Monthly Archives: May 2012

Ozzie goes off on Houston radio host

Posted on by

I just don’t think it is going to end well for Ozzie Guillen in Miami.

The Marlins manager used his trademark colorful language in addressing a question from a Houston radio host. All the guy asked was whether the controversy over his Fidel Castro comments had died down. Not exactly an inflammatory question.

Listen to Guillen’s response.

According to Miami Herald reporter Manny Navarro, Guillen added, “I’ve been waiting 15 f—ing days for somebody to ask that question.”

Now the soundbite has gone viral, reflecting poorly on Guillen and the Marlins. That’s the way it works in the new media world.

A simple no comment would have been a much better response. Guillen, though, doesn’t do no comment.

 

Posted in MLB

Chamblee: Woods needs to fire Foley, hire Harmon; Tiger responds

Posted on by

Update: Just saw Tiger Woods responded to Chamblee’s comments. Check below.

It’s not easy to steal a conference call with Johnny Miller and Nick Faldo also on the line, but Brandel Chamblee did it.

Chamblee may not be as unpredictable as Miller, but he is every bit as blunt. The fearless Golf Channel analyst didn’t hold back in his assessment of Tiger Woods in advance of the Players Championship, which begins Thursday.

Chamblee called Woods’ situation “sad.” The former No. 1 comes into the Players after a poor showing in the Masters and a missed cut last week in Charlotte.

Now sad is a relative term since Woods did win at Bay Hill in March. However, he still doesn’t look close to resembling his old self.

Chamblee thinks there’s only one solution to the problem: Fire swing coach Sean Foley, and re-hire Butch Harmon.

Chamblee said.

Simply, he needs to fire Sean, call Butch.  I think that would get it done right there.  Fire Sean, call Butch.  And I know he’ll never do that, because he’s letting his ego get in the way of common sense.  He wants to prove to people he’s right.  He would rather prove to people he’s right than be right.

He’s going to ride this thing as long as he can, and it’s just sad to see.  I think Butch ‑‑ golf is all about rhythm.  Any athletic endeavor is about rhythm, and he’s out of rhythm.  I think Butch would make him stand up tall.  He is a tall guy.  He would start to swing like a tall guy.

Earlier, on the subject of being tall, Chamblee said:

Tiger Woods is 6’2″, 6’3″, and by the time he gets over the ball, he’s probably 5’9″, 5’10”, he’s bent over so much.  With his driver, he’s standing about a foot further away from it; when he was playing his best golf, he’s standing about a foot further away from it now, than when he hits his iron shots now.

He’s got just very complicated swing thoughts going on, and he’s been at it for the better part of two years trying to incorporate these, supposedly one of the best athletes, trying to incorporate these swing thoughts over two years.  It’s just sad.

Woods was asked about Chamblee’s comments Tuesday. Hard to think of anything Woods hates more than somebody questioning his swing. Looks like no Christmas card for Brandel from Tiger.

Outwardly, Woods said:

I can understand that everyone has an opinion, and he’s entitled to his. But he’s no longer playing anymore, so, so be it.

Here’s what Woods really wanted to say:

F-you, Brandel.

Naturally, Faldo and Miller also weighed in on Woods. Here is Sir Nick’s assessment:

He won at Bay Hill, and including myself, thought, basically, wow, he’s back.  And all of a sudden, the Masters, he hit nerves a lot.  His nerves just went off the red line and he basically succumbed to the pressure of the Masters and I think that really affected him.  I think that was a shock to him that he went from the top of his game to just like, what the heck is going on, and it really made him very human.  And that was very difficult for him psychologically I think.  The Masters really hurt him, especially after you saw what he did at Bay Hill.

Sir Johnny had this to say:

He’s trying to go with the perfect shot he’s working on, and instead of going with, you know, like Trevino said, if you’re choking, just hit it low and you don’t have time to get off line.

He needs to learn to have these couple, three or four shots that just are infallible so to speak; they are sort of ugly, but that’s what I would work with him a lot on, especially with the driver.

