Twitter removes draft suspense for ESPN, NFL Network

How far were ESPN and the NFL Network behind Twitter for the draft? Let’s put it this way: I just heard Roger “Hug-Me” Goodell announce the Bears selected Gale Sayers.

If you were on Twitter last night, you knew the upcoming team’s selection several minutes before the NFL Commissioner went up to the microphone to formally announce the pick. And is he the most affectionate commissioner in sports history? I mean, could you imagine Bowie Kuhn handing out so many hugs? Definitely not Clarence Campbell.

Twitter took all the suspense out of the draft. It felt like that cell phone commercial where the annoying users already posted the video to Facebook.

The league and the networks had hoped to preserve the suspense of the draft by not showing players on their cell phone talking to teams prior to the official announcement. Now they’ll have to figure out a way to shut down Twitter.

Various outlets on Twitter were disclosing a team’s pick. Heck, even Seattle owner Paul Allen was tipping off picks.

Among his tweets:

Dallas takes Claiborne at 6

Tampa takes S Barron #7

I’m sure the league will ask Allen to cool it. However, it will be much more difficult to stop the information flow of an upcoming pick prior to the announcement from reporters who want to get it out now.

Early on, while the TV guys were speculating on who Cleveland would take,Twitter followers already knew it was running back Trent Richardson at No. 3.

That’s when I first noticed something was amiss. Pretty soon, it felt like being at a poker table where somebody was tipping cards.

Finally it dawned on me: Is the suspense being phonied up here? For instance, Chris Berman & Co. were trying to build up the drama about whether Cleveland would take Brandon Weeden with the 22d pick.

But if you were on Twitter, you already knew the Browns took the Grandpa QB. In fact, it was out there for several minutes.

Surely, ESPN’s producers had that information. Surely, master tweeters Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter knew it was Weeden.

But over on the main stage, Berman, Gruden and Kiper were acting like anxious kids waiting to see what’s inside the box. Seriously, they didn’t know?

OK, I’ve been told the producers usually know of the pick, but don’t reveal it to the guys on stage. However, this situation is different, because now many, many more people know because of Twitter.

The whole dynamic creates a huge problem. Viewers expect authenticity. There’s nothing worse than phony drama.

The networks and NFL have embraced the new age of social media, especially Twitter. It’s been very good to all.

But not last night. Twitter beat them all to the punch. Or more specifically, to one of Goodell’s hugs.

 

 

 

 

Different draft for Bill Polian on ESPN

Bill Polian never was a threat to pull a Bill Tobin during his long run as a general manager. Unlike another former Colts GM, he insists he didn’t dwell on what Mel Kiper, Tobin’s nemesis, and the other draft experts were saying.

Last week, I asked Polian a few questions in advance of his first NFL draft as an analyst for ESPN.

There’s so much out there in the way of speculation and analysis about the draft. Did it ever have any effect on you as a general manager?

Polian: When I was a general manager, I paid very little attention to it. I was paying attention to getting our board right and doing things necessary for us to have a good draft. I was concentrating solely on that. So I didn’t pay a lot of attention to it, very honestly.

What will be your approach? Will you be critiquing picks?

Polian: Tony Dungy mentioned it to me in a conversation very recently, and I think it’s right on. We, meaning he and I who have had great experience in this business, can bring to viewers a great perspective. This is the way things happen in the draft room. This is the way things happen in the lockerroom. This is how you build a team, etc. I’m less concerned about opinion than I am about explaining what I know actually goes on. I look at it from a educational standpoint rather than from an opinion standpoint.

Does it feel strange not preparing for a draft?

Polian: I must admit that it does. There are things that I’m doing now that I never would have dreamed of doing during draft preparation (laughing). It’s different, but that’s good, because I’m learning new things and learning to appreciate how people deliver information here, and how it get packaged and programmed. So it’s new and interesting and exciting. But it is very different than what I’m used to.

 

ESPN Jordan ad, Buzz Bovshow goes viral

I’m fairly certain Buzz Bovshow never thought he ever would be cast as Michael Jordan. Bovshow is a 55-year old TV, movie and theater actor with the requisite middle-aged paunch. Oh, he also is white.

