Category Archives: Sherman Spotlight

Dino Costa on his problems with Russo; wants SiriusXM to give him larger platform

Posted on by

Part 2

“Why did you call Chris Russo a ‘Has been’ on his own show?” I said to Dino Costa. “Most people wouldn’t do that.”

“Well, you’re right,” Costa replied. “I’m not most people.”

You won’t get much argument on that point, especially from Russo. He is a regular target on the Dino Costa Show, which airs evenings from 7-11 p.m. on SiriusXM’s Mad Dog Radio.

Yes, it is Russo’s station, making Costa’s diatribes against him seem even more bizarre. It came to a peak of sorts a few weeks ago. Costa was irate that Russo didn’t defend him when a caller on Russo’s show labeled Costa as “a racist.”

The following day, Costa appeared on Russo’s show to air things out, but the conversation didn’t last long. Costa started by calling Russo a “has been,” and it deteriorated from there.

Costa’s volley insulted Russo’s fans, who called to demand that he get rid of him. Russo, though, replied with his standard stance. Despite what Costa might say about him, Russo thinks he is a talented host.

“He’s compelling,” said Russo many times on the air. By the way, Russo did not take me up on my invitation to discuss Costa and Mad Dog Radio.

There’s no denying Costa has been good for Russo’s and Mad Dog Radio’s business, attracting considerable attention for a non-prime time radio slot. Costa thinks he deserves a bigger and better platform. Perhaps even a The Dino Channel. Not surprisingly, he isn’t shy about talking about it.

“I’m not content to be under the Mad Dog umbrella for a much longer period of time,” Costa said. “I want to do my own thing.”

In part 2 of our interview, Costa discusses Russo and his future on SiriusXM.

How would you describe your relationship with Russo?

It’s a professional relationship. We do two different styles of radio. Chris does his show the way that is effective for him. I do a show that is effective for what I do. That’s where it begins and that’s where it ends. I don’t want to talk too much about Chris.

But you talk about Russo all the time.

I will say that Chris’ transition from local radio icon to a national sports host has not been as smooth as it could have been. Often times, I question his passion and commitment to do the show, considering the major investment SiriusXM made in him. All you have to do is listen to his show. So often, he’ll say he didn’t see this or that he didn’t know that.

A lot of times I’ll try to tweak him to try to light a fire underneath him. To try to get him to dig deeper to provide a show that is more compelling than it is.

He’s taken shots at me. Each one of us believes we bring certain value to the channel.

Do you want Russo to be more like you?

You can’t make somebody they’re not. I wouldn’t expect Chris to do my kind of show the same way he can’t expect me to do his kind of show.

Chris’ personality is not like my personality. Chris has an insatiable need to be liked. If you ask Chris that, he will agree that is a representative statement. I don’t care if I’m liked. I don’t care if you loathe me. I’m doing the show for my audience, but I’m not going to allow my audience to program my show. This is my show. These are my comments. I back it up and I’ll tell you why.

Do you ever regret what you say about Russo? Was calling him a “has been” a little harsh?

Mmm. I think it was appropriate at the time I said it. You’re right, I was upset.

He does not comprehend me. He doesn’t listen to my show. He only hears snippets. The one thing I can’t stand is that when Russo hears a 15-20 second(clip) and comes to the conclusion that this is what defines me. That this is all that I’m about. He has no concept of the range and depth that I have. Quite often, he takes the word of people who are whispering in his ear about me.

If you’ve got a question, call me. Or at least take the time to listen to the damn thing before you make a comment about it.

Where do you see your show going?

The time has come to feature me in a much larger role. I’m providing a product that needs to be exploited more. I need to be vaulted to the top of the SiriusXM food chain. Frankly, there’s not another sports talk personality on the channel that can reach the  listeners with the passion I have. I am big money waiting to be made by SiriusXM Radio.

Do you want an earlier time slot? More promotion. Your own channel?

Well, yes, all of those things.

(The evening hours) are not going to fit my lifestyle much longer. I have a family with two young children.

I had a SiriusXM executive tell me that I took a vast wasteland (with the evening hours) and created something that they never had before. I was happy to do it and prove myself. Clearly, I want to get to an earlier part of the day.

I would love the challenge of being sent to the worst performing channel we have. I said, ‘Give me five hours and watch what I can do there.’ If it means my own channel, fine, put my name on it. And if it doesn’t have my name on it, but it gives me the ability to create something earlier in the day, fine. I’m willing to do all of that.

I don’t think we as a company take advantage of the enormous freedom that we have. I find this incredible. Beyond my show, the most risk-taking programs aren’t the three other shows we have during the day (on Mad Dog). The most risk-taking shows are the back-ups and guys who work on the weekend. They’re more prone to push the envelope and speak their mind and not worry about somebody getting angry at them.

Do you want to leave Mad Dog Radio?

They’ve been great to me here. I couldn’t be Dino Costa with their support, and it’s been overwhelming.

