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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quote was mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s your view?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An admission: ESPN president says network mishandled Tebow coverage

Posted on by

Last week, I yelled while watching SportsCenter. In a segment featuring Tedy Bruschi, the subject was….You guessed it.

“Enough with Tim Tebow and the Jets quarterback situation,” was the translation of my yell that startled the dog.

So it was good to read that there finally might be some sanity regarding the over-hyped quarterback and team in Bristol. In an interview with Street and Smith’s Sports Business Daily’s John Ourand, ESPN president John Skipper admitted the network went overboard with Tebow mania.

Skipper said:

“I said, ‘Guys, we didn’t handle this very well.’ Going to training camp wasn’t a problem. We just stayed on it relentlessly and too long.”

Skipper admitted that he was upset when he heard former ESPNer Doug Gottlieb tell Dan Patrick, “I was told specifically, ‘You can’t talk enough Tebow.'” Skipper’s reaction: “I didn’t love that.”

More Skipper:

“We’ve had some good discussions internally about trying to be careful. In some ways, the more difficult internal conflict is between long-term story telling and ratings. We all know that if you focus on the Tebow story, for the next 10 minutes you’re going to do better. But the question is trying to take a long-term perspective and saying, ‘Guys, let’s not get over excited about one story and hyping it.'”

Skipper is correct, although he should have put a cap on it much earlier. The extreme Tebow fascination, with the crescendo of SportsCenter celebrating his birthday, damaged the network’s credibility. It all became a joke, never a good thing.

Enough is enough. That is, until Tebow actually gets into a game at quarterback.

 

 

Caliendo scratched again: No place for comedy on NFL pregame shows these days

Posted on by

Not to be flippant, but I really want to see Frank Caliendo on ESPN’s Sunday NFL Countdown next week. That would mean the NFL went through the week without suffering any tragedies.

For the second week in a row, Caliendo’s regular segment had to be scratched in walk of another horrific incident involving an NFL player. It was the right call. Given what happened, a light-hearted comedy bit definitely was out of place.

NFL Today obviously learned its lesson. A week after the CBS pregame show was grilled for failing to open with the murder-suicide in Kansas City, and sticking with a Victoria Secret segment, the program got it right Sunday.

James Brown led the panelists in a discussion of the recent events. Then he gave a pointed commentary:

This has been a harrowing eight days in the national football league. We’ve witnessed a series of events that have cast the harsh spotlight on a pair of major societal issues. Alcohol abuse, which yesterday as we’ve talked about, needlessly claimed the life of a young Dallas Cowboy player, and domestic violence. Women typically take the lead in cause-related efforts, so this is a call to us men for more of us to get off the sidelines and become meaningfully engaged in helping to change this ugly, painful situation. Right now, three women-per-day on average are being killed by their husbands or boyfriends. This means that since Kasandra Perkins’ death last Saturday, at least 21 more women have met the same fate. Respecting and valuing women would seem to be a no-brainer. But profane language in music, the locker room or anywhere else that degrades and devalues women can contribute to attitudes and beliefs that are destructive and potentially violent.  A 2006 study demonstrated that with proper coaching and leadership, teenagers can successfully change their attitudes and behaviors towards women. So why can’t more of us grown men do that as well? Three more women will pay with their lives today, and they don’t have to. I certainly pray that we men are fed up enough or are hurt enough to want to do and say more about these critical issues. Because right now, the silence is deadly.

Meanwhile, the panelists weighed in on Countdown. Cris Carter, who has battled substance abuse, had an interesting perspective:

In the National Football League, they go to the max as far as the amount of money that they spend on the substance abuse program. I know this personally. I was involved in the program for my whole career, alright. I know the type of information. There are no excuses, alright. It comes down to decisions… Roger Goodell: There’s only one answer for all of this. The only thing the players now, the modern-day athlete understands is take him off the field.

Over at NBC, there was this exchange between Tony Dungy and Rodney Harrison:

Dungy: “As an NFL coach, you’re coaching very, very young men. So I would  always talk at the first team meeting of the year. I would talk about decision  making, about drugs and alcohol and parties, and late hours. You just constantly  preach to them all year — make good decisions. Every Friday I used to tell our  team after practice, be smart, get home early, don’t drink and drive. But you  come in Saturday morning, and every coach says this, not just me, but you come  in Saturday morning and you just hope everyone gets there.”

