Weekend wrap: Which team will be on Hard Knocks? Tortorella an analyst?

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

*******

Hard Knocked: At Awful Announcing, Ben Koo wonders why we haven’t learned which team will be the subject of this year’s Hard Knocks on HBO. It is getting closer to training camp and still no team has been announced.

Future analyst: Given Tortorella’s edgy nature, Bob Raissman of the New York Daily News believes he will pop up as an analyst if he isn’t coaching next year.

KO: Ken Fang of Fang’s Bites believes Keith Olbermann will do a fine job as host of TBS’ postseason baseball coverage.

Quiet Hawk: Awful Announcing has video of my guy, Ken Harrelson, going into stunned silence after a Seattle grand slam tied the game in the 14th inning against the White Sox. Luckily, Sox won the game, or Hawk might not have returned to Chicago.

ESPN soccer: Colin McGowan of Sports on Earth went behind the scenes for an ESPN soccer telecast.

Ratings: Sports Media Watch has the latest on what you’re watching. Nearly 3 million viewers for Boston-Pittsburgh overtime thriller.

Looking ahead: The Courier-Post reports how the Flyers’ Danny Briere is looking ahead to a post-playing career in the media.

Looks: Isobel Markham in the Daily Beast examines the looks issue when it comes to women in sports media.

Signing off: The Sporting News’ Bob Pockrass reviews Fox Sports’ 13-year coverage of NASCAR.

Casey: In an NPR commentary, Frank Deford pays tribute to the 125th anniversary of Casey At The Bat.

EPL: In his National Sports Journalism Center column, Michael Bradley examines the deal between English Premier League and NBC Sports Network.

********

Sports Media Podcasts

Awful Announcing: Jim Miller, author of the epic ESPN book.

Sports Media Weekly: Richard Deitsch of Sports Illustrated on the NBA Finals and more and Jason Kint, Senior Vice President and General Manager of CBS Interactive.

Sports-Casters: Guests include Jeff Passan and Malcolm Kelly.

 

 

 

 

 

Inside account of covering John Tortorella: ‘First person who had both inferiority and superiority complex’

It hardly is secret that John Tortorella wasn’t a media favorite in New York. Clips from his press conferences told the story of his prickly relationship with the press.

Dave Lozo gave a deeper account of what it was like to deal with the now former New York Rangers coach. The former NHL.com writer wrote a lengthy perspective on his Tumblr page. Lozo called him, “The scariest coach in the NHL.”

Here are some of the highlights:

The grave dancing that took place after Tortorella was fired was met with mixed reactions: some saw it as the inevitable result for years of bullying reporters, others saw it as tasteless whining from people who couldn’t handle someone not answering dumb questions.

If Tortorella only gave one-word answers for moronic questions – I can probably relate a dozen stories about reporters asking why he used a timeout in a situation where it was evident he wanted to get his players a breather because of an icing during an extended shift – it would be one thing, but he could be a prick when it came to fair questions, tough questions or even softball questions he felt we writers should already know the answer to.

And…

During the 2012 playoffs, Brian Boyle suffered a concussion (another injury Tortorella simply offered to the media the night in happened) and missed three games. He returned for the Game 2 of the second round, a game the Rangers lost 3-2 to Washington. Boyle played reasonably well in his third-line role: He had one shot in 15 minutes but lost the faceoff that led to Alex Ovechkin’s game-winning power-play goal in the third period.

It was the third or fourth question of the postgame press conference in which Tortorella was clearly pissed off because, you know, the media lost Game 2: “How did Brian Boyle look out there?”

It’s his first game back, he’s been in a big part of the lineup all season, it’s a question someone was going to ask, but for this unsuspecting, unfortunate soul, it was him.

“I’m not answering that question from YOU.”

It’s hard to truly convey in words just how hateful and demeaning that sentence was. He really laid the YOU on thick, too, saying it as though if someone else had asked that harmless question, he would’ve answered, but unfortunately a complete moron I don’t respect asked so go fuck yourself, asshole.

This was the exact moment I made the executive decision to never ask Tortorella another question. It was a futile endeavor, anyway. Why waste breath on him when he’s only going to tell you what he wants to tell you and I can get better insight about the psyche of the team from guys like Boyle, Marc Staal or Dan Girardi.

