Huge honor for Claire Smith: Named first winner of Lacy-Smith Award

Posted on by

Everyone is applauding this choice. Claire is one of the classiest people you’ll meet in any profession. And she has been a pioneer, breaking important ground to enable others to follow.

Congratulations, Claire.

The official release from the Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism.

********

COLLEGE PARK, Md. – Long-time sports journalist Claire Smith has been named the first winner of the Sam Lacey-Wendell Smith Award presented by the Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism. The award is given to a sports journalist who has made significant contributions to racial and gender equality in sports.

Claire Smith, a news editor at ESPN since 2007, has worked as a sportswriter and editor for more than 30 years at news organizations that include The New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Bulletin and Hartford Courant.

The award was created to honor two pioneers in sports journalism   — Lacy and Smith – African-American sportswriters who battled prejudice their entire careers and were instrumental in the integration of Major League Baseball in 1947 by the Brooklyn Dodgers’ Jackie Robinson.

“On behalf of Major League Baseball, I am honored to congratulate Claire Smith on being the recipient of the inaugural Sam Lacy-Wendell Smith Award from the Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism,” said Baseball Commissioner Allan H. (Bud) Selig.

“Claire’s decorated career covering the national pastime continues to embody the pioneering spirit of Sam and Wendell, who opened doors with their talents, character and passion for chronicling our game.  It is fitting that Claire, who has been a remarkable example for both her fellow journalists and those who aspire to report on baseball, will receive this wonderful recognition.”

Smith was chosen to receive the award by a committee that included Povich Center Director George Solomon, USA Today Sports Managing Editor Mary Byrne, Alicia Patterson Foundation Director Margaret Engel, Sporting News Editor Garry Howard, Merrill College professor Diana Huffman, Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel Sports Editor Greg Lee and ESPN-980 and Comcast SportsNet commentator Rick “Doc” Walker.

Smith will receive the award during a Nov. 5 luncheon at the University of Maryland. Comcast SportsNet anchor, Chick Hernandez, will be presented with a “Distinguished Terrapin” award as well. That night, the eighth annual Shirley Povich Symposium will discuss Maryland’s entry into the Big Ten in 2014.

“Claire Smith is a fine journalist who epitomizes the qualities of courage, determination and fairness displayed by both Sam Lacy and Wendell Smith during their exceptional careers,” said Povich Center Director George Solomon. “The Povich Center is proud to honor her, as well as Sam Lacy and Wendell Smith.”

The Sam Lacy-Wendell Smith award is the latest in a series of honors for Smith, who in the course of her career overcame many obstacles because of her race and gender.

A graduate of Temple University, she has previously won legacy awards from the National Association of Black Journalists and the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, as well as the Mary Garber Pioneer Award from the Association for Women in Sports Media. She is the author of “Don Baylor: Nothing But The Truth, a Baseball Life” and is a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, as were Lacy and Smith.

About Sam Lacy and Wendell Smith

Lacy, who died in 2003 at the age of 99, worked for the Washington Tribune and Chicago Defender, before beginning a six-decade career for the Afro-American newspapers that were distributed in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore.  A graduate of Howard University, he won the J.G. Taylor Spink award in 1997 and the Red Smith Award presented by the Associated Press Sports Editors in 1998.  He also is enshrined in the Maryland Media Hall of Fame.

Wendell Smith, a graduate of West Virginia State College, died in 1972 at the age of 58.  He won the J.G. Taylor Spink Award in 1993 and co-authored with Robinson: “Jackie Robinson: My Own Story.” He had a storied career at the Pittsburgh Courier and later the Chicago American before becoming a sports commentator for WGN-TV in Chicago.

Both men worked and wrote with great passion in the late 1930’s and 1940’s trying to convince Major League Baseball to integrate, with Branch Rickey of the Brooklyn Dodgers finally signing Robinson  to a contract in 1945.  Robinson played for Brooklyn’s Triple A team in Montreal in 1946 before breaking in with the Dodgers in 1947.  That season was chronicled in the movie “42” with Smith depicted following Robinson’s path those two seasons. Wendell Smith’s widow, Wyonella, lives in Chicago.

