Monthly Archives: December 2012

Marcus Allen: New NFL Network documentary features ups (great runs) and downs (feud with Al Davis)

Posted on by

Next up on A Football Life: Marcus Allen (Wednesday, 8 p.m. ET, NFL Network).

Here’s a link to the preview.

The essential information:

“If God put one person on this earth to be a professional football player, it would have been Marcus Allen.” – Marty Schottenheimer

As a Heisman Trophy winner, a first-round pick, a Super Bowl and league MVP, and a Pro Football Hall of Famer, running back Marcus Allen is one of the most talented and decorated players in football history.

NFL Network’s Emmy nominated series A Football Life continues Wednesday, December 12 at 8:00 PM ET with a chronicle of Allen’s football career, from his time as a two-way star at Abraham Lincoln High School in San Diego, California, to becoming the first running back in college history to rush for more than 2,000 yards in a single season at USC, and to his career with the Los Angeles Raiders and Kansas City Chiefs.

The one-hour documentary includes a sitdown interview with Allen, who describes his football life extensively, including the tumultuous relationship he had with the late Raiders owner, Al Davis. Additional interviews include former teammates Ronnie Lott, Howie Long, Jim Plunkett and Matt Millen, broadcaster Al Michaels, former Raiders Director of Player Personnel Ron Wolf, and Allen’s parents, Harold and Gwendolyn Allen.

Marcus Allen: A Football Life also includes footage from Allen’s interview with Michaels on December 14, 1992 for Monday Night Football in which he spoke publically regarding his relationship with Davis at the time, as well as Allen lighting the flame in honor of Al Davis in Oakland in September, 2012.

Marcus Allen: A Football Life includes interviews with the following people:

Marcus Allen

Harold “Red” Allen – Marcus’ father

Gwendolyn Allen – Marcus’ mother

Marty Schottenheimer – Kansas City Chiefs head coach, 1989-98

Ronnie Lott – Teammate of Marcus at USC and with the Raiders

John Robinson – USC head coach, 1976-82, & 1993-97

Howie Long – Raiders defensive end, 1981-93

Al Michaels – Broadcaster

Ron Wolf – Former Raiders Personnel Director

Jim Plunkett – Raiders quarterback, 1979-87

Matt Millen – Raiders linebacker, 1980-88

Terry Robiskie – Raiders assistant coach, 1982-93

Carl Peterson – Chiefs general manager, 1989-2008

Tim Grunhard – Chiefs center, 1990-2000

Emmy-nominated actor from CBS’ The Good Wife, Josh Charles, narrates.

Following are select quotes from Marcus Allen: A Football Life:

– “If God put one person on this earth to be a professional football player, it would have been Marcus Allen.” – Marty Schottenheimer

– “There are two types of players: those who know and those who don’t. The smartest ones usually play the longest and [are] usually the most successful.” – Marcus Allen

 – “I never quite understood what made things go bad. To me, the whole thing was a waste of great talent and energy. If you don’t like me, let me go.” – Allen on his relationship with Raiders owner Al Davis

 – “He never complained. He knew that there was a sacrifice to be made for this team.” – Ronnie Lott on Marcus Allen playing fullback at USC

 – “There wasn’t one aspect of playing the position that Marcus didn’t excel at. You could name 20 running backs who were bigger, stronger, faster. You couldn’t name two or three running backs who were as versatile.” – Howie Long

 – “I can recall talking with Al about Marcus and he felt at some point that Marcus was getting bigger than the Raiders. He had a hard time with that because it was always about the Raiders. Whatever the split was, that caused that.” – Ron Wolf

 – “Al took him from a Hall of Fame running back and turned him into a fullback for Bo [Jackson]. Marcus did it, but we would go, ‘Why are we not using this guy?’ We knew something was up.” – Matt Millen

Skipper defends ESPN: Standards of journalism are at highest order

Posted on by

It’s been open season on ESPN of late. John Skipper has decided to fight back.

In an interview with John Ourand of Street and Smith’s Sports Business Daily, the ESPN president reacted to mounting criticism from various outlets (Deadspin, Awful Announcing in particular) that the network’s journalistic standards have been reduced, and that its brand has been diminished by an endless array of debate shows, headed by First Take.

The always candid Skipper clearly thinks enough is enough. “The brand’s never been stronger,” he said.

Regarding standards:

We have standards of journalism that are at the highest order. There’s a separate question, which is, ‘Are we adhering to them?’ But at least our intention and what we publish is that we are going to adhere to high standards. We don’t discourage the scrutiny, we welcome it. Generally, we react to it….

We started Front Row so we could be a little more transparent. I don’t think anybody responds more or has higher standards. So I reject the overall criticism that we’re not doing this stuff.”

On whether ESPN goes soft with its league partners:

The thing that makes me angriest is that ESPN has a conflict. Give me three examples where we pulled up. I think that we did a comprehensive story on stadium and arena food standards and found about one quarter of the stadiums to be deficient in terms of their health standards. I don’t recall anyone else doing that or being in that much conflict with all of their partners. I think I remember a whole week of stories about the concussions in the NFL. But people still write it as a matter of fact, ‘Of course, ESPN’s not leading the way in writing about concussions.’ Other than the N.Y. Times, we’ve clearly been the most aggressive on that. Talk to David Stern about whether he thinks we pull up on stories.