And…

I’m not a psychiatrist, but Tortorella is the first person I’ve ever met who I believed had both an inferiority and superiority complex. He arrived in New York seemingly petrified of what the New York media would do to him, so he took preemptive steps to guard against them, when in reality, a standard coach/media relationship would have served him better. Like any bully, Tortorella deep down was afraid of the media, and out of that was born a four-year adversarial relationship that wasn’t even necessary in the first place.

Eventually, Tortorella stops being scary. For me anyway, it went from asking a scary coach a question to asking your crazy uncle a question to I’m going to avoid the crazy homeless man altogether and walk on the other side of the street.

Tortorella slowly devolved from curiosity to side show to full-on clown. His demeanor made him an unnecessary part of the job for many writers, and his demeanor eventually made him completely unnecessary to the New York Rangers.

 

 

Posted in NHL

Will Van Gundy return to coaching next year? ‘I don’t look too far ahead’

Jeff Van Gundy may be one of the best analysts in the business, but he still thinks of himself as a coach. It wouldn’t be a surprise if the NBA Finals are his last games behind a microphone for a while if the right opportunity arises.

Van Gundy sounded a bit itchy during a conference call earlier this week.

Q.  How would you evaluate where you are regarding a possible return to coaching against staying in broadcasting?

VAN GUNDY:  Well, you know, I think when you’re talking about broadcasting, I’ll never feel as comfortable broadcasting as I do in coaching because I’m just not ‑‑ I’m still a novice at it.  Thankfully I work with the Tim Duncan of broadcasting in Mike Breen; his understated greatness really helps out a novice like myself.

You know, as far as coaching, in particular, listen, if anything ever makes sense for a team and for myself where there is a fit of vision and values, I’d obviously consider it.  And ESPN has been, you know, so generous in allowing me to do that.

But I also realize just how good I have it with the job I have right now.  I don’t take that for granted.  I enjoy working with the people I work with.  I enjoy being around the game.  I’ve just been a big beneficiary of Mike and Tim, the producer, to help me try to get a little bit better every year.

Q.  If you had to sort of go with your gut today, do you imagine you’ll be back in broadcasting next year?

VAN GUNDY:  Well, you know, that’s the job I have right now, so I would think so.

One thing I’ve learned is I don’t look too far ahead.  I don’t try to plan my life out.  I have enough trouble getting ready to go to the airport today.  So for me to plan too far ahead, I don’t do that.  I just enjoy what I’m doing.

My dad gave me good, sound, solid advice when I was coming out of college, and he always told me, “Don’t worry about your next job.  Just do the job you have as well as you can.”  That served me pretty well and I’m trying to stick with that.

Q.  The fact that you have gotten enjoyment in broadcasting and stayed close to the staple, has it made it easier for you to stay out of coaching?

VAN GUNDY:  Well, the thing about broadcasting is the lifestyle of broadcasting is great.  Like you said, you get to stay around the game.  Now, it’s not as rewarding to me as coaching, but it’s also not as disheartening at times, either.  So you have a more even‑keel lifestyle I think.  That’s been great.

Like I said, I’m more than fortunate, more than fortunate with the job I have.  I love to watch NBA basketball.  I love to talk NBA basketball.  And to the irritation of others, I like to talk about how I think NBA basketball can improve its game, too.  Like I said, I’m very, very fortunate.

Q.  There was a report yesterday that talks with the Clippers had become, quote, I think dormant, was the word.  I wonder if you can touch on your interest in that job and also what about that job is so interesting

VAN GUNDY:  Well, I made it my personal and ever‑changing philosophy to really stay away from specific questions about jobs.  I think if individual teams want to talk about their job searches, that’s great.

But for me, I don’t think it does myself or any teams any good by me being out there and talking about interest level or their interest level or anything like that.

But the Clipper job in general is a great job.  I think you have seen with their acquisition of players, they have done a good job building their roster.  Obviously it’s imperative that they re‑sign Chris Paul, and it seems like that will happen.  They have great practice facility, great arena, a fan base that has really grown and swelled.

And so to me, they are coming off a record‑breaking year win‑wise, road win‑wise, won their division, and just met a very, very good Memphis team in the first round.  And Blake Griffin gets a little banged up, and it doesn’t take much to swing the tide in these playoff series that are so tight and so close.