Baseball playoffs: Time to do away with day games during the week

Posted on by

I have changed my stance. Previously, I thought there was something special about important October baseball games during the day on Monday through Friday. Old school.

This year, though, I came to a realization: I never can watch those weekday games.

I work during the day, as do most of you (when you’re not reading Sherman Report). Yesterday, I wasn’t able to tune in to the Boston-Detroit game until 6 p.m. Central. By then, the game was in the eighth inning. The same probably will be true for this afternoon’s St. Louis-LA game.

There’s a reason why Major League Baseball finally shifted World Series games to night in 1971: That’s when people are home to watch them.

It really doesn’t make sense to play your most important games of the year on weekdays. Imagine the NBA or NHL airing conference final playoff games on weekdays.

The day playoff games aren’t about serving the fans; it’s about serving the networks. MLB obviously doesn’t want to have the two LCS games competing against each other on Fox and TBS in primetime.

However, in the process, the set-up limits the audience for the weekday game, especially on the West coast.

I’m a channel flipper. I would love nothing more than to spend the evening bouncing around between two playoff games. Baseball moves at such a slow pace, you wouldn’t miss much from either game.

The concept of airing multiple playoff games at the same time has lifted the Stanley Cup playoffs on NBC’s multiple platforms. It pulled me in, given all the great finishes in hockey. Baseball should take notice.

Here’s a suggestion: MLB should begin the early game at 5:30-6 p.m. ET, instead of 4 p.m. Then push back the late game from 7 p.m. ET to 7:30. Sure, there would be some overlap, but most people still would be able to see the bulk of both games.

The one plus of afternoon playoff baseball is that allows young kids with early bedtimes to watch the games. I’ve made the argument for years that baseball has lost a generation of young fans with the late starts for the World Series. At the very least, the weekend World Series games definitely should begin earlier.

However, I’m not sure the kids are watching anyway. If they are, if LCS games started at 5:30-6 p.m. ET, those young fans still would be able to see plenty of baseball.

MLB, though, likely won’t make any changes to the format. Too much hassle with the networks.

That means more afternoon playoff games that I and many other baseball fans won’t be able to see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

New documentary: ‘Schooled’ examines what NCAA doesn’t want you to see

Posted on by

There is a telling scene in Schooled in which UCLA running back Johnathan Franklin is shown playing a college football video game. And who is carrying the ball? None other than Franklin–at least the animated version.

Franklin, of course, lights up, knowing full well he won’t see a penny for his image being used.

“It really showed how he felt at that moment,” said producer Andrew Muscato.

Schooled: The Price of College Sports is full of many moments that examine what college sports is (big-money) and what it also is too often (failing athletes). The documentary debuts tonight at 8 p.m. ET on Epix, a premium cable channel that is following the mode of HBO and Showtime of using sports as a vehicle to widen its audience. The film also is available at epixhd.com,  iTunes and will be out as a DVD.

Former baseball manager Bobby Valentine is listed as the executive producer; the film is being done by his production company. Muscato said it was inspired by Taylor Branch’s 2011 article in The Atlantic detailing how athletes are being, well, schooled. Branch also is one of the executive producers in the film.

“Taylor made it more than just about money,” Muscato said. “He made sense. As soon as he said yes (to doing the film), we hit the ground running.”

Muscato’s goal was to show “how the sausage gets made.” Indeed, it can be a meat grinder for those involved.

The biggest challenge, he said, was getting athletes, past and present, to agree to be interviewed. A break-through occurred when Arian Foster, formerly of Tennessee and now with Houston, decided to participate.

Foster told the story of being hungry as a student-athlete, requiring him to get money on the side while at Tennessee. His comments created early headlines for the film.