Of course, if you saw the latest ESPN ad, you know the rest of the story. Bovshow didn’t play the Michael Jordan. Rather, his character, saddled with the burden of carrying the same name as the basketball legend, is an amazingly bland lump of a man, who couldn’t light up a room if you gave him a blow torch. (Judging by Bovshow’s picture and bio, I bet he’s a fun guy in real life, and what a great name.)

Bovshow also is an unlikely candidate to be an ESPN sensation, but he has gone viral in one of the network’s most celebrated ads in years. More than two million people have checked it out on YouTube since the 30-second commercial debuted on April 16. The spot depicts people disappointed at not meeting the Michael Jordan.

The ad, conceived by Wieden + Kennedy, also is hot on Twitter. It prompted this tweet from Michael B. Jordan, the actor who played Vince on Friday Night Lights:

Do u know how hard it was to grow up with the Greatest Basketball Player in the world’s name?

Naturally, ESPN is overjoyed with the response.

“To get that many (YouTube views) in such a short time is remarkable.” said Chris Brush, who now is ESPN’s Sr VP of Affiliate Marketing, but was VP of Consumer Marketing while working on the Jordan commercial.

It speaks to the power of the ad, which runs as part of ESPN’s “It’s not crazy, It’s sports” campaign. Unlike those Super Bowl ads that try way, way too hard, the Jordan commercial is wonderfully understated and subtle. This is about split-second reactions from people who suddenly realize they aren’t going to have their once-in-a-lifetime encounter with MJ.

“I liked the first (scene) when he goes to the doctor’s office,” Brush said. “Those women are buried in their work when they hear, ‘Michael Jordan.’ They look up quickly, and for an instant, you can see they thought he was the real thing.”

We also can feel for the poor shlub. Bozshow’s Jordan acknowledges people’s reactions perfectly with a resigned shrug or nod. Nothing more needs to be said.

Brush said the point of the campaign is to show the intersection of sports and real life.

“Cities are defined by their sports legends,” Brush said. “In San Francisco, there’s only one Joe Montana. In Boston, there’s only one Ted Williams. And in Chicago, there’s definitely only one Michael Jordan. There isn’t room for another Michael Jordan. People can relate to this guy’s situation. They recognize the fun and irony of this idea.”

Brush said Jordan’s representatives knew of the ad in advance and they liked the finished product. Interestingly, Jordan never has appeared in an ESPN commercial.

Hey, how about a sequel? Perhaps showing a meeting between the two Jordans?

“We have no plans right now for a sequel,” Brush said. “But we love the reaction. We’re going to evaluate where the campaign goes and what the next idea is.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NBC Sports Network exec: Patience required; viewers want alternative to ESPN

To hear all the initial reports, you would think they would be in panic mode at 30 Rock. The reports detail how the newly branded NBC Sports Network is off to a slow, slower, slowest start. It seems viewers would rather watch people shooting at innocent deer than one of its studio shows.

Oh, for the good old days of Versus.

There were several stories bemoaning the dismal ratings during the first quarter. How about this headline in the New York Post:

NBC Sports Network’s ratings take biggest drop in eight years after overhaul

The story reports ratings were off 22 percent with an average audience of 64,000 daily viewers during the first quarter.

And if that wasn’t enough, now there’s word the Fox might enter the fray and launch a new cable sports channel. That only will increase the competition and jack up the rights for properties NBC Sports Network wants to obtain.

All in all, instead of hitting the ground running, it feels more like hitting the ground face first.

Not so fast, says Jon Miller, the president of programming for NBC Sports and the NBC Sports Network. He believes the initial reports aren’t capturing the full picture. He said this isn’t about a three-month snapshot. It’s about setting up the network for the long haul.

Indeed, the network gained some momentum with increased ratings for the NHL playoffs. Through last Thursday, ratings were up 26 percent for the network’s quarterfinal coverage, averaging 676,000 viewers per game. That’s a strong number, considering the NBC Sports Network was competing somewhat against itself in the form of games also airing on CNBC and the NHL Network.

“I’ve been with NBC for 34 years and I’ve been through bad times and good times,” Miller said. “It’s cyclical. The fact of the matter, slow and steady wins this race. You’ve got to be patient. You need to have a mission and not be distracted. It’s very easy to go for the quick hit and quick fix. The long and short of it is that it won’t work. The motto here is: First be best, then be first. Let’s do it the right way.”

