Glazer: ‘You don’t think Peter King has relationships with people in this league?’; Details of Incognito interview

Posted on by

Richard Deitsch at MMQB gets the backstory from Jay Glazer on his interview with Richie Incognito Sunday. He also gets into the perceptions that he’s best buddies with many players, including Incognito.

On persuading Incognito to do the interview:

What I said to him was the court of public opinion closes on Monday. You want to testify or not? I’d want to. But come Monday, Richie, nobody is going to care what you have to say. It will be too late. This is what I would do. And I relayed a story that Ronde Barber told me. He said, I wish my brother [Tiki] had spoken up when he was getting crushed. I wish he defended himself in public. Because he didn’t, it was hard for me and the rest of my family to defend him as much as we wanted. I relayed that story to [Richie]. Whether you believe Richie or not, I want to hear from Richie Incognito. I want to hear from Jonathan Martin.

On not asking him about the incident in which he allegedly harassed a woman at a golf tournament.

No, it is a line of questioning worthy of pursuit. You have that wrong. I just was not doing it for this particular piece. I think it is a separate story. I pushed him on it, and he said, “Gag order. Can’t talk. Gag order.” I said, “Well, obviously, something happened,” and he kind of shrugged.

On his relationships with players:

My job is to get scoops and exclusives, and I think I have done it as well as anybody. So it [relationships] has obviously not gotten in the way. I have come out with negative stories. I have come out with positive stories. I have come out with stuff where my own guys get really angry at me. The funny thing is, I am working with Brian Urlacher now (on FOX Sports 1). He got really pissed off with me with three years left in his career because I reported something about a back injury he had that he did not want out there. He never told me another piece of information ever again. People don’t know about that. I had to tell people he was not playing and was not himself. He didn’t say Don’t go with it. He just said I am not talking about it. But I had it. He was one of my closest friends in the league and his last three or four years I never got a piece of information from him. He was pissed about it.

It does not get in the way of what I do. People are like, Oh, my God, Jay has a relationship with Richie. I have a relationship with, like, 900 people in this league. That is my job. Adam Schefter, Peter King—you don’t think Peter King has relationships with people in this league? We all have relationships. That is what we do. We are in the relationship business. But nobody talks about that, and I have talked about it. People keep bringing it up with me when nobody brings it up with everybody else who has written books [with subjects].

However, Schefter and King don’t actively train with players.

(Deitsch): So let’s be specific here. You would say that training NFL players in MMA is not on face an economic partnership?

No, because I didn’t get paid. How is it an economic partnership? There are no economics involved. There is no money. How is it an economic partnership? He [Incognito] pays his trainer, this guy Tyron Woodley. I do not make a dime and never have. He does not pay me anything. Some guys get charged. Some guys don’t. The money goes to the fighters and the equipment. None of it goes to me. … These guys come out to train, and I have a great training program. I make either the players pay the fighters directly or if they pay MMA Athletics, I pay the fighters directly or I will use it for travel for the fighters or the equipment. But no, I have never, ever, ever made a dime off this. I have probably lost money. I do it because I love it. I don’t do it to make money. I do it because I try to promote this sport. … I have always been involved with it. I love mixed martial arts. I love it. It is my passion. It is what I love to do. Some people like to play chess or checkers to blow off steam. I like to fight. I like martial arts.

Ohio State-Michigan: New BTN film looks at controversial ’73 game; Conference didn’t allow attorney waiver on vote

Posted on by

The mystery remains 40 years later: What was the exact vote among the Big Ten athletic directors that sent Ohio State to the Rose Bowl over Michigan in 1973?

The BTN could have taken the easy route in solving the mystery, but it didn’t in its new documentary, Tiebreaker. (Saturday at 7 p.m. ET.)

The film examines the storied rivalry and the fallout from the ’73 game, arguably the biggest controversy in Big Ten history.

For now and probably forever, the essence of Ohio State-Michigan will be defined by the 10-year war between Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler. Among those games, the 10-10 tie in Ann Arbor in 1973.

Here are the facts: The tie left both teams at 7-0-1 in the Big Ten; Ohio State was 9-0-1 overall and Michigan was 10-0-1. Who goes to the Rose Bowl?

The conference did a vote the next day of athletic directors. It was assumed that since Ohio State went the previous year, and since Michigan dominated the second half, the Wolverines would go to Pasadena.

However, Michigan quarterback Dennis Franklin broke his collarbone at the end of the Ohio State game. The injury likely swayed the ADs, who didn’t want the Big Ten to be embarrassed again in the Rose Bowl. In a stunner, they went with Ohio State.

