Fox working to warm up to a cold-weather Super Bowl; Bradshaw: Why are we in New York?

My latest Chicago Tribune column is on how Fox will handle the weather element of this year’s Super Bowl. Terry Bradshaw isn’t pleased to be in New York/New Jersey.

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

From the column.

*******

This year’s Super Bowl will be played in an open-air stadium in a cold-weather city while the 2015 version will take place in a domed stadium in warm-weather Phoenix.

So pardon Terry Bradshaw if he remains confused with the NFL’s logic to subject him, his Fox Sports teammates, players, coaches, fans and everyone else to the elements Sunday.

“I don’t quite understand why we’re in New York,” Bradshaw said. “Was there some deal worked out?”

Actually, the game will be across the river in MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. Yeah, there was a deal. Being awarded a Super Bowl was a big part of getting the stadium built.

Bradshaw and his cohorts are spending the week trying to warm up to the notion of a Super Bowl unlike any other in the big game’s history. The weather will be a big part of the story in Fox’s all-day coverage. Not that the announcers are looking forward to it.

When asked if it would be a letdown if Sunday turned out to be relatively balmy like it was for the AFC title game in Denver (temperatures in the 60s), Joe Buck quickly replied, “It won’t be for me.”

“I could see where the viewing audience might feel that way. I wouldn’t be disappointed. I don’t think the players and coaches would be either.”

 

Posted in NFL

Jonathan Martin breaks silence: Talks to Tony Dungy; portions of interview to air on tonight on NBC Nightly News

Well here’s one way to grab the spotlight during Super Bowl. This just in from NBC:

********

Miami Dolphins offensive lineman Jonathan Martin sat down with Football Night in America’s Tony Dungy today for an exclusive interview about the alleged bullying incident that erupted in the fall. This is Martin’s first interview since leaving the Miami Dolphins in October, and first time he is speaking publicly about the ongoing NFL investigation.

Portions of the interview will air tonight on “NBC Nightly News” and tomorrow on “TODAY.” Dungy will join “TODAY” live to discuss his conversation with Martin.

The in-depth interview will air on a special edition of NBCSN’s “Pro Football Talk” on Wednesday at 6:30pm ET.

*******

Martin’s handlers made a wise choice in doing the sit-down with Dungy. Dungy carries a certain presence as one of the most respected men in football. Yet, considering his work with troubled athletes, there is sure to be a significant amount of empathy that comes across during the interview.

However, will there be a backlash against Martin for doing the interview during Super Bowl week? He definitely is pulling attention away from the game. Will be interesting to gauge the reaction.

The interview guarantees NBCSN’s highest-ever audience. I’m sure Richie Incognito will be tuning in.

 

 

Posted in NFL

Sequel to Jerome Holtzman classic: Povich Center to do modern version of ‘No Cheering’

If you came of age as a sportswriter in the ’70s like me, there’s a good chance you were inspired by Jerome Holtzman’s classic, No Cheering in the Press Box.

Holtzman’s book was a first-person account from the great sportswriters in the 20s and 30s about what it was like to cover Babe Ruth, Jack Dempsey, Knute Rockne and more. It was extremely entertaining, especially the stories of the writers witnessing Ruth’s antics, and provided a valuable snapshot into an important era of the profession.

When I joined the Chicago Tribune in the 1980s, Holtzman, a character in his own right, served as one of my mentors. It always will be one of the highlights of my career.

I can recall writers coming up to him in press boxes, asking him to autograph No Cheering. The book had that kind of impact.

I still have my signed copy of his book. Even more important, it served as a tremendous resource for my upcoming book on Ruth’s “Called Shot,” which will be coming out next month.

George Solomon, the long-time sports editor of Washington Post, has the same affection for Holtzman’s book. Now serving as the director of the Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism at Maryland, he sought a way to do a modern version featuring today’s sportswriters.

Instead of doing it in book-form, the Povich Center is running installments on its site, with Michael Wilbon as the first installment.