There is a Mad Dog brand, and I am not emblematic of the Mad Dog brand. Quite honestly, it might be better off for them to move me to another station. Chris has had to put up with entire shows where the theme of the show is me. He’s taking complaints. ‘How do you put up with this guy?’ I feel bad for him in a certain way.

I make it clear how hungry I am to do my own thing. My commentary is often tinged with a mindset that would tell anyone, including those at SiriusXM management, I’m not content to be under the Mad Dog umbrella for a much longer period of time. I want to do my thing.

So where do you see it all going for you in the future?

I’d love to do a TV show on a network like HBO. Do something like Bill Maher does from the sports angle. I think there’s a TV show out there for me.

I’m so bullish about what’s going on at SiriusXM. There is ceiling here so high that I don’t think we can see it yet. So I’d love to be there for the next 20 years. SiriusXM would be foolish not to look at my hunger, passion and drive and not give me a more prominent role.

I love SiriusXM. I want SiriusXM to love me a little bit more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q/A with Dino Costa: Mad Dog host says his show offers alternative to ‘homogenized garbage’ of sports talk radio

Posted on by

First of two parts:

At one point during our interview, Dino Costa said, “I don’t want to sound braggadocious.”

I’m thinking, he doesn’t want to sound braggadocious? This is a guy who has been telling me for the better part of an hour that he is the best thing going on sports talk radio. And the vast of bulk of programming in the format, he says, is a bunch of “homogenized garbage.”

Then again, listeners of The Dino Costa Radio Show wouldn’t be surprised.

His evening show on the Mad Dog Radio channel on SiriusXM (7-11 p.m. ET) is the sports talk version of UFC: Anything goes. Supremely confident and “fearless,” Costa has a strong opinion about everything and anything, and that includes slamming the guy whose nickname is the title of the station, Chris Russo.

Recently, Costa called Russo “a has been.” And that was on Russo’s show.

Costa, 48, has had a curious life and career. He didn’t even break into the business until he was 33. It is all well-documented in a piece by Michael Hastings in Men’s Journal. Hastings has a great description of Costa’s style:

Costa makes Colin Cowherd or Skip Bayless, two of ESPN’S best-known Angry Male alphas, seem mild and  reasonable. Compared with them, Costa is more like a militia leader broadcasting direct from Ruby Ridge under siege, an army of liberals blasting away from the other side of the barbed wire.

The fact that Men’s Journal did a story on an evening sports talk host on satellite radio shows the impact Costa is having in the market since he joined Mad Dog in 2009. And since it hasn’t come easy for him, and since he wants a much bigger slice of the pie, if not the whole thing, he feels compelled to blow his horn as if it were an air raid siren.

Drawing the inevitable sports radio comparsions to Rush Limbaugh (“a huge compliment”), Costa can be extremely polarizing and hardly is for everyone. But despite all of Costa’s personal slams, even Russo concedes “he’s a helluva host.”

Here’s Part 1 of my Q/A with Costa in which he takes apart the sports talk radio industry.

How would you explain your show to people who haven’t heard it before?

I can answer in a way that talks about the industry of sports talk radio. On balance, all sports talk radio sounds exactly the same. There is a status quo that underwhelms me. It’s homogenized garbage that deals with the lowest common denominator. The predictability is frightening. The same subject, same comments every day. It stays in the same lane and drones on and on.

I’m amazed at people who think this is good sports talk radio. I find most people involved in the format are completely bankrupt from a creative point of view.

You look at the people they are bringing in for (the new CBS and NBC Sports Radio Networks). There isn’t a compelling 3-4 hour block in there. It’s all the same. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think there is some kind of conspiracy out there.

I heard you once devote the bulk of your show ripping Jim Rome. He’s wildly successful in sports talk radio. Why would you have issues with him?

Jim got in on the ground floor when sports talk radio was starting to flourish. His show is highly overproduced. There is a significant amount of authenticity that is lacking. I find his show to be scripted and then he turns it over to a bunch of callers he calls “clones.” How is this compelling radio? It’s the same stuff every day.

What about Mike and Mike at ESPN Radio? They do big numbers.

I have great respect for them, but that is an incredibly over produced show. It’s broken up into segments, and they have 10-11 guests, most of them the same people from ESPN. It’s the same stuff over and over again. They never say anything controversial. They stay within the politically correct line.

There’s just a lack of courage in this business. Everything is a carbon copy. What I do is distinctly different from the status quo.

OK what do you do? Let’s gets back to the original question of how would you describe your show?

I present a completely different look and feel to sports talk radio that is absent anywhere else. The show is unique in that it attracts more than the hardcore sports fan. I’ve had people tell me, ‘I don’t listen to sports radio, but I listen to your show.’ That’s the biggest compliment I can get.

My show transcends the craft of sports talk radio. I resonate with people. It doesn’t matter if you love or hate what I say, the bottom line, people listen to me. The show is impossible to ignore.

SiriusXM provides a forum for the most liberated kind of sports talk. There’s no calibrator. Nothing is taboo. As a talk show host, I find it incredibly liberating.

It’s about two hours before your show. What is on the agenda for tonight?