Posted in NBA

CBS’ Peter Kostis discloses he had surgery for colon cancer; ‘Excellent prognosis’

Peter Kostis issued the following statement today:

“As many of you know, I have been absent from the last few CBS Sports golf telecasts. I fiercely try to keep my private life separate from my public life, but after hearing John Kruk talk about his testicular cancer last Sunday during the Red Sox-Yankees game, I decided to share my situation in hopes of spreading awareness of colon cancer.

“I am currently home recovering from successful surgery for colon cancer. It was detected early during a regular physical and colonoscopy. My great team of doctors in Phoenix will be putting me through preventative chemotherapy. Because of early detection the prognosis for a full recovery is excellent. I had zero symptoms or family history.  I urge everyone, if you are over 50 get a regular colonoscopy exam whether you think you need one or not.

“I thank all of you who have sent messages, thoughts and prayers for a speedy recovery. I also want to thank my CBS Sports family, CBS management, the whole golf crew, and announcers have been fantastic in their support. I’ll be back as soon as humanly possible. In the meantime, please get checked out!   Thank you, Peter.”

 

Koblin story on Steve Phillips; Flawed culture at ESPN; shows revenge journalism practiced by Deadspin, New York Post

Deadspin’s John Koblin dropped a long story today on the Steve Phillips mess at ESPN.

In a nice bit of enterprise reporting, Koblin reviewed the open court documents in Brooke Hundley’s lawsuit against ESPN. If you recall, Hundley was the young ESPN employee who had an affair with Phillips, which eventually cost him his pretty terrific job in Bristol.

Koblin writes:

That case was set to go to trial early last month in Stamford, Conn., before an 11th-hour settlement ensured there would be no courtroom airing of ESPN’s messy underthings. As of early April, however, the case file was still open—thousands of pages of material in all, including depositions, heavy-breathing text messages from Steve Phillips, stern notes from the human-resources department, and panicky internal ESPN emails sent the morning the Post broke the story of the romance. (The account above, of the first kiss between Phillips and Hundley, is taken from Hundley’s deposition.)

Koblin delves deeply into all the sordid details between Phillips and Hundley. You might want to clean yourself off after reading it.

A couple of takeaways:

The piece definitely showed why the culture had to change at ESPN. It concludes with this passage:

An ESPN source told me that the company handles intra-office romances more “promptly and seriously” since the Phillips-Hundley affair. The fallout from the scandal, the source added, “taught the company it had to have a no-tolerance approach, which they hadn’t really had before.” (Well, almost no tolerance. Ex-jocks “live in a different space,” the source said. “They are much more likely to be protected and their behavior characterized as ‘boys being boys.'”)

“People are much more careful,” the source said. “People were scared straight because the administration said that employees had to disclose personal relationships with each other, as a result of the Phillips thing.”

The sexless sex scandal came to affect everyone at ESPN, not just the two lovers who were not having sex with each other. “Phillips/Hundley didn’t have a chilling effect on the ESPN culture,” Miller said. “It created an ice age.”

The other takeaway is how an angry New York Post and Deadspin exacted revenge on ESPN. Koblin writes:

When the Post story broke that morning, Daulerio felt he’d been misled by ESPN a few weeks earlier. So, just after noon, he posted the following:

[S]ince the tenuous connection between rumor and fact for accuracy’s sake has been a little eroded here, well, it’s probably about time to just unload the inbox of all the sordid rumors we’ve received over the years about various ESPN employees. Chances are, at this point, there’s some truth to them. We’ll just throw ’em out there and see how many “no comments” or, you know, actual comments or “you would be completely wrongs” there are about these situations. Consider this one giant all-day version of “Deleted Scenes” or something.

Coming up first…ESPN “personality” Erik Kuselias.

So, Bristolites, strap in — it’s gonna be a long day.

Throughout the day, Bristol dealt with two crises that were unfolding simultaneously: 1) The Phillips-Hundley scandal; and 2) Deadspin’s running “ESPN Horndog Dossier.” One particularly freaked-out anchor phoned Daulerio that afternoon, asking if his name had come up at all and offering to trade gossip in exchange for keeping him off the site. He was calling, he told Daulerio, from under his desk. Three posts in all were published that day. In one of them, Daulerio revealed that two executives were having an affair.

Makes you proud to be a journalist, doesn’t it?

Again, if you want to read the whole thing, be prepared to feel a little dirty afterwards.

