SportsCenter to take on ESPN

If there is one thing Fox Sports does well, it is talk big.

Sure enough when network executives announced the formation of Fox Sports 1 yesterday, plenty of bluster was in the air.

From Michael Hiestand in USA Today:

“Our hope is that we can be equally professional” with ESPN, says David Hill, who headed Fox Sports when it launched 20 years ago and is overseeing the new channel. “It’s going to take us a while. We’re not expecting to knock ESPN off in the first week or two. It’s going to take two to three years. It will be a slog.”

Two or three years isn’t a slog. It would be a Usain Bolt-like sprint.

The notion of Fox Sports 1 knocking off ESPN at this point is as preposterous as an NBA rookie saying, “Move over LeBron.”

While Fox Sports 1 will debut at No. 2 on the sports network rankings, reaching No. 1 will require quite a trek over Mt. Bristol.

However, if Fox is going to back up Hills’ big words, it has to score on two fronts:

Acquire rights to NBA: This is a must if Fox is serious about challenging ESPN. The league is the next biggie coming up in the market; the current rights deal with ESPN and TNT runs through the 2015-2016. That means it won’t be long before the NBA opens bidding for a new agreement.

Fox Sports 1 needs premium live programming to bolster its portfolio. The NBA is premium. FS1 then becomes more of a go-to channel from November through June.

As an added bonus, if Fox Sports 1 can do this deal and also squeeze ESPN out of the NBA picture, it will leave a hole in its competitor.

At the very least, the presence of Fox Sports 1 will cause ESPN and TNT to shell out considerably more cash if they want to keep the NBA. New commissioner Adam Silver says, thank you very much.

Fox Sports 1 SportsCenter: The new FS1 will have its share of original programming, including a show featuring 81-year old Regis Philbin (somebody still has to explain that one to me). However, the most important vehicle will be Fox Sports Live. Airing at 11 p.m. ET, and with a morning version coming in 2014, this will be Fox’s answer to SportsCenter.

While critics take swings at SportsCenter, there’s little doubt that it is an iconic brand that continues to deliver big numbers to ESPN. Sports fans are mentally conditioned to turn to SportsCenter for the latest news. Fox Sports 1 has to get some of those viewers to switch to Fox Sports Live.

It is interesting to note that Fox Sports 1 didn’t reveal its plans for Fox Sports Live Tuesday. The likely reason is that they aren’t fully hatched yet.

Obviously, the execs are trying to develop the right tone that will differentiate Fox Sports Live  from SportsCenter. It is a massive undertaking with no guarantee of success.

Fox should know. The network tried this once before when it did a nightly sports show on its local cable outlets in the late 90s. It even featured a big star: Keith Olbermann.

Hmm, look who’s available: Keith Olbermann. Pair him with Karl Rove and let them argue about Tim Tebow.

People would watch.

 

 

 

Montville on writing a column again: ‘Houses are same, but all neighbors are different’

Wouldn’t it be great to see Michael Jordan return and dump 35 on the Knicks? Or see Wayne Gretzky pull on the sweater and record two goals and two assists against the Flyers?

It can’t happen in sports. However, it can happen for sportswriters. Age won’t preclude a comeback in our game as long as the mind is sharp and the spirit is willing.

Witness Leigh Montville. At 69, he is writing  columns again for the first time since leaving the Boston Globe in 1989.

Montville is churning out a column or two a week for the Sports on Earth site. As they say, the guy still has his fastball.

Note this passage in a column on Bill Belichick:

The 60-year-old coach walked off the elevator at the red press box level of Gillette Stadium, accompanied by the team’s public relations man, continued to a podium in front of a screen that advertised Dunkin Donuts, maybe took a small breath, maybe not, and started talking. There was no preface, no ‘hey, how’re you doing,’ no first-name repartee about the warmish January weather with any of the assembled writers and broadcasters in front of him.

Some of these people have sat in these same metal chairs for every press conference in every week of the 16-game regular season. Some have sat there for every press conference in every one of the 13 seasons Belichick has been in charge of the team. Not one hello, not one first name. There was not a wink in eye contact. There definitely was not a smile.

It’s not as if Montville has been on the sidelines. He’s been pumping out best-selling sports books on Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Dale Earnhardt, Evel Knievel, among others during the past decade. However, the problem with books is that you have to wait a year or two before the next one hits the shelves.

Now with Sports on Earth, readers can enjoy Montville on a more frequent basis. A win for all of us. And let’s not forget Dave Kindred, another all-time favorite who is writing for Sports on Earth.

I plan to catch up with Kindred soon. Here’s my Q/A with Montville on writing a column again and his next book project.

How did you happen to land at Sports on Earth?

I’ve been out of the daily game for quite a while. I went to Sports Illustrated in 1989. I hadn’t written a column since then.

I haven’t been going to a lot of games. Still, I thought it might be fun to go cover some games and write some stuff. I ran into Joe Posnanski (last summer) and he told me about what he was doing with Sports on Earth. I said I would be interested in that. It went from there.

What has it been like to write again?

It’s interesting. It’s like going back where you used to live. The houses are the same, but the neighbors are all different. It’s a whole different approach.