By the way, there is a chapter featuring Povich in No Cheering. No matter your age or at what point you’re at in your career in sports media, I highly recommend reading Holtzman’s book. I always tell my students in order to know where you’re going, you need to know where you’ve been.

The sequel also will be illuminating. All in all, Povich and Holtzman would be proud of the Center’s initiative. Definitely worth your time.

From the Povich Center.

*******

The Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism is debuting a sports media project entitled “Still No Cheering in the Press Box.”

The project is an extension of the 1973 book “No Cheering in the Press Box” by Jerome Holtzman that detailed the lives and careers of 24 sportswriters whose careers spanned mostly from the 1920s to ’70s including Shirley Povich and Red Smith

In the modern-day version to be published at www.povichcenter.org/still-no-cheering, the goal is to include many of the modern day stars of sportswriting including ESPN’s Michael Wilbon, USA Today’s Christine Brennan, the Boston Globe’s Bob Ryan, author and columnist John Feinstein, the Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins and the late L.A. Times’ Jim Murray.

The mostly student-driven project will be a look inside how the formative years of today’s great sportswriters shaped their careers as well as advice for aspiring journalists. The first chapter is posted today, Jan. 28 at http://povichcenter.org/chapter-1-espns-michael-wilbon/

“Jerome Holtzman’s wonderful 1974 book “No Cheering in the Press Box” covered many of the best sportswriters of the 20th century – up to the 1970’s. That leaves us more than 40 years of great sports journalists to chronicle and who better than the students from the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism to do the chronicling?” said George Solomon, Director of the Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism and Professor of the Practice.

“We hope to come close to meeting Mr. Holtzman’s standards and do justice to today’s sportswriting giants.”

Boston media critic: Remy’s return to Red Sox booth is a mistake

Bruce Allen, who writes the Boston Sports Media Watch site, makes some good points about Jerry Remy returning to the Red Sox broadcast booth in the wake of his son being charged for murdering his girlfriend.

Allen writes:

Both Remy and NESN are fooling themselves if they think things will be able to just go back to normal. This isn’t going away. It’s going to be a very high profile case. There will be updates, both through the media, and to Remy personally. If something more comes out during the day, will Remy be able to go to the park that night and banter with Orsillo like everything is OK?

And…

It’s going to be impossible for many viewers to listen to Remy this season without thinking of his family situation. It’s not fair, but when he jokes around and engages in his banter with Orsillo, some are going to object to that. At least one member of the Martel family has already said it will be tough to hear Remy in the booth.

Allen believes NESN should have made this decision, not Remy:

I often hear from viewers who say that Remy’s performance in the booth isn’t what it once was. It’s hard to argue that. Couple that with the health and emotional issues, and now this, it just doesn’t seem like this is the right move, for Remy or for NESN. He wanted to quit before, when those issues were fresh. Can he plow through this unaffected? I have serious doubts.

Indeed, it is a difficult situation in Boston. Despite what Remy said yesterday, there appears to be much more that will happen with this story.

 

Posted in MLB

Streak over: Edwin Pope to miss first ever Super Bowl; his perspective on covering big game

Sorry to hear that Edwin Pope, who had been on hand for the previous 47, will miss his first Super Bowl this year. Armando Saluergo of the Miami Herald reports:

No reason was given for Pope, 85, breaking his Super Bowl streak. Pope declined comment on not attending this year’s Super Bowl. He was among a few hundred journalists who covered the First World Championship game AFL vs. NFL when it was played on January 15, 1967 — Super Bowl I between the Green Bay Packers and Kansas City Chiefs. And he was part of the weeklong coverage of every game since until this year’s game.

The legendary Miami Herald columnist will be missed. Back in 2005 when Pope was just a kid, Mickey Hershkowitz of the Houston Chronicle did a piece on him prior to the big game in Jacksonville.

At the time, Pope said: “Honestly, I don’t need this game, but I hate to give up the streak.”

Well, he took it through 2013. Quite a run.

