What NFL teams have highest, lowest TV share in their markets? Hint all are recent Super Bowl winners

NFL TV ratings are huge. Period, end of sentence.

However, in some markets, they are bigger than others. The ratings, specifically “share,” provide a good barometer to gauge the fan intensity for the home team.

And the verdict from last week’s games?

No. 1: Saints and Steelers tied.

Bottom of the list: Giants in New York.

Below is a chart sent out by Dan Masonson of the NFL for week 12; it doesn’t include the Philadelphia-Carolina game on Monday. Also, there were blackouts in San Diego and Tampa Bay.

First some Ratings 101 on the terminology from Masonson:

Rating is % of TV homes in that market tuned into the game.

Share is % of TV homes in that market with TV “physically tuned” into the game.

Understand?

Market size comes into play when determining total viewers for the home team. Again from Masonson:

Giants average 17.7 local rating this season translating to 1.3 million TV homes tuned in per game.

Saints average a league high 47.4 local rating translating to 304,000 TV homes tuned in per game.

New York is the largest market in the U.S.; New Orleans is No. 52. That accounts for the difference in the total number of viewers. Thanks to market size, Masonson says the Giants, Jets and Bears have the highest viewership each week.

For the purpose of this exercise, I’m going to use “share” as the barometer for gauging passion for the home team. It tells me if the home team is playing, what percentage of TVs that are physically turned on are tuned to the game?

In New Orleans and Pittsburgh, each town had an astounding 69 share. That means 7 of 10 TVs in use in those towns watched the Saints and Steelers last Sunday. What were those three other TVs watching?

Denver was right behind with a 68 share.

All told, there were nine markets with a 60 share or above, and that includes Kansas City. Despite a horrid season, the Chiefs still pulled a 60 share. Now that means their fans are either incredibly loyal or gluttons for punishment.

Again, those numbers attest to the amazing popularity of the NFL.

On the low end, the list shows New York did a 28 share for the Giants-Packers game on Sunday night. That means only 3 out of 10 TVs in use in New York saw the Giants chase around Aaron Rodgers.

To me, that number seems low since this was a must game against Green Bay However, New York isn’t a typical market. For starters, loyalties are split between the Giants and Jets, even if Jets fans aren’t showing their allegiances these days. The city doesn’t rally around one team.

Also, New York is so big and diverse, and there are so many things to do. Watching a football game often isn’t high on the priority list.

By contrast, smaller markets tend to identify more with their teams. In Pittsburgh, it’s all about the Steelers, and in New Orleans, life resolves around the Saints.

Anyway, it’s just a one-week snapshot. There’s common denominator: A NFL game ranked first for the most watched program of any kind in each market in week 12.

Week of 11/19-25  

 

HH

HH

RTG

Market Game

Date

RTG

SHR

Rank

New Orleans 49ers at Saints

11/25/2012

51.3

69

1

Milwaukee Packers at Giants

11/25/2012

43.8

61

1

Pittsburgh Steelers at Browns

11/25/2012

41.2

69

1

Baltimore Ravens at Chargers

11/25/2012

37.9

54

1

Indianapolis Bills at Colts

11/25/2012

36.2

60

1

Boston Patriots at Jets

11/22/2012

34.9

61

1

Denver Broncos at Chiefs

11/25/2012

34.4

68

1

Cleveland Steelers at Browns

11/25/2012

34.2

62

1

Kansas City Broncos at Chiefs

11/25/2012

32.3

60

1

Minneapolis Vikings at Bears

11/25/2012

31.7

63

1

Buffalo Bills at Colts

11/25/2012

30.7

51

1

Chicago Vikings at Bears

11/25/2012

29.9

58

1

Seattle Seahawks at Dolphins

11/25/2012

27.1

56

1

Detroit Texans at Lions

11/22/2012

27.0

57

1

Houston Texans at Lions

11/22/2012

26.5

61

1

Dallas Redskins at Cowboys

11/22/2012

24.7

56

1

Atlanta Falcons at Bucs

11/25/2012

24.3

44

1

San Fran-Oakland 49ers at Saints

11/25/2012

22.7

53

1

St. Louis Rams at Cardinals

11/25/2012

22.6

38

1

Washington, DC Redskins at Cowboys

11/22/2012

22.4

62

1

Phoenix Rams at Cardinals

11/25/2012

22.2

44

1

Nashville Titans at Jaguars

11/25/2012

22.0

38

1

New York Packers at Giants

11/25/2012

18.9

28

1

Cincinnati Raiders at Bengals

11/25/2012

16.9

32

1

Charlotte 49ers at Saints

11/25/2012

17.7

29

1

San Diego Texans at Lions

11/22/2012

16.6

36

1

Tampa 49ers at Saints

11/25/2012

15.8

27

1

Philadelphia Texans at Lions

11/22/2012

15.6

37

1

Miami Seahawks at Dolphins

11/25/2012

15.0

33

1

Source: NFL & The Nielsen Company

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

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday flashback: Perspective on Ohio State-Michigan from Keith Jackson

