DG_Now

The Sports Media Thread

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, the admiral said:


Did you read the profile of him on The Ringer? He's the most Scorsese-Sopranos Dad who ever lived.

 

I just did. I'm almost never a fan of people who try to impress you with intensity. To me it's either an act or you're insane and then I imagine how exhausted I would be around such a person. Also, as a somewhat picky eater with weird food aversions the idea of someone shoving food at me makes me uncomfortable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two health related issues.

 

Ernie Johnson will not be working for TBS this MLB postseason due to blood clots.

 

And Matt Millen will take time off the Big Ten Network to Amyloidosis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2018 at 10:57 AM, Crabcake47 said:

It seems like ESPN had a great thing going with Tirico and Gruden (and Jaws at one point), and once they messed with that they could never find a combination that worked. 

I didn't realize anyone actually liked Gruden the announcer in the last 5 years. He was awful, calling every player the greatest thing ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I didn't realize anyone actually liked Gruden the announcer in the last 5 years. He was awful, calling every player the greatest thing ever.

I’m not saying I liked him. But he and Tirico were at least good working together I thought, plus Tirico is a great play by play guy imo. No PBP guy they’ve used since has been any good imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2018 at 5:26 PM, Still MIGHTY said:

 

This.

 

Look, I do enjoy Ringer podcasts, a fair amount of them. But here are A LOT that I delete almost sight-unseen. I skip the first 5 minutes of every single BS Podcast because all it is is saying what's on their website, which I just flat out don't visit, ever.

 

Here's another example: their obsession with "Rounders". As a movie "Rounders" is fine and it's okay to like that movie. I've seen it 3ish times, but wouldn't consider it some cultural touchstone or criminally underrated or anything. I was in high school during the poker boom and we never talked about Rounders. I would've been fine if it didn't get a 20 year reexamination and I definitely don't think it needs a sequel. Bill Simmons thinks it's this masterpiece classic movie and is constantly worried about its place in the greater consciousness. As a result The Ringer's been pumping Rounders material for like a week. I know that's driven by Simmons going "this is a great movie. I love this movie and House and Hench love this movie so that means everybody loves this movie and we're gonna talk about it." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for their Collateral podcast. They did Midnight Run, so they owe me that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DG_Now said:

I'm still waiting for their Collateral podcast. They did Midnight Run, so they owe me that.

 

They did the Miami Vice movie. They owe a lot of people a lot of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2018 at 8:57 AM, Crabcake47 said:

It seems like ESPN had a great thing going with Tirico and Gruden (and Jaws at one point), and once they messed with that they could never find a combination that worked. 

ESPN didn't "mess " with anything.  Mike Tirico decided to leave and go to NBC.  Tirico and his agent basically knew it was the right time to leave and chose the events of magnitude over being ESPN's most versatile host and MNF play by play. He now has The Olympics, The Open Championship (when he only had the first two rounds of The Masters at ESPN), Notre Dame football, and will get Sunday Night football, and likely will host the Indy 500.   

 

In 2016, Bob Costas was 64 and already on the outs with the NFL/Football Night In America after his 2012 gun control commentary during halftime and NBC knew they needed a plan going forward after Costas contracted pink eye in Sochi. Costas also later said that he knew Rio was his last Olympics.    Al Michaels was 73 and is going to retire sometime.  Tirico was 49 at the time.

 

Then ESPN got hit with a surprise five weeks later that Brad Nessler, who would have been tapped to replace Tirico on MNF, would go to CBS a year before Verne Lundquist retired from the SEC on CBS.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dfwabel said:

ESPN didn't "mess " with anything.  Mike Tirico decided to leave and go to NBC.  Tirico and his agent basically knew it was the right time to leave and chose the events of magnitude over being ESPN's most versatile host and MNF play by play. He now has The Olympics, The Open Championship (when he only had the first two rounds of The Masters at ESPN), Notre Dame football, and will get Sunday Night football, and likely will host the Indy 500.   

 

In 2016, Bob Costas was 64 and already on the outs with the NFL/Football Night In America after his 2012 gun control commentary during halftime and NBC knew they needed a plan going forward after Costas contracted pink eye in Sochi. Costas also later said that he knew Rio was his last Olympics.    Al Michaels was 73 and is going to retire sometime.  Tirico was 49 at the time.

 

Then ESPN got hit with a surprise five weeks later that Brad Nessler, who would have been tapped to replace Tirico on MNF, would go to CBS a year before Verne Lundquist retired from the SEC on CBS.  