Also in 2005, Pope did an interview with Chet Fussman that appeared in the Florida Times-Union.

Q: Where does the Super Bowl rank among your favorite sports events to cover?

It’s No. 1 with me. Yes, ahead of even the Masters. The Masters is fantastically organized and an unbelievable visual treat, but they have boring days there, too. Once upon a time I would have said heavyweight championship fights, and others involving Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran and Tommy Hearns were the best things to cover, but Las Vegas ruined that by putting them on so late, you can’t make deadline with a column from a big fight any more. Nothing is talked about on the street as much as a Super Bowl, and it is still played at a decent time for newspaper coverage. Nothing has bigger audiences, and that’s what it’s all about for us.

Q: In 38 Super Bowls, who is the most memorable Super Bowl personality and why?

Jim McMahon was the most memorable because he was the biggest jerk, hands down, no contest. He worked hard at being obnoxious, and succeeded completely.

On the positive side, I always think of Phil Simms. So many players view those few interview sessions as “distractions” — isn’t that awful, a guy having to spend a total of maybe five of six hours with the media all SB Week? — but Simms hugely enjoyed it all. I asked Phil how he managed to be so different from so many others, and he said, “Hey, this is what you spent your whole young life shooting for. Why wouldn’t you enjoy it?”

I have to add, from the players’ viewpoint, they have to put up with a lot more media idiots than they used to. Like TV’s Julie Brown barging into interviews with stupid questions. It would be pompous to present these interview sessions as anything sacred, but a lot of media depend on them to convey the players’ attitudes.

Larry Csonka and Bob Kuechenberg were great interviews. Roger Staubach was good; asked what cornerbacks he expected to meet in heaven, he said: “Cornerbacks don’t go to heaven.”

I liked Jack Reynolds. And Jim Kelly. Hollywood Henderson amused a lot of people, if not Chuck Noll, whose reply to Hollywood’s histrionics was: “Give a monkey a stage and he’ll dance.”

Don Shula had the best command presence of any coach. Jimmy Johnson was damned good. Some of them, like George Allen and Bill Parcells, sometimes acted as though they were being persecuted by having to stand up and answer questions, but most of the coaches have been easy to work with.

And this is vintage Pope.

Q: Has there been a Super Bowl that brought a tear to your eye?

No, but a lot of writers almost cried when the Janet Jackson Moment occurred and they rushed to their computers to see the replay, and then really couldn’t see anything. That was the most overpublicized happening in the history of Super Bowls, which is saying a lot.

In his interview with Hershkowitz, Pope said Dallas running back Duane Thomas summed up the Super Bowl for him.

 “A writer asked Duane Thomas, then a Dallas rookie, how it felt to play in the ultimate game? Duane said, ‘If it’s the ultimate game, why are they playing it again next year?’ “

 

Jerry Remy to return to Red Sox booth in wake of son being charged with murder; ‘Only thing I know how to do’

You could feel Jerry Remy’s heartbreak and anguish in this story by the Boston Globe’s Chad Finn. He had been on a leave of absence since August when his son, Jared, was charged with murdering his girlfriend.

Finn reports:

Remy, who was solemn and candid during a meeting with a small group of reporters at NESN’s Brighton headquarters, had not spoken publicly since his son’s arrest.

“I felt for a couple of months, for two or three months, that it was over,’’ Remy said. “There’s no way I was coming back. I had two main concerns: What the public would think and whether I could be myself. The answers at that time [in November and December] were no.”

Remy, 61, said he had a circle of three friends and his wife, Phoebe, who urged him to reconsider. But he didn’t change his mind until after the new year.

“[They reminded] me about my career, and where it came from, and where it is,’’ said Remy, a lung cancer survivor who said he made the decision about a week ago after his most recent CAT scan came back clean.

“When I got drafted as a baseball player, I got drafted [late], and I made it to the big leagues. I wanted to quit, my father talked me out of it. When I started this job, [I was] awful. I was terrible. I couldn’t wait for the first season to be over. I wanted out. Didn’t quit. Continued on for 26 years.