 

 

 

 

 

Sweep: Nasty word for NHL, NBA playoffs

Posted on by

The ultimate buzzkill for the network: a sweep in a playoff series.

The NHL got hit with the bug with the Los Angeles-St. Louis series. The Kings’ four-game run concluded with NBC doing a 1.0 overnight rating for Sunday’s finale, by far the lowest rating for a playoff game on NBC this year. The previous low was 1.5. In fact, it was the worst rating for a playoff game on NBC since 2009.

Meanwhile, the NBA has had two first-round sweeps. USA Today’s Michael Hiestand reports:

Here’s what happens when you gets lopsided playoff series, in any sport: You lose TV viewer eyeballs.

In weekend NBA action on ABC, TNT and ESPN, nine games got lower overnight ratings than comparable TV coverage last year. Just one game — ABC’s Miami-New York game Sunday — topped last year’s levels.

The only thing worse than a sweep is a five-game series. There’s a good chance all six remaining first-round series could be closed out in game 5.

The NBA and its TV partners obviously are hoping for better luck in the second round.

 

 

In wake of Seau suicide, columnist sheds light on battle with depression

Posted on by

I haven’t been comfortable with many outlets linking Junior Seau’s suicide to the concussions that he suffered playing football.

Yes, it certainly can be a plausible reason. However, I think the discussion overlooks the bigger reason: Depression.

You don’t need to be a football player to suffer from depression. The condition has affected my family, and I’m betting it has impacted somebody who is close to you.

Detroit News columnist Chris McCoskey wrote about his battles with depression Tuesday. I knew Chris back in the early 90s when I covered college football for the Chicago Tribune and he was on the Michigan beat. Nice guy, always seemed upbeat.

Little did I know that he was going through personal turmoil. He writes:

I was diagnosed in 1991 and spent a year or longer playing the pharmacology  game, but after countless changes in drug and dosage, I threw the pills away.  All those things ever did was give me constipation and dry mouth. Nothing like a  little constipation and dry mouth to heal a person’s aching soul.

My life was falling apart. My first marriage was failing. My  ever-understanding employer at the time found out what I was struggling with and  terminated my employment. I could have fought that and won, but it would’ve cost  too much and ultimately killed my career.

Plus, I had a bigger, more important fight on my hands.

McCoskey writes about an episode where he considered suicide while driving in a car. He also details his on-going struggles.

More importantly, McCoskey tries to explain about a condition few people truly understand. He writes.

People with depression can’t always just “turn that frown upside down.” They  can’t always just suck it up. It’s a dark, overwhelming place sometimes. And a  lot of us suffer alone because we are ashamed. We feel stupid. How can a person  be incapable of having fun? Any moron knows how to have a good time.

It’s almost impossible to talk about it to regular people (bosses, spouses,  friends). They can’t fathom how somebody in good physical health, with a good  job, with kids who love them, who seems relatively normal on the outside, can be  terminally unhappy.

And when you try to explain it, you come off sounding so pathetic, so weak  and whiney, even to yourself — it’s just easier, though infinitely more harmful,  to suffer in silence.

Junior Seau wasn’t sad when he pointed that gun to his chest. He wasn’t being  a coward. He wasn’t being selfish. He was sick.

Congratulations to Chris for having the courage to speak out. This is an important story. Read it and then pass it on.

 

 

 

 

 

ESPN late SportsCenter chooses NBA first round over Rangers-Caps thriller

Posted on by

Not to beat a dead horse here, but…

I found it interesting that the late version of ESPN’s SportsCenter led with the NBA over the NHL Tuesday morning.

My son, Matt, who knows what I have been writing about ESPN’s hockey coverage (or lack thereof), called it to my attention. An avid hockey fan, he said, “I can’t believe they’re starting off with Memphis-Clippers.”

Indeed, ESPN’s producers decided Game 4 of a first round NBA series was more newsworthy than Game 5 of a second-round NHL series. And that game featured an incredible finish with the New York Rangers scoring the tying goal with six seconds remaining and then beating Washington in overtime.