I don’t know. It’s completely organic. I have some thoughts that I want to discuss in my mind, but it is a stream of conscious kind of show. This is a national show. In order to do it properly, I read up to 100 newspapers per day. I’m constantly taking notes.

I could go an hour without taking calls. I don’t have many guests. I get emails from people saying, ‘Stop with the guests. We want to hear what you have to say.’ I’m a different beast. I’m way outside the box.

If your show and presentation is so unique, why has it taken you this long to get on this stage? You’ve had several stops along the way.

Good question. In terms of style and format, there’s been a great reluctance by upper management to embrace somebody as opinionated and irreverent as I can be. I’ve talked to many people in the industry about this question. One person, who I respect, told me, ‘With your show, you put people at risk in upper management.’

Programmers aren’t intelligent. Oh, they’re intelligent in selecting people who won’t have people complaining about them. They make the same predictable hires, and it’s all so vanilla.

You take a wildcard like me, you’ve got to be willing to let the phone ring or field the complaints.

You had to try out for your show on Mad Dog and weren’t even hired initially. Again if you’re so good, why didn’t you get hired right away?

That was a big mistake on their part. I give (program director Steve Torre) a lot of credit. He recognized that I could be something big. I’m going to be the best hire SiriusXM ever made.

You did meet with NBC. How did that go?

I (also) met with ESPN three times. The fit at NBC wasn’t a good one. It would have been a truncated relationship.

When I met with NBC, I asked, ‘What are you going to do that is different to distinguish yourself from ESPN and CBS? Is adding Dan Patrick going to be your big move?’

They said they needed people who are representative of their brand. What does that mean? Does that I mean I can’t criticize the commissioner of the NFL? They told me I would have to reposition my commentary within the guidelines of acceptable criticism. I couldn’t do that. I refuse to let some kingmaker try to define me. I’d have to castrate my show to provide them with the same corporate radio I often complain about.

How do you envision your future?

I do want a bigger platform that allows me to become the dominant voice in sports talk radio in America from a national standpoint. I think it’s possible.

Part 2: Costa discusses his relationship and criticism of Chris Russo and his desire for a dramatically increased role at SiriusXM. Perhaps even a Dino station.

 

 

 

 

 

 

NFL TV experience still doesn’t compare to being at a game

Posted on by

I took the family to a Bears game a few weeks ago. I froze despite wearing long underwear; I had limited perspective with seats in the endzone; and somebody forgot to put the chocolate in the hot chocolate I ordered at the concession stand.

And I loved being there.

There has been some concern of late that the TV production quality for NFL games is so superior that people will choose the comforts of their couch over popping for those high-priced tickets. None other than commish Roger Goodell said: “One of our biggest challenges is the fan experience at home. HD is only going to get better.”

ESPN’s Outside the Lines dedicated Sunday’s show to the issue with a report from Darren Rovell. ESPN.com’s Rick Reilly gave more reasons to skip the drive to the stadium. He writes:

7) The yellow first down line.

8) Your comfy couch. Have you sat in an NFL seat for three-and-a-half hours lately? They’re approximately the size of American Girl Doll tea chairs. This makes no sense. American seats are getting wider while American stadium seats are getting narrower?

I’ve heard all the arguments, and I saw the fans in Rovell’s report who gave up their tickets to watch the games at home.

And I’m here to say that it is not the same.

Watching the game at home still is a mostly passive experience compared to being in the stands. I could doze off or watch 20 minutes of Rudy while channel surfing.

If I really care about the game, I’m definitely focused in. But I’m not nearly as engaged as being there.

I’m not standing up with 60,000 of my new friends on third and 1. I don’t feel the emotional swings of the game as intensely.

I’m not taking in all the colors on the field and in the stands, a scene that can’t be replicated on television. There’s still something unique about walking up the ramp and seeing everything for the first time on that particular day. Watching Chris Berman during the pregame definitely doesn’t compare.

In my mind, TV has been good for a really long, long time. Probably since the NBC peacock announced the upcoming game would be shown in “living color.” The fact that it has improved dramatically only makes it that much better.

I bow to the alter of Scott Hanson and NFL RedZone, the best creation since….beer?

But it isn’t the same as being at a game.

As Rovell pointed out in his report, the NFL needs to enhance the fan experience to keep up with the times. At the game I attended at Soldier Field, I required better Internet access to follow my terrible fantasy team. During breaks, I wanted to see more RedZone-like highlights on the video board. There were too few of them.

And I wouldn’t have minded some chocolate in my hot chocolate.

I’m not saying I want to go to every game. I’m fine with one or two a year and definitely not in late November or December.

I know it can be a hassle with traffic and parking. And sometimes you might sit next to an idiot.

Some things in life, though, are worth making an effort. I think plenty of people agree. Despite the Bears’ horrid effort last night, the cheapest tickets for the Chicago-Minnesota game at Soldier Field Sunday are listed at $120 for high endzone on Stubhub. There’s still something special about being there.