“He kept telling us how hungry he was,” Muscato said. “He was projected to be a second-round pick (after his junior year). If he was so hungry, why did he stay in school? We kept pressing him on that, and finally he said, ‘Yeah, I got paid.’ It all made sense. We knew we got something special.”

And there’s much more here, and it goes beyond money. There is a compelling segment about the academic angle and problems at North Carolina. It isn’t news that schools compromise standards and just push athletes through the system. However, it becomes more vivid when faces and names are attached.

“If (getting a scholarship) is the compensation for the athletes, fine,” Muscato said. “Then make sure their education isn’t compromised. Make sure they are getting the education as promised.”

The film concludes with an extensive discussion of whether athletes should be paid. ESPN analyst Jay Bilas stands out, chiding college administrators who say a proper payment system can’t be put in place. Bilas said that shouldn’t be an excuse.

“The problem is the athletes don’t have a voice,” Muscato said. “They need a seat at the table. Right now, you have one group telling other people, ‘We know what’s right for you. This is the way it should be done.'”

The NCAA declined to have a current representative be featured in the film. Why, if they think why they are doing is right?

Ultimately, the NCAA and people involved in college sports have major accountability problems on many levels, according to the film. Again, that won’t come as a great shock.

What makes this documentary work is, well, seeing how the sausage gets made.

“We hope people will look at college sports differently and wonder if they do enough for the athletes,” Muscato said. “We hope this furthers the national conversation.”

 

 

 

 

Barkley in mid-season form: ‘LeBron should go back to Cleveland’; Jordan still ticked off at him

Posted on by

Who needs training camp? Charles Barkley’s mouth always is ready to go.

Barkley sounded off to Chris Myers in the latest edition of Fox Sports 1on 1 interview show (tonight, 8 p.m. ET).

Here are some soundbites:

On Lebron James as a free agent after this year: “I hope he goes back to Cleveland with some real fans.  Those fans in Miami are faker than a three-dollar bill.”

On his current relationship with Michael Jordan: “I love Michael. He’s been one of my best friends forever and I hope we can work through it.  Our relationship is estranged because I said some things about him as a General Manager the last couple years.  I can’t get on television and say he’s done a good job as a GM.  One of the things people respect about me whether they like it or not is that I don’t have a double standard.  Michael has not done a good job as a GM.”

On strong reactions from people on what he has to say about any topic – sports or non-sports:  “I think after my third year [in the NBA], I said, ‘oh I can’t please everybody.  I’m just going to please me.  I’m going to say what I think and what I feel. And I’m not going to worry about the negativity.’  After that third year, I’ve been the same since.  I’m going to give my honest, fair, balanced opinion – some people are going to like it and others wont.”

On the Los Angeles Lakers future:  “With or without Kobe Bryant, the Lakers are going to stink next year.  I love Kobe Bryant.  Kobe Bryant is one of the greatest 10 players ever.”

On the legacy of NBA Commissioner David Stern:  “[He’s] the greatest Commissioner in sports history.  Easily.  People forget, me and David Stern came in the same year.  The average player salary in the NBA was $200,000.  Now, the average salary is $5.5 million dollars.  That’s amazing.  He put us in the Olympics and made it an international game.  We play games in foreign countries and I think I saw it last year, the finals were broadcast in 200 countries.”

 

 

 

ESPN Ombudsman on ‘League of Denial’ doc: ESPN journalism ‘wins ugly’

Posted on by

Robert Lipsyte has weighed in with more thoughts on ESPN and its murky relationship with the PBS documentary, League of Denial.

His conclusion:

ESPN, in this triumphant yet bittersweet moment, has something to prove, and the means to prove it. It can continue to turn loose the Fainarus and Keating and Van Natta, and its stable of hard-nosed reporters such as T.J. Quinn, Tom Farrey, Mike Fish and Shaun Assael. There is no end of stories out there, not least the ramifications of the settlement and the sequestered information that the ESPN audience needs as parents, players and fans, to make their emotional, physical and moral choices.