“When I got cancer, I wanted to quit. I didn’t, it drove me to depression, it came back, I continued on. Some of these things started to resonate a little bit with me.

“I don’t intend to be a quitter. Don’t intent to be one now. It’s what I do. It’s what I know. It’s what my comfort level is. It’s where I feel I belong and I feel I’m going to do so as long as possible. I hope in no way that my decision to come back to do games has a negative impact on the Martel family. I’m quite certain they understand I have to make a living, and unfortunately mine is in the public eye. I’m quite certain they understand that.”

More from Finn:

Remy said he would not address his situation during the Red Sox’ first broadcast this season, acknowledging that the reason he was speaking now was to hopefully prevent it from being a story in spring training. But he said he recognizes that there are some people who don’t believe he should come back, and that as more details emerge about his son’s past – the trial is currently set to begin in October – there could be some backlash against Remy, who is notoriously private outside of his public life.

“It’s not easy. It’s not easy,’’ Remy said. “There’s going to be more stuff that comes out … I think it’s pretty clear what’s going to happen. I’m trying to take it one step at a time. I know that’s a cliché, but that’s the only thing we can possible do. Criticism hurts, obviously. The fact that you’re not good parents. Call me a bad father if you want, but I’ll be damned if my wife’s not a good parent.”

And:

Remy informed longtime broadcast partner Don Orsillo Monday that he would return. The banter between the broadcasters has long been a part of their appeal. Orsillo asked him a pointed question: How can they can be light and fun again?

“If I didn’t think I couldn’t be myself, I wouldn’t do it,” Remy said. “I hope that doesn’t come off as insensitive. It may be to some. But that’s the only way I know how to do my job.

“I’m sure there will be people who are very upset with me. It’s the only way I know how to do a game. I’ve thought of all these things a thousand times, believe me.”

 

ESPN ombudsman on Dr. V story: Lacked understanding, empathy and introspection

As expected, Robert Lipsyte weighed in quickly on the controversial Dr. V story in Grantland. Also as expected, he wasn’t a fan of the piece. And that was before the firestorm hit.

A young golfer’s obsession with an oddly shaped putter invented by a mysterious scientist and endorsed on YouTube? I will give that kind of story no more than a few paragraphs to grab my interest before I bail out, even if it is featured on a site known for compelling storytelling.

Just a few moments into reading that very story recently on Grantland, it was shaping up as another one of those bloated selfies that clog the arteries of sports-lit these days.

Four graphs and I was gone.

As for the flaws in the story:

Much of the criticism was generically true, although I don’t think this piece was a conscious persecution of a transgender person as much as it was an example of unawareness and arrogance. It was a rare breakdown in one of ESPN’s best and brightest places, and an understandable but inexcusable instance of how the conditioned drive to get to the core of a story can block the better angels of a journalist’s nature and possibly lead to tragic consequences.

The story lacked understanding, empathy and introspection — no small ingredients. More reporting would have helped. It was a story worth telling, if told right. And aside from its humane shortcomings, I still don’t like it as a piece of writing.

And more:

Hannan never meets Vanderbilt in person, but in his due diligence he discovers that she has probably lied about her scientific and government credentials — at least he is unable to verify her degrees and work record. He finds out toward the end of his reporting that Vanderbilt is transgender, with two ex-wives and three children. Almost accidentally, he later learns that she has committed suicide. His reaction seems careless, even callous.

Because he knows little about the besieged transgender community, he conflates all her personal lies and apparently comes to believe — if he really thought about it — that as a presumed con artist she was fair game and had no right to privacy.

The story itself is structurally clumsy and flabbily edited. Yet Grantland’s gatekeepers – including Bill Simmons, the site’s founder and editor-in-chief, and more than a dozen editors in all — waved the story on through seven months of meetings and drafts and tweaks. They may have been blinded by the idea that had captivated them in the first place, the self-absorbed young man looking for his quick fix, a metaphor for the times and perhaps Grantland’s demographic. But that was not the story any more. The twists and turns were the story, the possible lack of resolution and some serious reflections on responsibility and death.