 

 

NBA sideline reporters weigh in on Popovich: ‘My stomach is churning’

Perhaps ABC and the NBA should package the sideline interviews with Gregg Popovich as a separate show during the Finals. It will be must-see TV.

On Tuesday, I did a Q/A with Doris Burke, who revealed her “angst” in having to question the San Antonio coach during the in-game interviews. It turns out she isn’t alone in having that feeling.

Marc Stein at ESPN.com did a lengthy story talking to sideline reporters who have a similar angst in regards to Popovich.

From TNT’s David Aldridge:

“There is nothing — nothing — that I do or people that I interview that fill me with as much agita as getting ready to interview Pop at the end of the third quarter of a Spurs home game,” Aldridge said. “When San Antonio is on the road and I interview him at the end of the first [quarter], it’s much easier. If the Spurs stink it up, it’s obvious, as it is if they play well. But if they’re at home … good God.

“The whole first half, halftime, [for] the whole third quarter, my stomach is churning. What are the patterns in the game? What is obvious? What isn’t obvious? It’s cringe-inducing. I have so much respect for him as a coach and I know it’s imposing on him [and every other coach] to get them out of their thoughts [so they can] talk to me. Look, the guy has won four rings. There isn’t anything I can ask that is going to get him to go, ‘Damn, David, that’s a really good question. I hadn’t thought of that.’ “

ESPN’s Lisa Salters:

“It is very nerve-wracking. I never think of Pop as trying to make you look bad — you never take it personal because it’s just Pop being Pop — but you just know he’s going to be kind of snarky. So you’re doing your job, but you’re also thinking, ‘I don’t want to be embarrassed on live television.’ “

TNT’s Craig Sager:

“He’s sitting there with all this stuff going through his head, thinking about adjustments he wants to make and talking to his staff and how he’s going to get that message to his players, and then he has to stop and talk to, say, me,” Sager explains. “That’s what the [TV] contract calls for, but for him, I’m an irritant. I’m a nuisance. So whatever I get out of him, I’m happy to get. If it’s not exactly what we’re looking for and not what I was hoping for, I can’t blame him. He doesn’t want to be interrupted when he’s doing his job.”

And here’s the strange contradiction about the sideline reporters and Popovich. They really like the guy.

Said ESPN’s Heather Cox:

“People often ask me what Pop is like and my answer is simple. He is one of my favorite coaches. I enjoy working with him and respect him, his work ethic, his passion and his approach. I always say that he is the type of coach that I would like to play for. He treats everyone equally, knows how to get the most out of his players and commands the utmost respect.

“My feeling is, Coach Popovich makes us earn our keep. If we ask a stupid question, we will get a stupid answer. It is our job to assess the situation and tenor of the interview, know the person we are interviewing and use that understanding to prepare the most appropriate question for the specific situation. If we ask a leading or lazy question, a yes/no question or make a statement, Pop will let us know. I respect that.”

Game 1 is tonight. Let the Gregg Popovich show begin.

 

 

 

Q/A with Hub Arkush: On what happened to Pro Football Weekly; how brand still might return in some form

During its peak, Pro Football Weekly was a must-have for NFL fans. The Houston Chronicle’s Lance Zierlein summed it up in a nice tribute:

When it came to football information and updated news, nobody beat PFW for years. This was the one publication that lived and breathed football at every waking moment before there were so many outlets doing it. As a sports society, many fans transitioned from football to basketball to baseball (some to hockey) seamlessly, from season to season. The hardcore fans had a chance to follow football year-round thanks to PFW.

What made PFW cool to me back in the ’80s and ’90s was that they were able to give you an overview of the entire league, but they were still able to devote space to your own favorite team. They were unique in that way. You could get the macro and the micro view in that magazine and you always felt like you were getting info from true insiders.

Yet that was then. Yesterday in my Chicago Tribune column, I wrote about why Pro Football Weekly had to shut its doors last week. Here is more from the Q/A I did with Hub Arkush, the magazine’s editor and publisher.

What happened?

Our corporate parent (Gatehouse Media) saw us as an opportunity to experiment in new media. Something they could monetize with a popular subject that is the NFL. In 2010, they invested $2 million in the new media operation. We got everything you’re supposed to have for the next wave.

People loved everything we were doing. We were projected to have 750,000 mobile app users. We had 1.3 million. We were projected to have 150 million video views. We had 260 million. We tripled the traffic on our website.