Harrison: “You coaches do a great job relaying that message each and every  Friday. But at 25 years old, I’ll have to admit, I was a guy who went out. I  partied on Friday. I had three or four drinks, and I got behind the wheel and  drove home. Why? Because I thought I felt invincible. ‘Oh, nothing would happen  to me.’ But the older I got I started gaining perspective. I started realizing  what was important. Suddenly, I became that guy who would preach to the younger  players about family, about career, and about the dangers of DUI.”

Dungy: “I couldn’t tell them not to go out, because I knew they were going  out. But be smart. Come home at 12 o’clock. If you’re going to drink, use the  vehicles, the car service, and be smart about it. But you just don’t know if  they’re listening.”

Hopefully, people will listen. That’s why it is important to have these kinds of discussions in the wake of these tragedies.

Maybe other players will learn from these mistakes. It would be nice to see the pregame shows return to fun-and-games.

 

 

 

 

Posted in NFL

Journalism dilemma: Notre Dame beat writer, Chicago Tribune make decision about Heisman vote

Posted on by

Rule of journalism: Reporters don’t make news. Reporters cover the news.

The line gets blurred when sportswriters participate in things like college football polls, Major League Baseball awards, and Hall of Fame elections. Their votes become the news that they later have to cover and critique. Conflicts are inherent in such a process.

Brian Hamilton, the Notre Dame beat writer for the Chicago Tribune, felt uneasy about having a Heisman Trophy ballot this year. The question of possible bias because of Irish linebacker Manti Te’o resulted in the Tribune using an internal staff poll to determine Hamilton’s vote.

The section revealed the quandary in a story in Sunday’s paper. He wrote:

We’re in the business of creating as little question as possible — preferably none — about how we conduct our business as journalists. And the Notre Dame beat writer at the Chicago Tribune casting a vote in a Heisman race involving the Irish’s most prominent player in years creates enough questions to make us uneasy. Did you vote for Manti Te’o because you’re biased toward Notre Dame? Did you not vote for Manti Te’o because you’re biased against Notre Dame? Did you vote a certain way solely because you didn’t want it to look like you were biased a certain way?

I talked to Mike Kellams, the Tribune’s associate managing editor for sports (also my former editor), about the situation. He said Hamilton approached him about his vote a few weeks ago.

“He said, ‘I think this is something we should talk through.’ He was right,” Kellams said. “He hasn’t dealt with this before. It’s been a while since Notre Dame had a top candidate for the Heisman.”

Hamilton could have simply decided not to vote. However, if Te’o lost by one point because the Notre Dame beat writer decided to pass, they would have had to call in extra security at Tribune Tower. That element looked as if it influenced Kellams’ decision.

“I don’t disagree with that point,” Kellams said. “However, my thought was if we don’t vote, we change the outcome. Those points aren’t going to be awarded to the other players, not just Te’o. If we do participate, we change the outcome. Either way we were making a decision that was going to have an impact.”

Ultimately, Kellams decided to use a panel of five Tribune writers and editors who handle college football for the paper. Teddy Greenstein, who covers Northwestern, was not included since he had his own Heisman vote.

The results of the internal poll saw Hamilton’s vote go for Te’o. Naturally, right? Notre Dame is the Tribune’s hometown team. Well, not exactly. Hamilton had Te’o listed second behind Collin Klein. I’m sure he heard from some Notre Dame fans Sunday. And Te’o barely won the Tribune poll over Klein.

The Tribune’s dilemma illustrates why several newspapers won’t allow their sportswriters to vote for awards and Hall of Fame selections. Even within Tribune Co., Kellams notes the Los Angeles Times has its writers on the sidelines for votes.

The issue, I believe, is going to escalate with the upcoming Baseball Hall of Fame ballot that features Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa for the first time. The writers will be generating major news by making a statement about the steroid era, a period the majority of them all covered.

Kellams is well aware of both sides of the argument. For now, he is comfortable with his writers participating.

