My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana is on watching the first Monday Night Football telecast and how set the template for what we see today.

*******

Last week, I wrote about ESPN’s Megacast offering a myriad of platforms to consume the college football championship game. Coming next year: A Megacast option allowing viewers to exercise with Richard Simmons while watching the game.

Next week, NBC will have 24,916 cameras for its coverage of the Super Bowl. Looking forward to the Tom Brady toe nail cam.

So it seemed fitting in a time when sports TV continues to push various envelopes, I got a chance to see where it all came from: ABC’s debut of “Monday Night Football” in 1970.

On Friday, Mike Bass, my old Daily Illini teammate, invited me to join his Northwestern sports journalism class in watching the monumental telecast at the Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago.

I told the class ABC’s coverage of the Jets-Cleveland game on Sept. 21, 1970, truly was an indelible moment in TV sports history. It only changed everything, the seed from which ESPN, sports talk radio and basically modern sports TV was born.

Prior to that game, TV sports coverage was straight down the middle, devoid of any bells and whistles.

“An NFL telecast almost was a church event,” Al Michaels recalled last week.

Also, the notion that viewers would watch the NFL in prime time was ludicrous in 1970. CBS actually passed on the opportunity because it didn’t want to bump the “Doris Day Show” on Monday night. Think about that one for a while.

Enter Roone Arledge, arguably the single most important figure ever in TV sports. He decided to turn “Monday Night Football” into an event, not just a game. While the other networks used four cameras to televise game, and mostly relying on the 50-yard line angle, Arledge used nine or 10 cameras, providing shots never seen on a football telecast.

Arledge also foisted Howard Cosell on an unsuspecting nation. Instead of bland football analysis, Cosell’s provocative and polarizing persona was a culture shock. You can argue that sports talk radio and all those sports studio shows started with the man who always said, “I tell it like it is.”

Previously, I only had seen snippets of ABC’s first MNF telecast. It was a real treat to see the whole thing, complete with commercials.

Speaking of commercials, cigarette advertising still was allowed on TV in 1970. Let history show that the first ad on MNF featured the Marlboro man, drinking coffee and taking a deep drag on the high plain.

I also have to note an incredibly sexist ad for Goodyear. It showed a woman nervously driving through the rain to pick up her husband at the airport. The point was that a man should think of his feeble wife when buying the best and safest tires. Hard to believe that aired in my lifetime.

One other thing also stood out: the commercial breaks only were one minute. That’s it. And there was no such thing as the dreaded touchdown, 2-2:30 run of ads, kickoff, and then another 2-2:30 break combination. What a novel concept: 60 seconds and then back to football.

Cosell opened the telecast by saying, “Welcome to ABC’s primetime, nationally-televised National Football League series.”

The open included Cosell interviewing Joe Namath, who really was a presence with his long, wavy hair. Then his introduction to Don Meredith gave a prelude for the future irreverence on MNF. It featured a montage of “Dandy Dan” getting clobbered during his days as Dallas’ quarterback.

“I didn’t know y’all were going to do that,” Meredith said.

Yet beyond mocking Meredith, the initial stages of that first telecast were fairly conventional. Back then, the play-by-play man dominated the telecasts. Keith Jackson was the only voice viewers heard through Jets’ first series, a 3-and-out resulting in a punt, and the first three plays of the Browns series. Finally, Cosell weighed in with a generic observation on tight end Milt Morin.

During the second quarter, I turned to Mike and said, “You know, this is pretty dull.” I’m sure the students were wondering if my flagging memory had inflated how good early MNF actually was.

“Remember,” I told the class. “This was their first game. They didn’t go from 0 to 60 right out of the gate.”

Sure enough, some snippets of their true personalities eventually emerged. There was this exchange.

Jackson: “You can tell by now that Cleveland Stadium is a cacophony of sound.”

Meredith: “What in the world is that?”

Jackson: “I got that from Howard.”

Later, Meredith couldn’t hold back in discussing Cleveland receiver Fair Hooker.

“Isn’t Fair Hooker a great name?” Meredith said.

“I pass,” Cosell said.

At halftime, Cosell displayed his singular talents in narrating the highlights for the first time from Sunday’s games. “There’s the irrepressible Deacon Jones,” he said, sending viewers to their dictionaries.

Then there was his immortal label for “the New York Football Giants,” a term Chris Berman still uses in tribute to Cosell.