For 40 years, the exact outcome of the secret vote and how each AD voted remained a mystery. It is at the core of the documentary, as the BTN tries to provide some answers.

There are only two people who know for sure. Unfortunately, health issues prevented former Big Ten commissioner Wayne Duke, 85, from appearing in the film.

The other person, Big Ten attorney Byron Gregory, only talked off-camera for the film. He provided some details, but he cited attorney-client privilege in declining to answer questions about the exact vote.

Gregory’s answer leads to another interesting question: Why didn’t the Big Ten just waive the attorney-client privilege to allow the network it owns to get a direct answer?

“All of the ADs at the time were assured the vote would be confidential,” said BTN president Mark Silverman. “The conference decided to honor that and maintain the attorney-client privilege.”

Indeed, it’s hard to imagine in today’s media landscape that a vote like that would be done in complete secrecy. Twitter would have exploded.

“It was a different time, and things were done differently,” Silverman said. “You didn’t have Twitter, the Internet, and 24/7 coverage. That’s one of the things that comes across in the film.”

From the documentary’s perspective, it probably was better that the conference attorney didn’t tell all. Instead, the uncertainty left the BTN to sift through the myths and legends to finally unravel what really happened.

It all adds up to a highly compelling film. The highlight was a reunion meal with participants from both teams.

While the players were friendly and showed considerable respect for the rivalry, the bitterness on the Michigan side remains strong 40 years later.

Franklin from Tom Dienhart’s column at BTN.com:

“How did I find out we weren’t going to the Rose Bowl? People were calling me. A reporter from the New York Times called my apartment to tell me Ohio State was voted to the Rose Bowl. I didn’t believe it until I heard it from Bo.”

“I never saw Bo so upset, bitter, frustrated, confused. He always told us if we did this, we would get this payoff. Well, we did what he asked but didn’t get the payoff. He just couldn’t explain it. That’s the kind of stuff you don’t forget.”

“Were politics involved? There always are, but I don’t think there were active politics. There wasn’t enough time for that. The Big Ten had lost four Rose Bowls in a row and felt Ohio State gave the league a better chance to win than Michigan because I was hurt. But I could have played. I was throwing the ball in December. C’mon. I would have played. Are you kidding me? We were denied our reward for three seasons. I never got to go to a bowl despite going 30-2-1 as a starter in three years.”

“Even if I couldn’t have played, we could have won with Larry Scippo at quarterback. He was talented. A good, strong arm, threw a tight spiral. He had all the ability. Who said we couldn’t win with Larry?”

“If any good came from it, it was the fact the Big Ten opened up to allowing more than one team to go to a bowl. It makes me feel good to know that.”

 

 

 

 

Army-Navy: New CBS Sports Network documentary on importance of ’63 game following Kennedy’s death

Posted on by

Several new and compelling sports documentaries will be coming your way in the next week. Always at your service, I will be providing sneak previews.

Tomorrow at 8 p.m. ET, CBS Sports Network has Marching On: 1963 Army-Navy Remembered. 

Occurring just 15 days after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, it obviously wasn’t just any game. It’s a strong film, telling the role sports played in Kennedy’s life and how he as a former Navy man felt about the rivalry. You understand why the game had to be played.

This extended clip provides a taste of the emotions that took place on that day.

Here’s the rundown from CBS Sports Network:

 

CBS Sports Network presents MARCHING ON: 1963 ARMY-NAVY REMEMBERED, a documentary about the monumental football game played between Army and Navy on Dec. 7, 1963, 15 days after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The one-hour documentary airs on Thursday, Nov. 14 (8:00 PM, ET), 50 years to the week after Kennedy’s death. Actor Josh Charles of THE GOOD WIFE narrates the program.

Through the lens of this historic game, the documentary explores the impact Kennedy’s death had on the nation, and the game’s role in the country’s healing process. Interviews include Senator John McCain; New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, whose father was a Navy assistant coach at the time; former Navy coach Wayne Hardin and former Army coach Paul Dietzel; Navy players Roger Staubach, Skip Orr and Tom Lynch; and Army players Rollie Stichweh, Dick Nowak and John Seymour; as well as Tony Verna, the game’s television producer, a number of Kennedy historians, including Robert Dallek, and many others associated with the game.

The game, which was played in front of 102,000 fans at Municipal Stadium in Philadelphia, Pa., also had important implications on the field, as a win would put No. 2-ranked Navy into the National Championship.

