‘Eclectic’: Fox Sports 1 names panel for new Regis show

This is the headline for the release: “Eclectic personalities join Regis on Crowd Goes W!ld.”

Yes, because because building a new sports show around an 81-year-old man isn’t eclectic enough.

Anyway, collect your winnings if you had Georgie Thompson as part of the panel.

This is either going to be very entertaining or a train wreck. I’ve got to think Fox knows that too.

Here’s the release:

********

Unpredictable, unconventional and irreverent are three adjectives that describe CROWD GOES W!LD, FOX Sports 1’s new, original sports discussion and analysis program, and all most-definitely describe five eclectic personalities named today to join renown host Regis Philbinwhen the show premieres on Monday, Aug. 19.

Veteran Wall Street Journal sports columnist Jason Gay; professional tennis player turned comedian Michael Kosta; two-time Super Bowl Champion and four-time Pro Bowl defensive end Trevor Pryce; and Sky Sports host and news anchor Georgie Thompson, along with Guyism.com personality and YouTube sensation Katie Nolan serving as social media correspondent, team with Regis to come at the day’s sports news and issues with conversation more lively, more entertaining and less argumentative than current offerings.

“There are sports news shows, debate shows and shows that present a single point-of-view, but CROWD GOES W!LD is aiming for a fresh approach,” said Executive Producer Michael Davies. “CROWD GOES W!LD is going to live in the moment, presenting multiple points of view, with the conversation often influenced by the audience through social interaction. Regis, Jason, Michael, Trevor, Georgie and Katie will embrace the freedom and spontaneity this free-flowing, less staid, format offers and I have no doubt fans will too.”

In addition to featuring conversation directed by its panelists’ contrasting viewpoints and social interaction with viewers, the alternative CROWD GOES W!LD (@CGW) welcomes in-studio guests from sports and entertainment, and incorporates every asset FOX Sports offers, ranging from live satellite interviews with on-air personalities to cast members serving as correspondents at major events.

“All over sports television, it’s easy to find people arguing with each other or pontificating over the topics of the day, and it doesn’t come across as being much fun, or often that authentic,” added Davies. “Clearly, there’s another approach, which more closely mirrors the multiple points of view held by fans, bloggers, journalists and athletes across the sports landscape, and where we can have some fun and create some entertainment while debating the big games, the major players and the hottest stories.”

The hour-long CROWD GOES W!LD airs live weekdays (5:00-6:00 PM ET) on FOX Sports 1, America’s new sports network launching Aug. 17.  The program originates from Chelsea Piers Studios in New York City, and is produced before a studio audience by Embassy Row Productions.

 

 

Barriers: New ESPN documentary shows how bad it was for early women sportswriters

After watching ESPN’s new documentary, Let Them Wear Towels (Tuesday, 8 p.m.), I realized just how clueless I was about the early struggles of women sportswriters.

To be fair, I didn’t start working the pro and college locker rooms until the mid-80s. Some of the women issues were resolved by then, and I also was very naive about most things.

Now I know. It was bad for pioneer women sportswriters. Much worse than I thought.

It all is documented in a terrific new film that is part of ESPN Nine for IX summer series highlighting women and sports. As I wrote previously, you need to make a point about watching this documentary.

Directed by Annie Sundberg and Ricki Stern, Let Them Wear Towels focuses mainly on the early struggles of women sportswriters trying to break into the male-dominated world of men’s sports.

Chuck Culpepper of Sports on Earth, a long-time colleague, had the same reaction I did after watching the film.

Hearing the stories of thickheaded restrictions and anecdotal humiliation from forerunners such as Melissa Ludtke, Lawrie Mifflin, Jane Gross, Betty Cuniberti, Robin Herman, Claire Smith and Lesley Visser, made me mull how eras can seem lunatic upon reflection.

The push back was considerable. Ludtke, a Sports Illustrated writer, had to sue baseball to gain access to the locker room.

“(Bowie Kuhn’s way) of handling it was to bar the door. Don’t let it happen on our watch,” Ludke said.

Many male sportswriters also weren’t welcoming of women.

