My view: Why sportswriters shouldn’t vote for Heisman, Hall of Fame, MVP and all other awards

My view is based on an experience that occurred more than 20 years ago.

When it comes to the issue of whether sportswriters should vote for prestigious awards and the Hall of Fame in various sports, I flash back to a day in Miami in 1991. I saw my name in large type in the Miami Herald and realized I had become news.

It seems timely to weigh in on the subject after heavy traffic and reaction generated by a post I did yesterday on Notre Dame beat writer Brian Hamilton. He was conflicted over what to do with his Heisman Trophy ballot in light of Irish linebacker Manti Te’o being a top candidate. Eventually, the Chicago Tribune decided to use an internal staff poll to determine Hamilton’s vote.

Hamilton’s dilemma underscored the possible pitfalls and conflicts that result when writers engage in this exercise. He is to be commended for bringing up the issue with his sports editor Mike Kellams.

Based on my experience, I don’t think writers should participate in votes for major awards and the ultimate honor, election into a Hall of Fame. I fall back on that old axiom: Reporters cover the news. They don’t make the news.

I come to this perspective as someone who once voted for the biggest trophies in sports.

I became the Tribune’s baseball writer for the White Sox in 1986. At the end of the year, I was allowed to participate in voting for the American League MVP and Cy Young Award. There were only 28 voters for each award.

I was only 26 at the time. Only a decade or so earlier, I was collecting baseball cards. Now I was voting for AL MVP. Talk about a powerful feeling. It was intoxicating.

In 1988, I became the Tribune’s national college football reporter. Soon, I was awarded a Heisman Trophy vote. But even bigger, I was asked to be among the voters for the Associated Press writer’s poll.

In the old days before the BCS, the writer’s and UPI coaches’ polls determined the national champion. Again, it was an incredible power surge. This athletically-challenged sportswriter was going to have a say on No. 1.

My epiphany, if you will, came in 1991. The polls were split between Miami and Washington. As a result, I was fielding calls from reporters about my vote for No. 1. It started to dawn on me that there was something not right about this.

Then it really hit me one November day when I was in Miami to cover the Hurricanes. The Miami Herald did a major story on the polls. They splashed a big pullout quote across the top of the front page. I had to do a double take.

The quote was mine.

I remember it was a really uneasy feeling. I felt like a line had been crossed. My vote was news.

It was magnified even more when Miami won the AP poll by a two-point margin thanks in part to my vote for the Hurricanes. If I had gone the other way and it ended in a tie, history would have been different. My vote clearly helped Miami players and coaches win that ring.

Did I realize it fully back then? No, I still was a bit naive. Even though I felt uncomfortable about it, I continued to vote in the AP poll until I came off the beat in 1994. Looking back, it wasn’t right.

Later, the Associated Press reviewed its stance, deciding in 2004 not to allow its poll to be used in the BCS’ wacky equations.

As for sportswriters participating elsewhere, let’s make this clear: their votes go beyond somebody winning a trophy. Baseball players get six-figure bonuses for winning top awards. You could be sure Texas A&M will heavily market Johnny Manziel’s Heisman Trophy, and not just this year but many years to come. And Manziel’s marketing power will be much greater once he turns pro.

For people who say there’s no money involved with Hall of Fame votes, guess again. A Hall of Famer sees a huge jump in demand and appearance fees. There’s nothing like being able to sign an autograph that includes the tagline: “HOF.”

Aside from the money, there’s prestige involved for the athletes with these honors, and in the case of the Hall of Fame, a legacy and sense of immortality.

I can go on forever about the potential conflicts for sportswriters being involved in these awards. The Tribune’s Hamilton faced them with his vote.

Ultimately, though, most sportswriters are responsible and do the right thing. In many respects, they are best qualified to do the job. But that isn’t the point.

Basically, it’s very simple: This is all about reporters not making news. Repeat, reporters DO NOT make news.

Sportswriters made news Saturday night when their votes for the Heisman Trophy were disclosed. It’ll be huge news in January when the Baseball Hall of Fame reveals their votes for the 2013 class. Will it include first-time eligibles Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa?

Baseball writers will be reporting on news they created with their votes. Is that right?

You wouldn’t allow a court reporter to be on a jury and then write about the case. I respect the political reporters who decide not to vote in elections so they can maintain an appearance of objectivity.

Several newspapers, such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, have decided not to allow their staffers to participate in votes. Others, such as my former paper at the Chicago Tribune, are OK with their writers being part of the process.

There are plenty of views on the subject. I just know how I felt on that morning in Miami in 1991.

I didn’t like seeing my name in that big pullout quote. I didn’t like making news.

What’s your view?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who needs ESPN? NHL exec: Playoffs validate choice of NBC Sports Network

ESPN’s Vince Doria definitely stirred the ire of hockey fans last week. In an interview with this site, he attributed hockey’s limited presence on SportsCenter to the sport not generating “a national discussion.”