There aren’t any real deadlines. It’s when you’re done, you’re done. I’ve found myself going home to write. By the time you get home, all the interviews are on the Internet. You can go crazy looking up all the interviews while you’re trying to write your story. It’s a little counterproductive. You want to do your own stuff, but you want to make sure you’re not missing anything.

But nobody misses anything. Everything is recorded and the PR people put it all out there.

What have you noticed regarding access? Is there a greater divide between the media and athletes?

The access is very hard. It’s all these guys standing up on little pedestals talking with everyone recording what he had to say. And when the athlete is done, they’re done.

I imagine if you cover (a team) every day, you’d figure things out. Maybe I just haven’t figured it out yet. All I know I know is that people who are out there every day complain about access. There are a lot of cameras, but not as many reporters.

What’s your latest book project?

It’s Muhammad Ali vs. the United States of America. It’s mostly about that four-year stretch when he was banned from boxing until the Supreme Court let him off the hook. I’m reading a lot of books. There’s a lot more to read than for Babe Ruth or Ted Williams.

What do you enjoy about writing the books?

You are your own boss. You’re left to your own devices. The books aren’t edited that much. What you write, you write.

It’s nice to get inside and know somebody. With columns, you’d write about people and things and not always know the real story. You’re trading on cliches. ‘That so-and-so is such-and-such. He’s a bad guy and everyone knows he’s a bad guy.’ And you wouldn’t know if he’s a bad guy, because you never talk to him. That happens a lot, especially in the blog world right now.

With a book, if you’ve read five books (about the subject) and talked to 200 people, you have a real feeling what the person is like.

 

 

 

New Haney Project: Phelps treading water when it comes to golf; ‘Humbling’

It’ll be tough to top the weirdness of Charles Barkley playing golf, and don’t get me started on Rush Limbaugh. But when it comes to landing a big name for the latest edition of The Haney Project, it doesn’t get much better than Michael Phelps.

Phelps helped NBC pull in massive ratings for the Olympics. Now, many of those fans will tune in to see him go from swimming to swinging. The debut of the eight-part series begins tonight at 9 p.m. on The Golf Channel.

Judging from the swing pictured above (he almost wraps the shaft around his neck), Phelps is treading water when it comes to golf. His height, 6-4, also isn’t an advantage in golf. Haney noted, taller players “usually have a harder time finding their ball.” As in Phelps can be wild with a club in his hand.

Phelps and Haney did a teleconference to promote the show last week. Here are some of the highlights:

Phelps on taking up golf: It is probably one of the most humbling things I’ve ever done in my entire life; to be able to learn from the best and see some of the best courses, it was something that really interested me.

There is still something that is keeping me hungry, and I do have a goal in this sport, and I’m going to do everything that I can to hopefully achieve that.

Phelps on that goal: I have friends who play as scratch golfers, and for me it would be exciting to be able to get down to where I could compete with them.  So it’s a challenge for me, and it’s something that, like I said, keeps me ‑‑ sure, it’s not like I can go out and play a perfect round and hit all good shots, but that’s what really keeps me coming back to try to reach that point.

I’m sure it’s very challenging and who knows if it’s possible to hit every perfect shot in a round.  But it’s obviously something that I am learning and hopefully I can go out and enjoy the game even more than I already have.

Phelps on feeling pressure to perform because of the TV series: Hank knows what I want to accomplish and I told him that, and he’s going to do everything he can to get me there, and one day, I’m sure it will happen.  But I think in a sport like this, in any sport, it really depends on how much time I’m willing to putt into practicing to be able to get to that point.  I put a lot of pressure on myself.  I don’t like to fail.  I don’t like to fall short of a goal.

So I mean, I think that’s just where the pressure comes from on my standpoint, and I’ll say that being able to play in the Waste Management and also playing in The Ryder Cup Pro‑Am, I felt pressure there because I’ve never played golf in front of thousands of people.  I guess that was an interesting and new experience.

Haney on working with Phelps: Obviously Michael is an incredible athlete, and as most unbelievable athletes see, translating it into golf is a little bit harder than it looks.  But obviously he’s got a tremendous amount of potential.  Just his size and the length of his arms and his height, those give him such an advantage in the game, because so much of golf is distance, it’s power and how far you can hit the golf ball.

So when I looked at Michael, like most people would say, wow, he’s got a lot of potential for the game of golf.  But the thing about potential in golf, it’s really directly related to your clubhead speed and that means that anyone with a lot of potential when they are first starting is going to be wild with their shots and that just kind of goes with the territory.  But I knew that he was raw as a golfer, but had incredible potential, and I was just looking forward to helping him.

The thing that I think gives him a big advantage is that he knows the process, he’s patient with the process.  He always talks about just taking little baby steps and he’s had great coaching through his career, so he knows what it’s like to be coached.  So I felt like, you know what, this is going to be a dream student for me.

Phelps on why people should watch the show: It’s probably going to be one of the funniest shows you’ve ever scene of the Haney Project.  With the experiences that we have with the friends that I have on the show, I don’t want to give too much away, but I guarantee you, we will have you laughing each part of the show, every single episode you ever watch, you’re going to be ‑‑ you may be crying because you’re laughing so hard.

 

 

 

Dear Mark Emmert: Why won’t NCAA meet with sports editors, news organizations?