There’s more, as Lipsyte spreads around the blame to all.

One last point: Obviously, we had to hear from Lipsyte, but this seems like the 90th in-house ESPN piece bashing the story. Name me another media outlet that opens itself up to such introspection from within. You can’t.

Will Lipsyte’s post be the final word on the Dr. V story. Or do Dickie V or Mike Ditka have anything to add?

 

Q/A with Scott Van Pelt: Looking back at decision to stay at ESPN; Radio show remains key component

Back in 2012, ESPN had several prominent free agents: Jim Rome, Michelle Beadle, Erin Andrews, and Scott Van Pelt.

Only Van Pelt stayed. As for the rest…

Rome does have a program on Showtime and has made appearances on CBS’ big national telecasts. However, truth be told, Rome’s daily TV show still barely registers on CBS Sports Network.

Andrews went to Fox. While she still gets the high-profile sideline assignments, including the Super Bowl, her duties as host on Fox’s college football pregame shows are a work in progress at best.

Then there’s Beadle. Well, let’s just say things didn’t quite work out as planned with NBC.

With SI’s Richard Deitsch reporting that Beadle is set to return to ESPN, it seemed to be a good time to break out the Q/A I did with Van Pelt during a recent trip to Bristol. The One Who Stayed is very happy with his decision.

You had a decision to make. you were on the market and you stayed.

Van Pelt: Uh‑huh, I did.

A few of your former colleagues left, and they have had mixed results.

Van Pelt: I wish everyone all the best.

I know you do.  When we were here last time (April, 2012), you were up in the air. Now it’s been more than a year. How do you feel about the way things have worked out?

 Van Pelt: It was great to be able to take inventory of my life professionally and ask myself, what do I do, what do I want to do, and it was flattering that other people were interested in offering up something different to do.  You know, the best thing that happened was that they were willing to help me create a little bit more of a life.  Picking it up there, just the idea ‑‑ the best thing that happened was I was able to talk with a group of people here and say, you know, I’d love to do some college football.  I’m not trying to take Chris Fowler’s chair because he’s awesome.  I’m not trying to take Rece Davis’ chair, also awesome.  But if there’s a spot at the table that I could just pull up a chair and do something that’s of any value, then great.  So we carved out a thing with Gameday, and it’s great.

You do a daily radio show, SportsCenter, and Gameday during the fall. And there’s the golf majors during the spring and summer. That’s a pretty full schedule.

Van Pelt:   Any one of those would be a job.  Here’s the best thing, the most important thing for me to make clear here.  Every entity here has done a great job of making it like a symbiotic thing.  Everyone is on the same page.  Everyone works to say, okay, well, what day can we lose him on radio, Tuesday or Wednesday, cool.  The Gameday guys say, look, we need you to be there on‑site, or hey, we can do the piece but get out of there, go home, so we don’t need you to be here.  You know what I mean?  Everyone is reasonable.  It’s an unreasonable thing to take on, but I asked to do it.  You know what I’m saying?

You asked to do all this?

Van Pelt: I did.  Look, I love the radio piece.  SportsCenter,  and Gameday I think is the best show that ESPN does.

Talk about the radio show.          

Van Pelt: Of course, and the thing that was most important to me staying here. Let me put it this way:  To continue to try to grow the show with (Ryen Russillo) was as important as any single thing.  You know?  All the things that you get to do at ESPN, the totality of that, nothing else could match, and where other places just said, oh, you can do a radio show, that’s fine.  But I couldn’t do a radio show with Ryan anywhere else.

I guess the best way to put it is the thing I was least willing to sacrifice here, moving forward, because of its importance to me was radio. (The show) is in its infancy.  Mike & Mike is 14 years.  They’ve been doing it for a long time.  Colin (Cowherd) is twice as long as we have.  It takes a long time to build that.