In an interview, Miller laid out NBC’s plans for the rebranded network. He addresses whether it is imperative for NBC Sports Network to land Major League Baseball; the need to develop its own personalities or go after others like ESPN’s Scott Van Pelt; and his feeling that sports viewers want an alternative to ESPN, among other items.

There have been several doom and gloom stories about the network. What’s been your reaction?

Miller: We’re still very young. Only 3 months old. We made some good progress. We inherited a channel that was a lot of things to a lot of different people. We weren’t a sticky channel, That’s a big thing in TV. We need to give people a reason to come every day.

The network we took over had a lot of programming, but not a lot of connected programming. It had everything from bullriding to mixed martial arts, sports jobs, NHL, Tour De France, hunting and fishing. While each of those might have had their own dedicated followers, there was no string to that popcorn.

A lot of those programs were empty ratings points. While they might deliver a number, they weren’t really salable.

Really? You can’t sell hunting and fishing shows?

Miller: If we had kept the programming we had. Mixed martial art, the TO show, and 6,000 hours of hunting and fishing, our ratings would be fine. Our sales guys are telling us we can’t get brands, clients, sponsors to embrace this network until you change the look and feel of it.

So what’s the plan?

Miller: The three things we most focused on are live events, news,talk and information, and original programming. We landed the MLS. We think it is undervalued and has tremendous upside.

The Stanley Cup playoffs (are bringing in) viewers. There will be hundreds of hours of the Olympics (and Olympic trials) on the NBC Sports Network. When people want to see the U.S. teams play and see they’re going to be on the NBC Sports Network, that’s going to be great for us.

Original programming is one thing we can control. We’re hitting that at 500 miles per hour. It’s one area where we can make a difference and get awareness. We created Turning Point. It was nominated for an Emmy in its first year. NHL36, MLS 36: Shows that profiles the athlete. We have Costas Tonight. Ross Greenburg is doing documentaries. He’s working on a show with Jack Nicklaus on the 1962 U.S. Open.

We’ve been very busy.

That’s all well and good, but isn’t imperative for NBC Sports Network to land some portion of the new MLB deal (which expires after the 2013 season)?

Miller: We have a healthy appetite to add more programming. It’s all a question of when it becomes available. Quite honestly, our competition (ESPN), which has been around for 33 years, has done a great job at locking up stuff long-term. So you have to sit and wait patiently for the opportunity.

We’re going to be aggressive bidders for whatever quality live content comes out there. Baseball is a property that’s still in the walls at NBC. We did baseball longer, and quite honestly, as well as it ever has been done.  If the opportunity comes along, and it makes sense, we’re going to be players.

We work for a company that’s not afraid to spend money, as evidenced by the fact they just spent $16 billion on (Olympics, NFL, PGA Tour, NHL, etc). They’ve shown for the right properties, they’ll step up.

What if you don’t get baseball? Won’t that be a major blow?

Miller:  There are other properties that are going to be coming up. Baseball is the one right in front of us. But there’s going to be some college football and basketball available in a few years. The BCS is going to be in play. NASCAR, the NBA is going to be up. There’s a lot of product out there. As the NHL guys say: ‘We want you to get us some brothers and sisters,’ and that’s what we’re going to do.

Don’t you need to go out and get somebody like Scott Van Pelt to broaden your base from a personality perspective?

Miller: Everything is on the table. You’re going to talk to everybody. If you have a role for them, they’re going to listen. Scott Van Pelt does a good job. There are a lot of people over at ESPN who are good quality. Not just people there. There are guys at local stations.

How do you view the comparisons to ESPN?

Miller: We’re flattered and somewhat amused. ESPN is 33 years old. And they get $7 per month (per subscriber) and they are in 100 million households. We’re only 3-months old. To compare us with them is really kind of funny. You’ve got to give us a chance to develop and grow.

We do think fans out there really want to see an alternative. There are multiple news outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News. We think people want alternatives for sports. They don’t want it all brought to them in one way.

So how should people digest stories about your early ratings?

Miller: The fact of the matter is the ratings aren’t there. Yeah, it’s frustrating. We know there are people out there who would love to see us fail. There’s a lot of incentive from people to see us not be successful. That’s OK. That’s the challenge.

Our feeling is we want to leave this place a lot better than we found it. We want the people who follow in our footsteps to say we set them up long term. NBC Sports Network can live forever. It can be a successful, viable network for this company.