There’s a vintage clip featuring long-time New York baseball writer Maury Allen. He said the presence of women sportswriters in locker room “would diminish the joys of sports. It would diminish the joy of the athletes. The athletes would become more isolated.”

I’m sure Allen would like to have that one back.

As a result of the ridiculous mindset, the early women sportswriters were forced to endure one humiliation after another. Ludtke told the story of being forced to wait outside the Yankee locker room after Reggie Jackson’s three homer World Series game in 1977. When he finally emerged, Reggie, who had done numerous interviews with the press at his locker, told Ludtke he was too tired to talk. Hence, the need for the lawsuit.

Other women sportswriters had similar experiences, leaving them frustrated about not being able to do their jobs.

Finally, common sense eventually prevailed and women gained access to the locker room. However, problems remained. The ugly incident involving the New England Patriots and Lisa Olson gets the full treatment. (More later on why Olson didn’t give a current interview for the film).

Women sportswriters, though, didn’t give in. They kept fighting to gain access and status. The Association for Women in Sports Media recently is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. It is a testament to perseverance.

Today, nobody gives a second thought about seeing women in the press box. Many of them of bright and young, eager to dive into the fray. They likely had no idea what their predecessors went through.

It goes without saying that this is a must-watch film for them. I know I will be showing it in my journalism classes for many years to come.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highs and lows of All-Star Game Ratings since ’67: Once did 53 share; 12 in 2012

Baseball-Almanac.com has an interesting history of All-Star Game ratings since 1967.

As you can see, the game used to do a monster rating, pulling in 50 shares on a regular basis. Even as late as 1982, it still did a 44 share.

People really did stop what they were doing to watch the game.

The advent of cable, giving viewers more choices, saw the ratings start to erode in the mid-80s. The last time the game did a double-digit rating was in 2001, when Fox pulled an 11.0.

1967 NBC 25.6 (rating) 50 (share) 14,050,000 (households) Not Available (viewers)
1968 NBC 25.8 49 14,450,000 Not Available
1969 NBC 15.1 42 8,610,000 Not Available
1970 NBC 28.5 54 16,670,000 Not Available
1971 NBC 27.0 50 16,230,000 Not Available
1972 NBC 22.9 43 14,220,000 26,300,000
1973 NBC 23.8 45 15,420,000 27,600,000
1974 NBC 23.4 44 15,490,000 Not Available
1975 NBC 21.5 41 14,730,000 28,170,000
1976 ABC 27.1 53 18,680,000 36,330,000
1977 NBC 24.5 45 17,440,000 31,000,000
1978 ABC 26.1 47 19,030,000 35,529,000
1979 NBC 24.4 45 18,180,000 31,980,000
1980 ABC 26.8 46 20,450,000 36,270,000
1981 NBC 20.1 36 15,640,000 Not Available
1982 ABC 25.0 44 20,380,000 34,120,000
1983 NBC 21.5 39 17,910,000 27,190,000
1984 ABC 20.1 35 16,840,000 28,500,000
1985 NBC 20.5 36 17,400,000 28,210,000
1986 ABC 20.3 35 17,440,000 28,375,000
1987 NBC 18.2 37 15,910,000 24,295,000
1988 ABC 20.4 33 18,070,000 29,526,000
1989 NBC 18.2 33 16,450,000 25,840,000
1990 CBS 16.2 33 14,940,000 24,365,000
1991 CBS 17.4 32 16,200,000 24,670,000
1992 CBS 14.9 27 13,720,000 21,981,000
1993 CBS 15.6 28 14,550,000 22,306,000
1994 NBC 15.7 28 14,790,000 22,015,000
1995 ABC 13.9 25 13,260,000 20,163,000
1996 NBC 13.2 23 12,690,000 18,479,000
1997 FOX 11.8 21 11,420,000 16,723,000
1998 NBC 13.3 25 13,026,000 18,970,000
1999 FOX 12.0 22 11,890,000 17,640,000
2000 NBC 10.1 18 10,167,000 14,714,000
2001 FOX 11.0 19 11,198,000 16,029,000
2002 FOX 9.5 17 10,046,000 14,653,000
2003 FOX 9.5 17 10,156,000 13,810,000
2004 FOX 8.8 15 9,573,000 13,995,000
2005 FOX 8.1 14 8,884,000 12,330,000
2006 FOX 9.3 16 10,301,000 14,424,000
2007 FOX 8.4 15 9,343,000 12,530,000
2008 FOX 9.3 16 10,441,000 14,540,000
2009 FOX 8.9 15 10,754,230 14,610,000
2010 FOX 7.5 13 8,692,500 12,100,000
2011 FOX 6.9 12 7,712,000 11,000,000
2012 FOX 6.8 12 6,743,724 10,900,000
Posted in MLB