What do you like about the radio show?

Van Pelt: It’s just hard as hell to do well.  It’s really difficult to do well.  And as a TV guy, you walk into it with an arrogance that ‑‑ well, I’m on TV, I’ll be fine on radio.  And four minutes into your first eight‑minute segment, you realize that you’ve got three hours left to fill.  I’ve often said, and I’m kidding, like I could do SportsCenter mildly buzzed and I could navigate the terrain because I know the mechanics, and there’s only so much heavy lifting I have to do.

And you’ve done it buzzed a few times.

Van Pelt:  I’ve done it blind drunk several years, several years, just really, really hammered on a nightly basis. (Editor’s note: Just kidding, folks)

Radio, every segment of every hour is a challenge to fill in an interesting way.  What I like the most about it is how challenging it is to do it well.  I have such respect for the people that are great at it, and I’m talking across the board, guys who I would never do shows like, but their ability to ‑‑ and I’m talking in different genres.  The genius of a Limbaugh or a Stern or even here you could say a Cowherd who some people say is polarizing, the genius of people like that is they get people that like them that look to them to nod their head and they get people who are angry at them to listen to be mad.  That’s a genius ‑‑ I couldn’t do it.  I couldn’t just knowingly wink and poke the bear.  I couldn’t do that.  But I respect the ability for people that understand the medium to do it.

When you have to go on SportsCenter at night and you still wear that hat, you can’t just go and be an insane radio person.  You just can’t.  Because there’s a line you straddle, and I find myself on SportsCenter having to remind myself, keep your opinion out of this, right, because this isn’t the forum for it, and then on radio I find myself having to remind myself, no, you’re allowed to go ahead and let it rip.  And it’s tough to straddle the lines and be good at it.

But I think the radio helps the TV because I find myself letting it bleed more in, because I think people are willing ‑‑ I think the one thing people I think know about me is that I’m authentically a fan.  I love sports, and allowing that passion to bleed into the presentation, I don’t think people hold that against you.  In fact, I think Boomer has shown us that it’s okay.  It’s okay to be ‑‑ in fact, it’s not just okay, it’s good to be agnostic.  It’s good to be fair.

So you stayed because of the totality of the whole package?

Van Pelt: Correct, yep.

Aside from the money, ESPN was the only place that would allow you to stay at ESPN, if you know what I mean.

Van Pelt:  I got to talk to really talented, smart, good people at other places, and I said that and I mean that you wish all of them success.  I just think that the challenge for them is herculean. Look I worked for the Golf Channel, right, and I used to joke that when I’d show up to cover a major championship before the Golf Channel had any rights that it was trying to fight a tank with a Popsicle stick.  I’d walk around carrying our own sticks for our shooter, we didn’t have a golf cart, but I knew those golfers, I had relationships with those guys, so I went in there and I fought, and we lost, but I managed some punches for a guy holding a tripod; you know what I mean?  I’ve been on the other side of it, and it’s a hard fight to win.

You have the arsenal of properties that you get a chance to be a part of here, it’s a very difficult hill to climb.  And I mean, you know, you take inventory, and I was proud of whatever little niches that I had carved out.  They were all important to me.

I’m sure wherever you landed, you would be the face of the network, Wouldn’t that have been enticing?

Van Pelt:  I’m not ego‑driven.  Hey, we’re going to put you on billboards and you’re going to have a show.  Awesome.  Then you know what you have to go do?  A show.  And you have to fill that hour and you have to ‑‑ and it needs to be ‑‑ I wasn’t afraid of failing as much as I was confident in succeeding here.  Does that make any sense?  Again, the idea of an ad campaign and billboards, like that’s the icing, man.

The cake is the doing the work every day, and the challenge of that at this point in time, I didn’t think that that was as enticing to me as being able to continue to do things I truly enjoyed doing with people that I enjoy at a place that I valued them and in the end they valued me.  Maybe they valued me more than they were going to have to, what are you are you going to do?  As I told them, I didn’t tell you that my house cost this much, somebody just knocked on the door and said this is what we’ll give you for your house.  Well, then that’s what my house costs.  I didn’t tell you that, they did.