 

 

Eli Manning at center of Giants-Jets radio war

The rivalry between the Giants and Jets has spilled over to the radio front in New York. Bob Raissman in the New York Daily News reports that Eli Manning no longer will be appearing on ESPN-1050. The QB had been a regular on the station for eight years.

It seems ESPN-1050 is the Jets’ radio outlet. Now, Manning will be appearing on WFAN, home of the Giants games.

Raissman writes:

Why did the situation change? Who put the kibosh on Manning continuing his  relationship with 1050?

All paths lead to the increased flow of bad blood between the Jets and  Giants. It finally occurred to Giants brass that having the face of their  franchise as a featured voice on the radio home of the Jets was a terrible  idea.

Although the Giants walked away from last season on top of the football  world, management is still angered over Jet brass covering those Giants Super  Bowl logos with curtains in MetLife Stadium before Jets hosted the Giants on  Christmas Eve. They also haven’t forgotten how Gang Green put a picture of  Manning being crushed from behind by Calvin  Pace on the cover of their defensive playbook heading into that game.

“More than all that, I believe (Giants co-owner) John  Mara was not exactly thrilled over Eli  being on the Jets station throughout the Giants Super Bowl year,” the NFL source said.

Saturday flashback: ESPN’s rough coverage of ’81 NFL draft; Questioning why Giants took LT

I’m going to offer a blast from the past on the weekends. It could be an old video, a print interview or profile of a famous newsmaker, or a classic story.

Given that the NFL draft is next week, I thought it would be appropriate to show a clip from ESPN’s coverage in 1981.

The draft was held at the New York Sheraton in a cramped ballroom. They probably had a Bar Mitzvah in it the week before.

My goodness, was this rough from all angles. It looks like a basement-like amateur production compared to the extravaganza you see today.

Check out the crude NFL banner hanging behind Pete Rozelle. Somebody then had to turn on his microphone.

New Orleans selected George Rogers No. 1, and a few minutes later, he stood awkwardly at the podium, unsure of what to say to the crowd.

The coverage was hosted by George Grande with analysis from Sports Illustrated’s Paul Zimmerman and Sal Marchiano.

Fast forward to the 7-minute mark, and there’s Chris Berman, with a full head of hair, conducting an interview in a restaurant.

Then at the 8-minute mark, Sam Rosen, in an interview with New York Giants punter Dave Jennings, asked if the team made a mistake choosing a defensive player with the No. 2 pick. That player just happened to be Lawrence Taylor.

And why would ESPN be talking to a punter? Can you imagine when the Colts draft Andrew Luck Thursday, an ESPN producer yells out, “Get me an interview with their punter.”

Yes, the draft has come a long way since then.

 

 

 

ESPN’s Bayless talks about being polarizing; blindsided by Rose; HS hoops career

When I visited Skip Bayless at ESPN back in March, he was beaming. He had just learned that he was nominated for a Sports Emmy in the Outstanding Sports Personality-Sports Event category.

“It is the greatest honor of my career,” said Bayless.

Bayless was fresh off airing a First Take show that included in-studio appearances by Arian Foster, Victor Cruz, and LeSean McCoy. Imagine, big-time athletes wanting some face time on his program. It’s a usual occurrence.

With a Diet Mountain Dew sticking out of his bag, Bayless was pumped as usual. Not that he ever comes down.

Life was good, and we did our interview.

However, there have been some new developments that warranted a follow-up interview. First Kevin Durant knocked Bayless for some of his comments on Russell Westbrook. “That guy doesn’t know a thing about basketball,” Durant said.

That was nothing.

Last week, Bayless was vilified in certain circles when a story alleged he embellished his high school basketball career in a couple of Tweets to his nearly 600,000 followers.

The whole episode went into Twitter/blog hysteria when Jalen Rose called him on it during Tuesday’s show during a basketball debate. It was a low, low blow, catching Bayless off guard. Awkward doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Wednesday’s show then addressed the issue with Bayless adding details about his high school career and rebuking Rose. Mel Bracht of the Oklahoman actually did a piece on Bayless the hoopster, quoting former teammates as saying he really could play.

Meanwhile, Bayless’ critics, of which there are many, went crazy, taking great joy in watching him squirm.