As a child of the Midwest growing up in the 1970s, there only was one game that mattered: Ohio State-Michigan. Woody vs. Bo.

Both men are long gone, but their impact remains. To put you in the mood for college football’s best rivalry (Sorry, Alabama-Auburn), here’s a classic opening from Keith Jackson for the 100th game in the series in 2003.

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

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday books: Epic Duke-Kentucky game covered from all angles; author Q/A

I was watching the Duke-Kentucky game this week when I heard Dick Vitale bring up “The Game.” Sure enough, there was Christian Laettner sitting in the stands being interviewed about his legendary game-winning shot to beat Kentucky in 1992.

Earlier this year, my old friend Gene Wojciechowski came out with a terrific new book: The Last Great Game: Duke vs. Kentucky and the 2.1 seconds that changed college basketball.

Watching this week’s game reminded me that Gene’s book is a must-read if you love college basketball. At the very least, it definitely should be on someone’s holiday gift list.

Gene covers that game in 1992 from every conceivable angle, getting a myriad of perspectives. He also examines all the central characters in that game, from Mike Krzyzewski and Rick Pitino to Christian Laettner and a Kentucky team that had been decimated by recruiting violations just a few years earlier.

I did a Q/A with Gene, asking why that game, which wasn’t even a Final Four game, still resonates with fans 20 years later.

People say this is the best college basketball game ever, and yet it didn’t occur in a Final Four. What lofts this game to that status?

Because it was Kentucky vs. Duke, Pitino vs. Krzyzewski, the soon-to-be-called Unforgettables vs. the virtually unbeatables of Duke. Because the game was played at an incredibly high level from start to finish. Because it went to overtime. Because you need a calculator to add all the great shots down the stretch and during OT. Because a Final Four was at stake. Because Kentucky was back from the near-dead and Duke was going for dynasty status. There were characters and there was character. I just saw Mike Krzyzewski a few weeks ago at Duke and the first thing he wanted to talk about was that game. Twenty years later—that game.

Obviously, this book is much more than about that game. What did you find intriguing about how those programs were built?

Kentucky was at the brink of the death penalty, of irrelevance–which is hard to believe for hoops fans who were too young to remember just how bad it got for that program. Pitino, who would have never come to Kentucky had he known something about the job he was leaving as NY Knicks coach (it’s explained in the book), restored UK basketball to greatness by using the “Hoosiers” movie formula: break the players down, build them up and then find a great player. Jamal Mashburn was the great player. But Pitino was merciless. He almost had no choice. He didn’t have enough talent, so he drove them to the edge with conditioning drills and his particular brand of offense.

Meanwhile, Krzyzewski, who grew up in Chicago and went to Weber High, was hired after a nine-win season at Army. That would never happen today. A nine-win coach getting a major college job? Laughable. But Duke AD Tom Butters did it and then stuck by Krzyzewski three years later when boosters wanted him fired. He had a breakthrough recruiting class shortly thereafter and slowly but surely built his program into elite status. But as late as 1991, there were questions if he could win a national title. He won it in ’91 and then another won in ’92. But he had to get through Kentucky to have a chance for the repeat.

Also, you realize just how much luck goes into building a program. Pitino lucked out getting Mashburn to leave New York City for Kentucky, a school Mash couldn’t locate on a map. Krzyzewski lucked out getting Laettner, Bobby Hurley and Grant Hill. At one point, all three college superstars thought they were going to play at North Carolina for Dean Smith.

The early portions of the book discuss Coach K’s connections to Chicago and then to Bob Knight. How did those aspects influence his career?