As a highly visible Maryland alum, how do you feel about being part of the Big Ten?

Van Pelt: I think Maryland should be flattered because they were coveted by (the Big Ten). Maryland should be happy that it’s a windfall financially.  But you give up ‑‑ you sacrifice a lot of traditions.

The other thing I did say is that I wasn’t going to have a funeral for something that I thought died in 2004, which is the old ACC.  What I grew up with no longer existed anyway, and the ACC told Maryland that its rivals were going to be Pittsburgh and Virginia, and Maryland and Pittsburgh have no rivalry at all.

I can’t weep for that, but I’ll obviously be nostalgic for what I remember.  I remember it.  But then I go to Cole Fieldhouse and it’s closed.  I grew up going to RFK and it’s not a stadium.  I grew up going to Memorial Stadium in Baltimore, and it doesn’t exist.  If you think about what you grew up with, you can’t even go to the places you grew up to see the teams that you used to watch.  What is the one thing they say about life?  The only thing for sure is it goes on.

Speaking of life, you have a baby now at home. How does that change your perception of things?

Van Pelt:  You’re incredibly selfish in this business, I think.  You work holidays, you work weekends, you sacrifice in many, many ways to do what you do.  And the benefit of being an older dad is that a lot of that work is behind me.  I still will work hard, and I’m still thankful that I get to do this, but my guess is, my hope is that I’ll be able to be present for stuff later in life.  If I’d have done all this when I was 30, who knows what I would have missed?

It’s every cliché there is.  I went in last night after doing SportsCenter, and my daughter was asleep, and ‑‑

This is like 2:00 in the morning?

Van Pelt:  Yeah, it was about 2:30.  She’s asleep, and I just reached in the crib and I held her hand, and I sat there and I stared at her, and I walked in and I laughed when I laid down because it’s like ‑‑ like I said, it’s every cliché there is.

But my favorite part of yesterday was that, you know.  Was that two minutes of silence watching her lie there.  It sounds like a sappy Hallmark commercial, but that was what I did.

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff Pearlman apologizes for Erin Andrews post: She doesn’t deserve this nonsense

Jeff Pearlman said he realized over the weekend that he went too far in a post in which he called Erin Andrews “The Kardashian of sports TV” in the aftermath of her interview with Richard Sherman.

Pearlman writes that he fell into the trap of doing a blog: The dreaded quick post without completely thinking through the post. As a result, Pearlman became a target himself, and what he was trying to say got lost with the Kardashian comparison.

Pearlman writes:

In a word: Awful.

Writers are responsible for their words. They’re supposed to measure what they write, then measure it again and again and again. Sometimes, unfortunately, I fail to measure. An impulse shoots through my brain, and I fire away, press SAVE, then press PUBLISH. I have an idea of what I want to convey, but I don’t bother to make sure it’s conveyed properly.

Guilty, times 1,000.

Later, Pearlman writes:

Furthermore, when it comes to women reporters, networks (in my opinion) place too great an emphasis on looks. I know … I know—it’s a visual medium, and attractiveness draws viewers. Still, it strikes me as an awful double standard. Nobody’s demanding beauty and sexiness from, say, Chris Berman or Joe Buck or Stuart Scott. Yet it seems that—bottom line—women with sex appeal have an inside track over women with fantastic knowledge and poise but, say, a belly. Or a mole. I get it. Really, I do. It just infuriates me, because I’ve known very talented women who have felt they don’t really have a shot.

So … that’s what I meant to convey. And, interestingly, I received several e-mails from women in sports media, thanking me for making the point. But, ultimately, I failed miserably. I blasted Erin Andrews and killed the entire intent. The post wound up being juvenile and stupid. Some accused me of being sexist—which fucking tore at my insides, in that the whole goal was to speak on behalf of women. Boy, that went over well.