Indeed, not only did ESPN begin with the Clippers game (admittedly an exciting overtime game), but it went to the San Antonio-Utah game next with extended highlights and interviews. Then, SportsCenter finally turned to Rangers-Caps.

OK, maybe ESPN opted for the Clippers out of the box because it finished late. Most viewers in the East went to bed without knowing the outcome. Also, the late SportsCenter is geared to a West Coast audience, especially in LA.

However, we still can ask the question: Would ESPN have made the same news decision if the network had the NHL rights? Given the finish and the fact that this was a pivotal game in a second-round series, wasn’t the Rangers victory more important?

Where’s that dead horse…?

 

 

 

Who needs ESPN? NHL exec: Playoffs validate choice of NBC Sports Network

Posted on by

ESPN’s Vince Doria definitely stirred the ire of hockey fans last week. In an interview with this site, he attributed hockey’s limited presence on SportsCenter to the sport not generating “a national discussion.”

When I asked John Collins about the comment Monday, the NHL’s COO and Commissioner Gary Bettman’s right-hand man for business and media, took it in stride.

“The national discussion definitely is increasing around the Stanley Cup,” Collins said.

Indeed, Collins and the NHL have reason to feel bullish about the first year of their long-term deal with NBC Universal. The move to televise every playoff game on either NBC, NBC Sports Network, CNBC and the NHL Network has produced dramatic results. Ratings soared with more than a combined 60 million viewers tuning in to watch first-round games on either national or local outlets.

NBC Sports Network averaged 744,000 viewers for first-round games, up 16 percent. Those are the highest numbers for hockey on cable since 2001, when ESPN’s first round coverage averaged 745,000 viewers.

The multi-network platform had an NCAA basketball tournament feel, with viewers switching from game to game. The NCAA comparison went even deeper with numerous overtime games producing buzzer beaters. It happened again last night with the New York Rangers winning an overtime thriller against Washington.

Would it have been the same if the NHL went with ESPN? Probably not. With MLB and NBA games, and the NFL draft on ESPN, the playoffs likely would have been relegated to ESPN2 on several nights, leaving the notion of being second class.

Yep, not hearing so much that the NHL needs to be on ESPN anymore.

Indeed, the NHL made the right move with potential for future growth. Yet Doria, who was ridiculed for his comment, hardly is off base. With the Blackhawks out, there has been zero discussion about the Stanley Cup playoffs on sports talk radio here in Chicago. You’ll be hard-pressed to find NHL discussion outside of cities that still have teams in the hunt. It’s not that way for the NBA.

Also, the league is faced with the likely prospect of having a non-traditional hockey team in Phoenix or the No. 8 seed Los Angeles Kings in the finals. Not exactly the same drawing power as recent West winners: Detroit (2008, 2009), Chicago (2010), and despite being a Canadian team, Vancouver, with its stars and stories, had significant U.S. appeal in 2011. Los Angeles might be big market, but the Kings aren’t the Lakers.

I addressed those issues and more in a Q/A with Collins.

Given what’s transpired, how does the NHL feel about its decision to go with NBC and the NBC Sports Network?

Collins: The thing we felt was lacking from a marketing standpoint was the idea of national scale.

(In 2010), 40 percent of the games in the first two rounds weren’t on national television. None of the Flyers games in the first two rounds were nationally televised. The Flyers were a Cinderella story (going to the finals against Chicago), but nobody knew the stories on a national level. The first time they popped up was in the finals, and frankly at that point, it was too late.

Now we have every game on. We’re able to show the casual fan how unique the Stanley Cup playoffs are. They can see how tough the road is.

It’s been very satisfying. The ratings are up. We attribute that to the way NBC has embraced these playoffs.

Would you have gotten the same kind of treatment from ESPN?

Collins: We spent a lot of time talking to ESPN. There was a lot of interest. One of the deciding factors to go with NBC Universal was that hockey would be the centerpiece of their entire programming (for NBC Sports Network). That’s not to say ESPN wouldn’t have devoted more time to hockey than they did in the past.