I will be watching from the comforts of my couch Sunday. And I know it won’t be the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New IU National Sports Journalism director: young writers have advantage over veterans in market

Posted on by

Teaching sports journalism at the big U these days would seem to be as valuable as starting classes on how to make a typewriter.

Journalism is a dying industry, we’re told. Read about it in the papers. What’s left of them, that is.

Malcolm Moran is here to say don’t believe everything you read and hear. And listen to this: He contends in many respects the market never has been better for young journalists. So are the opportunities to make an immediate impact.

Moran has seen it up close as the Knight Chair in Sports Journalism and Society at the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism since 2006. And it isn’t just about young equaling cheaper.

“For the first time in the history of the industry, a 20-something journalist could have an advantage over a 40-something candidate,” Moran said.

In January, Moran will be molding those young writers as the new director of the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana. He takes over a program launched in 2009 by my old Tribune boss Tim Franklin. Moran said there are 100 students affiliated with the NJSC. Those students recently participated in compiling the hiring report card for the Black Coaches and Administrators Association, yet another example of the opportunity to make an early impact.

Moran obviously has the credentials with distinguished stops at the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and USA Today. He has covered more college bowl games and Final Fours than he cares to count.

Now Moran is making his presence felt on the academic side during a time of great transition for the profession. Here’s my Q/A.

What makes you say 20-somethings have an advantage over 40-somethings?

For the first time in the history of the industry, a 20-something journalist could have an advantage over a 40-something candidate. Graduates as recent as the class of 2007 have told me they feel as though they missed out on having the new technology included in their course work. If a younger candidate can meet all the timeless expectations of the industry, and demonstrate that he or she can tell stories across platforms, the assumption is that the candidate will handle the technology more easily than the more experienced veteran. Media outlets are willing to sacrifice institutional memory – and the higher salaries that comes with that – for more cost-effective, techno-savvy candidates. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m just saying it’s happening.

But what about the job cuts in the market. Aren’t there diminished opportunities?

Yes, there is a distribution problem on the print side, but think about how many outlets that didn’t exist 10 years ago. There are staffers from our program at Penn State who are working at the Big Ten Network. When I started, the Big Ten Network was on the drawing board. ESPN.com was a small core of writers and a lot of wire copy 10-15 years ago. Now look at it.

In the spring of 2009, it seemed like there was no movement. The students who were graduating had a hard time finding jobs. But now we’re seeing more opportunities.

At Penn State, we had a student, Mark Viera, who wound up covering a lot of the Sandusky story for the New York Times. If you opened up the paper, you would assume he was a staff writer. He and Pete Thamel won the APSE award for breaking news. Those kinds of places would rarely use a free lancer 10-15 years ago. Now they do. The opportunity to make a name for yourself now is much greater.

Why would somebody want a sports journalism program as opposed to a regular journalism program?

Part of it is the nature of the industry and the changes we’ve seen. It’s so much more fragmented. Can a journalism major succeed in sports? Of course. However, last year, the students at Penn State covered the men’s Final Four, the BCS game, and the Olympics. If you’re 22 and have that on your resume, you’re in good shape.

We had nine students at the Olympics in London. They produced the digital newsletter daily for the USOC. There were only 15 U.S. media outlets that had more people in London than we did.

You can’t replicate what we did in London in a classroom. When we first got there, they were, ‘OK, what do we do now?’ By the end, they were veterans. It was fun to watch them discover that they can do this.

How is teaching sports journalism different now than 10 years ago?

It’s different than even three or four years ago. I guarantee you the word ‘tweet’ was nowhere to be found in my syllabus. Now I do a class on tweeting and how to use it in an intelligent way. We stress the same standards apply to a 140-character tweet as they do to a 2,000 word story.

Tweeting wasn’t on our radar three years ago, but if you don’t do it now, you’re not doing yourself justice.

What is the key for a young writer to get a job today?

You have to be able to cross every platform. You have to be able to tell your story in more ways than you used to. You can’t show up with a notebook in your pocket and expect to be relevant. You have to market yourself by demonstrating you can work across all the platforms. If you can do that and retain your core values, then you’re marketable.

What are your hopes for NSJC?

I’d like to grow the program and identify people who can make a difference. I have relationships with people they have relationships with. They’ve done a lot in a short period of time. I hope to be able to build upon it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Wilbon right? Has volume of great sports writing declined?

Posted on by

There was some interesting reaction to Michael Wilbon’s comments about sports writing in Wednesday’s post.

Wilbon, who edited Best American Sports Writing 2012, said: “There’s not as much good stuff as there used to be. Don’t get me wrong. I turned down some good pieces. But I know what it used to be. There’s not enough stuff that compels me. The volume (of quality writing) is not close.”

Several people disagreed with his assessment. Tweeters cited excellent writers and work being done at Sports Illustrated, ESPN The Magazine, Yahoo!, Grantland, etc. This week’s issue of SI has an excellent long piece on Rams owner/billionaire Stan Kroenke by L. Jon Wertheim. It is in the tradition of Frank Deford and the other SI greats.