“This wasn’t a new discussion for our department,” Kellams said. “There’s no denying that if the writers are being asked to vote, they are going to create the news they have to cover. I wouldn’t argue if they (Heisman, Hall of Fame, etc) decided to do something different. But if we’re asked to participate, I believe our writers have the ability to separate themselves and make the right decision…If we believe they exercise good judgement every single day of the year (covering sports), I expect that they can exercise that good judgement when it comes to casting a vote.”

It will be interesting to see how the Heisman voting committee reacts to the Tribune’s decision regarding Hamilton’s vote. Will it demand that it should be one-voter-one-vote? Will Hamilton be invited to vote next year? After all, Irish quarterback Everett Golson is only a sophomore and could find himself in the Heisman picture in 2013.

Kellams wouldn’t speculate on the Heisman’s reaction. He also wouldn’t say that other papers follow should suit if they have a beat writer who covers a top candidate in the Heisman race.

“I feel good about our process in this case,” Kellams said. “It was the right way for us to do it under the circumstances.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yankees new Hall of Famer might not have approved of YES Network; was against airing games on radio

Posted on by

Jacob Ruppert might not have been a YES man.

The Baseball Hall of Fame got it right this week. Ruppert, the Yankee owner who set the foundation for many dynasties, finally will get his due in Cooperstown with his selection by the pre-Integration committee.

“We were surprised to learn he wasn’t in,” said former Yankees player and executive Bob Watson, who was a member of the 16-person election committee.

Ruppert was Steinbrenner long before Steinbrenner. When he bought the Yankees in 1915, they were a terrible team languishing deep in the shadow of John McGraw’s New York Giants. All he did was purchase a player named Babe Ruth from the Red Sox; build sports’ greatest stadium; and set the Yankees on a course to become the most successful franchise in sports.

Dave Anderson writes about him in today’s New York Times.

However, Ruppert wasn’t a complete visionary. In light of the YES Network being valued at $3.8 billion, it is laughable to note that Ruppert was among the owners who were resistant to the new medium of radio in the 20s and 30s. He thought it was an outrage that teams would broadcast their games for free.

While researching a book I’m doing on Babe Ruth, I found this passage from Marty Appel’s new epic-length book, Pinstripe Empire: The New York Yankees from before the Babe to after the Boss. Here is a Q/A I did with Appel earlier in the year.

Appel noted Ruppert wouldn’t even let visiting teams in Yankee Stadium broadcast games back to their markets. He has this quote from Ruppert:

“All of the clubs in both league have invested heavily in real estate and in construction of modern ball parks. They are, like myself, battling with the times. Some of them must economize, which means reductions in salaries and other overhead expense. Now can you understand why club owners who want to save money are willing to let broadcasters give away their business for nothing?”

William Veeck Sr., the father of the legendary baseball maverick Bill Veeck Jr., had a different perspective. As president of the Cubs, he placed the team on four different stations in Chicago.

Veeck thought by broadcasting the games, fans would form a deeper connection to the team, making them more excited about taking a trip to the park. “Increased attendance, even in Depression times, reflect its value,” he said.

Guess we know who was right. I’m sure if he still were around, Ruppert would have had 3.8 billion reasons to change his mind about putting games on radio.

 

 

 

Posted in MLB

Sunday books: Story of Sid Gillman, offensive guru; Author Q/A

Posted on by

Sid Gillman doesn’t register much in the rankings of great coaches of all time. But ask somebody like Jon Gruden or Dick Vermeil to discuss Gillman, and they will talk as if he invented the game.

To a degree, Gillman did. Before there was Bill Walsh, there was Sid Gillman.

In a new book, Sid Gillman: Father of the Passing Game, Josh Katzowitz tells the untold story of one of football’s greatest innovators. As a coach with the Los Angeles Rams in the 50s and then with the San Diego Chargers in the 60s, Gillman pioneered the wide-open approach to offense. He was the first coach to set players in motion and to spread the field with receivers. Among the people who worked under Gillman were Chuck Noll and Al Davis.

Gillman had a fascinating, and at times, controversial career. Katzowitz writes that anti-Semitism might have cost Gillman, who was Jewish, the head coach job at Ohio State that eventually went to Woody Hayes. Gillman also had stormy relationships with many players in the pros, including Hall of Famer Lance Alworth and John Hadl, who declined to be interviewed for the book.