But for (the NBC Sports Network), the Stanley Cup playoffs are their focus. They have dedicated all their time to building this platform. They’ve offered us enormous flexibility. They’ve changed their schedule on the fly to accommodate us.

How does the league view Doria’s comments on hockey not generating the national discussion?

Collins: The national discussion around the Stanley Cup definitely is increasing. We hope ESPN will validate it with the amount of coverage for hockey on SportsCenter.

They’ve been pretty good to us in our big moments. They went to the Winter Classic. They’ve been at the last couple of Stanley Cup finals with Steve Levy and Barry Melrose

What we’re working to do is to round out that schedule so that it’s more than the Stanley Cup finals. Now it’s all four rounds of the Stanley Cup.

How does the NHL increase the discussion for hockey on a national level?

Collins: An important step was getting all the playoff games on national television. We checked that one off and go from there.

We’re working to expose fans to our storylines. The power of (HBO’s 24/7 documentaries) is showing fans something they haven’t seen before. Then when you have all the games on, and people discover or re-discover Martin Brodeur or the team aspect of the Rangers. Those stories start to resonate with fans.

Also, we have so many markets where hockey does well locally. In important markets like Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Washington, hockey does better ratings than basketball. Maybe, that will be the case one day in Chicago. It’s another sign of the potential to have (increased) national discussion.

How does the NHL feel about the prospect of having a non-traditional team in the finals?

Collins: Any sport, whether it’s baseball or basketball, would love to have its big markets (going for) the championship. It doesn’t always work out that way.

A lot of myths got broken last year. The idea that you needed two big U.S. media market teams to get ratings. Boston-Vancouver exploded that myth.

We’re seeing casual fans getting turned on to our stories during the playoffs. There are a lot of healthy signs. At the end of the day, the ratings are ratings. If you look at the first year, the Stanley Cup ratings is not the only metric of success. We’ve made a lot of progress, and it’s only going to get better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tables turn on Mushnick; responds to Village Voice

Posted on by

Phil Mushnick has earned quite a reputation for blowing up his targets.

So you can bet many of those targets are having a fine time watching the New York Post columnist come under considerable fire for last Friday’s column. It included this highly combustible passage about Jay-Z and the Brooklyn Nets:

As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and  white as the new team colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new “urban” home — why not have him apply the full Jay-Z treatment?

Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N——s? The  cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B—-hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm  with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then  go all the way!

Mushnick is being pounded for using the N-word, even if he didn’t spell it out, and for stereotyping. The worst accusation: people are calling Mushnick a racist.

James King of the Village Voice wrote Friday:

The story of Mushnick’s blatantly racist attempt at satire is getting some attention in the blogosphere — as well it should — and we’re more than compelled to give it a little more.

Then King concluded:

We haven’t heard back. We’ll let you know if we do. Meantime, Mushnick might want to get his lipstick handy — we have a feeling Jesse Jackson’s ass will soon be in need of a smooch.

So now the tables turn on Mushnick. You can be sure over the years many of his subjects/victims have complained to the Post columnist about being misrepresented or unfairly characterized.

Monday, Mushnick did the same to King in a post at Village Voice. Mushnick wrote:

I’m never comfortable using that word [nigger]. That’s the way I was raised.  Shame on my parents. The ONE time I spelled it out – for accuracy – I  was widely condemned as a racist. So either way, I’m a bigot. I know  what’s in my heart and my head, the way I was raised, and the way I  raised my kids. But you’ve painted me a racist. Good work, James. And  good work, if you can get it.

Later in the post, there’s this passage from Mushnick.

One last fleeting thing, perhaps a defensive thing. Recall Marge Schott, the racist owner of the Cincy Reds who was infamously banned from  baseball for her n-word – sorry, nigger – references to blacks? Know who publicly exposed her, leading to her expulsion? Ah, never mind. You  already know me as a racist. Ever hear of McCarthyism? That’s you.  Ready, fire, aim. Nice job.