There are several online platforms producing some excellent work. Much like Grantland, the new SportsonEarth was created to feed the demand for good sports writing.

Yet Wilbon also has good reason behind his comments. Clearly, newspapers do less than they did 20 years ago, even 10 years ago. You don’t see the takeouts or the long profiles. I remember doing 800-1,000 words for routine game stories during my days on various beats at the Chicago Tribune in the late ’80s and early ’90s. Now that’s almost like novel length compared to what you see today.

Naturally, the volume of what Wilbon terms as “good stuff” is going to be down. It has to be. Sports sections are much smaller, and writers are writing less.

Wilbon admitted that “90 percent” of what he read is in newspapers and periodicals. So perhaps he misses some of the quality work that is coming out of those websites. Maybe he needs to change his reading habits.

However, Wilbon is right when he says the writing isn’t the same. Or perhaps so much of the quality work gets drowned out by the shrill voices that demand to be heard on so many of those same websites. For many, it’s more about what you say than how you say it. There isn’t as much of a premium on the written word.

Wilbon said many times during our interview that the times “are different.”

“I’m not saying better,” he said.

Indeed, he is right. Yet I think the book he edited shows the profession still can produce a quality of work that would measure up in any era.

Last night, I read a piece in Wilbon’s book by Robert Huber in Philadelphia on Allen Iverson. He went to Turkey to find the former Philadelphia 76ers star in the last days of his career.

Huber writes of attending one of Iverson’s games:

Iverson’s scaled-down posse is easy to spot in the stands: two large black guys, one with a diamond earring, and one with a deeply lined face and a baseball cap pulled low, with a gorgeous eye-blinking biracial woman in tow, and a mixed-race buddy with a red ponytail, diamond-shaped earrings, and heavy silver chains. I point out these particulars because it is impossible not to stare at them, which is a dangerous thing to do even in Turkey.

Their standout presence is so at odds with both Iverson’s careful controlled first game and the crowds’s careful, nervous solicitation of him.

So Wilbon might be right. There might not be as much good stuff these days. But good stuff still is pretty damn good.

Let me know what you think.

 

 

Wilbon on why he still writes: It’s who I am; does columns for ESPNChicago.com

Posted on by

Part 3 of my Q/A with Michael Wilbon:

Michael Wilbon was at Soldier Field to write a column off the Bears-Houston game last Sunday. And he plans to be at San Francisco to do the same drill for the Bears-49ers game Monday.

Why?

I am not alone in asking this question. Wilbon already has a packed schedule with two shows at ESPN: Pardon The Interruption and NBA Countdown. And he has various other duties, projects and speaking engagements that keep him plenty busy.

Wilbon earns crazy money, as in excess of seven figures annually. He isn’t grinding out 80 or so columns per year for the money. Knock a couple zeros off of Wilbon’s contract, and that’s what a sportswriter earns.

And Wilbon isn’t even writing for ESPN’s biggest online platform. Most of his columns run at ESPNChicago.com. Hence, his coverage of Chicago sports.

Yet there Wilbon is, trolling the press boxes of his hometown teams. Going down to the lockerroom; checking sources. It can be hard and difficult. Grunt work, for lack of a better term.

Why wasn’t he relaxing at home Sunday night instead of catching a post-midnight ride in the rain outside of Soldier Field?

The answer, Wilbon says, is simple. Even though he has gained fame and considerable fortune on TV, the former Washington Post columnist says, once a writer, always a writer.

Here’s my Q/A.

You don’t have to do this. Why do you continue to write?

Because it’s who I am. I love it. I’m not exaggerating. I’m terrified at the prospect of not writing. That’s who I am. That’s what I do.

What about those TV gigs? Plenty of scribes in the press box wouldn’t mind trading places and paychecks with you.

I’m happy with what I do for ESPN. I’m grateful to do it. It’s fun. The fun level for PTI is a 10. The satisfaction level is a 9. But is that who I am? No. I aspired to be a columnist, not a talker on television. I didn’t grow up with that.

What is it about the creative process of writing a column?

You can’t develop a thought on TV. You have to go to something else. It’s sound bites. It’s 140 characters. It’s tidbits. I kid Bill Simmons about writing 6,000 word columns. You don’t necessarily have to do that, but with a column you get a chance to develop a thought.

I go out of my way to write because I still love it. I live in complete fear every day that I’m not as good at it.

How so?

I went to the Olympics and wrote every day. 20 columns. I loved it, but that’s it. I’m not going to do the Olympics anymore. The writing is harder now. Now I know what the coaches mean about getting the reps.

Once I wrote 230 columns in a year at the Post. Another year, it was 208. When you go down to 80, you’re not going to be as good at it. The words don’t come as quickly on deadline.

At the Bears game Sunday, I told the driver to pick me up at midnight. I walked downstairs at 12:28. It took me an hour-and-half to write that column. That’s twice as long to write what I used to write. And I worried all night, was it any good?

What if they asked you to go to Brazil for the Olympics in 2016?