Meredith and Cosell seemed to step it up in the second half, as they got more comfortable with their roles in the telecast. In a few weeks, they would hit their stride, prompting Cosell to eventually boast that viewers tuned in to watch them as much as the game.

Through the perspective of college students in 2015, the first MNF telecast had to seem uninspiring. No score box; no first down line; no elaborately produced graphics.

Yet you had to view the game through the prism of a sports TV viewer in 1970. That first telecast was so cutting edge. The multiple cameras allowed Arledge to deliver isolation shots on players. He showed replays from an endzone view. Arledge also placed microphones on the field, capturing sound from players.

The game ended with a famous shot of Namath, with his head bowed and slumped shoulders, after he threw an interception to seal the Browns’ win. Director Chet Forte kept the cameras on him for nearly 30 seconds, capturing the emotions of the great quarterback in defeat. Football fans hadn’t seen or heard a game that way before.

Arledge also changed the dynamic with his pairing of Cosell and Meredith. You could argue that it paved the way for the highly unconventional John Madden to become a TV superstar in the ‘80s.

Arledge always wanted his good friend Frank Gifford to be part of the telecast. However, “The Giffer” still was under contract to CBS in 1970. When he became available, Arledge made him the play-by-play voice for MNF in 1971. He told a dejected Jackson that he would be great on college football. How did that work out?

Indeed, Arledge was a true genius in TV, as he also transformed ABC News. I told the class when he died in 2002, my obituary on him ran on A-1 of the Chicago Tribune.

“He turned the way sports are done inside out,” said Dick Ebersol, his protégée.

As the years pass, Arledge’s legacy will fade. Yet those in the business never will forget him. In fact, every NFL telecast, including NBC’s upcoming work on the Super Bowl, pays tribute to Arledge.

Arledge laid out the blueprint with that first telecast of Monday Night Football in 1970. They’re still using it today.

I live in Chicago, but I’m not one of those Packers-hating Bear fans. I think Aaron Rodgers is terrific and love the tradition of what goes on in Green Bay.

However, I also had another reason to root for the Packers Sunday: Marshawn Lynch.

I really did not want to see Lynch get another shot at making a mockery of his media duties at the Super Bowl. Damn.

The Seattle running back already gave a sneak preview of his act in Arizona by completely snubbing the media after his terrific performance Sunday. It seems he also could be in line for more fines beyond not talking.

Ryan Parker of the Los Angeles Times reports:

The Seattle Seahawks controversial running back Marshawn Lynch had a huge game Sunday, helping his team beat the Green Bay Packers, and, for a second year in a row, advance to the Super Bowl.

He also appeared to make an inappropriate gesture while celebrating a touchdown, again, and refused to talk to the media, again. Odds are good that fines are — once again — coming his way.

Lynch, also known as “Beast Mode” for his relentless running style when he has the ball, has already been fined more than $100,000 this season for what the NFL determines as poor behavior.

It is no secret Lynch does not like speaking to the media, but recently he has played ball — to a point. The last few weeks, Lynch has talked to reporters, but only given one word answers, such as “Yeah.”

After the big win Sunday, he didn’t even do that.

Classy guy, right?

So now there’s going to be a Marshawn Lynch watch at media day next week. You can expect he will mock reporters who are just trying to do their jobs.

If Lynch has a beef with the NFL’s policy requiring players to talk, he needs to take it up with the Players Association. Otherwise, show up, answer a few questions and leave. It isn’t that hard.

Lynch’s presence really makes it difficult to decide who to root for in the Super Bowl. I’d like to see Tom Brady win a fourth title, but then I’d have to pull for Bill Belichick.

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana looks at the future of sports TV with ESPN’s Megacast. I know two people who weren’t fans.

********

I have two teenage sons who serve as my de facto lab for assessing trends in sports TV.

Matt, a 19-year-old college freshman, and Sam, a 17-year-old high school junior, are in the wheelhouse for sports programmers. They are sports obsessed. Our TVs have games or ESPN blasting nearly 24/7.

So I pay close attention to what they watch. Early on, I could see them gravitating to the Blackhawks when they were just beginning their run in 2009. It was a sign hockey could become huge in Chicago, which indeed has occurred.

Even though they are avid Cubs and White Sox fans, you couldn’t pay them to sit through a marathon World Series game. Their friends feel the same way. Granted it is a small sample size, but it seems to be a clear indicator that the younger demo is checking out on baseball.