It is absurd to think Mushnick is a racist. His regular readers know he is a crusader for social justice in sports and beyond.

Mushnick, though, did make a mistake in making his point about Jay-Z. I don’t think there is any place for that kind of language, even in satire.

Mushnick has yet to address the controversy in two subsequent columns since last Friday, including one today. That’s too bad. It would be interesting to hear his perspective on being at the other side of the table.

Follow-up: Yesterday, I noted Mushnick’s Sunday wasn’t promoted on the Post’s main sports page on the Net. I found it curious since 10 other sports Post columnists were displayed. Probably a coincidence. Still, the omission was rather curious given the timing of the controversial Mushnick column.

Well, I checked today and Mushnick’s column was featured in the column wing, right under my old golf pal, Mark Cannizzaro.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My interview with Dan Jenkins: Hogan, Tiger, his beats, and shorts

Posted on by

To celebrate Dan Jenkins’ induction into the World Golf Hall of Fame tonight, I thought it would be appropriate to dig up some excerpts from an interview I did with him in 2008. I spoke with the great one at the U.S. Open at Torrey Pines. We discussed his latest novel The Franchise Babe, and branched out to Ben Hogan, Tiger Woods and the profession he helped define.

One of the first items that came up was pants. Or rather short pants. He said there never has been a great sportswriter who wore shorts. Wearing his trademark khaki slacks, he said:

Who is the best the sportswriter who wore shorts? I keep trying to envision Grantland Rice or John Lardner in shorts. It never occurred to me to wear shorts. I’d look too silly to wear shorts.

Thankfully, I wasn’t wearing shorts on that day. But I do break out the shorts more often than not on those hot days during a tournament. Guess that disqualifies me as a great sportswriter.

Not that I, or anyone else, would be in his class.

Anyway, enough from me. Here are some excerpts from my interview:

One-liners: The best humor is bound with truth. I never wrote a line in my life I didn’t believe. I never wrote a joke I didn’t believe. It wasn’t a question of being funny. It comes natural, the way I see it.

On his idols: I was greatly influenced by my heroes, Runyans, Lardners. I wish I had John Lardner’s talent to tweak but not bleed. A few times, I drew blood and didn’t mean to. I don’t think these guys in here (current sportswriters) ever read that stuff.

His novels: I write the same book every time, just change the names. I’ve never been in a war. I couldn’t write about that. I worked in press boxes. I knew athletes. I wrote about that.

Access back then: I knew everybody. I knew Hogan better than anybody. Knew Jack, knew Arnold. I was friends with them. We had dinner with them. They would tell you things they knew you wouldn’t write. There was a relationship.

Let’s say it was a regular tour tournament. The Jackie Gleason. You’d go into the coffee shop and you might see Sam Snead sitting by himself. You’d join him. He’d enjoy the company. That doesn’t happen anymore. You miss a lot of good stories. You miss a lot of deep background. You miss knowledge.

There was a camaraderie We were always in the lockerroom. You don’t have that anymore. I miss the connection.

Covering Ben Hogan: He was misunderstood to the extent he was shy. Very shy. He didn’t suffer fools. If you didn’t understand the game, he didn’t want to talk to you. He knew I understood the game. When I went to a tournament, I’d write two stories. The main story and Hogan, no matter what he did.

I’d walk all 18 with him. He knew I was there. If he had a bad round, he knew I’d be there to ask him about it. It was fun. A great privilege. I was very lucky. If he wasn’t around, I might still be in Waco.

Covering Tiger Woods: I can’t talk to him. I don’t know him. I tried for 10 years to get a one-on-one. You know what (Woods’ agent) Mark Steinberg says? ‘We have nothing to gain.’ I said Mark, ‘You can read it before you print it. We’ll take things out.’ He says, ‘We have nothing to gain.’ Can you believe that?

Covering college football: (When he joined Sports Illustrated in 1962) They asked why do you want to cover college football? I said because I know more about it than anyone here. If you grew up in Texas, it was either college football or drowning.