In four years? Are you kidding? I won’t be able to produce any copy. It’ll take me a week to write a column.

How come you’re writing mainly for ESPNChicago.com and not for ESPN.com?

They’ve got a ton of people over there. I’m not anyone. I’m just a guy who argues on TV.

My first thought  when I (started writing for ESPN) was that I would do more national stuff. I don’t think anyone cares or wants me to. I did not think it would evolve in this direction. I still do some pieces that run nationally. They’ll call me and, ‘Can you write a big picture piece (for ESPN.com)?’ But I’m glad it worked out this way because I care about what goes on in Chicago.

So you’ll be in San Francisco for the Bears game Monday?

I volunteer to cover stuff if (ESPNChicago.com) is going to be there. The writing still is important to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wilbon on sports writing today: Not as much good stuff as there used to be

Posted on by

Second of three parts

Michael Wilbon repeatedly stressed he isn’t looking to pass judgment or that he longs for another era.

“I don’t want to sound like some grumpy old man telling you to get off my lawn,” he said.

Yet Wilbon’s role as editor of The Best American Sports Writing 2012 confirmed what he already knew.

“There’s not as much good stuff being written as there used to be,” said the former Washington Post columnist.

Make no mistake, he said, he found plenty of good stuff in the book. Make that, tremendous stuff. As I wrote Sunday, there are several stories in the book that will stand the test of time in any era. It is a great reminder of what sports writing still can produce.

Wilbon, though, laments that the volume simply isn’t the same. He says the impact of social media and the post-it-first mentality of sports websites have altered the craft. It’s all about information, and less about style and quality, he said.

“Tony Kornheiser likes to say, ‘This is the golden age for sportswriters,'” Wilbon said. “‘He said, ‘Don’t confuse that with the golden age for sports writing.'”

Here’s my Q/A with Wilbon on sports writing, 2012:

Why did you want to edit the book?

I don’t get to write as much anymore, so I wanted to be connected to it in that way. I wanted to look where we are now and assess where it’s going.

It was interesting. People don’t write takeouts and profiles anymore. There’s a few, but that used to be a staple of sports journalism. It’s not a driving force now. It’s all news and information driven now. It’s all this metrics and stuff I don’t give a shit about. I’m not saying it was better 30 years ago. It’s just different.

But you have profile pieces in the book.

Yes, but I went out of my way because I thought they were really good. I wanted a good mix of stories. There’s some columns, some shorter stories, issue and enterprise pieces. There’s a writing and awareness of where we are as a culture.

Oh my God, the hockey piece (John Branch, “Punched out: The life and death of a hockey enforcer,” New York Times) stands out among the best sports writing I’ve ever seen. I had bets with myself. ‘What’s going to be better than this?’ Nothing. It’s a stunning, stunning piece of work. There were a couple along those lines.

How did a story pass the test and get into the book?

Good question. Did I find it compelling? Did I not put it down? If the phone rang, will I answer it or not? What I like is so varied. What’s going to hold my interest is not uniform. I want to feel compelled. I want to feel something.

What was your overall impression from editing the book?

There’s not as much good stuff as there used to be. Don’t get me wrong. I turned down some good pieces. But I know what it used to be. There’s not enough stuff that compels me. The volume (of quality writing) is not close.

We’re all chasing the same story. Most of it I don’t care about. Where’s LeBron going? Even the great writers aren’t as great as they used to be. They’re smarter. They may be good reporters. They may get information we care about, but they’re not as good at writing. I’m not as great as I used to be. You’re too busy trying to get it posted before Yahoo! does. It’s all a rush to get it posted, to be first.

That’s why Grantland is important. There’s a void. People don’t do (the longer stories). They don’t read anymore.

I don’t want to sound like the old man with the rolled up newspaper saying, ‘Get off the lawn.’ But it’s the truth. If people want to get mad at me for saying that, they can.

Weren’t they saying the same thing in the 80s when you were coming up at the Post? Didn’t the veterans talk about how good things were back in the glory days of Red Smith and Grantland Rice?

Listen, there’s still good sports writing. Great sports writing. But is there as much of it as there was 30 years ago? No, not in my opinion. Who’s the Frank Deford out there now? Leigh Montville? Dave Kindred? Our Ralph Wiley? Is there anybody out there writing a column like Tony Kornheiser did 20 years ago? Is the Republic going to fall if nobody can turn a phrase like Barry Lorge did? No, but I like that.

It’s just different. The biggest development: Beat writers don’t watch the game. They’re tweeting. When I was at the Post, I told the beat writers, ‘Would you put that down and watch the game.’ They’re sending the editors the inactives just before kickoff. For what? It’s going to be on TV in two minutes. It’s hard to do all that and then produce great writing.

I’m on the board of (Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism). We changed the whole curriculum because it’s not the same. They don’t write as well. Why is that? They’re taking classes in multi-media. They have to learn how to operate a camera. It’s stuff I didn’t have to do.

You say all that, and yet the book you did could have been as representative of 1989 as 2012.