Why aren’t people watching All-Star Game? Significant ratings decline since ’08

My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center site at Indiana University is on ratings and the All-Star Game. They have been in decline in recent years.

From the column:

In 1986, Tim McCarver worked his first MLB All-Star game as an analyst for ABC. Pairing with Al Michaels and Jim Palmer, the game did a 20 rating with a 35 share. An average of nearly 30 million viewers tuned in to watch the American League’s 3-2 victory in Houston.

Fast forward to Tuesday night in New York. McCarver will call his 22d and final All-Star game, this time working with Joe Buck at Fox.

Depending on the quality of the game, there’s a strong possibility Fox’s rating could be one-third of what it was for McCarver’s first All-Star game in 1986.

Now let’s not get into a prolonged discussion on how the TV landscape has changed since the 80s. In 1982, 44 percent of U.S. televisions in use were tuned into the All-Star game on that night. The all-time high was a 53 share in 1976.

OK, those days are long gone. However, this is about recent history. Last year’s game in Kansas City did a 6.8 rating with a 12 share. The game averaged nearly 11 million viewers.

The TV numbers were the worst in All-Star Game history. They are off sharply since the ’08 game in Yankee Stadium, which did a 9.3 rating, 16 share, and an average of 14.5 million viewers.

Since then:

2009: 8.9 rating, 15 share, 14,610,000 viewers.

2010: 7.5, 13, 12,100,000

2011: 6.9, 12, 11,000,000

2012: 6.8, 12, 10,900,000

So what’s going on? Why the major tune-out for the Mid-Summer Classic?

During a conference call with reporters last week, Eric Shanks, Fox Sports’ co-president, tried to put on a positive spin despite the recent declining numbers.

Problem? What problem?

“The Mid-Summer Classic is still a jewel event,” Shanks said. “At Fox Sports, we look at it as a part of our total baseball business. We still have a healthy local baseball business and very strong demand for our national business and strong demand for the All-Star Game. When you put it in context among all of the entertainment choices out there, this is the top end of the summer. Not just the All-Star Game, but baseball itself. The national game of the week on Saturday nights is winning the night against all networks.  I feel that it’s very healthy.”

Healthy, though, is a relative term. While Fox and MLB might not admit it publicly, a 25-30 percent drop in ratings for the All-Star Game has to be cause for concern.

******

For more analysis, check out my NSJC column.

 

 

Not for him: No tribute planned for Tim McCarver at last All-Star Game: His memories

Mariano Rivera isn’t the only person who will participating in his last All-Star Game Tuesday in New York.

It’s also the grand finale for Tim McCarver.

However, unlike Rivera, who will receive a huge ovation when he enters the game, Fox isn’t planning any tributes to the retiring McCarver on what will be his 22nd and last All-Star telecast.

Joe Buck said he would feel a sharp pain in his side courtesy of McCarver if he started waxing poetic about his long-time partner.

“I have a song I’ve written and will perform in the eighth inning,” Buck joked.

Seriously, Buck said, “No, we won’t go there. Tim would not be into that.”

It has been a remarkable run. It dates back to 1966, when McCarver played in the first of two All-Star Games as a player. Then in 1986, he called his first All-Star Game for ABC.

I asked McCarver to reflect back on some of his All-Star memories. He got some help from Buck, who recalled a special moment they shared together at the 1999 All-Star Game in Boston.