 

 

Don’t put it on board yet: Harrelson faces obstacles to win Hall of Fame honor; Reinsdorf makes case for Sox announcer

Posted on by

My latest Chicago Tribune column is on Ken Harrelson, a finalist for this year’s Frick Award. However, the White Sox announcer knows it is a process to win the Hall of Fame’s highest honor for an announcer.

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

From the column:

*********

Jerry Reinsdorf is talking up Ken Harrelson, who rarely needs help calling attention to himself.

The long-time White Sox play-by-play voice is a candidate for the 2014 Ford Frick Award, the Hall of Fame’s highest honor for a baseball broadcaster. The team chairman gives such a ringing endorsement, it almost seems as if he would be happier than Harrelson if he won.

Reinsdorf, 77, calls the 72-year-old Harrelson “a brother,” although he puts his sentiments in another context.

“You always take more pleasure from seeing your kids succeed,” Reinsdorf said.

Harrelson is one of 10 finalists for the Frick Award, which recognizes long and meritorious service in the booth. The group includes Mike Shannon from the Cardinals and Dewayne Staats, the former Cubs announcer who now works for the Rays.

The voting committee is made up of all 16 living Frick Award winners, including Vin Scully and Bob Uecker, and a panel of five broadcast consultants, including Bob Costas. The winner will be announced Dec. 11 at the Baseball Winter Meetings.

The Frick Award doesn’t mean the recipient technically is in the Hall of Fame. But he does get a plaque in Cooperstown.

It is as big as it gets for announcers, as Harrelson seeks to join previous winners with Chicago ties — Harry Caray, Jack Brickhouse, Bob Elson and Milo Hamilton. However, he is realistic about his chances. He knows winning the Frick Award is a process.

“I used to call (Mariners announcer) Dave Niehaus, and say ‘This is your year, Buddy,'” Harrelson said. “He’d say, ‘I’ve been a finalist 14 or 15 times. I don’t even think about it anymore.'”

What happened to Niehaus, who finally won the Frick in 2008, shows voters tend to go with candidates who have been finalists for many years. This is Harrelson’s second time on the final ballot.

Length of service with one team also is a top priority. Harrelson just completed his 27th year with the Sox. Meanwhile, Shannon, one of this year’s favorites, has logged 42 years with the Cardinals.

In other words, Harrelson might have to get in line.

“I have a 100-mile drive (from the South Bend area, where I live during the season) to do the Sox games,” Harrelson said. “After our game, I listen to a lot of the games (on satellite radio). Shannon is terrific. He’s old school. All of the guys on the list are deserving to be in the Hall of Fame.”

Indeed, it is up to Reinsdorf to do any sort of campaigning for Harrelson. He hired him along with Don Drysdale to man the White Sox TV booth in 1982.

“He has all his ‘Hawkisms,’ but if you get through, ‘The put-it-on-the-board’ stuff, he tells you a lot about the game,” Reinsdorf said. “When you think of Hawk, you think of the White Sox. There’s no question he’s extremely popular with our fans.”

******

Click on my Twitter feed to win the entire column.

 

 

 

Scratch Mark DeRosa off of Cubs radio wish list: Signs with MLB Network

Posted on by

When I heard the news last night that Mark DeRosa was retiring, I thought: There’s your new Cubs radio analyst.

Turns out I was right about him retiring to begin a postseason career in the media. However, I had the wrong outlet.

This morning, it was announced that DeRosa will be joining MLB Network’s stable of analysts.

The official release contained this quote: “While I still had the opportunity to return as a player, it became clear to me that the chance to begin a career at MLB Network was too good to pass up, and I am very excited to get started,” said DeRosa.

It’s a good move for DeRosa and MLB Network. Not so good for the Cubs.

DeRosa would have been high on the Cubs’ wish list to replace the departing Keith Moreland on WGN-AM 720. He was the first potential candidate mentioned yesterday in a story by Paul Sullivan in the Chicago Tribune.

Since Moreland’s decision not to come back was a surprise, the Cubs and WGN are just now putting together their lists.

From Sullivan’s story:

(Pat) Hughes, coming off hernia surgery, said he’d prefer “someone who likes to have fun, is insightful, has a sense of humor and is a team player, similar to Keith.”

(WGN sports director Dave Eanet) said the hire would not necessarily have to be a former Cub, pointing to Deshaies and Brenly.

“Is it good to have a connection to the Cubs? Yeah,” he said. “Is it a necessity? Not if we get the right person. Having chemistry with Pat is important.”

 

Posted in MLB

Tebow has name, but what makes anyone think he would be good as analyst?