That’s the best compliment I could get. I wasn’t doing it consciously, but I think I was putting together a book of stories that I care about. It reflects my point of view. It might look like something in 1988, because it’s going to reflect what I believe in.

They asked me to edit this. I chose stories I liked. It’s not edited in the style of a 28-year-old. The book reflects my feelings about what the good journalism is, not somebody else.

Thursday: Wilbon doesn’t have to write anymore, but he does. Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wilbon Q/A: NBA Countdown isn’t trying to compete with Barkley, TNT; speaks on changes, Simmons, Magic

Posted on by

First of three parts:

It isn’t easy to pin down Michael Wilbon these days. It’s not that he doesn’t want to talk. The notion of silence doesn’t exist for him.

Rather, Wilbon is a constant man in motion this time of year. His regular gigs on NBA Countdown and Pardon the Interruption should be enough to fill his plate. Wilbon, though, still loves to write, which is why he was in Chicago to write a column off Sunday’s Bears-Houston game for ESPNChicago.com.

“It’s crazy, man,” he said.

After many texts, I finally connected with Wilbon Monday. And sure enough, he had plenty to say. Enough for a three-parter.

We discussed the state of sports writing in the wake of him editing and selecting the stories for Best American Sports Writing 2012; and why he feels the need to continue to cover games and write.

The first part of my interview with Wilbon will focus on the changes for NBA Countdown. Out are Chris Broussard and Jon Barry. In are Bill Simmons and Jalen Rose. Wilbon and Magic Johnson remain the constants in a studio show that exists in the same stratosphere as the Charles Barkley fest on the NBA on TNT.

How did you feel about the changes?

For the first time in my life, I understand what happens in the lockerroom when a guy gets traded. Jon wasn’t just a co-worker. He was one of my closest friends. It was every day for five years. It put me in a funk. There was an emotional component I hadn’t been forced to look at before.

Yet having said that, I love the guys coming in, Jalen and Bill. Bill knows so much about basketball. Jalen is terrific. We’ll have four guys with different points of view. We should be able to do some smart talk about basketball.

What about the inevitable comparisons to Barkley and TNT?

We’re not TNT. There’s only one Charles Barkley. I’ve said that Charles is the most important voice in the post-John Madden era. People compare. That’s fine, that’s natural. I love Charles and (Kenny Smith). I guess they’re still trying to figure out how to get Shaq involved. I love watching them. But we don’t compete with them. We shouldn’t try to do the same thing. We should do a different show than the one they’re doing.

Simmons is the wildcard. He didn’t play, and never covered the game the way you did. How will his addition make the show different?

He will be easy to tweak. Some of my job will be to start some fights and be an instigator with Bill. Bill’s personality allows for that, and it will make for better discussion.

One of the producers said, ‘Bring some PTI to this show.’ It wasn’t the case before for this show. Maybe it will be for this one.

What is it like to work with Magic?

I always say, ‘I get to watch basketball with Magic Johnson.’ I know so much more about basketball than I did five years ago. When you’re watching Magic watch Steve Nash, that’s like basketball nirvana. He said LeBron James needed a post game. What does LeBron do? He gets a post game. If you can’t listen to Magic and not learn something, then turn it off.

As a player, Magic was flamboyant, but as an analyst he goes back to his Midwestern roots. It’s just that he’s straightforward. People compare him to Charles. They say he doesn’t do this or that. Hey, they’re different people. Magic just has to be Magic.

What’s your assessment of the new show thus far?

We’ll be fine, but it’s going to take repetition. It’s like the coaches say about getting the reps. The other day, my wife asked how the show went. I said, ‘We were better at 11 than we were at 7.’ I’d expect we’ll be better on Christmas Day than we are today.

Wednesday: Wilbon says the new media age has resulted in a lower quality in sports writing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My First Job: Marv Albert on classical music station? Does Reagan thing recreating baseball games

Posted on by

Consider this: One of Marv Albert’s first jobs in broadcasting was on a classical music station.

“Mozart. Yes!” 

Earlier this week, I did a post in which Albert said he thought he was getting better at his craft at age 71. During our interview, I asked him to reflect back on his roots.

In the latest edition of My First Job, Albert recalls his early days as a young broadcaster while attending Syracuse. He actually got his start as a DJ.

The legendary Marty Glickman then took him under his wing. As a fill-in, Albert called Knicks and Rangers games at the age of 20. It was the start of a career that’s still going strong after five decades.

Here’s Albert.

*******

I was a DJ at Syracuse.  I worked for a record company when I was kid in high school. It was fun. We would run record hops, as they called it. We’d get an auditorium and we brought in Chubby Checker, Del Shannon, people like that. We made money and lost money. It was a great experience.

My next job was in a classical radio station in Syracuse. WONO-FM. They weren’t happy with me.

I’d open the station in the morning on the weekends. To me, the thrill was reading the sports. I guess I was a little too enthusiastic with my reports. Their audience wasn’t that way. They wanted it low-key.

The great thing about Syracuse, there were many opportunities in the city. My first sports (play-by-play) was with the Syracuse Chiefs minor league baseball team. We did the home games and recreated the road games. All the minor league teams would do that.