I don’t know Erin Andrews. I’ve heard she’s a nice person who works hard.

She certainly didn’t deserve this nonsense.

Pearlman’s last thought is correct. Say what you will about her, from what I’ve heard, she is a hard worker and is completely dedicated to doing a good job. Unfortunately, she can’t seem to avoid being in the line of fire.

 

 

Bring back Playoff Bowl: How about New England-San Francisco playing today?

With the NFL on a quest to seemingly squeeze every last dollar from its TV package, here’s an idea they probably haven’t considered. Or maybe they have.

A few week ago, Ben Koo, the CEO of Bloguin and GM of Awful Announcing, did a tweet saying: “I think this year more than any other, I’d be really game for a third place consolation NFL game.”

I responded to Koo saying that such a game actually existed. “Whoa,” he said. “Had no idea.”

I barely remember the game. I’m old, but not that old. But thanks to our pals, Google and Wikipedia, here’s a look back at the Playoff Bowl.

From the Wikipedia page:

The Playoff Bowl (officially, the Bert Bell Benefit Bowl) was a post-season game for third place in the NFL, played ten times following the 1960 through 1969 seasons, all at the Orange Bowl in Miami, Florida.

All ten games in the Playoff Bowl series were contested at the Orange Bowl in Miami. The games were played in January, the week following the NFL championship game (and the collegiate Orange Bowl game on New Year’s Day), except for the final year, when it was played the day before the NFL title game. The NFL’s Pro Bowl (all-star game) was played the week after the Playoff Bowl.

After the 1959 season, NFL owners faced competition from the newly formed American Football League and wanted a vehicle through which to showcase more of its supposedly superior NFL professional football product on television. At the time, unlike the AFL, which had a contract with ABC-TV for nationally televised games, often double-headers, few NFL games were televised during the season and there was only one scheduled post-season game, the NFL Championship Game. The Playoff Bowl was devised to match the second-place teams from the NFL’s two conferences (Eastern and Western). This doubled from two to four the number of top NFL teams appearing in post-season play on national television.

Can you imagine playing a consolation game the week after the title game? Needless to say, one coach wasn’t fond of his team’s two appearances in the Playoff Bowl.

Vince Lombardi detested the Playoff Bowl, coaching in the games following the 1963 and 1964 seasons, after winning NFL titles in 1961 and 1962. To his players, he called it “the ‘Shit Bowl’, …a losers’ bowl for losers.” This lack of motivation may explain his Packers‘ rare postseason defeat in the 1964 game (January 1965) to the St. Louis Cardinals. After that loss, he fumed about “a hinky-dink football game, held in a hinky-dink town, played by hinky-dink players. That’s all second place is – hinky dink.”

When I did a tweet about the Playoff Bowl in response to Koo, one person tweeted, “Seem to remember Frank Ryan always playing in that game.”

Actually, the Cleveland QB played in two Playoff Bowls. Richard Sandomir talked to Ryan and other Playoff Bowl competitors for a 2011 story in the New York Times.

“It was sort of a fluff game,” said Frank Ryan, the Cleveland Browns quarterback who led his team to the 1964 N.F.L. championship but lost two Runner-Up Bowls.

“That ridiculous game shows how ridiculous the league was in those days,” he said.

At gatherings with teammates, do they reminisce about it?

“It never comes up,” Ryan said.

Yes, but that was the 60s. The TV stakes are so much higher now. Imagine if today’s schedule featured New England going up against San Francisco today. Wouldn’t you rather watch that than the Pro Bowl?

Actually, the NFL probably would do the Playoff Bowl and Pro Bowl as a doubleheader.

Given that most of the U.S. trapped inside because of the cold, the Playoff Bowl would do a strong rating. With the TV money, the NFL could offer a huge incentive for the players to strap on the helmet one more time.

I know, it won’t happen. The players never would go for it.

Then again, this is the NFL, and the networks can’t get enough football…