Posted on by

This was inevitable.

Yesterday, Ian Rapoport of NFL Network reported that Tim Tebow has hired CAA’s Nick Khan to join agent Jimmy Sexton in planning for his future. And that future doesn’t look like it will be on a football field.

Despite the rash of quarterback injuries this year, nobody is calling Tebow. I mean, Matt Flynn is on his third team.

So it looks like option B will be using the headsets for a different purpose. Matt Yoder of Awlful Announcing speculated on the broadcast possibilities for Tebow.

The likely option: the new SEC Network that launches next year. Guess who owns that network? Yep, ESPN, lover of all things Tebow.

Yoder writes:

But there’s one option that may be the best of all for Tim Tebow and ESPN – the SEC Network.

Tebow is the best SEC player in a generation.  And next year when ESPN launches the SEC Network next year it’s going to need people with ties to the league to feature on the network.  Besides Paul Finebaum of course.  SEC Network would be the best fit for Tebow because of the audience, the regional exposure, and the reps he could get as an analyst.  And he could appear on ESPN whenever the network sees fit.  If there’s any of these scenarios that seems most likely, I’d be willing to lay my money on Tebow joining ESPN as an analyst for SEC Network.

However, what makes anyone think Tebow would be a good analyst? He’s a really nice guy. Is he really going to knock a player or coach? Or even second-guess?

More likely, Tebow will say, “(Player X) really gave 100 percent effort there…”

That might be as rough as it gets for Tebow. His candor seems to be on par with his skills as a pocket passer.

Now Tebow’s deficiencies in a studio or booth won’t be as important as they were on the field. Given his name, he will be in demand.

It just seems unlikely that he will be any good.

 

Sochi Olympics: Journalists should brace for unknown, and not in a good way; early confusion over social media policies

Posted on by

My wife and I spent three days in Russia during the summer. It was more than enough time to see that the Russians can be highly rigid. While the people tried to be warm and accommodating, they generally seemed unsure of themselves and how to get what they want. It’s probably the result of being kicked around for the last few centuries.

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that there already is confusion about coverage policies for journalists at the Olympics in Sochi in February.

Yesterday, a report circulated that journalists would have harsh social media restrictions during the Games. From Fox News:

The 2014 Olympics might feel more like 1914.

Journalists attending the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics in Russia will be forbidden from using everyday technology to take pictures and share information — the mobile phones and tablets that have woven themselves into the fabric of daily life, the Olympics committee said.

“Journalists using mobile phones to film athletes or spectators will be considered a serious violation and will result in cancellation of accreditation,” Vasily Konov, head of the state-run R-Sport news agency, which controls accreditation at February’s games, told a seminar for sports journalists.

That means no iPhone pictures, no Vine videos, no Instagram accounts sharing the minute-by-minute details of the events, no Twitter accounts with updates and so on.

Sounds like fun, huh? Well, not so fast.

This morning, USA Today’s Nina Mandell has a clarification from International Olympic Committee spokesman Mark Adams. Basically, it was, forget about what that other guy said.

From USA Today:

Journalists will be allowed to use Instagram, Twitter and other social media to post still photos and news from the Sochi Olympics, International Olympic Committee spokesman Mark Adams confirmed to For The Win in an email on Monday.

“Please take as many photos as you like!” he wrote.

“Sharing pix on social media positively encouraged,” he added in an additional email.

That’s obviously good news. However, that doesn’t mean some Russian press officer still won’t become overzealous and grab someone’s mobile device because the reporter is taking pictures. Or something else might occur that restricts access and journalists’ ability to do their jobs.

Journalists should brace themselves for an interesting ride in Sochi.

 

 

Ditka calls Martin ‘a baby’; Where was the follow-up?

Posted on by

As usual, Mike Ditka offered a candid, if not politically correct, assessment of the situation on ESPN’s NFL Countdown.

“I want to say one thing,” Ditka said.  “If I was the coach, I wouldn’t have either Incognito, the bully, or the baby, Martin, on my team.  That’s me.  [Does] that make me right?  No.  That makes me me.  And I would stand up to that, because you don’t do what Martin did and you don’t do want Incognito did.  Period.”

I didn’t see Ditka’s statement or what followed, but Mike Florio at Pro Football Talk did. He found it curious that nobody on the panel followed up on what the former Bears’ coach said.

Ditka remained quiet after sharing his own view that Martin is a baby.  While none of the other guys specifically directed their comments at Ditka or openly disagreed with him, the tension was palpable — and it was hard not to believe that Ditka was told to watch what he said.