Ultimately, the proof in journalism is not in good intentions or future promises. As in sports, it’s the current score. Despite what at times seemed like sloppiness or naivete or compromise, ESPN journalism won. It may have won ugly, but it won.

 

New ’03 Cubs documentary goes beyond Bartman; ‘Not only thing that happened’

Posted on by

The story of that poor ol’ Steve Bartman has been told and retold several times on several platforms.

So what will be different about the latest documentary, 5 Outs, which debuts tonight on Comcast SportsNet Chicago at 9 p.m. Central?

“We didn’t want to make this, Catching Hell, part 2,” said producer Ryan McGuffey, alluding to the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary “Sure, Steve Bartman is discussed, but it’s not the only thing that happened that year for the Cubs.”

Indeed, since the film is airing on a Chicago outlet, the story of the entire Cubs season is told, not just one game. Thanks to adding some critical pieces via mid-season trades, the 2003 Cubs were one of the more memorable teams in franchise history, as they came out of nowhere to win the National League Central title. At the time, it only was their third division championship in 44 years.

“There was so much chemistry,” said producer Sarah Lauch. “This team was lovable.”

The film chronicles the hiring of Dusty Baker in the fall of 2002, and the emergence of the 1-2 punch of Mark Prior and Kerry Wood. It features interviews with all three key participants in the story and each was highly illuminating.

“Dusty told us he had only 5 minutes and he wound up doing 25 before he had to go out for the game,” McGuffey said.

The documentary also includes Sammy Sosa, rarely seen since his retirement from baseball. David Kaplan interviewed him on Oct. 4 in Florida, creating some last-minute editing for Lauch and McGuffey.

As usual, Sosa has one of the film’s better moments when he learns Moises Alou and Aramis Ramirez purchased tickets to return home to the Dominican Republic the day after Game 7 of the Florida. Sosa clearly was upset that his teammates appeared to have bailed on the Cubs.

The only person missing from the film is Alex Gonzalez, the shortstop who made the key error in the eighth. It is interesting considering Gonzalez did appear on a MLB Network show on Game 6.

Gonzalez should have been the goat, not Bartman. Alas, it is Bartman who remains the symbol of the team that was 5 outs away from the World Series.

The Bartman saga becomes the focus of the last part of the film. Again, the play is analyzed from many different angles. Steve Stone, who worked on Cubs radio for that game, noted Alou “doesn’t have many Gold Gloves in his trophy case.” So it hardly was a sure thing that he would have made the catch.

Among those who had the best view of the play was Ozzie Guillen, the third-base coach for the Marlins. The former Sox manager is terrific in adding his insights to not only that game, but the Cubs in general.

Indeed, this film is about the Chicago perspective of where the ’03 team and Game 6 fit in franchise history. Lauch said there was so much good material, the documentary stretched “from 30 minutes to 60 minutes to 90 minutes.”

The film closes with a wishful fantasy spin, with the former Cubs and others speculating on what Chicago will be like if they ever win the title. Kaplan talks of going to his father’s grave and saying, “They did it.”

The Cubs almost did it in 2003. But as we all know, they never got the five outs.

 

 

 

 

 

”

 

Posted in MLB

Ten years later, Bartman remains No. 1 on interview wish list

Posted on by

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University notes the one and only time the world saw Steve Bartman.

*********

It is odd how things work on the beat. If you asked sports journalists about the one interview they truly would like to land, a bucket-list subject so to speak, it would be with an individual who never played in a game or even sat on the sidelines as a coach.

He appeared on our TV screen for 30 minutes, if that long, before disappearing completely from sight. Come to think of it, we’ve never heard this person speak.

And still haven’t a decade after he was unwittingly thrust into our public consciousness.

No. 1 on most of our dream interview lists: Steve Bartman.