When I asked John Collins about the comment Monday, the NHL’s COO and Commissioner Gary Bettman’s right-hand man for business and media, took it in stride.

“The national discussion definitely is increasing around the Stanley Cup,” Collins said.

Indeed, Collins and the NHL have reason to feel bullish about the first year of their long-term deal with NBC Universal. The move to televise every playoff game on either NBC, NBC Sports Network, CNBC and the NHL Network has produced dramatic results. Ratings soared with more than a combined 60 million viewers tuning in to watch first-round games on either national or local outlets.

NBC Sports Network averaged 744,000 viewers for first-round games, up 16 percent. Those are the highest numbers for hockey on cable since 2001, when ESPN’s first round coverage averaged 745,000 viewers.

The multi-network platform had an NCAA basketball tournament feel, with viewers switching from game to game. The NCAA comparison went even deeper with numerous overtime games producing buzzer beaters. It happened again last night with the New York Rangers winning an overtime thriller against Washington.

Would it have been the same if the NHL went with ESPN? Probably not. With MLB and NBA games, and the NFL draft on ESPN, the playoffs likely would have been relegated to ESPN2 on several nights, leaving the notion of being second class.

Yep, not hearing so much that the NHL needs to be on ESPN anymore.

Indeed, the NHL made the right move with potential for future growth. Yet Doria, who was ridiculed for his comment, hardly is off base. With the Blackhawks out, there has been zero discussion about the Stanley Cup playoffs on sports talk radio here in Chicago. You’ll be hard-pressed to find NHL discussion outside of cities that still have teams in the hunt. It’s not that way for the NBA.

Also, the league is faced with the likely prospect of having a non-traditional hockey team in Phoenix or the No. 8 seed Los Angeles Kings in the finals. Not exactly the same drawing power as recent West winners: Detroit (2008, 2009), Chicago (2010), and despite being a Canadian team, Vancouver, with its stars and stories, had significant U.S. appeal in 2011. Los Angeles might be big market, but the Kings aren’t the Lakers.

I addressed those issues and more in a Q/A with Collins.

Given what’s transpired, how does the NHL feel about its decision to go with NBC and the NBC Sports Network?

Collins: The thing we felt was lacking from a marketing standpoint was the idea of national scale.

(In 2010), 40 percent of the games in the first two rounds weren’t on national television. None of the Flyers games in the first two rounds were nationally televised. The Flyers were a Cinderella story (going to the finals against Chicago), but nobody knew the stories on a national level. The first time they popped up was in the finals, and frankly at that point, it was too late.

Now we have every game on. We’re able to show the casual fan how unique the Stanley Cup playoffs are. They can see how tough the road is.

It’s been very satisfying. The ratings are up. We attribute that to the way NBC has embraced these playoffs.

Would you have gotten the same kind of treatment from ESPN?

Collins: We spent a lot of time talking to ESPN. There was a lot of interest. One of the deciding factors to go with NBC Universal was that hockey would be the centerpiece of their entire programming (for NBC Sports Network). That’s not to say ESPN wouldn’t have devoted more time to hockey than they did in the past.

But for (the NBC Sports Network), the Stanley Cup playoffs are their focus. They have dedicated all their time to building this platform. They’ve offered us enormous flexibility. They’ve changed their schedule on the fly to accommodate us.

How does the league view Doria’s comments on hockey not generating the national discussion?

Collins: The national discussion around the Stanley Cup definitely is increasing. We hope ESPN will validate it with the amount of coverage for hockey on SportsCenter.

They’ve been pretty good to us in our big moments. They went to the Winter Classic. They’ve been at the last couple of Stanley Cup finals with Steve Levy and Barry Melrose

What we’re working to do is to round out that schedule so that it’s more than the Stanley Cup finals. Now it’s all four rounds of the Stanley Cup.

How does the NHL increase the discussion for hockey on a national level?

Collins: An important step was getting all the playoff games on national television. We checked that one off and go from there.

We’re working to expose fans to our storylines. The power of (HBO’s 24/7 documentaries) is showing fans something they haven’t seen before. Then when you have all the games on, and people discover or re-discover Martin Brodeur or the team aspect of the Rangers. Those stories start to resonate with fans.

Also, we have so many markets where hockey does well locally. In important markets like Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Washington, hockey does better ratings than basketball. Maybe, that will be the case one day in Chicago. It’s another sign of the potential to have (increased) national discussion.

How does the NHL feel about the prospect of having a non-traditional team in the finals?

Collins: Any sport, whether it’s baseball or basketball, would love to have its big markets (going for) the championship. It doesn’t always work out that way.

A lot of myths got broken last year. The idea that you needed two big U.S. media market teams to get ratings. Boston-Vancouver exploded that myth.

We’re seeing casual fans getting turned on to our stories during the playoffs. There are a lot of healthy signs. At the end of the day, the ratings are ratings. If you look at the first year, the Stanley Cup ratings is not the only metric of success. We’ve made a lot of progress, and it’s only going to get better.