As to what Ditka did say, ESPN had no comment.  While far more irresponsible things have been said on ESPN’s airwaves, Ditka’s insistence that Martin, who may be suffering from a real mental illness, is a “baby” represents the kind of comment that could get folks with lesser star power than Ditka removed from ESPN’s airwaves.

Indeed, without knowing the complete story, it is extreme to label Martin “a baby,” especially if he is battling mental illness. Obviously, it speaks to Ditka’s “old school” philosophy on football.

However, as Florio notes, what seems to be missing here is that nobody on the panel called Ditka on his statement. There should have been on a conversation and/or a debate. Ditka clearly isn’t alone with his sentiment.

Why didn’t it happen? Was it a missed opportunity for Chris Berman and the rest of the Countdown crew, or did the panel not want to go where Ditka went?

 

 

 

 

No denying Glazer’s ties to Incognito; Does it matter in today’s media age?; Critiques of interview

Posted on by

In the interest of journalism, it would have been great to see someone like Scott Pelley, Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer conduct the Richie Incognito interview Sunday. However, there was zero chance that the disgraced Miami offensive lineman would ever sit down with one of them.

Instead, Incognito did the big chat with his pal, Jay Glazer. At the top, Glazer revealed he had done MMA training with Incognito, as he does with a number of NFL players.

A conflict of interest? To be sure.

But does it matter in today’s media age? Probably not.

The bottom line: Glazer got the interview everyone wanted. Fox NFL Sunday likely did a big rating because of the interview. Throughout Sunday and now today, the interview remains a prime topic of discussion, especially on the competition, ESPN.

In another person’s hands, the interview probably would have been handled differently. Glazer is one of these Buddy-Buddy guys. To expect him to become Mike Wallace on Incognito wouldn’t be realistic.

Glazer wasn’t capable of truly pressing Incognito. He gave him an out with this question: “There’s so many subplots in this. How much has come out, where you looked at it and said … ‘That’s not even close’?”

Translated, you’re not really that bad of a guy, are you?

Dave Zirin of The Nation pounded on Glazer:

To say that this interview was a cheap exercise in public relations would be to insult the people who do very good work in the world of public relations. The interview was edited with the subtlety of a Breitbart video and Jay Glazer threw more softballs than the cumulative careers of Lisa Fernandez and Jennie Finch.

I viewed the interview through the prism of knowing Glazer had a relationship with Incognito that went beyond journalist-player. Yet how many viewers, who don’t have a journalist’s eye, watched it the same way?

They wanted to hear from Incognito, and Glazer delivered him on Sunday morning with your bagels and coffee. In the eyes of Fox, so what if it is less than ideal?

Glazer and Fox NFL Sunday landed the big interview. That’s what matters in today’s media age.

Your turn, Jonathan Martin. However, Glazer won’t be getting that interview.

********

Here are more critiques to the interview.

Tom Ley, Deadspin: The interview was a fucking joke.The segment was more theater than journalism, with Glazer lobbing obviously pre-determined questions at Incognito, allowing him to reel off as many face-saving platitudes as possible.

Richard Deitsch, SI.com: Prior to the interview, Glazer said he “held nothing back” and asked Incognito “everything.” Did he fulfill that charter? I’d say not entirely given this viewer wanted to hear Incognito address the allegations that he harassed a women on a golf course in 2012 during a team charity golf tournament, how often Incognito had been called into the NFL offices over the last couple of years, as well as an on-camera denial from Incognito refusing to answer questions about the role of Dolphins general manager Jeff Ireland and coach Joe Philbin.

Jarrett Bell, USA Today: Incognito, the suspended Miami Dolphins guard and face of the alleged workplace harassment that prompted second-year tackle Jonathan Martin to bolt from the team and seek counseling, was rather pathetic as he tried to explain himself amid the “friendly fire” interview with Glazer, his pal who trains him in MMA tactics.

Tom Jones, Tampa Bay Times: For the most part, Glazer handled the interview well. He asked Incognito about using the n-word on Martin’s voice mail. He questioned whether Incognito is a racist and a bully and a bad guy. He asked about the details in his dealings with Martin. And he even questioned Incognito’s “checkered past,” which included problems in college and a recent allegation of inappropriate contact with a woman at a charity golf tournament.

I would have liked to have seen Glazer press Incognito on the details of that golf incident, but it’s my guess that Incognito’s representatives made that off-limits. If so, Glazer should have said that. And if there were no off-limit topics, Glazer should have reported that, too. Still, overall, Glazer did a respectable job.