Krzyzewski’s is the son of immigrants who came to Chicago looking for a better life. Corny, but true. He went to Catholic schools and at one point wanted to be a priest. Later, he wanted to play basketball in the Big Ten. But no Big Ten school was interested. Nobody was interested–except Knight, the youngest coach in major college basketball at the time. Krzyzewski had no interest in West Point until his parents basically shamed him into accepting the appointment. That would begin a life-long relationship that included coach, mentor, opposing coach, friend and then, for nine years, non-friend, and then friend again. It is a complicated relationship. And at times, it was an unhealthy relationship. But there’s no doubt that Knight profoundly impacted Krzyzewski’s life and career–and, I think, the other way around, too. Through osmosis, Krzyzewski has many of Knight’s best qualities–and very few of his worst. But that relationship–and its twists and turns–is a central theme of the book.

Besides Coach K and Pitino, the most interesting character in the book is Mr. Laettner. What made him the perfect guy to be the hero?

Laettner is a hero and a villain at the same time. He is clearly one of the greatest college hoops players of all time. But he was despised by opponents and often, by his own teammates. He imposed his will on those Duke teams and he didn’t care if he was beloved. He loved his teammates, his school, his coach, etc. But he could be ruthless and calculating, if he thought it necessary. He isn’t a hero in the classic sense. He’s almost an anti-hero. But he was definitely the star of the game and of this book. He had movie-star looks, attended a prestigious Buffalo prep school, but actually came from a very humble backround and had to work his way through high school. I covered him at Duke when I was with the LA Times and enjoyed talking to him then, and now. UK fans still don’t find him enjoyable. Even 20 years later, the mere mention of his name to Wildcat fans sends their blood pressure to astronomical levels.

Northwestern and Duke have much in common: Academics, size, etc. Can it ever happen at Northwestern in basketball, as it did for Duke?

Doubtful. You need an administration willing to be patient. You need to get lucky with recruiting. You need something of a hoops legacy. Northwestern is a great institution, but the era, the patience level, the recruiting are much different today than they were when Krzyzewski was building Duke basketball. I’d love to see it happen at Northwestern, but you have to remember that Krzyzewski has been at Duke since 1981. In many ways, he IS Duke basketball now. There’s nobody at Northwestern with that sort of identity. Plus, Duke actually had basketball pedigree before Krzyzewski arrived. Not so at Northwestern.

Forget about the Dallas Cowboys. Is Duke truly as close to an America’s Team in sports?

Duke and Kentucky are sort of America’s team. If you made a Mt. Rushmore of college basketball, it would feature Duke, North Carolina, Kansas and Kentucky. UCLA used to be on there, but no more. Those programs are regional and yet national too. But if you’re asking which one of those four is America’s Team, then, sure, Duke would be it, based on Krzyzewski’s longevity, all those national championship banners under his watch, that wonderful Cameron Indoor Stadium, the Crazies. . . everything.

One last point from Gene.

The book, of course, is centered around how Kentucky and Duke came to meet that amazing night at the Spectrum in Philadelphia. But after Duke beat Kentucky, it had to beat two Big Ten teams to claim that second consecutive national title: Bob Knight’s Indiana team, and then Michigan and the Fab Five. The win against IU marked the beginning of the cold war between Knight and Krzyzewski, and the win against The Fab Five put an exclamation point on a very heated and, at times, racially charged rivalry.

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

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

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

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday books: Best and brightest of American sports writing

It seems sports writing is limited to 140 characters these days. Long pieces are multiple tweets.

So it is refreshing to get a reminder that the craft still can produce long, thoughtful, insightful stories that combine the best of reporting and writing.

The Best American Sports Writing 2012 shows you what the genre is and still can be in the new media age. Here’s the link at Amazon.

Series editor Glenn Stout, and this year’s guest editor, Michael Wilbon, have compiled an offering of stories that quite simply will blow you away. And they run the spectrum of platforms. There are stories you likely wouldn’t have seen if not for this book.

The menu includes:

Alex Belth in Deadspin on the wild life of George Kimball, the Boston sportswriter who was a true character.

Paul Solotaroff with Rick Telander in Men’s Journal on the tragic death of Dave Duerson.

John Brant in Runner’s World on Frank Shorter revealing the secrets of the torment from his incredibly abusive father. This is truly a harrowing story.

Michael Mooney in D Magazine writes a terrific profile of Ron Washington despite the Texas manager declining to sit down with him for an interview.

Tim Layden in Sports Illustrated on a school’s forgotten college football hero.

And there’s more, so much more. Be sure to get the book. It’s a good reminder that sports writing still is alive and well.

 

 

 

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

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.