As a player: “The team in 1966 had Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente and Hank Aaron hitting one through three in the lineup and Sandy Kofax pitching in his last All-Star Game start.  Tony Perez won the 15-inning game in 1967 and Tom Seaver finished it. I faced Tom Seaver for about 13 years after that game and I don’t think I ever saw him throw any harder.  He was young, strong as a bull and my hand hurt for about two weeks after that. That’s a fact.“

As a broadcaster: “The 15-inning game in Yankee Stadium to send the Grand Old Lady on her way in 2008 was just a tremendous game, the longest game in All-Star Game history. We were on the edge of our seats, as I’m sure a lot of fans were throughout. That game as a whole stands out to me because of the venue. The old Yankee Stadium.  That game was the most enjoyable and the longest of all our games. It sure didn’t seem like the longest as it was so exciting.”

Buck on the 1999 All-Star Game in Boston: “The Ted Williams moment at Fenway Park. Both Tim and I were stranding in the booth as Ted Williams was making his way around the warning track and in the strongest motion took the cap off of his head and lifted it up to the fans.  Our producer was telling me to talk and I couldn’t speak. I was so choked up. Thank god I didn’t because Tim and I would’ve ruined the moment. It was so powerful and to also be quiet and let the natural audio of Ted Williams talking to Tony Gwynn and Mark McGuire and the other guys who just naturally congregated around him. That happened organically and we stayed with it.  We were supposed to go to a commercial break and it was one of the great calls by a great producer in Mike Weisman to stay with that moment.  Had we gone to commercial that moment after the ceremonial first pitch would have been on replay but instead we got it live.”

McCarver on ’99: “I think that emotion then carried through to the game as Pedro Martinez started that game and struck of five of the six hitters he faced. It was a phenomenal performance on a phenomenal night.”

 

Sunday books: Baseball writers talk about covering the beat; author Q/A

In 1986, I got thrown off the deep end and was named the White Sox beat reporter for the Chicago Tribune. I only was 26 and never had covered a beat. Suddenly, I now was entrusted with one of the most high-profile assignments for the sports section.

Somehow, I survived the endless travel and brutal lifestyle (which I hated). Then there were the endless games, terrible deadlines and a season that didn’t end with Game 162 (not a favorite of those, either). I reported on the White Sox for just under three years before I was moved over to become the Tribune’s national college football writer.

Bottom line: Covering baseball easily was the hardest job I ever had in 30-plus years in the business. It was a great experience that I never would want to do again.

Yet I’m glad I did it once. There’s a badge of honor in this profession to say you once were a baseball beat writer for a newspaper. Given the volume of travel and games, it is the sportswriter’s equivalent of being on the frontline.

The story of baseball writers is told vividly in a new book, Keepers of the Game: When the Baseball Beat was the Best Job on the Paper. Written by Dennis D’Agostino, the book features chapters on 23 baseball writers, many of whom are familiar names in their towns and beyond: Peter Gammons, Hal McCoy, Ross Newhan, Stan Isaacs, Rick Hummel, Bill Madden and more. I was thrilled D’Agostino included Joe Goddard of the Chicago Sun-Times and Dave van Dyck, who covered baseball for the Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune. If not for “Young Joe” and Vandy, who were my “competitors” on the beat, I’d still probably be trying to find the Sox spring training home in Sarasota, Fla.

D’Agostino followed the same format used by legendary baseball writer Jerome Holtzman in his legendary book, No Cheering in the Press Box. He turned on his tape recorder and let the baseball writers provide an oral history of their craft.

Here is my Q/A:

What gave you the idea to write this book?

In my two previous books, an oral history of the New York Knicks and a coffee table book of photos of the old Brooklyn Dodgers, I had really enjoyed using the oral history process to tell a story. I don’t think I’m ever going to write a book that has 50 pages of footnotes or 30 pages of stat tables or endless passages copied out of The New York Times microfilm, which is the way a lot of sports books are done today. I’d much rather seek out the people involved, run a tape recorder, and ask them, “What was it like?” The late Steve Sabol had a great quote from his father Ed that I’ve always remembered: “Tell me a fact and I’ll learn, tell me the truth and I’ll believe, but tell me a story and it will live in my heart forever.” I’ve never forgotten that.