Yet for all the people who profess to detest Bayless, here’s the bottom line: Wednesday’s show, which morphed into a vigorous debate about athletes and the media, attracted more than 400,000 viewers on ESPN2, double the audience that it did on that date in 2011.That’s a huge number for a blah sports Wednesday in April with no Tim Tebow story, or anything else to feed the machine.

In the Twitter world, the show and subjects being discussed had 5 of the top 10 trends. There were tweets from Lance Armstrong, Bill Walton, Jay Feely, Jamal Anderson, among thousands of others. Yet another barometer: Bracht’s story on Bayless had nearly 10 times more pages views than anything else on the Oklahoman site that day.

The entire episode underscored the big question: Can anybody name a more polarizing figure in sports TV right now than Skip Bayless?

As Bayless, 60, says: “I could argue for the Easter Bunny, and I still would lose on Twitter.”

On the one hand, the guy gets nominated for an Emmy. The other nominees were Cris Collinsworth, Charles Barkley, Al Leiter, Harold Reynolds, Kirk Herbstreit, and Trent Dilfer.

On the other, the outrage from his critics was about the same as if a faction of the Democratic party nominated Rush Limbaugh for Man of the Year.

Writes Ken Fang at Fangbites.com:

Besides yelling and inexplicably latching onto Tim Tebow, what Skippy does is bloviate and make a spectacle of himself. He makes himself the story instead of covering it. The Academy got this nomination wrong. I just hope Skippy isn’t labeled “Emmy Award-winning” this year or any other year.

Believe me, that was actually kind compared to others.

In the interest of full disclosure, I worked with Bayless when he was a columnist at the Chicago Tribune in the late 90s. I can say he was as intense about his job as anyone I’ve ever seen in the business.

I also know he believes every word he says. Don’t ever, EVER question his conviction on a subject. Bayless does nothing for show.

Love him or hate him, people certainly are talking about him. And watching, judging by the ratings.

So with that in mind, here are the highlights of my interviews with Bayless:

How does it feel being such a polarizing figure?

Bayless: Wasn’t that the case at the Chicago Tribune? I’ve been through that my whole life. It’s the way it was when I was with the Miami Herald, the LA Times, in Dallas. I grew up on this. The weird thing is wherever I’ve gone, things just happen. I’m trained to go through this. My skin is extremely thick. I must admit when I open my Twitter responses, you always have to remind yourself these are emotional overreactions in large part. My Twitter followers love me. Some of them love to hate me, but it’s born of love.

Certainly some of the comments on your Twitter have to get pretty vile.

Bayless: If someone crosses the line, I go on to the next one. It happens often, but you have to remind yourself: Just accept it for what it is and go on. I get emotional too. I think I’m always right, but a lot of people disagree. Turnabout is fair play. If I can do it on the air, they can do it to me on Twitter. It’s part of the entertainment of sports. I welcome that they do it.

What was your reaction when Rose hit you with that comment on Tuesday’s show, calling you “Water Pistol Pete”?

Bayless: I was blindsided. I restrained myself on the air. I was shocked that Jalen confronted me and used it against me in what was one of our basic debates. The show ended and I was told, ‘Jalen would like to apologize to you for what he did.’ I said he doesn’t need to do that. They said, ‘No, he feels like he owes you that.’

All I was upset about was that Jalen didn’t come to me before the show and say, ‘Is this the truth?’ It wasn’t even close to being the whole the story. All I wanted to do was sit and say here’s my side of the story. If you still want to ridicule me, I’m great with that. I felt like he was running with half-baked blog reports. He did say he say he was sorry and seemed sympathetic. He had a similar story on a much higher level (a clash with then coach Larry Brown with the Indiana Pacers).

How did Wednesday’s show come about?

Bayless: I said, there’s no reason to run from this. Let’s tee it up the next day. The amusing part was I didn’t know what Jalen would do on the air. I didn’t expect him to apologize, but I thought he might be apologetic. If you know Jalen, and I do, and this is what I like about him on the show: He was back to being defiant Jalen. All of the sudden we ripped it off and quickly left behind my insignificant high school basketball career and launched into an all-out discussion on athletes vs. the media.

The great thing about our show is that we are so flexible. We had blocked 10 topics for that show. We scrapped the rest of the rundown. We just said, let it fly.

How did you feel about people saying you embellished your high school career with those Tweets?