So with that in mind, the three of us, plus Sherman the dog (think Sherman & Peabody), settled in to watch the college football championship game Monday night. Quickly, I started to bang on the remote, finding the various channels for ESPN’s Megacast presentation.

We watched a few minutes of the coaches in the Film Room; a snippet of Michael Wilbon and others eating sandwiches in the somewhat bizarre “Voices”; and something called “Off The Ball,” which I couldn’t quite figure out.

I figured my sons would enjoy all the additional viewing options for Monday’s game. After all, they are the essence of the short-attention span generation. It feels as if their cell phones are permanently glued to their fingers.

However, Matt became somewhat exasperated as I diverted from the conventional coverage early in the second quarter to check out the Megacast.

“Dad,” Matt said. “Would you stop it?”

“What do you mean?” I responded.

“Just keep the game on ESPN,” he said.

“Wait a minute,” I said. “This Megacast is aimed for you guys. You don’t want to watch it?”

“No, we don’t care about (the Megacast),” he said. “We just want to watch the game.”

There you have it, ESPN research. The young demo in the Sherman household preferred old school on Monday.

Clearly, the dynamic is changing for how the networks will present games, especially big games. The days of one screen, one telecast are coming to an end.

In fact, they already are done when you consider that most sports viewers, including those from my generation, watch games while following reaction on social media, along with monitoring various websites.

ESPN took it to another level offering 12 different options (including radio and Internet) to consume Monday’s game. When you have as many platforms as ESPN, you might as well use them, right? While I couldn’t get into watching Wilbon eat, I did like the Film Room with the various coaches breaking down the game in a way that went far beyond Kirk Herbstreit’s analysis on ESPN. However, I’m not sure why ESPN insisted using the large part of the screen to show a coach talking while the live action was relegated to a small portion in the upper corner.

Despite my son’s complaints, I persisted on switching back and forth between the game and the Megacast until midway through the third quarter. Then sensory overload set in. Eventually, I found the banter on the other outlets distracting, if not mentally taxing. It almost felt like trying to watch a movie while simultaneously listening to the critics debate the director’s work.

Finally, I had enough. The game was so good, I just wanted to hear Chris Fowler and Herbstreit on the call. My night with Megacast was done.

There’s little question that this whole multi-platform approach is a work in progress. Recently, Comcast SportsNet Chicago experimented in presenting Bulls and Blackhawks games in a quad-box format on a secondary channel. The regular feed was in one corner with different perspectives, including a player isolation, comprising the other three views. In theory, it seemed interesting, but I found it difficult to follow the game with four screens in one.

The most promising of the out-of-box presentations was CBS giving viewers the option of hearing home-team calls on other channels during last year’s Final Four. It was entertaining to hear the emotions of biased announcers. Hopefully, CBS will do it again.

Other alternative concepts surely are in the works. As with anything, viewers will require an adjustment period to get used to changes. Remember the initial uproar when Fox introduced the score box into a game telecast? Too distracting, people said. Now it seems crazy to think of a telecast without a score box.

The potential is vast and likely staggers the imagination. Sports on TV in 2025 definitely will be different. Provided, of course, TV still exists.

Ultimately, though, it always will be about being able to follow the game. In my house last Monday, the younger demo weighed in: They voted for the game. The future can wait.

Not to pile on my good buddies at Deadspin–OK I will–but the site helped reinforce a point I made to journalism students this week.

I spoke at a career panel for the University of Illinois’ College of Media. It was a tremendous event, giving the students an insight on what is required to get a job these days. Back in our day at U of I, the school’s career counseling program consisted of someone shaking your hand and saying, “Good luck.”

During the Q/A, a student asked about today’s 24/7, post-it-now journalism. She brought up the pitfalls and how people can get things wrong in the rush to be first.

“Everyone makes mistakes,” she said.

I quickly clarified her.

“In this business, you cannot make mistakes when it comes to the accuracy of a story,” I said. “You have to be right. Mistakes erode credibility quicker than anything else.”

That brings us to Deadspin. Kyle Wagner did a post on the site about the 2016 Olympics featuring a 3-on-3 basketball competition.

He wrote:

The IOC has officially added a new half-court 3-on-3 basketball event to the competitions to be held in the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. This rules.