And here’s my favorite. Regarding criticism of First Take:

It’s just another show. It’s not journalism. Nobody goes, ‘Gee, look how awful it is that CBS does these awful reality shows. Doesn’t that taint their great news organization?’ We have seven networks. There’s 8,760 hours per year. We’re programming 50-60,000 hours per year. … But people say, ‘Gee, that awful debate that you’re doing, how can the great ‘SportsCenter’ coexist with the debate of ‘First Take.’ I don’t know, how do infomercials coexist with the great journalism they’re doing someplace else? We’re not a micromanaged place. Jamie Horowitz is the producer of ‘First Take.’ He’s gone in a direction that’s working. Ratings are up.

So here’s my question: Who’s going to be the more upset? Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith over Skipper comparing them to “awful” reality shows; or with the polarizing hosts, reality shows being compared to First Take?

Given the way Skipper spoke out, I’m sure he would have no problem holding his own on First Take. Now there’s a show.

 

 

Samantha Steele: Relationship with Ponder hasn’t been a problem for ESPN

Posted on by

I’ve seen enough movies to know that love happens under unusual circumstances. Samantha Steele’s relationship with Christian Ponder has been anything but usual.

Steele, in her first year as host and sideline reporter for ESPN, has faced scrutiny ever since it was disclosed that she was dating the Minnesota Vikings quarterback; they now are engaged. It is generally frowned upon by women sports reporters to go out with athletes.

In an interview with SI.com’s Richard Deitsch, Steele said that her relationship with Ponder does not conflict with her role at ESPN.

From the post:

Steele said she told her bosses and colleagues about the relationship early  on, and inquired of her agent how she should approach things regarding any  journalistic landmines. She said she would reconsider her assignment if she  believed her relationship with Ponder posed a conflict editorially.

“I don’t do anything in the same circles professionally as him,” Steele said.  “When it comes to doing my job and covering the sports that I cover and doing my  best to do that with journalistic integrity, there has not been a single time  where that has ever come up and been a problem. I understand what you are saying  in the sense that there has never been something as clear-cut as this, but I did  not invent this wheel. This has definitely gone on before. The main thing for us  is we were going to be honest about this situation once we realized this was the  real deal. Obviously, I had zero interest in people knowing about it, but once  people started asking I certainly was not going to lie.”

ESPN expressed its take early this year, saying via a spokesperson:  “Regarding any policies, we expect any commentator to raise any relationship  that could be a conflict with the sport they cover. This does not fit that  scenario as she covers college football.”

The relationship probably precludes Steele from covering the NFL as long as Ponder still is playing. That might not be a problem for long if Ponder doesn’t step up his game. He has failed to throw for more than 100 yards in each of his last two games.

 

 

 

Sporting News prints final magazine after 126 years; web site still continues

Posted on by

It was inevitable.

After the 126 years, The Sporting News is printing its last magazine. One of the great traditions in sports is yet another casualty of the modern news era.

The Sporting News, though, isn’t going away. It still will exist at Sportingnews.com.

Here is the official statement from publisher Jeff Price and editor Garry Howard.

After 126 years of printing ink on paper with weekly, biweekly or monthly frequency, Sporting News will officially become a digital brand as of January 1, 2013. Based on interest expressed by a number of longtime readers, Sporting News will continue to print six highly popular, sport-specific yearbook previews in 2013—Baseball, NFL, College Football and College Basketball plus Fantasy Football and Fantasy Baseball—that will be available at newsstands across the country.

Having spoken with many of our longtime subscribers, we recognize this is not a popular decision among our most loyal fans. Unfortunately, neither our subscriber base nor the current advertising market for print would allow us to operate a profitable print business going forward.

Howard added:

“Sporting News is very much alive in the digital sports world, publishing a free daily sports App that is dynamic in nature and one of the leaders in its category on the iPad, in addition to our 24/7 web site, sportingnews.com.

“Yes, it’s a new day for Sporting News, but one that is looking toward the future and one that will help our brand reach more avid readers than ever before in its storied history.”


It’s been a while since many people thought of The Sporting News as a magazine, which is why that vehicle is fading away. It follows the lead of Newsweek, which also is ceasing its print publication.

Yet news of The Sporting News’ print demise had many of us veterans feeling nostalgic today:

@TimGrierson Reading the Sporting News as a kid made me the baseball fan I am today. I can’t imagine I’m the only one who feels that way.

The Sporting News was huge when I was coming of sports age in the 70s. Unlike the glossy Sports Illustrated, with its long articles, The Sporting News felt and read like a newspaper. Back then, the magazine still had its tradition of printing the boxscore of every baseball game. I mean, every game. I’m not sure I spent much time pouring over them, but it was something to see it all there on several pages.

The Sporting News featured columnists from other towns such as Furman Bisher from Atlanta and Art Spander from San Francisco. Later, they became friends in the profession.

The Sporting News also had Jack Craig, the first sports media columnist for the Boston Globe. For many of us, it was our introduction and eventually inspiration to cover this beat.

I had one of my greatest thrills in college when The Sporting News printed my story on the Illinois basketball team in 1981. I knew I had arrived. Later when I joined the Chicago Tribune, I wrote several pieces on college football for the magazine. I always felt it was an honor to see my byline in The Sporting News.

Time marches on, and The Sporting News is making its presence felt with its web site. It makes sense to pour all of its resources into that department.

But for those of us who grew up waiting for the magazine to land in the mail box, we owe a debt of gratitude to The Sporting News. A truly great institution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.