You did the crack of the bat, the crowd noise. You got pitch-by-pitch on the wire. If you had a rain delay, you had trouble.

I was very fortunate when I left Syracuse. I went to WCBS in New York. I worked for Marty Glickman, who was doing everything in New York at the time: Giants, Knicks, some network assignments. I worked for him as his research guy.

Marty brought me in to fill in for him on Knicks and Rangers at a very young age. I didn’t even know if I was ready. I was 20. It was a joke, really.

But he had confidence in me and it all worked out.

 

 

 

Bears-Houston game, strong schedule, figure to add to NBC’s Sunday night bounty; NFL ratings soaring

Posted on by

Ah yes, it is very, very good to be the NFL. And it only figures to get better.

Through the halfway mark, NFL games rank as the top 14 shows on TV this season. Here’s a big reason: Nearly one quarter of NFL games (31 of 132) have had the winning score in the final two minutes of the fourth quarter or in overtime – the highest rate ever through Week 9 since at least 1970.

Best TV viewing in sports: The last hour of the early games on NFL RedZone.

The numbers have occurred during a period when the early fall weather was decent for most of the country and with the games facing competition from baseball’s postseason and the election.

Now that the San Francisco Giants and Obama have been crowned, and with the weather starting to do its cruel turn towards cold and yuk, viewers will have no other choice but to stay inside and watch football, football and more football.

NBC really is in position to cash in with a loaded schedule. Through nine weeks, NBC’s Sunday night games are averaging 21.2 million viewers per game, ranking as the No. 1 show in primetime.

Sunday’s game features the 7-1 Houston Texans traveling to Chicago to face the 7-1 Bears. The Bears always are a strong ratings draw, and even better when they are among the NFL’s best. Houston is the favorite in the AFC. Should do a big number if the game is good.

Flex scheduling then kicks in for NBC during week 11, but I doubt the network will play that card much this year; possible exception San Diego-Jets on Dec. 23 depending on where those teams stand in playoff hunt.

Here’s what NBC has coming up:

Nov. 18: Baltimore Ravens at Pittsburgh Steelers

Nov. 22: New England Patriots at New York Jets (Thanksgiving)

Nov. 25: Green Bay Packers at New York Giants

Dec. 2: Philadelphia Eagles at Dallas Cowboys (NBC won’t give up game at Dallas)

Dec. 9: Detroit Lions at Green Bay Packers

Dec. 16: San Francisco 49ers at New England Patriots

Dec. 23: San Diego at New York Jets

Dec. 30: TBA.

All in all, it’s good to be NBC this fall.

********

ESPN’s Monday Night Football isn’t as blessed. Monday’s game features the dreadful Kansas City Chiefs at Pittsburgh. It also is looking at Carolina-Philadelphia (Nov. 26), Jets at Tennessee (Dec. 17).

However, MNF does have some winners: Chicago-San Francisco (Nov. 17), Houston-New England (Dec. 10) and Atlanta-Detroit (Dec. 22).

MNF is in good shape, ranking as the No. 1 show on cable.

*******

Fox and CBS receive the NFL’s biggest numbers with the Sunday doubleheader games. The NFL reports:

Sunday late afternoon NFL games continue to draw more viewers than anything on TV. FOX is averaging 24.6 million viewers for its Sunday national telecasts and CBS is averaging 23.1 million viewers.  The FOX and CBS national telecasts and NBC Sunday Night Football are the only programs on TV averaging more than 20 million viewers.

More from the NFL:

Through Week 9, NBC’s Sunday Night Football is the most-watched show in primetime and ESPN’s Monday Night Football is the most-watched program on cable.

In addition, the average NFL game telecast (including broadcast and cable) has drawn 16.0 million viewers – more than double the average primetime viewership (7.7 million) for the big four broadcast networks in the new television season, according to information provided by The Nielsen Company.

Since the beginning of the 2012 NFL season, NFL games have topped the local ratings in NFL markets a record 91 percent of the time – up from 86 percent through nine weeks last season.

******

The NFL Network is on a record pace, averaging more than 7.6 million viewers (including over-the-air telecasts) in its first year with Thursday Night Football games in the first half of the season.  Last season, Thursday Night Football posted a record average 7.3 million viewers.

Tonight, NFL Network has Andrew Luck’s first of what will be many nationally televised games against the dreadful Jaguars. The NFL Network crew, though, hopes to make the most of its trip to Jacksonville:

NFL Network’s Rich Eisen, Marshall Faulk, Deion Sanders, Kurt Warner and Steve Mariucci are in Jacksonville, FL this week for the Thursday Night Football game between the Jaguars and Colts. Before the game, the group will head to TPC Sawgrass to determine who can come closest to the pin at the world famous 17th hole in a feature that will air during the Kay Jewelers Postgame Show after the game. PGA Tour veteran Jim Furyk will be on hand to assist the guys and help them with their shots.

For the record, I parred 17 the one and only time I played the hole.