I changed the way they cover college football. In those days, when Sports Illustrated covered college football, it was Yale-Harvard. It was a social thing. I said there’s this thing called No. 1. And we should gear our coverage to the big game of the week.

Success of Semi-Tough: It was good news, bad news. I made some dough. It helped my lifestyle. But it was the reason why they (SI) moved me to pro football. They said, ‘You’ve got this fuckin’ best-seller on pro football. You’ve got to cover pro football for us.’ I hated it. I didn’t respect it. It wasn’t as much fun to me as college football.

On daughter Sally becoming a noted columnist: We had two boys and Sally. They were all interested in sports. I didn’t say anything to Sally. She was covering the Final Four one year when she was a rookie. She told (legendary Dallas sportswriter Blackie Sherrod), “I’m going to be a sportswriter.” Blackie said, “You can go to a doctor and have it cut off.” A great line.

I love reading her column. I hardly ever find myself disagreeing with her. I say she’s the best writer in the family. Hell, she went to Stanford and I went to TCU.

His main goal: I’ve always been a beat guy. I covered college football, pro football, golf. Ruling out the seamheads in baseball, it’s hard to find anybody who wants to be a caretaker of the sport. I always wanted to take care of the sport. I wanted to caretake golf. I wanted caretake college football. Tell things to people they didn’t know. Inform them.

Last word: To the people who say I’m an old curmudgeon, I say you’re right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great Dan Jenkins to be inducted into Golf Hall of Fame

Posted on by

This is a big day for the fraternity. Dan Jenkins will be inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame tonight.

Don’t be surprised if Jenkins’ first line is, “What the (bleep) took you so long?”

Indeed, it is baffling why the Hall waited until Jenkins was 82 to give him this honor. He joins Bernard Darwin and Herbert Warren Wind as the only other golf writers in the Hall. At this point, this is a three-person Mt. Rushmore. Nobody else measures up.

Jenkins’ novel Semi-Tough was an instant classic, and his unique and often hysterical take on golf in Sports Illustrated and then Golf Digest left unless laughing, unless you were one of his targets.

Jerry Tarde writes in Golf Digest:

Dan taught us not to take the big guys so seriously. After Greg Norman’s  collapse at Augusta in 1996, when Norman said if he’d taken the time to study  medicine, he could have been a brain surgeon: “Maybe so,” wrote Jenkins, “but he  wouldn’t operate on this cowboy–not on Sundays, anyhow.”

Take a look at this interview with Jenkins posted on Golf Digest’s site. You’ll be glad you did.

 

Mushnick Sunday column not featured on Post’s sports site

Posted on by

Saw this tweet from Howard Bloom of Sports Business News:

Anyone notice that Phil Mushnick’s weekend New York Post column is NOT online?

Technically, Mushnick’s Sunday column is not posted on the main page of the Post’s sports site.  Mushnick did write a column Sunday, asking what would have happened if James Dolan hired New Jersey Devils GM Lou Lamoriello to run the Knicks way back when.

However, in order to find it on the Post’s site, you would have to go to Mushnick’s column page. Meanwhile, 10 other Post sports columnists (who doesn’t have a column at the Post?) are featured on the main page along with many, many other stories.

Yet not even a headline on the main page for Mushnick’s column.

Mushnick is under fire for writing in a Friday column that the Brooklyn Nets should change their name to the  “New York N——s” because they are co-owned by Jay-Z.

Now is it unusual for the Post not to include Mushnick among its roster of Sunday columnists? After all, he has a huge following, and there definitely would be room to add one more to the roll call.

Maybe there’s nothing to it. His column exists in its regular spot in the print edition.

However, if the Post was writing about this treatment for somebody else, it certainly would question, if not infer, whether the paper is trying to downplay Mushnick in the wake of Friday column. This is the Internet equivalent of being buried back with the classifieds.

Obviously, it made Bloom wonder. And perhaps Mushnick too.

Interestingly, Mushnick didn’t make any mention of the critical reaction he received in his Sunday column.