Here is my Q/A with Katzowitz:

What gave you the idea to write about book about Sid Gillman?

When I was researching my first book – Bearcats Rising, a book about the University of Cincinnati football program – I got to learn about Sid, because he coached there in the late-1940s to the mid-1950s. For whatever reason, that time frame in American history really fascinates me. It was when my grandparents were in the prime of their lives, and it was around the time when my parents were born. I looked into maybe writing a book on Sid, and I was shocked to learn that even though he was this coach who was in the same pantheon as guys like Vince Lombardi, Paul Brown, Woody Hayes and Bill Walsh (and a guy who had impacted those coaches’ careers), nobody had ever written a book about him. He’s just this very innovative coach whose schemes live into today’s NFL, and he’s fallen through the cracks of history.

Hadl, Alworth and the Paul Brown family declined interviews for the book. Why?

As much as many of today’s coaches have been influenced by Sid, he was not popular among his pro players (he was liked much better by his college players). He was a strict GM who oftentimes would rather cut a player than give him a raise, and players had a hard time separating Sid the GM from Sid the coach. Plus, Sid could simply be a jerk. Former Oilers QB Dan Pastorini summed all of that up perfectly when I talked to him about Sid. I know Sid and Paul Brown hated each other, and that dislike has been filtered down through their family trees. Lance Alworth had a bad experience at the end of his time with the San Diego Chargers. That might be why he didn’t want to talk. I never heard back, so I don’t really know. As for Hadl, I’m not really sure. When I did talk to him, he told me how close he and Sid were (he hired Sid be his offensive coordinator for the L.A. Express, for god’s sake). It might simply be because there was a really well-done ESPN.com piece a few years back that detailed the steroid program Sid was running with the 1963 Chargers, and that might have turned off some of those players to discussing their playing days under Sid.

Were you surprised that he was denied jobs because of his religion?

In retrospect, not really. I’ve never dealt with anti-Semitism on that level in my life, so I didn’t really think about it before I started researching. But then the family tells you that he would have gotten the Ohio State job instead of Woody Hayes if Sid wasn’t Jewish and you start reading Sid’s interviews in which he talked about being black-balled from a Big Ten head coaching job because of his religion, and it dawns on you that it was a real problem for him during the 1940s and 1950s. There was a great line that owner Dan Reeves made when Sid left Cincinnati to take the L.A. Rams job in 1955. Before he officially accepted it, Sid made sure to let Reeves know that he was Jewish. And Dan said something along the lines of, “Hell, that might help you here.”

Was he better as an innovator than he was as a coach?

Considering he never won a Super Bowl and the biggest championship of his life was the 1963 AFL title, I’d lean toward innovation. If Sid wasn’t such an innovator, if his offensive schemes didn’t live on, nobody would think to remember a guy whose career record in the AFL/NFL was 122-97-7. That’s not to say he wasn’t one of the best X’s and O’s guys around at the time, because he was. And that’s not to say he couldn’t turn around a mediocre organization, because he certainly did (he was the first coach in the Cradle of Coaches at Miami (Ohio), he made Cincinnati a power and his work turning around the Houston Oilers won him the AFC coach of the year in 1974). But if people remember him today, it’s because of his vertical stretch offense and his influence in Bill Walsh’s West Coast Offense. Not because he won a couple division titles with the San Diego Chargers.

How much would he have loved today’s pass-first game?

As my CBSSports.com colleague Pete Prisco told me, “THIS is Sid Gillman’s NFL.” You know, even after he retired from coaching and consulting, teams still sent him game film every week to evaluate their offenses and to hear his ideas. If Sid were alive today, he’d be 101 years old. And it wouldn’t surprise me if he was firing up his DVD player every week to watch as much football as possible. He would not be able to get enough of watching guys like Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and evaluating coaches like Bill Belichick and Sean Payton.

How should his legacy be viewed?

Unless you’ve studied your football history or you’re a football coach, Sid doesn’t really have a legacy. Five years ago, I didn’t know who Sid Gillman was either, and for those of us who were born after Sid was done coaching, he’s basically an unknown entity. One reason I wrote this book was to bring Sid to the masses, to the millions of people who switch over to the RedZone channel every Sunday to watch every touchdown scored. Sid’s innovation is a major reason they’re watching this offensive renaissance and why the NFL is as popular as it is today.