Right away, you’ll have to throw a big bucket of calm down on your head because, as the IOC put it in a 2012 letter discussing its interest in 3-on-3, a large part of the impetus is to focus more on the amateurism of sports and get the event away from being “somewhat of an exhibition for the American NBA.”

Actually sounds like a good idea, right? Only one problem. It’s not true.

Wagner based his report on this post. Carefully note the name of the site: The Beatoola Advocate.

That should have been a hint right there. The post then included this passage.

In a written statement that was shared by Mr Bach, Nuzman described the hosts were undertaking an appropriation of Olympic venues to suit the style of 3-on-3 that most visiting athletes would be familiar with.

“Spectators will be given the opportunity to watch the competition in the evenings, from the comfort of their own cars. It is proposed that each game be played in the evenings and the lighting will be complimented by the headlights on spectator vehicles that are to be surrounding the arena,”

“The playing facilities will be of an international standard – complete with an asphalt surface half-courts and chained basketball nets.”

Spectators watching in cars? Again, another clue if the Beatoola name didn’t register.

Clearly, this is satire. Wagner finally realized his mistake with this note on the top of his erroneous post.

Update: Nah, this isn’t happening. I wrote a post based on a satire website, which is just about the dumbest way to fuck up. Sorry. Fuck me. Woulda been cool though. Original post below.

I’m still not sure why Deadspin would keep up the original post, but they have their reasons.

This is an embarrassing mistake for Deadspin. It hardly is the first. Benjamin Mullin of Poynter did a roundup of Deadspin’s gaffes.

I’m not so sure Deadspin worries too much about its credibility. It seems to be all about page views.

But Wagner’s mistake wouldn’t be tolerated at a mainstream outlet. It could be a case of one-and-done for some editors.

Clearly, there is an erosion of journalism standards in the new media landscape. Wagner saw a post about Olympics 3-on-3 basketball, thought it was cool and wrote about it.

Obviously, the lesson is clear here for bloggers, tweeters, etc. Don’t assume. Check beyond the original source. Given that the outlet wasn’t the mainstream New York Times or Sports Illustrated, Wagner should have done a quick Google search to see if The Beatoola Advocate was accurate in its story. Wagner could have easily discovered nobody else was writing on 3-on-3. It would have made his day much better.

I hope Deadspin and Wagner aren’t using the excuse, “Everyone makes mistakes.” It just doesn’t cut it in this business.

By all accounts, the first college football playoff couldn’t have gone better. The games did monster ratings on ESPN.

The three playoff games now are the three most watched telecasts in cable TV history. Yes, that qualifies as a win.

A big reason for the success was staging the semifinal games on Jan. 1. With everyone nursing hangovers, the Rose Bowl (Florida State-Oregon) and Sugar Bowl (Ohio State-Alabama) each generated more than 28 million viewers. The games created a huge buzz that carried over to Monday’s title game.

It seems like the perfect plan. So why are they messing with it next season?

In a shockingly bad decision, the semifinals will be played on Dec. 31 at the Cotton and Orange Bowls.

I may be headed for the senior citizen’s home, but we still go out on New Years’ Eve. And I’m pretty sure the younger demo starts partying on Dec. 30. So why schedule those high-profile bowls on a night when many people aren’t going to watch?

Pete Thamel at SI.com explains:

Blame the inevitable ratings drop, distinct inconvenience and lack of common sense on a parade. The Rose Bowl has a contract with ESPN through 2026 to show the game in the 5 p.m. ET slot. (The Tournament of Roses Parade is on New Year’s Day, so how could they ever change the game time?) The prime-time spot on New Year’s Day that follows belongs to the Sugar Bowl, with the SEC and Big 12 having a contract also through ’26. Both are for the preposterous price of $80 million per year, which is essentially so expensive that if ads ran for the entire time slot ESPN would still lose money. So, why did ESPN pay so much for games that will only be involved in the playoff every third year? Those around the process believe that buying these games gave ESPN an inside track on the playoff. And ESPN wasn’t losing the bidding war for the playoff, so it covered all the bases.

“It’s a balancing act,” Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said on Sunday. “If our interest was solely how do you maximize eyeballs and attention around the semi games, undoubtedly we’d have said the semi games every year are going to be 5:00 and 8:30 on New Year’s Day.”