As if Mark Emmert and the NCAA didn’t have enough bad PR problems on its plate, here’s another one: Now the president and the association appear to be ducking the nation’s sports editors.

The Associated Press Sports Editors, joined by other news organizations, wrote a letter last week to Emmert expressing profound frustration over recent NCAA decisions regarding the media. Specifically, they cite the NCAA moving 30 percent of its media seating for the Final Four “away from the court and into locations which make our
coverage of these games more difficult and ultimately less informative to the public.”

There also are issues regarding social media, credentials and access for coverage of football and basketball at various schools and conferences.

The letter says that the APSE and other news organizations have been trying to meet with NCAA officials since last October. Much to their frustration, a meeting has yet to take place.

From the letter:

Unfortunately, our attempts to schedule a meeting – for which representatives of all the undersigned groups are willing to travel to your offices in Indianapolis – have been met with vague promises to schedule something in the future. In fact, we have pursued this meeting on many fronts. Gerry Ahern, the Director of News Content for the USA Today Sports Media Group and president of the Associated Sports Editors, spoke or corresponded with your office on at least three occasions during the same time frame without success.

The letter notes that “our members’ frustrations are rising.” And with good reason. It shouldn’t be that hard to schedule a meeting, especially when the editors and other association leaders are willing to go to the NCAA’s headquarters in Indianapolis to make it happen.

Ahern posted the letter on the APSE website this week. He told his fellow editors: “It’s important that we as APSE members remain diligent in protecting our access and ensuring our ability to provide our audiences with authoritative coverage.”

I followed up with Ahern to see if he had further comment. He preferred to let the letter speak for itself.

I am in the process of contacting the NCAA. However, I can’t imagine a reason other than “We’ve been busy.”

Obviously, that reason isn’t flying with the people who signed the letter.

Here it is:

***********

February 13, 2013

Dr. Mark A. Emmert
President
National Collegiate Athletic Association
P.O. Box 6222
Indianapolis, IN 46206

Dear Dr. Emmert,

The undersigned organizations are writing to express our profound disappointment with
the NCAA’s recent actions affecting journalists’ ability to cover your member
institutions’ activities. We hope to prevent further diminishment of our ability to report
collegiate sports news in cities and towns across the United States. The public’s interest
deserves that we work together to ensure that such coverage is thorough, timely and
benefits schools, students, student-athletes, fans, citizens and news organizations
representing the public.

Recognizing that our mutual interests are best served when we act cooperatively, the
nation’s largest media organizations have repeatedly attempted to explore common
ground on a variety of coverage issues. Our requests over the past three months for a
meeting with you and senior communications officials have been met with delay. During
that time, the NCAA has made significant changes to coverage of the upcoming NCAA
men’s basketball tournament without seeking our input. Additionally, our members are
reporting unduly restrictive credentialing conditions on their use of social media that
inhibit their publishing rights and detrimentally affect the public’s interest in access to
timely information.

In short, our concerns and frustrations are mounting, with a long period of unproductive
interaction leading to this follow up letter. After several relatively minor issues were
resolved on temporary basis, there is a distinct need for a larger discussion.
Tim Franklin, managing editor at Bloomberg News in Washington, who serves as the
American Society of News Editors’ Freedom of Information Co-Chairman, contacted
your office in October on behalf of 10 media groups in order to foster a frank and
positive discussion. We sincerely wanted to create an understanding of each side’s needs
and concerns to avoid further conflict and ensure we are both serving the public interest.
We were excited when your office responded with what appeared to be a similar desire.
Unfortunately, our attempts to schedule a meeting – for which representatives of all the
undersigned groups are willing to travel to your offices in Indianapolis – have been met
with vague promises to schedule something in the future. In fact, we have pursued this
meeting on many fronts. Gerry Ahern, the Director of News Content for the USA Today
Sports Media Group and president of the Associated Sports Editors, spoke or
corresponded with your office on at least three occasions during the same time frame
without success.

We hope you share our interest in working together, and that you’ll set a firm time to do
so in the next few weeks, not months. We recognize the demands on your time are
considerable. But, this is an urgent priority for publishers, editors and journalists, and we
believe that it should be for you, too.

We recently learned that the media seating arrangements for the upcoming NCAA
Tournament have been revised, with as many as 30 percent of the seats previously
available to our members moved away from the court and into locations which make our
coverage of these games more difficult and ultimately less informative to the public.
In addition, conflicts that arose during football season regarding access, credentialing,
and social media are recurring in the basketball season. Rather than providing a
substantive response to these issues, the NCAA has attempted to shift responsibility to
individual schools; while the individual universities, in turn, cite NCAA guidelines as the
rationale for their actions. The result: There is no accountability for policies that infringe
on our work and our publication rights.

While we remain hopeful that these issues can be resolved, our patience is not without
limits, and our members’ frustrations are rising.