Like so many of us, a staple of my growing up was Jerome Holtzman’s No Cheering in the Press Box, which I think my aunt and uncle bought for me when I was in high school. Even then, they knew! What Holtzman did was amazing, interviewing all those old writers from the first part of the 20th century. It’s such a brilliant book that you keep referring to it, over and over again. It never gets old. It’s been on my shelf for 40 years now.

So that book has always been in my head, so to speak. Then, after I did the Brooklyn Dodger photo book, I thought about doing what Holtzman had done, but with who? For better or worse, everybody in baseball, it seemed, had been given the first-person oral history treatment. . .players (starting with Larry Ritter’s classic The Glory of Their Times), managers, umpires, announcers, behind-the-scenes people, even batboys.

Then I realized that the one group who had never been heard from was perhaps the most influential of them all. . .the guys who wrote about the game back when the beat writers were at the peak of their power, before all the technology we have today splintered the media’s influence. Holtzman did his book on general sportswriters and columnists. I decided to center on guys who had made their reputations as baseball beat writers, and the older they were, the farther back they went, the better. I also knew I needed to have a good mix of writers from around the country. It couldn’t be an all-New York or all-Boston book.

The more I thought of it, the more it appealed to me. These guys produced so much copy, wrote so many words, had so much power, and yet — with rare exceptions — their own stories had never been told. These were guys I had grown up reading in the papers and The Sporting News, and then, when I went to the AP and the Mets, many became mentors and friends. That was a long time ago, and in a way, this book is a thank you note to them. My only regret is that I didn’t get everyone into the book that I wanted to. I can name at least a half-dozen guys who should be there but aren’t. Maybe in the paperback edition!

At one point, being the baseball writer was the best job at the newspaper. Why?

I’m thinking of two lines by Dick Young. . .”I don’t want to be a millionaire, I just want to live like one”. . .and “At what other job do you spend most of your time laughing?”

It’s really impossible to imagine how influential the baseball writer was at one time. Baseball was king, and it was the daily coverage in the newspapers that helped make it so. The beat writer was in every way a local (and even national) celebrity. And baseball was quick to realize it. When baseball needed official scorers, or a body to select its major award winners, who did they turn to? When the Hall of Fame started, who did baseball ask to come up with a voting process and make the selections?  When you watch an old baseball movie, who’s the most trusted friend of the star? (think Walter Brennan in The Pride of the Yankees). Later on, when baseball expanded and teams relocated, who were the biggest movers and shakers not only in the media but also among the politicians, helping their cities get major league teams?

In addition, the baseball beat writer enjoyed unparalleled longevity. Every city, it seemed, had a handful of writers who’d been there since the beginning of time. Guys like John Drebinger and Fred Lieb covered Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Marvelous Marv. Who would want to give up a position of such prominence and influence?

How has the job changed? Deadlines, relationships with players/managers, etc..

You begin, obviously, with the technological revolution. Look at how things have changed just in the last 20 years. Twenty years ago, no one had ever heard of the internet. Ten years ago, no one had ever heard of Twitter or Facebook. Yet those things, combined with ESPN and talk radio, have changed everything. Now the beat writer, who used to be the undisputed source for all your baseball information, is just one of many, many options. And those options are growing every day.

I wanted guys in the book whose careers spanned so far back that they could tell me about sending stories by Western Union and via teletype. I figured that a concept like that would be so foreign to the readers of today that, unless you were around back then, you wouldn’t believe it was done that way. Most of those guys qualified, and so many told me about walking the streets in the dead of night, looking for a Western Union office. Stan Hochman went into great detail about that, all the way down to a legendary figure named Shorty who would receive Stan’s copy in the middle of the night at Western Union in Philadelphia, then ride his bike to hand-deliver it to the paper. That’s how far we’ve come.

Just about every guy lamented that the relationships between the writers and the guys they covered — the players, managers and executives — is nowhere near as close and trusting as it was back then. Several reasons for that. One is the sheer number of media people that now surround a baseball team; much, much more than at any other time because of all the new media. Athletes are much more distrustful now as a result. I had a few guys who had covered the Mantle-Maris home run chase, like Stan Isaacs, Phil Pepe and Jim Henneman, and they all said that for all of the stories about Maris being besieged by the media, the sheer numbers of people in the clubhouse weren’t anywhere near what they are today. There were a lot more writers, maybe, but that was it.