And there’s this from Thamel:

ESPN pays $470 million annually to televise the playoff, and network executives admit the timing isn’t ideal. “New Year’s Eve is going to be a challenge,” said Burke Magnus, ESPN’s senior vice president for programming acquisitions. “That’s the part of the format that’s going to require a retraining of people’s behavior and fan’s behavior. You’re competing against real life and the ball dropping and New Year’s Eve parties.”

Yes, you are. So instead of two meaningful, win-or-go-home games on Jan. 1 next year, viewers will see two secondary games in those slots. That’s what the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl will become in the years they don’t stage a semifinal.

For the good of college football, the commissioners should have figured out a better solution. As naive as this sounds, it shouldn’t always be about the money.

In case you missed it, Marshawn Lynch had another one of his non-press conferences after Saturday’s game. He began by saying, “You all going to try again?” Then he basically said, “I’m thankful” to each question.

Ridiculous.

However, there was one notable athlete who loved the act: Rory McIlroy. He sent out this tweet:

Now keep in mind, McIlroy, the No. 1 player in the world, is terrific with the media. He always is gracious and accommodating. If every top star was like him, our jobs would be much easier.

However, perhaps this tweet shows that McIlroy would prefer he didn’t have to be out there all the time. Maybe he wishes there were times he could be like Lynch and just say nothing?

Anyway, it is interesting to note that McIlroy received some tweets from people who didn’t agree with his stand. And he responded to a few of them.

McIlroy’s response, where he seemed to back off a bit.

l

My latest Chicago Tribune column is on the Cubs’ challenge to join the rich teams club with a massive local TV deal.

You also can access the column on my Twitter feed at @Sherman_Report.

From the column:

********

Theo Epstein has a phrase for the potential of local TV revenue. He says it will be “a paradigm shift” in keeping the Cubs on pace with baseball’s richest teams.

But will the Cubs president of baseball operations get his money?

In a rapidly-changing media landscape, there are questions whether the Cubs can forge ahead with their own network or another platform that will enable them to eventually match multi-billion dollar TV deals that teams like the Dodgers, Texas, Seattle and Philadelphia have landed in recent years.

Ed Desser, a sports media consultant who advises teams on their TV deals, believes the Cubs have much to offer on the TV front as “an iconic brand.”

“The Cubs matter to Chicagoans in ways you don’t see in other markets,” Desser said.

However, one industry observer fears the local sports TV bubble has burst, saying “The Cubs may be too late to the party.”

The Cubs are basically holding serve with new deals with WLS-Ch. 7 for 25 games and a package of 45 games with WGN-Ch. 9 that was formally announced Thursday. They aren’t expected to pull in significantly more than the estimated $60 million value of their current local TV deals, which includes an ownership stake in Comcast SportsNet.

That’s a long way off from the Dodgers’ 25-year, $8.3 billion pact for their new network that launched this year. Now there’s a paradigm shift.

The Cubs, though, weren’t in line for a big payday this year since they didn’t have their entire package of games available. The team exercised an out-clause with WGN to get out of a contract that ran through 2022. Now all of their TV deals will expire in 2019.

That sets 2020 as the key date when the Cubs could launch their own network, which would potentially boost annual TV revenues in the $150-200 million range, if not higher. That kind of cash would allow Epstein to buy more pitchers like Jon Lester.

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana is on Stuart Scott.

*******

I have gotten to know many of ESPN’s personalities while covering the sports media beat through the years. However, for some reason, I had only one encounter with Stuart Scott.

It occurred a few years back at an ESPN event in Chicago. Truthfully, I really don’t remember much about meeting Scott other than that he seemed like a good guy. My loss for never meeting him again.

So my connection to Scott was pretty much like everyone else: I watched him do his thing on ESPN.

Like everyone else, I had sick feeling when I awoke and learned that he passed away on Sunday morning. His prolonged absence from the air was an indicator that bad news was coming soon. Yet it still is a shock when the finality of the moment occurs.

Only 49. Damn.

What struck me was the immense response to Scott’s passing. You would expect ESPN to go all out in paying tribute to their old friend. Kudos to all for doing such a terrific job. His former colleague Rich Eisen also delivered a moving speech on NFL Network.

Yet the outpouring was so much more. President Obama weighed in with a statement, and numerous athletes like LeBron James, Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods expressed their sentiments via Twitter. In fact, Scott’s name dominated social media Sunday.

There were moments of silence for Scott prior to the NFL playoff and NBA games. His face flashed on the video boards as athletes bowed their heads below.