Bayless: I get constantly asked on Twitter, did you play basketball in high school? On a Saturday, I put up two tweets. One about this and one about baseball. Baseball was my better sport. I wrote what I did and got to 140 characters. I thought, should I expand on this? I figured nobody cares, and I let it go. Every word in that tweet is 100 percent accurate, but it is only 5 percent of the whole story. But thanks to the 140-character limit, I thought that was enough.

I guess the takeaway is that there are some things that defy Twitter. You don’t have the space to do the whole explanation.

Were you concerned that people were questioning your credibility?

Bayless: This is what kills me. People equate my ability to play basketball with my ability to evaluate basketball and other sports.. This is a constant argument I have with Jalen and Cris Carter. Last year, 28 of the 32 NFL general managers never played one down in the NFL. How do you explain that, Cris?

To Jalen, I say, the best GM in the NBA is R.C. Buford in San Antonio, who didn’t even play college basketball. A classic example is a guy like Michael Jordan. The greatest player who ever played, and we can make a case he is the worst general manager/personnel director/owner in the history of the NBA. They don’t have a comeback for this.

How did you feel about Kevin Durant’s comments?

Bayless: That knocked me out of my chair. I’m from Oklahoma City. Durant is my favorite player. I make no bones about that. All of the sudden because I’m down on his teammate for stealing shots from him, he blasts me. This is Kevin Durant, one of the nicest guys you’ll meet, saying I know nothing about basketball and that I must never watch the Thunder games. In fact, I watch every dribble of the Thunder games. I was just trying to make a point about Russell Westbrook, and I think I’m right.

What does it say that you have athletes reacting to what you say and that you have people searching for your high school basketball records?

Bayless: It shows me our show is arriving. I rarely meet a pro or college athlete who does not watch our show. They all watch it. Partly because it fits into their schedule and lifestyle. I asked Marcellus Wiley, ‘Why is it so many athletes watch our show?’ He said, ‘Because it’s real.’ Then he chuckled and said, ‘They want to see somebody take you down.’

Do you see yourself as the guy wearing the black hat?

Bayless: The thrust of our show is people trying to take me down. They just want to see me lose. That’s why they love Stephen A (Smith). He calls me Skip “Baseless.” Fine. Then I quickly prove to the audience that I’m not baseless and win the argument from him, using live ammo, real facts that he can’t refute.

You’ve described yourself as being obsessive. How does that translate on the show?

Bayless: I’m a fanatic. I’m obsessed. I live for this show. My whole night is watching sports. I watch the 6-7 Sportscenter. Then I watch it seems like every game ever played. Go to bed at midnight. Get up at 5, watch the (West Coast) SportsCenter on the treadmill. I have no choice. When you walk in the door at 7:15, you better know everything that happened the night before, and more important, what your stance is. Are you pro or con?

Are these debates personal to you?

Bayless: I’m driven. I’m competitive. I want to win every debate. The audience gets it. People laugh, but I say I win most debates every night between 6 and midnight in preparation. Reading, watching, thinking, formulating my argument. I do it every night without fail.

What does the Emmy nomination mean to you?

Bayless: It was the greatest honor of my career. I had writing honors. This was against all odds, against the grain, to be nominated in the category I’m in. It was breakthrough for the show, much more for me. And all the people who worked on it, fought so hard, come so hard. Long, hard struggle. The show has broken through since the fall. This has been a thrill ride for all of us. We’re getting validated by the eyeballs for the first time. We’ve always done fairly well, but not like this. This was the cherry on top of all that.

Why is the show registering now?

Bayless: We found our audience. They were there. Whenever I traveled, airports, all I ever heard was, ‘We love the debates. We just wait for the debates.’ I believe we have developed a dynamic unlike anything that’s been on sports television. It’s real, raw. It’s unfiltered. It’s basically unplanned. It’s definitely unscripted. We’re fearless about our topic.

Charles Barkley is another one of your critics. He’s even said he wants to kill you. How does that make you feel?

Bayless: I’m mystified by whatever he’s said about me all the way to his recent kill quotes. I don’t understand it. I don’t know the genesis about it. I love Charles Barkley on the air. I watch every Inside the NBA. I look forward to everything he says. I don’t always laugh with him. Sometimes I laugh at him. The great irony is that many of our debaters who know Charles say, “You’re missing the boat here. Skip’s heart is good. I believe my heart is good.’ I’ve asked him many times to talk to him on the air. We’d go to Atlanta to do it. This vehicle is built for Charles Barkley. He would thrive in it.