Another thing just about all of them pointed out was the travel. Back then, the writers all traveled with the team. . on the bus, on the plane, everywhere. They all stayed at the same hotel. That produced a closeness that’s impossible to imagine today. Also, the subject of access came up a lot. Guys like Henneman and Bob Hertzel told me about being able to sit with the manager in the dugout right up until the national anthem, almost. That certainly isn’t the case today, where the manager and players are available only at specific times.

One more thing. There was a lot more, for want of a better word, schmoozing back in the day. Many of the guys I interviewed pointed out that, with the internet, today’s writers are producing copy almost 24 hours a day, and there’s almost no time to get to know the guys you’re covering. Hochman told me that often he’d just pull up a chair in the clubhouse and talk to a guy, face-to-face, for a half hour. Not a lot of that is done today.

Did you get a lot of “It was better back then…” responses?

Yes, including several along the lines of, “Now, I swore that I’d never be one of those guys who’d say that it was better in the old days, but it WAS better in the old days.” It’s a natural reaction. That period when you were young and full of energy, learning the business and being a vital force in the paper every day. . .naturally, you’re going to look upon those days with great fondness. Leonard Koppett once had a great quote about every baseball fan having his or her own personal golden age, when everything about the game was the absolute best it could be. Same with these guys.

I explored the Chipmunk thing quite a bit with guys like Stan Isaacs, Phil Pepe, Maury Allen and Hochman. Back then, the older, established writers complained that the Chipmunks had no respect for the game or the profession, that they were young egotistical guys bent on upsetting all the traditions. Well, now the Chipmunks are all retired and they’re complaining about the same thing from today’s journalists. And I guarantee you that, 40 years from now, the bloggers and the social media experts of today will be complaining about whatever new technology exists, saying, “You know, it was so much better in the old days. . .”

What stories stood out for you?

To an extent, they all did. I’m so grateful that every one of those guys spent so much time with me and gave so much of themselves. In that sense, I don’t want to single anyone out.

A couple of guys got so emotional that they actually broke down a little bit while they were talking to me. I won’t mention who, but that really got to me.

I do mention in the book that Bill Conlin’s interview was the most emotional, the funniest, and the loudest of everyone I talked to. If you know anything about Conlin, you know what I’m talking about. Because of what happened with Conlin later on, I elected not to include his chapter, which was a shame for so many reasons. But I had to make that call.

Dave van Dyck was very interesting in that he didn’t talk too much in terms of specific memories or about his career in detail, but rather about the overall experience and about how quickly time flies when you don’t even realize it. He mentioned that when he started, he felt that there was no way he was ever going to last writing baseball nearly as long as Jerome Holtzman or Dick Dozer of any of those Chicago guys. . .and then he woke up one day and, bang, it had happened.

I loved the story Bob Hertzel told me. When Hertz was covering the Reds, Pat Corrales, the backup catcher, lived right next door and every morning after a game he’d show up on Hertz’ doorstep with the paper and critique what he’d written. I don’t think any writers live next door to players today.

In your mind, what makes the writers who have been at it for decades special? How do they do it?

The daily grind, for one thing. These guys were in the paper every single day and they were the undisputed link between the game and its fans. They were so well-known. . .remember the “Meet the Press” section that every team used to have in its yearbook? There’s a line from Holtzman in the book where he says that being a beat writer was much better and more advantageous then being a columnist, because the beat guy was read every single day.

Many of the guys told me how they hated to take days off, which is incredible when you think of the grind of a six-month season. But the best writers realized that baseball is a daily soap opera. Every day is a different chapter, and what happened yesterday does affect what happens today, and the day after that.

These were the guys who were in the trenches every day. They didn’t write the history of the game off clippings or Google searches, like many do today. They did it all on deadline, and the best ones did it with a style and professionalism that set them apart.

Not too long ago I came across something on ebay. It was a trading card set someone had put together a few years ago called “Great Baseball Writers”. Make no mistake about it, there were some big names in that set, guys who have written baseball classics in fiction and whatnot. But not one of them, not one, was a newspaper beat guy. I looked at that and said, “Someone’s missing the point here.”