The problem is, nobody wanted to pay for it. The initial projection was that we would get 40-60 percent in paid apps. Well, 98 percent were free. People will pay for games, but not content.

We wanted to charge 99 cents per month, or something like that. We found out that people don’t want their credit cards floating out there. We found tremendous resistance.

In video, we generated the same numbers all the big guys are trading on. You would think advertisers would line up. We sold 10 percent of what we were projected to sell.

How frustrating was it?

That’s the hard part of all this. We beat every projection in terms of content and delivery. These pay walls don’t work. Nobody wants to pay (for content).

What about the magazine?

In this marketplace, I don’t see how you can make it as a magazine. It isn’t just us. We’re no different than The Sporting News or Newsweek. The weekly print model doesn’t work.

What happens from here?

I have been contacted by people who are interested in putting together a group to purchase (the assets) and have some version of Pro Football Weekly. There is tremendous equity in the Pro Football Weekly brand. If there was a new version, it would have to be more of a daily news gathering operation.

When things get quiet in the next couple of weeks, we’ll try to figure out what comes next.

What about the legacy of the magazine?

I think about my dad (Arthur) every day. He graduated from DePaul, and even played for Ray Meyer. He went to the Sun-Times, where he was a crime reporter. (In the mid-60s), he saw the NFL merger was coming and that football was going to be popular. He had the vision. When he launched the magazine (in 1967), the only employee was his mother, Rose. She was a talented bookkeeper.

When he died in 1979, I was 25, and my brother, Dan, was 26. We had no idea what we were doing, but we knew it was a dream of his to do this. Dan and I both met our wives at Pro Football Weekly. I guess we broke the rule of not dating employees.

We did have some success. We had two principles. We believe in journalism. We believe you had to be right, honest, and fair. The second principle is that we were a family business. We wanted the readers to be part of that extended family. Whenever there was an issue that impacted the game, we approached it from the angle of what does this mean for the fans? What is best for them? I think that’s why the audience we had was as devoted as they were.

What has the past few months been like for you and your family?

It’s been a mixed bag. On the one hand, it’s been our entire family’s entire life. On the other hand, it has taken a tremendous toll on certain members of the family. It would be irresponsible not to take a step back and evaluate what we want to do.

The outpouring of support has surprised me. When you publish for 46 years, you reach hundreds of thousands in print and I suppose millions in broadcast. You don’t think about how many people are reading and listening when you’re doing it. You just hope you do it right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He’s back: Olbermann to anchor TBS’ postseason baseball coverage

This news might not go over well with some conservatives, but it is a good move for TBS. Keith Olbermann knows baseball, and he’s definitely a most interesting fellow.

Here’s the part of the Turner Sports release that focuses on Olbermann:

Olbermann, a long-time, award-winning sports and news anchor and reporter, anchored ESPN’s SportsCenter from 1992 to 1997. Most recently, he served as a guest host of MLB Network’s Hot Stove. A noted baseball enthusiast, whose long media career began in the pages of the early baseball memorabilia magazines when he was just a teenager, Olbermann previously served as a studio host for both NBC’s (1997-98) and Fox’s (1999-2000) MLB Postseason coverage. During his tenure at Fox, the MLB studio show Olbermann anchored was nominated twice for an Emmy Award, winning in 1999 for the Best Sports Studio Show. Including his hosting work, Olbermann has covered 19 World Series and 28 MLB post-seasons during his career.

Olbermann’s television career started as a New York sports reporter/anchor for CNN from 1981-84. He later returned to the network as a sports and news reporter in 2001 and 2002. In addition to his on-air work, he has written regular baseball columns during his career for Sports Illustrated, Baseball America and MLB.com.

“It’s well known that Keith is a fan of the game and when you combine that with his studio experience, keen insight and passion for baseball and its history, he’ll add a new dimension to our MLB Postseason studio shows,” Turner’s David Levy added. “We’re excited to have him join Dennis in studio, and look forward to Keith sharing his in-depth knowledge of the game, MLB teams and players with our viewers for three great weeks in October.”

 

 

Frank talk from Doris Burke on stereotypes for women in sports TV; ‘Better have thick skin’

Part 2:

I tell Doris Burke how much I admire her work.

She responds, “I appreciate you saying that. It isn’t unanimous.”