A postscript: Bayless sent me the following email Sunday, providing the proverbial “rest of the story” to his high school basketball career.

Bayless: As I said on air on Wednesday, if I HAD played for a high-school coach who loved and encouraged me, I very well might not be where I am today. If, as my teammate told the Oklahoman, I had transfered to a rival high school and averaged 18 a game in an era of 45-40 scores, I probably would have tried to play college basketball, even Division II, and probably gone nowhere. But I was so disillusioned my sophomore year, when I had gone from rising star to shattered confidence, I was far more receptive when the journalism teacher asked me to write two columns a week for the school paper.

I fatefully had her for the one non-journalism class a day she taught, advanced English, and the first day of school she asked us to pick any book and write a one-page report, just so she could gauge our writing ability. I chose a Y. A. Tittle biography. She asked me to stay after class on Friday. I thought I was in trouble. She told me I could write – first I’d heard that – and she told me I was going to write for her paper. I said no, I was player. But by the end of that year, I was writing for the school paper. She eventually entered me in the Grantland Rice Scholarship competition at Vanderbilt – a full ride given once a year to the best prospective sports writer. I won. My career path was set. My faith has always been very important to me. Sometimes God works in mysterious ways.

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s hoping John McEnroe does more than just tennis on ESPN

In the no-surprise department, ESPN named John McEnroe as its lead analyst for Wimbledon. ESPN assumes coverage of the entire tournament this year.

As USA Today’s Michael Hiestand writes, “(ESPN) will formally announce Friday what would be shocking only if it didn’t happen.”

However, here’s the passage from the story that caught my attention:

McEnroe, who had a short-lived CNBC talk show in 2004, suggests he’s also open to ESPN on-air roles beyond tennis. “There’s been talk about that in the past. That’s intriguing. … I’m open to suggestions.”

McEnroe is the few analysts that you stop and watch just because it’s John McEnroe. That sense of energy and tension has carried over from the court to television.

McEnroe also has a wide range of interests in sports and otherwise. He would make a compelling figure for a program with the right format.

If he’s “open,” ESPN should try to make this happen. And if not ESPN, then there’s the NBC Sports Network and CBS Sports Network. Both networks certainly would benefit from his presence.

 

 

Interview with Furman Bisher: Columnists were the voice

I know I’m a little late with this, but I wanted to weigh in with a tribute to Furman Bisher.

I think Furman would have been overwhelmed by all the thousands of words written about him.

His good friend Dan Jenkins said: “The  most flattering thing I used to say about his work was, ‘He’s the Red Smith  of the South.’

I loved this passage from another one of his good friends, Dave Kindred:

 One time, two years ago, his glorious wife, Linda, called him in the Augusta  press room and Furman became a high school kid in love. “I just finished,  honey,” he said. “It wasn’t much. I keep trying. I’ll do that perfect column  someday.”

Furman never stopped trying until the day he died on March 18 at the age of 93. I got to know the legendary Atlanta columnist during my years covering golf. He was kind, giving and feisty in a charming way.

When he died, I knew I wanted one of my first posts to be a tribute to him. What better way to do it than through his own words.

During the 2008 Masters, I conducted an interview with Furman for a future project. We talked for more than an hour about his career that began in 1938. Here are a few of the excerpts.

In the beginning: I climbed the ladder from the bottom. I started at a little newspaper called the Lumbertown Voice. I was the editor at the age of 20. You can imagine what a smart editor I was. I made $20 a week. I was there for eight months. Then I went to the High Point Enterprise. Did everything under the sun. Covered police beats. Covered the financial markets. On the side, I’d write a little sports every now and then.

Early sports assignment: In Charlotte, I covered the Charlotte Hornets, a Class B team. I traveled a bit with the team. Those were my high moments. Riding the bus mean you were really in there. I’d always go down to the lockerroom and talk to the manager after the game. Nobody ever did that. I just wanted to find out something different from the morning paper. The manager happened to a crusty old coot named Spencer Abbott.

He’d talk out of the side of his mouth. He’d sit and talk until I had what I needed. I learned a lot baseball sitting there.

The next year, he got fired, and they made the second-baseman, who was 22 years old, the manager: Cal Ermer, who went on to manage Twins. Great guy, great person. I went down after the game to talk to him, and he’d said, “Furman, I don’t know what to tell you. Write what you think I might say.’ That’s what I did.