Anything else?

What makes Sid such a fascinating character is not just the football. It’s about his family, his religion, his race relations, and his bad qualities (and he certainly had some). It’s about why everybody who met his wife, Esther, fell in love with her. It’s about how Sid responded when his only son came out of the closet to him, and how that son has lived with AIDS for the past 30 years. In my eyes, the way in which he died just about sums up his life’s work. It wasn’t just about Sid. It was about everybody and everything that surrounded him. In order to write an interesting biography, you need a fascinating character. Sid certainly was that.

Saturday flashback: My memories of Bo Jackson’s Major League debut

Posted on by

Below is the preview for tonight’s new 30 for 30, You Don’t Know Bo (ESPN, 9 p.m. ET).

I was there for Bo Jackson’s Major League debut, and it ranks among my favorite and most memorable sporting events in 30-plus years on the beat.

Special bonus question: What pitcher gave up Jackson’s first big league hit? Hint: He was a 300-game winner.

I was the White Sox beat writer for the Chicago Tribune. The team just happened to be the opponent on Sept. 2, 1986 when the Kansas City Royals called up a minor leaguer named Vincent Edward Jackson.

The hype was considerable for Jackson. When he stepped into the batting cage for the first time, I saw something I hadn’t seen before. Players from both teams stopped to watch. White Sox players, who were done with BP, actually hung around the dugout instead of going back to the clubhouse.

Jackson didn’t disappoint. He put on quite a show, launching one missile after another into the fountains at Royals Stadium. Players were in awe of the power display by Jackson.

The anticipation carried over to the game. Batting sixth, Jackson came up in the second inning to face Steve Carlton. Yes, Steve Carlton actually pitched for the White Sox late in 1986. Nearly all of his immense skills were gone, and he had become the sad image of a future Hall of Famer just trying to hang on with a team that was way out of the race. Still, every once in a while, Carlton could summon some of the old greatness. That game in Kansas City was one of the nights.

I found my game story for the Tribune. My lede went:

The 322-game winner overshadowed the Heisman Trophy winner Tuesday night. Bo Jackson made his major-league debut, but he couldn`t help the Royals overcome Steve Carlton, who led the White Sox to a 3-0 victory at Royals Stadium.

Jackson, though, was the story. His first at-bat was a stunning demonstration of his power and speed. He hit a tremendous shot estimated at 425 feet that just went foul. Then with the crowd still buzzing, he dribbled a bouncer that barely got past Russ Morman at first. Second baseman Tim Hulett gloved the ball in the hole, but Jackson easily beat the throw to first with his speed. Everyone was just amazed watching him run down the line. Jackson’s first hit was in the books off of Carlton.

Jackson went 1 for 3 on the night. Afterward, we went to the Royals lockerroom. He did his interview without a shirt.

I had just covered Walter Payton during the Bears’ Super Bowl year in 1985. I thought he had the best physique I had ever seen for an athlete.

Jackson, though, was in another category. Layers of dense muscles and massive legs. He was the closest I’ve ever seen to Superman, with the possible exception of the hip that eventually betrayed him.

“I didn`t go out there expecting to do something spectacular,“ said Jackson. “ I like the majors and I`m happy to be here.“

It was only the beginning for Jackson. Spectacular was just ahead.

 

 

 

 

 

Bo Jackson: Latest 30 for 30 focuses on athlete for the ages; Bo on the film and his legend

Posted on by

This one is a natural to air after the Heisman Trophy presentation (ESPN, Saturday, 9 ET). You could get all sorts of arguments about who is the greatest Heisman winner. But if the question was, who was the greatest athlete to win the Heisman, the answer is simple: Bo Jackson.

Titled You Don’t Know Bo, the latest 30 for 30 focuses on the amazing athletic feats of Jackson and how an injury didn’t allow the story to play out in full.

Here’s a link for the preview.

Jackson, director Michael Bonfiglio and 30 for 30 executive producer John Dahl participated in a conference this week. Here are the excerpts.