Surely, Scott would have been overwhelmed by the tributes and kind words. Man, even the president. Now that’s a “Boo-Yow,” he would say.

The heart of this passionate response speaks to the immense platform of ESPN and the force of Scott’s personality. The two truly go hand-in-hand.

ESPN’s evolution has seen it become more than just a place to watch games. It also became about the people who talk about the games, especially during the ‘90s. Scott arrived at ESPN at a time when “SportsCenter” was transforming how sports were delivered. Chris Berman already set the tone with his nicknames and other shtick. Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann then took it to another level with an Aaron Sorkin-like repartee for their shows.

That opened the door for others like the wicked funny Eisen. Scott blew right through it.

“He didn’t just push the envelope,” said Patrick on ESPN.com. “He bulldozed the envelope.”

Scott is credited with bringing “hip-hop” to sports, peppering his telecasts with signature phrases. Nothing resonated more than an emphatic “Boo-Yow” (the correct spelling, according to Eisen).

Indeed, there were African-Americans doing sports on TV, but nobody did it like Scott.

“He was a trailblazer not only because he was black — obviously black — but because of his style, his demeanor, his presentation,” ESPN anchor Stan Verrett, also black, told ABC News for Scott’s obituary. “He did not shy away from the fact that he was a black man, and that allowed the rest of us who came along to just be ourselves.”

“Yes, he brought hip-hop into the conversation,” said Jay Harris, another SportsCenter anchor who followed in Scott’s footsteps. “But I would go further than that. He brought in the barber shop, the church, R&B, soul music. Soul period.”

In the ESPN.com piece, Suzy Kolber remembered attempts were made for Scott to change his approach.

“Even I encouraged him to maybe take a more traditional approach, but he had a strong conviction about who he wanted to be and the voice he wanted to project, and clearly, he was right, and we were wrong,” Kolber said.

Scott’s act wasn’t for everyone. He had more than his share of critics and even was parodied on “Saturday Night Live.”

Ultimately, Scott prevailed because he was so distinctive. He became as much of a star as the stars he covered.

The ESPN blowtorch gave Scott the platform to reach scores of sports viewers night after night. Yes, ESPN made him, but he also helped make the network what it is today as one of its signature personalities. They were good for each other.

As a result, people who never met Scott felt like they knew him. The connections ran even deeper because of his courageous battle with cancer.

That’s why the reactions were so strong to his death Sunday. There was a sense of not only Scott being cheated by living such a short life, but also for viewers like us missing out on not getting to watch him anymore on ESPN.

Still, it was a great and memorable run. “Boo-Yow,” Stuart Scott. And thanks.

Many, many words have been said about Stuart Scott. Thought it was worth sharing a few of them.

Steve Wulf at ESPN.com wrote a long piece on Scott’s career. Definitely worth a read in learning about his journey.

His career path took him from Florence to Raleigh, North Carolina, to Orlando, Florida, and in his pre-ESPN clips, you can feel his energy, hear his music and sense his on-camera charisma. At WESH, the NBC affiliate in Orlando, he first met ESPN producer Gus Ramsey, who was beginning his own career. Says Ramsey, “You knew the second he walked in the door that it was a pit stop, and that he was gonna be this big star somewhere someday. He went out and did a piece on the rodeo, and he nailed it just like he would nail the NBA Finals for ESPN.”

He first met ESPN anchor Chris Berman in Tampa, Florida. “He stuck out his hand and said, ‘One day I look forward to working with you,'” Berman said. “And I said, ‘Well, I tell you what, we’ll save you a seat.’ And I’m really thrilled that he was right on. [Later] I said, ‘Stu, maybe you were the Swami.'”

Richard Deitsch at SI.com had a nice piece on the producers who did Scott’s tribute on ESPN Sunday.

They all talked about what it would mean if the piece ever aired. It meant their friend and colleague was dead. But the small group of ESPN staffers who worked on the feature honoring the life of Stuart Scott believed they owed it to their colleague to produce something with love and care if that awful day ever came.

On Sunday the awful day came when Scott passed away from cancer at the too-damn-young age of 49. A popular anchor on ESPN for two decades, the network ran a 14-minute feature on his life and career, a piece that appropriately first aired on SportsCenter, the show that gave life to his television fame.