Indeed, it hasn’t been easy being a trailblazer in TV sports. As an analyst on NBA and men’s college basketball games, she has heard it all from various segments who object to a woman in that role.

Burke (link to her bio) also has faced questions from colleagues about whether she is hindering her analyst career by also being a sideline reporter, a job typically done by women.

In part two of my Q/A, Burke talked frankly about all of those subjects on the eve of serving as the sideline reporter for ABC’s coverage of the NBA Finals. In part one, she discussed the challenge of trying to do an in-game interview with Gregg Popovich.

How do you answer questions about  sideline reporters and the perceptions that those jobs go mainly to young, attractive women?

I was in a college classroom. We did a Q/A at the end of the session, and a couple of women said, “It’s ridiculous that (looks) are the only criteria they use to fill those jobs.”

My response is always the same. If you enter television, and you allow yourself to be bothered by the reasons you believe someone was hired, then you’re wasting energy. I tell young women who want to be in the business–in fact, I implore them–to be as professional as possible.

This is a visual medium. Are women evaluated differently than men? Is an attractive woman likely to get the job ahead of someone who is perceived as less attractive? Well, the answer is probably yes.

My whole thing in 23 years of being in this business is that I try to be prepared and professional as possible. I can’t worry about why this woman may have gotten the job and I didn’t. You just keep plugging. The reality is, if you don’t have a thick skin, this is going to be a tough business for you.

How do you respond to criticisms about your work?

I so appreciate you saying you think well of my work. It’s not unanimous. Opinions about announcers are very subjective. I get blown up on social media all the time. “She’s ugly.” What’s a woman doing the NBA?” “She has no credibility.”

It’s the nature of it. People will like you or hate you. If you allow that to bother, boy…

My kids get more upset about it than I do.

Really, you’re telling me the criticism and cheap shots don’t bother you?

I’m not going to sit here and tell you it doesn’t hurt. We all want to be well liked. We all want to be thought of as exceptional on the job.

Does it hurt? Of course it does. But it can’t have an impact when you go to do a job.

How do you like being an analyst compared to a sideline reporter?

Yeah, it’s an entirely different job. I have come over the course of time to appreciate the value of the sideline role. I grew up in the business as an analyst. Obviously on much lesser games, but that was my background. I was not a communications major. My strength always was breaking down the game. So I had to learn a few things when I was asked to do sideline work.

The first person I called was Al Trautwig. He gave me the best piece of advice. I have to remember it sometimes. He said, ‘There are going to be days when you get off the air as a sideline reporter, and you’re going to feel like you were an integral part of that telecast. In fact, you helped raise its level.’ He said, ‘There are going to be far many more nights when you get off the air and you say, ‘They just paid me do to that?'”

You have to be willing to sit there and know you researched and worked as hard as the play-by-play and color man, and you’re not going to get 90 percent of your content in. You have to be OK with it.

My preference is to be the analyst. You have far more input. You’re so much more engaged.

But the day I worked the Celtics game as a sideline reporter and Rajon Rondo tore his ACL, I had all this information and I was on all the time. That’s the nature of this assignment.

Given your work as analyst, do you come in with a level of credibility that might be higher than other sideline reporters?

I don’t know about that. I have had colleagues who have asked whether I should keep being a sideline reporter. They have questioned whether that hurts my credibility. I recently asked Jeff Van Gundy about this. I said, “I don’t think it does, but do you think it does?” He said, “Absolutely not. No way.”

Do your colleagues think you’re getting pigeon-holed as a sideline reporter?

Perhaps. I think that’s their suggestion.

Both jobs require some level of relationship of the people you’re covering. So the more Tony Parker sees me on NBA coverage in either role, he’s more familiar with the job that I do. As long as I am completely professional in both jobs, I think it helps me in the long run.

And finally, Burke talked about her roots in the business.

I’ll be honest, I was a good player at Providence College. I was an All-Big East player at a time (when the conference) wasn’t as powerful as it is today. I think it would be a lot more difficult for me to get in the business now. I was not an All-American. I was not the face of my sport, so to speak. I think those that are better known have a better chance of getting these jobs today.

I entered the business at a time (1991) when women’s basketball coverage was exploding. I had patient people who helped me overcome my mistakes and teach me along the way. I always will be indebted to Madison Square Garden. They taught me TV.

My timing was great. I feel fortunate for the opportunities I’ve gotten.