Jackson on participating in the film: Well, first of all, I am very, very busy, and my first concern was that how much time was this going to take up, because I’m busy trying to handle some ‑‑ I’m busy trying to handle some business out west, trying to deal with things here and so forth and so on.  And once they told me about the time frame that they needed me, I restructured my schedule so I could allow them to have that time with me.

But as far as everything else, hey, the people that are in the film talking are the people that did all of the work.  I just one day went and sat down for an hour or so and I talked, I answered questions, and I left and went back home and did what I was doing.  So it really wasn’t that hard for me.

Jackson on younger generation not being as aware of him: Well, listen, my three kids are in their 20s, and it’s kind of comical.  My three kids, I think they were ‑‑ how old were they?  They were eight, six and four, and they didn’t realize that daddy was Bo Jackson until they saw daddy get thrown out of a baseball game in Chicago and I kind of lost it a little bit and threw the garbage can out on the field and bats and the bubble gum tray and so forth and so on.  So it really doesn’t bother me that people don’t know who I am.  It’s kind of nice in a way.

But no, I had my fun in the sun, as you could say, and I am happy.  I would not go back and change a thing in my life of sports.

Jackson on his thoughts about the movie: What did I think of the movie?  My wife and I sat in the kitchen and watched it on her laptop.  It was nice.  It was very, very nice.  There was only one discrepancy in the whole film, which is fine, and I’m kind of embarrassed because it has to do with the killing of the pigs, but that ditch that I jumped wasn’t 40 feet, it was more like 20 feet.  But I did jump that ditch and run home and still got busted for it.

Jackson on the toughest part of playing two sports: What was the toughest aspect of playing two sports on a high level?  Simple:  Going to the supermarket and shopping and trying not to be recognized.  That’s it.  Because I am the cook in the family, I do all the cooking.  I don’t allow my wife around sharp objects, so I do all of the cooking.  So in turn, I have to go to the grocery store because I know what I need, I know what to get and so forth and so on.  And sometimes she goes with me, and sometimes back when I was doing both sports, that got a little hectic going to the supermarket in Kansas City, going to the supermarket in Los Angeles, and that was about it.  Everything else was just fine.  I had no problems with actually both sports and so forth and so on.  It comes with the territory as far as being recognizable and noticed.

Bonfiglio on the title of the movie: I came up with the title probably in the late summer, and we had been banting about a couple of different working titles, and I sort of landed on this one in thinking about a couple of different things.  First of all, obviously it’s an acknowledgment of the Nike campaign, the Bo Knows campaign, but it’s also the idea that ‑‑ I remember I was talking to my 13‑ and 16‑year‑old cousins who are big sports fans and I was telling them that I was working on this film, and they’d never heard of Bo.  And I talked to more people, people in their early 20s, and they’d never heard of Bo.  You mentioned your wife, who’s old enough to know Bo but didn’t know who he was.  That was a very interesting thing to me, that this guy who was so incredibly famous for a brief period of time, he was one of the most recognizable names and faces in the country, people don’t know who he is.

I think that there’s an incredible enthusiasm for him by fans, but he ‑‑ I think if you know who he is, you assume everybody else does.  But in actuality, I think because he is not in any of the Halls of Fame, he’s not a record holder in very many areas, he is at risk of being forgotten a little bit, and I think that that was part of this film.  The impetus behind this is to celebrate how exciting he was and what he did to us as fans and as people and as a culture.  So to me, the title plays on a couple of different levels.

Dahl on his favorite Jackson’s highlights:  Well, there’s two that jumped out at me in the film.  One was the throw from the warning track to Harold Reynolds at the plate.  I still just can’t believe it when I see it.  And the other one was his first Major League hit.  It was just kind of a routine ball that he hit up the right side of the infield, and he didn’t just barely beat it out, he easily beat out what should have been a routine ground ball, and in those two days you definitely got a sense that there was something different about Bo Jackson.

Note: I saw that first hit, as the White Sox beat writer for the Chicago Tribune. I’ll have more on that tomorrow.

 

 

 

Emrick and McGuire: NBC Sports Network putting them to work on college hockey

Posted on by

I went to the United Center in Chicago Wednesday night to see a Dave Matthews concert. Terrific show and talk about being a gamer. Matthews played on despite clearly being under the weather.