The video obit, a beautiful, moving tribute that should be watched and shared, was completed months ago. ESPN feature producers Mike Leber, Miriam Greenfield and Denny Wolfe, the point people for the project, began working on it shortly after Scott’s emotional speech at the ESPYs last July 16, when the anchor amplified how difficult his cancer had hit him. The group completed the feature on September 18 and silently hoped the original would stay buried in Leber’s desk forever.

“All of the people interviewed for the piece, and all those working on it, we all said at one point during the process that we hoped this would sit on the shelf for a long time,” Leber told SI.com on Sunday afternoon. “It was something that nobody wanted to think about or talk about but to pay the proper tribute, we knew we had to do it.”

Richard Sandomir in the New York Times: 

Scott joined ESPN in 1993 for the beginning of its first spinoff network, ESPN2, but he soon moved to “SportsCenter,” which had already developed stars like Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick, Chris Berman, Robin Roberts and Bob Ley. Scott became defined as much for his energy, wit and stylish wardrobe as for his arsenal of catchphrases.

“Stuart brought a different, unique sensibility to ‘SportsCenter,’ ” said James Andrew Miller, an author of “Those Guys Have All the Fun,” an oral history of ESPN. “He invented his own style, and in doing so, he grew the audience. He was easily one of the most influential personalities in ESPN history.”

Bob Raissman in the New York Daily News:

For the very way Stuart Scott presented himself, and the flair in which he delivered the word, not only reflected the joy and enthusiasm he had for his work, but entertained and provided happiness for all the eyeballs peeping in from the other side of the television screen.

That’s what’s known as showmanship. We didn’t understand every bit of jargon exiting Scott’s mouth. And even though his presentation moved us to take issue with him, it never turned us off, never made us stop watching. As a performer, even on the smallest of screens, he could be mesmerizing. More importantly he was likeable.

Chad Finn in the Boston Globe:

(Keyshawn) Johnson remembered the advice Scott gave him when he joined ESPN. “[He told me] don’t change who I was. Be exactly who I was supposed to be. Looking at him, knowing that he was able to bring that hip-hop culture, that urban feel, to television sports broadcasting, something that’s never been done before, gave me the hope that I didn’t have to be some corporate guy in a white shirt and red tie and sit there and talk a certain way.”

Johnson paused, wiping away tears.

“I’m trying to find words,” he said.

“You did it,’’ said Berman. “You all did it.”

J.A. Adande at ESPN.com:

He could smoothly follow a producer’s instructions through the earpiece and mentally prepare for the next segment while speaking on the current topic. Or he could call an audible and guide the conversation in a direction he thought best. And although he was known for bringing hip-hop vernacular to ESPN, he took pride in packing more information than anyone else into each highlight. Go back and watch the clips, only this time ignore the sayings and count the number of facts.

You might be surprised at how low-key he could be off air. The most extreme example came once when he was on the set quietly talking on his phone between brief update segments, a steady flow of soft “Yeah, yeah” until the camera was hot; he said “Hold on, hold on,” put the phone down and ramped up the decibels:

“STUART SCOTT HERE WITH THIS ‘SPORTSCENTER’ UPDATE …”

ESPN gathered a collection of Twitter reaction to Scott:

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana looks back at the year in sports media.

*******

When I first launched Sherman Report in April, 2012, I initially was concerned that there wouldn’t be enough material on sports media to support a regular blog. I soon discovered just the opposite was the case.

There was so much news and content occurring, I had to make an executive decision. I couldn’t be The New York Times and run “all the news that’s fit to print” on sports media. I had to make choices about what I post, and that still covers considerable territory.

One thing is for sure: the world of sports media never is dull. It was another eventful year in 2014.

Here’s what stood out:

TMZ, not ESPN: The two biggest stories in sports in 2014 were broken by TMZ, an outlet dedicated to trashy gossip about celebrities. Yet it was their video and audio tapes that exploded the lives of Ray Rice and Donald Sterling and subsequently dominated the national conversation.

TMZ was lauded for the scoops, although paying for stories hardly qualifies as journalism. But does it matter in the new media landscape? People just want information, and TMZ delivered.

NFL rules: Despite the furor over the Rice and Adrian Peterson stories, the NFL’s ratings for women viewers actually increased. Overall, the league drew some of its biggest numbers for games in years. A new Thursday night package on CBS and NFL Network also did well despite several blowouts.

Fans might have been outraged, but they still wanted to follow their fantasy players.