Monday marks the 10th anniversary of the night Bartman’s life changed forever. On Oct. 14, 2003, during the top of the eighth inning of Game 6 of the Cubs-Marlins series at Wrigley Field, the meek-looking fan with the geeky headphones was transformed into a symbol for a century-plus of futility for the Cubs. All because he reached for a foul ball.

The story has been told many times over and continues to be told. In Chicago, Comcast Sports Net will air a documentary, “5 Outs,” Tuesday night on that ill-fated 2003 Cubs team.

Both the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times came out with 10th anniversary stories. ESPN Classic re-aired the 30 for 30 documentary, “Catching Hell,” throughout the weekend.

Even though I have seen the film many times, I had to watch again. And then again. The incredible random nature of what happened to Bartman, an ordinary fan among 40,000 people on that night, arguably makes it the strangest, if not the most compelling sports story of all time.

The aftermath only served to take the story to an even higher level. The following day, a devastated Bartman issued a statement, apologizing to Cubs fans for his misdeed. That was it. No interviews. No nothing.

Bartman completely faded from view. In fact, during the “Catching Hell” documentary, ESPN’s Wayne Drehs said if you saw Bartman walking around the mall without his Cubs cap and headphones, you probably wouldn’t recognize him.

The Tribune‘s Paul Sullivan writes: “Bartman has remained Sphinxlike, staying out of the public eye, ignoring interview requests and monetary offers and basically keeping a low profile, becoming the J.D. Salinger of sports fans.”

Indeed, that’s part of the on-going fascination with Bartman. In an age when everyone seems to be running towards the spotlight like moths to a flame, he wants nothing to do with it. Bartman has turned down six-figure offers to do interviews.

In the Tribune piece, Sullivan quotes Frank Murtha, an attorney who spoke on behalf of Bartman: “Because of the kind of person he is, he has continued to live his life in a manner with the same moral fiber he had going into this incident. He continues to work. Has this incident posed challenges to him? Yes. Has he more than overcome them? Yes. But he has been bigger than those who have commercially exploited the incident.”

After his story appeared, I contacted Sullivan, a long-time Chicago baseball writer, about what he would ask if he had the chance to interview Bartman.

“If he did talk, of course I would love to be the one he goes to,” Sullivan said. “I guess I would ask him how he refrains from being bitter at the fans and media; how he feels about the ball being blown up; if he considered changing his name; if any good came out of this and of course if he thinks the Cubs will win in his lifetime?

“Many other questions depending on his answers, but those would top my list.”

All relevant questions to be sure. However, there is a part of Sullivan who hopes Bartman never answers them from him or anyone else.

“Actually I think Bartman has gained immense respect for not talking and for not cashing in, so I would hope he continues to remain out of the public eye,” Sullivan said. “The response I have received so far has basically cemented my thinking that his decision to disappear was the correct one.”

To some extent, I can see his point. There is a certain nobility in Bartman’s desire to remain in the shadows. He owes the public, and specifically Cubs fans, nothing. If anything, they all owe him an apology for the intense reaction that altered his life forever.

Yet it’s been 10 years. I think it would be great to hear from Bartman himself. I want to know how his life is going and his thoughts about what happened on that night and the following days after Game 6. There’s a possibility an interview would serve as some sort of closure for him–and perhaps us.

Who knows if it will ever happen? In Sullivan’s piece, Murtha said, “Steve has no intention to personally speak about it. When and if he did, it’d be under his terms and conditions.”

Until then, sports journalists will keep Bartman’s name high on their wish list.

Simmons to SI.com: Deadspin sources are ‘liars’; troubled that they likely came from ESPN

Posted on by

Will be interesting to see if Deadspin picks up on Richard Deitsch’s interview with Bill Simmons at SI.com today.

Simmons strongly denied a John Koblin story last week that he was responsible for Magic Johnson leaving NBA Countdown.