We respectfully request that you contact Susan Goldberg or Gerry Ahern
to schedule a meeting.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Susan Goldberg: President, American Society of News Editors

Gerry Ahern: President, Associated Press Sports Editors

Tiffany Shackelford: Executive Director, Association of Alternative Newsmedia

Brad Dennison: President, Associated Press Media Editors

Mike Borland: President, National Press Photographers Association

Caroline Little: President/CEO, Newspaper Association of America

James Brady: President, Online News Association

Bruce Brown: Executive Director, Committee for Freedom of the Press

Sonny Albarado: President, Society of Professional Journalists

Frank LoMonte: Executive Director, Student Press Law Center

Cc:
John Swofford: Commissioner, Atlantic Coast Conference
Bob Bowlsby: Commissioner, Big 12 Conference
Mike Aresco: Commissioner, Big East Conference
James E. Delany: Commissioner, Big Ten Conference
Larry Scott: Commissioner, Pac-12 Conference
Mike Slive: Commissioner, Southeastern Conference

Harry Caray, baseball’s best play-by-play man; Remembering on 15th anniversary of his death

Has it really been this long? On Feb. 18, 1998, Harry Caray died in Palm Springs.

That means more than 15 years have gone by since Caray called his last game for the Cubs’ season finale in 1997. It dawned on me that a new generation of fans have arrived to the scene without ever hearing Harry.

It doesn’t seem possible, considering he was the voice of so many generations during a 53-year career with the Cardinals, A’s, White Sox, and Cubs. Fifteen years since his death? Really, it seems like only yesterday that I held my transistor radio to my ear to hear him belt out his signature call of a Dick Allen homer in 1972.

I know there are people who worship at the living shrine of Vin Scully, regarding him as baseball’s Babe Ruth of play-by-play men. Scully’s brilliance, and now remarkable endurance, is the stuff of legend.

However, in my mind, Harry Caray was the best there ever was in terms of bringing fun and excitement to a baseball game.

Unfortunately, many fans only remember him for his later years with the Cubs, when a stroke and age robbed him of his sharpness. He still was entertaining as a unique character, but his best years were behind him.

During his prime, nobody was better. His descriptions were vivid, and he always was brutally frank, earning the admiration of fans and rancor of players and managers. Here’s a link of Caray’s best calls with the White Sox during in the 1970s compiled by Mark Liptak of WhiteSoxInteractive.com.

Myron Cope had this description of Caray from a 1968 article in Sports Illustrated:

No sir, Caray is having none of that drawing-room dignity affected by the boys with pear-shaped tones. Nor, as he settles into his Busch Stadium chair for a series with the Giants, is he having any of that kid-glove technique the ballplayers love so well.

“Here’s Ty Cline, who’s modeled a few uniforms,” Caray announces in the first inning. “His name reminds you of Ty Cobb.” Then the withering appendage: “And he’s batting .185.” From the enemy Caray soon turns to the home team. “Here’s slumping Orlando Cepeda, with two strikes on him and two runners waiting to be driven in. Struck him out, on a bad ball!” Back to the Giants. At bat is Willie Mays, of whom broadcasters speak encomiums. Steve Carlton fires. “Hooo! What a cut he took!” Carlton fires again. “Hooo! What a cut! Man, I’ve never seen Mays take a more vicious cut in his life. Looked like he left both his feet!” Carlton fires a third time, and Mays lands among the mortals. “Struck him out—on a bad fastball over his head!”

When Caray died, I was assigned to write the front-page obit for the Chicago Tribune. I tried to capture the essence of the man in the booth:

Harry Caray was fun. It was that simple.

Fun was the theme of one of his trademark lines. On a hot, summer afternoon, with the game either languishing or careening toward its finish _ it didn’t matter _ Caray would chortle, “Ah, you can’t beat fun at the old ballpark.”

Caray made baseball’s most exciting moments more fun. He made baseball’s mundane moments fun.

He had fun with names, those he intentionally pronounced backward, and those he unintentionally mangled or misprounced (even Cubs great Ryne Sandberg was called Ryne Sanderson at times, or merely “Ryne-berg,” and he gave up trying on Ken Caminiti). During his days with the White Sox, he made foul balls fun, hanging a net out of his broadcast perch. Caught a few, too.

He wasn’t just a man of the fans. On occasion he sat with them, calling games from the bleachers. He knew where to have the most fun. Only Harry Caray could take a tired old custom like the seventh-inning stretch and transform it into a memorable, magical, albeit off-key, Chicago ritual.

For 162 days and nights during the season, the man with the gravel voice, glasses made from window panes and trademark “Holy cow!” was a once-in-a-lifetime life of the party. The party never will be the same.

Sure enough, the party hasn’t been the same.

Here’s to you, Harry. Now and forever.

 

What is the over/under of topless model photos in SI swimsuit edition? Think high

The swimsuit edition finally arrived yesterday. My wife was home at the time, and I showed her the cover shot featuring a mostly topless Kate Upton and her rather generous gifts from God or medical science.

“That’s outrageous,” she said of the cover shot, not Upton.

It really is.

Now I am not going to go on a long-winded rant about the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition. And I’m not opposed for any moral or ultra-conservative reasons. I would describe myself as fairly liberal on virtually everything.

I just think the swimsuit edition degrades a magazine that generally does great work and is strong covering women’s sports. This is the same magazine that put the 40th anniversary of Title IX on the cover, which I lauded at the time.

(Note: Fairly sure I’m the only blogger who ran the Title IX cover for a swimsuit edition story this week.)

Simply: The swimsuit edition is a blatant money grab, and SI knows it.