Conflicted: The Rice story, which placed NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell under fire, also put the spotlight on ESPN. Would the network bash the head of its most important league partner? ESPN ombudsman Robert Lipsyte called the network’s journalism “inconsistent” in his farewell column. However, when it came to Goodell and Rice, “Outside The Lines” delivered solid and often damning reporting on the commissioner.

And Keith Olbermann strongly advocated for Goodell’s dismissal. That had to make for some interesting meetings between ESPN president John Skipper and top NFL brass.

Simmons follies: It was an eventful year for Bill Simmons. As editor of Grantland, he had to issue an apology for a story that outed the subject as a transvestite, perhaps contributing to the person committing suicide. He also moved from “NBA Countdown” to hosting his own NBA show.

Then he earned a three-week suspension for calling Goodell “a liar” in a podcast. Simmons reportedly was none too pleased about being sent to the sidelines. With his contract up next year, there will be plenty of speculation about his future in 2015.

Slam dunk: The NBA hit the jackpot with a new $24 billion TV deal with ESPN and TNT. Funny thing: $24 billion doesn’t even sound like an outrageous amount of cash during a period when sports TV rights continue to explode.

Striking out: The new Dodgers Network left many fans in the dark in LA. Several big distributors balked at the fee. The impasse could mark a change in the landscape, at least on the local front for individual teams.

Soccer fever: For a couple of weeks during the summer, the U.S. was captivated by the World Cup. ESPN pulled in some big numbers for the games in Brazil. Wake us again for the 2018 Cup in Russia.

Eyes on Sochi: Bob Costas had the most famous case of pink eye in TV sports history. The ailment caused him to miss several days of his host duties of the Winter Olympics. No matter, as NBC delivered strong ratings. Like the World Cup, nothing sells in the U.S. like a heavy dose of nationalism.

Falling series: Baseball, meanwhile, continues to slide in reverse—at least for its postseason. Despite San Francisco and Kansas City going to seven games, the World Series averaged only an 8.2 rating, the second lowest in history. Mind-numbing, endless games continue to make many of the telecasts unwatchable, especially for those in the younger demographics. Baseball knows it has a serious problem with the pace of play. Implementing changes, though, will be difficult.

The R-word: Announcers became part of the story on the controversial Washington nickname. James Brown and Phil Simms were among those who said they weren’t going to use it, simply referring to the team as “Washington.” Overall, the story received unprecedented coverage, with increased protests to have the nickname changed. However, owner Daniel Snyder is entrenched.

Lineup changes: Fox Sports decided it needed two people to replace Tim McCarver as its lead analyst: Harold Reynolds and Tom Verducci. The new team had some rough spots, as Reynolds, in particular, wasn’t warmly received by several critics.

Meanwhile, ESPN decided to elevate Chris Fowler to its No. 1 voice for college football, relegating Brent Musburger to the new SEC Network. Fowler is a superb talent, but it is going to take a while to see if he truly has a distinctive voice on play-by-play. Fans also realized how much they missed Musburger on the big telecasts when he did the Alabama-Auburn game in primetime for ESPN.

Not No. 1: Fox Sports 1 celebrated its first birthday in August as a work-in-progress. Airing postseason baseball games helped draw viewers to the network. However, its studio shows still barely register compared to ESPN, and not getting a slice of the NBA deal was a big setback.

Last words: Rick Reilly said he is finished writing columns, saying he wants to pursue other projects. If so, it’s the end of a great aspect of his career. However, a part of me believes he will pop up again somewhere else.

Also, the extraordinary Gary Smith left Sports Illustrated.

Shortstop to publisher: Who knew that Derek Jeter wanted to get into media? Shortly after playing his last game, he launched The Players Tribune, a site that allows athletes to bypass traditional media to tell their stories. Of course, many of their stories will be vetted, if not written, by their PR crew and agents.

Hall protest: Dan Le Batard decided to let Deadspin readers determine his Baseball Hall of Fame selections as a protest to the voting policies. He took plenty of heat. I always considered Le Batard as a serious journalist. However, this stunt was beneath him.

Worthy: My favorite sports media story was Roger Angell receiving the Spink Award from the Baseball Hall of Fame. It was way, way overdue for the 93-year-old who still has his fastball after all these years.

And finally: Many thanks to the fine folks at the National Sports Center Journalism at Indiana University for allowing me to use this space in 2014. It is a privilege.

Happy holidays to all. See you in 2015.