However, I was depressed by one thing I didn’t see at the UC: Ice. The floor was a floor, because the Blackhawks and hockey are on ice for now, and after what happened last night, for the forseeable future.

NBC Sports Network is trying to fill the huge gap by airing college hockey. They are using the A-team with Mike Emrick and Pierre McGuire. Friday, they’ll be on hand for Michigan State at Notre Dame.

Given Emrick’s stature, this is almost like Vin Scully being on the call for a MSU-Notre Dame baseball game.

It’s always great to hear Emrick on hockey, but it’s not the same. College hockey is a long way from the NHL. Everything, from the size of the arenas to the caliber of play, is on a much smaller scale.

Time to come back NHL. I need to see some ice at the United Center.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in NHL

Goren stories of The Greek: He was bigger than life; recalls $10,000 debt never collected

Posted on by

Ed Goren has encountered many memorable characters during his 46 years in television. One, though, always has stood out: Dimetrios Georgios Synodinos, aka Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder.

During an interview for my recent Q/A with the longtime CBS and Fox Sports producer, Goren told a long story about The Greek. It was Goren and cohort Mike Pearl who set the wheels in motion for The Greek reinforcing his legend on CBS’ NFL Today.

Goren’s tales were so good; I figured The Greek deserved his own post. Here’s Goren recalling the man and the $10,000 debt he never collected:

*******

First meetings: I was at CBS News doing the sports element of the daily affiliate feed (in the early 70s). I had an idea for this guy, Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder. I thought maybe we could do something with him.

Back then, whenever there was a big sporting event, two people always called The Greek. One was Dave Anderson of The New York Times. And the other was my father, Herb Goren. He wrote Phil Rizzuto’s radio show on CBS. And if it involved politics, Jack Anderson would call him.

We went down to meet him at the Super Bowl. He had a 24-hour suite going at his hotel. There was an open bar, and everyone was there. Politicians, major executives, you name it. If you asked what his business was, he’d say he was a corporate PR guy. He really was a ‘hang guy.’ He’d go with executives to the race track. They’d say, ‘I was with The Greek.’ There are entertainment groupies, sports groupies. Those executives were Greek groupies.

What I had in mind is that Greek would do a two-minute segment that we could sell to the local stations. We couldn’t get one station to sign up. I mean, we couldn’t sell fish to hungry seals.

Months go by, and he calls us and says, ‘I’ve got a show for you.’ We tried a radio show. Pearl would go on the road with him. He’d beg him: ‘Could you find 15 minutes to do the show?’ He always was doing something else.

Take three with the Greek. He calls me and says, ‘I’ve got a great deal for us. We’re going to do a movie about a casino in Vegas.’ We’re shooting the 2nd World Series of Poker. There may have been one table. Those guys wouldn’t even let us film them. They’re thinking the IRS is going to get hold of this.

We make the film and Pearl goes to Vegas with the Greek to get the 10 grand (their fee), which was a lot of money back then. Pearl calls me and says, ‘I’ve got good news and bad news. They paid us 10 grand in cash.’ I said, ‘What’s the bad news?’ Pearl said, ‘Greek just bet it on the Gator Bowl.’ Sure enough, he loses the bet. The brilliance of Pearl and Goren, we never asked him for the money. He went to his grave owing us 10 grand.

On NFL Today: Because there’s no betting on football in this country according to the NFL, he wasn’t allowed to pick games against the spread. He had a big board and he would do check marks. He would pick who was going to win, which is a lot easier than picking against the spread.

If he had to pick against the spread, he probably would have been right 40 percent of the time. It would have blown the credibility of the segment. All in all, it was a wonderful scam we were forced into.

The people loved Greek. When I’d walk through an airport with him, I’d always fall back to see what the reaction was. He was bigger than life.

On the ending following his statements about black athletes: He didn’t have a racist bone in his body. It was played out like he was a racist bigot, but that couldn’t have been further from the truth. He rounded up all these people to try to defend him. He even had Jesse Jackson. It didn’t matter. They fired him. I’m convinced he went to his grave not knowing what he did wrong.

A last word: He was something out of Guys & Dolls. He even dressed the part with that gold chain. If central casting was going to audition somebody to play a Vegas bookmaker, he would have gotten the role immediately. There never will be another like him.