What I have found interesting through the years is how far SI will push the envelope in showing risque shots of the models. Remember when we were stunned to see Cheryl Tiegs in a fishnet? Now that looks like she is wearing a blanket compared to today.

Of course, it is about showcasing bathing suits to the supposed 18 million who read this issue? Right? If that’s case, how come so few of the models wear the top of their bikinis, or anything at all for that matter?

I decided to do my own count of models who clearly aren’t wearing a top: Hey, somebody has to do it. For statistical purposes, my number does include models in the see-through fishnet top since I never have actually seen a woman wear one in real life.

And Vegas, here’s your winning total: 39. And that’s give or take a few I might have missed. Either way, the number seems rather excessive, or as my wife would say, “outrageous.”

Again, what’s the point other than to titillate and sell a bunch of ads? And one more question: How long before SI goes full frontal topless? No arms strategically placed, etc…

I’m betting when the number exceeds 50. At that point, why not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Turning tables on Will Leitch: Went too far in vicious takedown of Darren Rovell

Will Leitch used this opening for his column on Darren Rovell on the Sports on Earth site Monday:

I honestly can’t find a single person who likes Darren Rovell. He is polarizing in the same way sleet is polarizing, or a foul smell on the subway is polarizing, or pop-up spam is polarizing.

That sounds harsh, but I don’t mean it personally.

You don’t mean it personally? Will, I’d hate to think what you’d write if you really disliked the guy.

Actually, that’s the scary thing, since Leitch said he liked Rovell the few times he met him in person. But that didn’t stop Leitch from going all Deadspin on the ESPN sports business reporter with one of the most vicious takedowns in recent memory.

Hey, where’s Buzz Bissinger to rant on Leitch when we need him?

Leitch, the Deadspin founder (and Illinois grad; how ’bout them Illini, Will?) declared Rovell is “universally loathed.” Then citing the ever popular anonymous sources, he wrote 11 reasons “Why people hate Darren Rovell.”

It gets worse from there.

I am not going to argue the merits of Rovell, although there are a couple of things worth noting. A 2011 Twitter-rant post from Leitch on Deadspin included this passage:

And all told, (Rovell) has always done good work (in addition to the Nike press releases and Fathead sales updates, of course); he’s a legit reporter.

And now Rovell sucks, right?

Also, Rovell has 312,000 followers on Twitter. And that’s because he is
“universally loathed?” With that number, you figure somebody must like him. If people “loathe” Rovell, can’t they just unfollow him?

Also, also, doesn’t Rovell deserve a chance to respond to the allegations from Leitch’s anonymous sources? Rovell declined to comment on the piece Tuesday, but he did say he never was contacted by Leitch. If you’re going to do a piece based on anonymous sources, then Journ 101 says you should get both sides of the story.

It would have saved SOE from placing this editor’s note at the bottom of the column: “Ed. Note — this article has been updated to reflect the fact that Rovell’s tweets to Tom Ziller are still visible on Rovell’s page.”

For the record, I did send Leitch an email telling him about my intentions for this post and if he had any reaction to charges that he went too far?

Leitch replied: “I think the column speaks for itself, actually. I won’t be writing any more on Darren: The people who had been bugging me to write about him for months have had their say. I wish him well, not that he needs my well wishes.”

As for the reaction, Leitch has plenty of supporters. That shouldn’t be a surprise since Rovell is a big target.

Said Brad in the comments section: “Great article. He really is a class-A doucher.”

However, there were a number of people who felt the way I did: The column was excessively mean-spirited.

John Walters, writing on MediumHappy.com, turned the tables on Leitch:

Leitch –and this is his longtime M.O., along with relying on unnamed sources to bolster his argument – does this “I’m a nice guy and I’m not about to say something mean or hurtful about anyone” schtick shortly before writing mean and hurtful things. He’s the Venomous Equivocator (“I can’t find a single person that likes Darren Rovell… that sounds harsh, but I don’t mean it personally”) I’d respect Leitch more if he just went 100% after Rovell without doing the whole, “but you seem like a decent enough guy in person.”

Like you, I enjoy much of Will Leitch’s writing. But I don’t respect him. I do respect Buzz Bissinger. I respect Buzz because he looked Will Leitch dead in the eye and said, “I gotta be honest: I think you’re full of shit.” Buzz said what he meant and meant what he said, directly to his subject. Is Will Leitch capable of that? Or is he guilty of the same thing of which he accused Rovell: “intellectual dishonesty?”

Meanwhile, the folks at SportsJournalists.com did a forum asking whether Leitch’s column was fair?

From Xanadu:

In essence “He’s a nice-enough fella and I’d have a beer with him but I work for a nothing Internet sportswriting website and feel like ripping a successful reporter for ESPN.”

Complete waste of time and energy. What’s the point, Will?

From Versatile:

Will Leitch has been generally unimpressive since he left Deadspin. Everyone in the blogosphere loves him because he was such a big deal in giving them respectability, and most people in the mainstream media love him because he has done more to bridge the gap than pretty much anyone. But his writing isn’t anything special. It’s just not.

He seems to be a really nice and really smart guy, though.

And finally from LongTimeListener:

Leitch has become what he set out railing against — the clubby group of sportswriters who seem to write only for themselves and each other instead of the audience. Only instead of other sportswriters, Leitch just aims to appease bloggers and other assorted new-age media people. This Rovell piece is just another take on something that is a constant source of discussion throughout the Internet.