First Masters in 1950: I came through Augusta with the Charlotte Hornets baseball team. I wasn’t assigned to cover the Masters. I just went out and wrote columns on a couple of rounds.

You just walked in, and they were glad to have you. I don’t know that I even got a credential. I don’t remember meeting anybody of authority.

The press room was an army tent down the first fairway. It had a board for the scores. Typewritters on the tables. There were about 8-10 guys in there. That’s where you worked.

If (long-time Nashville columnist) Fred Russell walked in here (Augusta’s massive press center) now, he’d have a heart attack. He’d say, ‘They’re spoiling the hell out of you all.’

On covering Ben Hogan: At first, I was a little shy about approaching Hogan. You could talk to him as long as you asked good questions. He’d give you his time. He was still strung pretty tight in this days. Later on, we got to be pretty good friends. I talked to him when I wrote the book on the Masters. I started to take out my tape recorder and he said, ‘No, I don’t do any tape recordings.’

I have about 5 or 6 letters from him at home. Letters thanking me.  It would be so unusual for an athlete to do that now.

On the power of being a columnist in the pre-ESPN era: Being a columnist meant more. There was no Internet. The sport fan didn’t have sportscenter and ESPN. People are lazy. A lot of people don’t like to read. Now they’d rather sit there and get it through the ears.

It was a great being a columnist back then. Columnists were the voice. People viewed sports through you.  I was in the Sportings News and Saturday Evening Post. It was a little inflating. I used to drive around state of Georgia, get out at a filling station or stop to have a sandwich, and everyone would say, “That’s Furman Bisher.” I’d walk into a stadium and some 10 or 12 year old with his daddy would say, “Hi Furman.” I loved that.

I walk in now and nobody knows me from a side of beef.

His style: My style was to write as I saw it. I didn’t rail about any causes, except I’m against the DH and a lot of these idiotic football rules. What they play now isn’t basketball, it’s court-rassling. I see 10 fouls on a play, and none get called. It’s a form of poorly officiated wrestling.

One regret: I regret one thing about my career: I dealt with fun and games. I’m sorry I didn’t have a more meaningful impact on the world. I’d like to have been an editorial writer. I have solid opinions.

Otherwise, I have no regrets. How can I? I’ve had every break in the world. And I made good money. I’ve (started) scholarships at North Carolina and Furman that my wife and I fund. That sort of salves my dismay at not having been a more politically expressive figure.

 

 

 

 

 

Gehrig biographer takes on heavy hitters in Chicago

There probably are easier and perhaps smarter things you can do than try to battle ESPN, Comcast Sports Net, and the major newspapers in Chicago. But that’s the challenge being taken on by Jonathan Eig.

Eig, who wrote bestselling books on Lou Gehrig, Jackie Robinson, Al Capone (which one of those three subjects doesn’t fit in with the other two?) has launched Chicagosidesports.com. Despite several sports site dedicated to covering all things Chicago sports, Eig thinks there is room for another one.

In an interview I did with him for my blog at Crain’s Chicago Business, he said:

“I just felt there’s a great appetite for sports news that isn’t being met on  the Internet. The Tribune and Sun-Times have good sports  coverage, but they haven’t really packaged it for the web. ESPN is the 800-pound  gorilla, but ESPNChicago hasn’t made the effort to make it look Chicago. It  doesn’t look any different than ESPNLA. It’s not something people are talking  about.”

Basically, Eig’s site is running one feature/analysis piece per day. Case in point is a story by former Bulls player Paul Shirley on his realization that his playing career was over. Thursday, Eig and James Finn Garner spoofed the Ozzie Guillen debacle in Miami.

The site also has links to the other Chicago sports site on important stories of the day.

“We’re not looking to replace ESPN and the Tribune for getting the scores,”  Eig said. “We think we can be a road map to tell people what’s out there.”

Here’s why it might work.

Writers will receive a small fee upfront with the chance to receive a portion of  the profits at the end of the year, assuming there are profits. He said  ChicagoSide will be running “a lean operation,” which will help keep it  sustainable.

Given his work as an author, Eig brings a high level of credibility to this endeavor. Can he pull it off? If he does, look for versions of ChicagoSide to pop up in other cities.