Finally, what is it like to be married to an NHL Hall of Famer (Los Angeles Times hockey writer Helene Elliott)?

Well, I certainly married up. . .or as someone once said, I outkicked the coverage. She’s every bit a legend. I mean, she used to hang out with Royko, for goodness sake. Our dinner conversations usually center on the relative merits of Pierre Pilote, Keith Magnuson and Clark Gillies.

Technically, Helene is a “media honoree” in the Hockey Hall of Fame, just as the guys who have won the Spink Award aren’t technically enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame. When she won the Elmer Ferguson Award in 2005, she was the first woman honored by the media wing of one of the “Big Four” sports Halls of Fame. I think she beat Lesley Visser by six months.

Frankly, I think I’ve always been more excited about it than she is. She always tries to downplay it, while I insist she always be introduced as “Hall of Fame writer Helene Elliott”, and stuff like that. She has a Hall of Fame jacket that I think she’s worn twice. It changes your life, but as she’ll tell you, you still have to go to work every day and crank it out.

And it does have some real advantages. When the Kings won the Stanley Cup last year, we got the Cup at our house for a few hours. At the start of the playoffs this year, the neighbors were already asking if we were going to get it again. Right now, it looks a little dicey.

Weekend wrap: Praise for naked athletes in ESPN Magazine’s Body issue; Will sports cable bubble burst?

Spanning the globe to give you the constant variety of sports media…

Naked athletes: Will Leitch of Sports on Earth writes ESPN Magazine’s Body issue reveals much about why elite athletes are able to do what they do. He writes:

I mean, look at them! That is the human body in its purest form, all the fat and gristle scrubbed off — youth, power, speed and dedication wrapped up in a perfect physical package. This is what human beings can look like. This is why humanity was fascinated by athletics in the first place, to push the limits of the body, to see what it was capable of.

Bubble bursting: Patrick Hruby in Sports on Earth on the sports cable bubble. It’s the unseen economic engine that powers the sports and TV industries alike. Judging by all the piles of money involved, it seems unlikely to pop anytime soon … but that, of course, is what makes it a bubble. A comprehensive report.

New Fox hire: Clay Travis will be part of Fox Sports’ revamped college football pregame show, according to Jason McIntyre of the Big Lead.

Overrated?: The Big Lead reports on a series of tweets from MLB Network’s Brian Kenny, saying no-hitters are overrated. Can’t agree with you there, Brian. Still think bid for a no-hitter might be the most exciting thing in sports.

Trending down: Why are MLB’s ratings declining? Steve Lepore of Puck the Media offers some theories.

Clone him: SI.com’s Richard Deitsch is very high on Rece Davis.

New horizons: Ken Fang at Awful Announcing has a post on two newspaper sports sections and their new online plans.

Favorites: As only he can, Norman Chad lists his favorite announcers. A big yes for Marv Albert.

Teflon: Off-season transgressions won’t affect the NFL’s huge ratings, says Michael Bradley at the National Sports Journalism Center.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Podcast: Yours truly talking ESPN ratings and more on Sports Media Weekly

Thanks again to Keith Thibault and Ken Fang for having me on. Here’s the link to the podcast. It also is available via iTunes.

Among the topics discussed this week:

ESPN’s lowest ratings in the second quarter since 2006.

Fox Sports 1′s planned 90 second promo during the MLB All-Star Game.

The MLB All-Star Game.

CBS Sports Network’s plans to air a four hour NFL pregame show this fall.

My story in Awful Announcing about two newspapers planning to stream online sports radio shows.

And Chicago’s anger of Justin Bieber stomping on the Blackhawks’ logo while looking at the Stanley Cup.

 

Let Them Wear Towels: Make a point of watching this ESPN documentary on women sportswriters

Just watched a screener of the documentary, Let Them Wear Towels. And it won’t be the last time I watch it.

ESPN will air the film Tuesday at 8 p.m. as part of its Nine for IX series. I’ll have a more complete review later, but I want to make sure you get it on your calendar and/or you set your DVR. Very powerful and eye-opening about the struggles of women sportswriters.