None of his thoughts are original anymore, and his columns carry little reporting and even less insight. I think he’s out of ideas, he’s burned out, he probably even knows it, but the money’s too good.

Again, just like the people whose awfulness motivated him to start his site.

If Leitch has a strong opinion about Rovell, fine. If he wants to point out his faults, fine. Rovell is fair game.

However, Leitch went too far in this instance. As a result, his message was undermined by a lack of fairness and a tone that was more of a chop-block than a clean hit.

At the very least, Leitch should have made a phone call to Rovell. It wouldn’t have been unpleasant. Leitch likes the guy, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culpepper on why he wrote about being gay: Realized now would be a good time

If you’re like me, you wanted to stand up and cheer after reading Chuck Culpepper’s column at the Sports on Earth site last week.

Culpepper wrote about thanking Brendan Ayanbadejo for comments he made in support of gay people during Super Bowl week. As he talked to the Baltimore Ravens linebacker following the game, you could feel his internal uneasiness before he finally blurted out the words.

He wrote:

“You don’t know me,” I said, and he grinned at that, “but you have done a lot for me,” and his eyes told me he knew what I meant. “And I just want to tell you that I am so grateful. You are a good man.”

Whew. There. I had spit it out. With reasonable concision, even. As we let go of our handshake, he said simply and unemotionally, “It’s the right thing to do, plain and simple,” whereupon I mustered a closing, “Thank you.”

Obviously, it was a significant moment in Culpepper’s life. In a Q/A, he sheds some light about his decision to write the column and what he has experienced during his career as a sportswriter.

Was this the first time you wrote about being gay?  Were there other times you considered writing about it?

I mentioned it in the acknowledgements of my soccer-in-England book, published in the U.K. in 2007 and the U.S. in 2008. It’s funny, but it could have been part of that book, because that book was first-person, until a wise soul at the David Black literary agency advised me: If you’re writing a book about one thing (in this case, English soccer), don’t distract people with another sweeping topic. (She provided an example of how such a thing had sideswiped another book.) And then, when I did interviews for the various BBC outlets for the book, the publishing PR reps thought I shouldn’t bring the gay angle to promote a book that wasn’t really about the subject at all. But otherwise, yes, I have considered writing it for about umpteen years.

When did you realize that you had to write this?

Even in that moment with (Brendan Ayanbadejo), I very well might have just balked and walked on, figuring I’d thanked him another time, which would be like me. I hail from a smallish Virginia town (Suffolk) where we sort of got conditioned not to put ourselves out there in any way, and I have spent life gradually shedding that impulse. So it surprised me that I did speak up and thank him, and I think I realized then that now would be a good time.

But I had a major guide in this. I rode to and from that AFC title game with Steve Buckley, the Boston Herald sports columnist who wrote his version of this column two Januarys ago. I also talked to him extensively in January, especially at the marvelous Diesel coffeehouse at Davis Square. And while he’s a firm believer that this should be everybody’s personal decision, he also encouraged me based on the volumes of responses he received from people who said his column had helped them. That’s the ethic you hear a lot these days, that there’s an added responsibility to lend your name, especially given the publicized stories of teen-agers struggling.

Could you have seen never writing about it?

Yes, and it probably would have made me very sad by age 70.

What in particular struck you about the reaction to the column?

I have lived recent days in a torrent of kindness that has floored me and instructed me as to how briskly the perception of this issue has changed. If the kind words keep up, I might have to start liking myself though I’ll try to avoid that mistake.

Has being gay ever been an issue for you as a sportswriter, either in dealing with sports editors and/or athletes?

With athletes, no, but largely because of my wanderlust and nomadism, which never seem to wane and seem only to heighten. There were 3 1/2 years in Los Angeles, then one in Chicago, a winter in Pittsburgh, nine years in Lexington (Kentucky), 2 1/2 in Portland (Oregon), 3 1/2 in New York, three in London, four months in Paris, two years in Abu Dhabi/Dubai. When Steve Buckley wrote his column, he got meaningful calls and texts of support from Bobby Orr, several Red Sox, Robert Kraft, people who knew him for years. Very few athletes have anything approaching that familiarity with me.

With editors, also no. There was (and is) a prince of a human being in Lexington, Gene Abell, who knew about it, but we never discussed it, and the same with Dennis Peck at the Oregonian. When I went to interview at Newsday in 2002, Sandy Keenan brought it up that very first day and gave me a great sense of comfort. The great Randy Harvey at the Los Angeles Times and the great Robert Mashburn in Abu Dhabi always conversed with me it openly on the subject. And now my Sports On Earth bosses Larry Burke and Steve Madden, there they are, extremely supportive and aware from the job interview on, a whole new world in motion, a world I frankly never foresaw.

There was, however, a strange byproduct way back when. Back in the 1990s, sometimes Gene would call me and say on my answering machine (answering machines!), “We need to talk,” or something like that, and straightaway I would feel a sense of dread, that I might be done, finished, because of this. And invariably when I called he would say something like, “We’re doing a special (basketball) section and need you to write a column,” something about the job itself. A dear friend in New York, straight guy, once told me, “I grieve for you when I hear that.” And it goes to show how we can internalize loony things, because that recurrent notion was nothing shy of loony, because with Gene, we’re talking about one of the kindest, most decent people ever to pop out of the birth canal.