Simmons told Deitsch:

Those unnamed “sources” are liars. Someone planted a fake story to try to make me look bad, and there’s a 99.3 percent chance it came from someone in Bristol (which presents its own set of concerns). I was upset; I can’t lie. Maybe this happens to people more often than I realize, and maybe it comes with the territory, but man … I can’t properly explain how fantastic it was to watch basketball with Magic for nine months.

Later he told Deitsch:

Anyway, that’s why the “report” upset me so much — it wasn’t just that someone made it up (and how disturbing that is), but how I felt in real life was the exact opposite of what that “report” portrayed. I felt blindsided when Magic left. I thought he was quitting on the show, and I guess on me, too. I took it personally. But then I thought about the whole Dodgers thing (and how into those games he was), and it made more sense and I got over it.

Last week, when Simmons and Johnson’s agent issued statements denying Koblin’s story, Deadspin wound up burying them in the comments section. Koblin added, “Sure, OK, but who was saying they were enemies?”

Interesting that the comments weren’t included in an updated version of the main post. But then, that would have required balanced journalism where both sides of the story are reported.

Given that perspective, I shouldn’t expect Deadspin to do much with Simmons’ comments to a major platform like SI. Besides, everyone has moved on, and Deadspin is working on slamming someone else.

Also, Simmons has reason to be concerned that the original source came from ESPN. It’s a big place with a lot of different agendas. Clearly, there are people who don’t like or resent Simmons’ success. It likely will happen again.

So as they say: Consider the source.

 

 

 

 

Costas on Redskins nickname: It is an ‘insult, slur’; Gets ripped on Twitter

Posted on by

Bob Costas became the first big-name commentator to weigh in on the Redskin nickname controversy within the context of a NFL game involving Washington. He did it last night at halftime on NBC.

This platform is highly relevant since Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is part of the entity that owns the copyrights to the telecast: The NFL.

Costas, though, is Costas. Obviously, he didn’t believe he could let the issue go by without making a statement.

It seems as if Costas measured his words for a NFL telecast. He was very careful not to offend Snyder or fans that support use of the nickname. He might not have meandered as much if the commentary came on a non-NFL platform.

Costas, though, eventually weaved his way to his main point at the end:

“Still, the NFL franchise that represents the nation’s capital has maintained its name.  But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others.  Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group.

“When considered that way, “Redskins” can’t possibly honor a heritage, or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term.  It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent. It is fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But, if you take a step back, isn’t it clear to see how offense “might” legitimately be taken?”

Naturally, Twitter blew up with Redskins fans who were outraged over Costas’ position.

Yep, should be an interesting Monday for Costas.

*********

Here is a transcript of the commentary:

With Washington playing Dallas here tonight, it seems like an appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name “Redskins.”

Let’s start here. There is no reason to believe that owner Daniel Snyder, or any official or player from his team, harbors animus toward Native Americans or wishes to disrespect them. This is undoubtedly also true of the vast majority of those who don’t think twice about the longstanding moniker. And in fact, as best can be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended.

But, having stipulated that, there’s still a distinction to be made. Objections to names like “Braves,” “Chiefs,” “Warriors,” and the like strike many of us as political correctness run amok. These nicknames honor, rather than demean. They are pretty much the same as “Vikings,” “Patriots,” or even “Cowboys.” And names like “Blackhawks,” “Seminoles,” and “Chippewas,” while potentially more problematic, can still be okay provided the symbols are appropriately respectful – which is where the Cleveland Indians with the combination of their name and “Chief Wahoo” logo have sometimes run into trouble.

A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections. The Stanford Cardinal and the Dartmouth Big Green were each once the Indians; the St. John’s Redmen have become the Red Storm, and the Miami of Ohio Redskins – that’s right, Redskins – are now the Red Hawks.

Still, the NFL franchise that represents the nation’s capital has maintained its name.  But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others.  Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group.

When considered that way, “Redskins” can’t possibly honor a heritage, or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term.  It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent. It is fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But, if you take a step back, isn’t it clear to see how offense “might” legitimately be taken?