Being a gay male in athletics still seems to be a taboo, especially for a team sport. Do you foresee that perspective ever changing? Do you foresee when it isn’t an issue to be gay and play for a pro football team?

I would have said no 10 years ago, probably no five years ago, and yes now. I would agree now with my great friend Gwen Knapp, who has said for years that the athletes are actually ahead of the media’s perception of the athletes. But especially in returning to the country after six years, and from places such as the UK where this issue is long since all but settled culturally, the speed of the changes of the perceptions of the issue here stun me. I never quite believed Andrew Sullivan when he used to write that once gay people could marry, the United States would become more American, but I feel now what he meant.

You are a couple days removed from writing the column. How do you feel about it now?

You know how you long wonder about doing something, anything, feel afraid of it sometimes through the years, unafraid other times, but then you finally do it and you’re no longer acquainted with the former you who wondered and sometimes worried about it, and you wonder what all the self-imposed suspense was about? Yeah. While covering a round-the-world sailboat race in 2011, I jumped off the back of a yacht in Cape Town, South Africa, to be collected by a trailing inflatable boat, in a tradition for visitors when the boats make their way to sea. I jumped into the frigid, shark-infested South Atlantic, and two sharks came up to me and I stared them down and they left.

OK, that last part is not true, but it was exhilarating beyond exhilarating, and it reminded me of the old Eleanor Roosevelt line: “Do one thing every day that scares you.” I’m not sure this column scared me anymore, not so much, but I guess it once did, so maybe it counts a little. But really, Eleanor: Every day?

Anything else?

The 2001 Wimbledon men’s singles final was one of the most magical days in the business. Rain had pushed it to Monday, and the All England Club let in the general public, and Centre Court was unusually rowdy as Pat Rafter played Goran Ivanisevic in a five-set barnburner and the Australian fans bobbed their inflatable kangaroos. We reporters pretty much loved Goran (and Rafter, too, in a different way), because Goran was great and funny in press conferences. And there was a genuine feeling for him when he won because we pretty much had seen his decade-long struggle to get there, his battle against himself and against his own addled brain that could take him completely out of the match and pretty much off the premises at any point. When he wept on the court, it was hard not to get choked up.

Then, after all this, at the end of the press conference his wiring short-circuited again, and he suddenly burst out complaining about a line judge whom he said “looked like a faggot.” The room boomed in laughter not out of homophobia but out of the absurdity, and while I mentioned it in my column, I mentioned it only three-fourths of the way down, buried beneath all the description of the great day. I sometimes want that column back, not to rant, but certainly to lampoon.

 

Pulitzer wannabe Jason Whitlock accuses APSE contest of being biased against minority columnists

Jason Whitlock thinks very highly of himself. Yesterday, he did a column on Ball State’s website (he’s a 1990 graduate), bemoaning the fact that he isn’t eligible for consideration for the Pulitzer Prize since he writes for Foxsports.com.

Before I touch on the questionable notion of Whitlock winning a Pulitzer, there’s another item that needs to be addressed.

Whitlock claims in the piece that the Associated Press Sports Editors are biased against minority columnists in the judging of their annual contest. He writes:

The annual Associated Press Sports Editors awards do not generally and/or consistently recognize the kind of columns I regard as courageous, honest, original and opinion-driven. The APSE prefers storytellers. Its awards also consistently reflect the anti-minority-perspective bias pervasive throughout the sportswriting industry. Sportswriting is a good-old-boy network. It’s very difficult — perhaps impossible — for a person of color who writes from a minority perspective to be recognized as the best at anything in sportswriting.

That’s not a charge of racism. It’s a charge of bias, an affliction we all have.

As best I can tell, no non-white has won the APSE’s column-writing contest. Google “African-American winners of the Pulitzer Prize.” The list is deep and goes back many years. The Pulitzer Prize is far more prestigious and competitive than an APSE.

You can examine almost every aspect of writing as an art form and find examples of minorities being recognized as the best in any given year. Sportswriting is the exception.

Oh, there have been great minority candidates. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Miami Herald’s Dan Le Batard (a Cuban-American) was as talented, insightful and provocative as any columnist working in America. Before Michael Wilbon became a television star, he wrote some of the best sports columns I’ve ever read. Bryan Burwell had a run in the 1990s and is strong again in St. Louis. Shaun Powell laid it down at Newsday. When I showed up at the Kansas City Star in 1994, I shook the entire Midwest and eventually the country.

None of us has ever been quite good enough to reach the top. It’s my belief that our minority perspective is off-putting to predominantly white male judges.  

OK Jason, here are a few facts: That “good-old-boy network” network has awarded the best columnist award in the large circulation to the Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins for two straight years; she also won in previous years. The same Sally Jenkins, who happens to be a woman. When it comes to minorities, women still are rare in the press box. Who would have thunk it from a “good-old-boy network?”

Also, Whitlock probably isn’t aware that the judges see entries that are devoid of all names and any identifying marks for a newspaper or website. It is just plain type. So it’s hard for the good-old white boys to know if they are slighting a minority columnist.

Finally, Whitlock probably should take a look at the APSE website. The sports editors, “the good-old-boys,” have an extensive diversity program, which outlines scholarship programs and seminars aimed at prospective minority journalists. The association knows it has to improve the minority presence in the profession.

And it isn’t as if Whitlock has been shut out in this contest. In recent years, he finished third in 2009 and tied for fourth in 2007.

I know many members of the APSE. I don’t think they have bias. I believe they have been fair in their judging.

*******

As for the Pulitzer portion of the column, Whitlock’s entry was returned because the contest isn’t open to “broadcast media” outlets. Now that seems ridiculous given the content that is being generated on those sites. But that’s a story for another day.

Anyway, Whitlock believes he’s worthy this year.

Last year, it’s my belief, I had my best year as a columnist. It all came together. I perfected my column style. For years, I’ve tried to take sports headlines and transform them into lessons about American society at large. Royko’s columns helped shape my view of America. In 2012, I was like Mike.

OK, now he’s comparing himself to Mike Royko. As I said, Whitlock thinks highly of himself.

Whitlock notes that the Pulitzers suck when it comes to sportswriters. I lamented about the shabby treatment when last year’s winners were announced.  Among columnists in the last 40 years, only Red Smith, Dave Anderson and Jim Murray have been given the award, and the last one was more than two decades ago.

Whitlock, though, thinks he has the goods if only he was considered. Now he wants to add his face to this Mt. Rushmore of sportswriting legends. Think about it: Smith, Anderson, Murray….Whitlock?

Yep, hard for me to picture too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A broadcaster’s life: 64-year-old Coppock faces challenge of staying relevant in young person’s game

If you live in Chicago and New York, you don’t need an introduction to Chet Coppock, the one-of-a-kind sportscaster full of enough bombast and bravado to fill Soldier Field.

And if you don’t live in either of those towns, this story still is highly relevant. It provides a snapshot of a broadcast lifer facing the challenge of being 64 in a young person’s business. He hardly is alone as countless veterans try to stay afloat in the constantly changing market.

Coppock recently gave this advice to a young broadcaster: “I said make all the dough you can before the age of 50. After 50, all bets are off.”

At one point, Coppock was that young person, enjoying the good life at the top. He was the sports anchor for the NBC affiliate in Chicago; launched a highly-rated show that was the forerunner for sports talk radio; and then took his act to Broadway working as a host for Cablevision in New York. In between, he did commercials with athletes like Michael Jordan and Walter Payton.

“I made $275,000 per year when I worked for Ch. 5 (in the early ’80s),” Coppock said. “In New York, it was into the 5s and 6s (as in $500,000-600,000). I won’t see that kind of money from a single entity again.”

Coppock then joked, “I don’t blow as much money on fur coats as I used to.”

So what do you when the phone stops ringing? Retirement isn’t an option. Coppock says he still has the hunger to work.

In his view, the course of action was clear: Hustle his tail off.

“I have to accept that Ch. 7 (in Chicago) isn’t going to come and say, ‘We want you to replace Mark Giangreco,'” Coppock said. “I have to accept the opportunities in the past aren’t going to be there. The stations want younger guys. I understand that. Heck, I was 31 when I joined Ch. 5.”

So Coppock finds the opportunities where he can. He does video work for the Chicago Blackhawks and serves as the studio host for Notre Dame football on radio. Coppock wrote a book and is constantly on Twitter and Facebook in an effort “to keep my name out there.”

His big endeavor is something called Noozebox.com. Working with Mike Romano, it is a Chicago-based site that covers and comments on all things sports from high school hockey to the Super Bowl.

“We found our niche with high school hockey,” Coppock said. “I don’t think people realize how big it is in Chicago. It’s enormous. We put up a video with a kid, and we get 1,500 hits minimum. I’m very optimistic about where it’s going. I see it as part of the new age.”

In a previous age, Coppock was front and center in New York or the voice of sports radio in Chicago. As late as 2009, he had a presence working weekends for the ESPN Radio outlet in Chicago. Then he took an offer to work at a web-based sports talk station founded by sports radio personality Mike North. The enterprise blew up quickly when the Feds learned that the owner, David Hernandez, was using a Ponzi scheme to fund the station and other businesses.

“That hit me like a left hook,” Coppock said.

Suddenly out of a job, Coppock had trouble finding a landing spot on Chicago radio. As he would say, “Everyone’s dance card was full.” He admits it was painful.

“There was a great deal of anger,” Coppock said. “It became obvious I was no longer in big demand. I began to literally think, ‘I’ve been called the Godfather of sports radio. That should give me a license to work until the day I die.’ Well, it didn’t work that way.”

Eventually, Coppock said acceptance of his situation helped him change his outlook. It has helped him to forge on.

Yes, it’s been humbling for a man who never has been humble. But you do what you have to do, Coppock said, especially when retirement isn’t on the agenda.

“You can’t beat yourself up,” Coppock said. “I’m proud of my legacy. You should be comfortable in your own skin. I have no bitterness. Disappointment? Hell, yes. But this business has given me more fun than any one person should be allowed to have. I’m looking forward to having more.”

And then in typical Coppock overstatement, he said, “With that being said, I’ll probably jump out of the window tonight.”