Okay that’s interesting. I never knew about that. I knew Tirico went to NBC at some point but I didn’t know the circumstances behind it. Thanks for clarifying ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

Here's another example: their obsession with "Rounders". As a movie "Rounders" is fine and it's okay to like that movie. I've seen it 3ish times, but wouldn't consider it some cultural touchstone or criminally underrated or anything. I was in high school during the poker boom and we never talked about Rounders. I would've been fine if it didn't get a 20 year reexamination and I definitely don't think it needs a sequel. Bill Simmons thinks it's this masterpiece classic movie and is constantly worried about its place in the greater consciousness. As a result The Ringer's been pumping Rounders material for like a week. I know that's driven by Simmons going "this is a great movie. I love this movie and House and Hench love this movie so that means everybody loves this movie and we're gonna talk about it." 

He was obsessing over Rounders five or ten years ago when I used to read his stuff at ESPN. I can’t belive he’s still on it. I’ve never seen it, but it can’t be worth the fuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

05-FOX-L.png

 

Wonder why Cape Girardeau picked up the Rams game when even St. Louis picked up Vikings-Eagles. Does McCall play for the Rams?

 

EDIT: to be more and also less precise, that is actually the Paducah-Cape Girardeau-Harrisburg-Mt Vernon television market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, the admiral said:

05-FOX-L.png

 

Wonder why Cape Girardeau picked up the Rams game when even St. Louis picked up Vikings-Eagles. Does McCall play for the Rams?

 

EDIT: to be more and also less precise, that is actually the Paducah-Cape Girardeau-Harrisburg-Mt Vernon television market.

Must be for former Hilltopper Tyler Higbee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There we go, that makes sense. Albuquerque carried Bears games for many years because of Brian Urlacher. But the weirdest case of favorite-son coverage was when Darin Erstad led a radio station in small-town North Dakota to carry the Angels. I don't think there have been many cases of single players extending radio networks, and certainly not players of such modest renown as Darin Erstad. Mike Trout, I'd get, but.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect illustration of one of my issues with the current version of the Bill Simmons Podcast is the latest episode.

 

Episode title: "The Next NBA MVP With Ryen Russillo and Kevin O'Connor, Plus John C. Reilly"

Length: 1 hour, 36 minutes

NBA MVP Discussion: 30 mins

John C. Reilly conversation: 1 hour

 

Why is this not just the John C. Reilly conversation? How is an hour-long conversation the "plus" of a hour and a half podcast? Why does the John C. Reilly conversation need to be prefaced by an NBA MVP odds conversation? I almost deleted this one straight away before I looked in further and saw, oh, this is actually the John C. Reilly conversation. Because when you see the podcast in the lists, you see "The Next NBA MVP with Ryen Russillo and Kevi..." You'd have no idea that 2/3 of this is an acting conversation with Reilly.

 

He did this a little while ago with the Jason Bateman podcast, except the opposite.

 

Title: "Jason Bateman on His Crazy Career, Plus Mallory Rubin on Football and 'Thrones'"

Length: 1 hour, 48 minutes

Rubin: 27 minutes

Bateman: 1 hour, 21 minutes

 

Here, Bateman is the star of the main title, makes sense. But the podcast starts with the "plus" discussion. If I'm clicking on this podcast based on what you see initially, I see "oh, Jason Bateman, that sounds interesting" and then you start listening, and you're like "who is this buzzard squawking about Clemson and direwolves?"

 

This happens all the time, but those were the ones that stood out to me. As someone trying to consume your product, they make it hard to know what the product I'm consuming actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a podcast, there are no rules. Why not just make them separate episodes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They want people to be able to place bets? I don't know. I liked both halves of the podcast.

 

Simmons is pretty good at celebrity interviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deadspin has published two big pieces on why Kobe Bryant should be getting more scrutiny for his Denver rape trial in the light of MeToo and everything else. The first was after he got the Oscar, and the other one last week. There has not been any Cosby moment with newfound outrage about this. Either everyone's accepted that he was innocent, or Bryant really does get a pass for this. Or just nobody cares about Deadspin articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kobe got about as out in front of it as he could, given the circumstances. I think by admitting that it was a heat-of-the-moment misunderstanding of consent, giving her a ton of money, and generally staying out of trouble since then, he closed the book. And I wonder whether maybe people have forgotten what an exhaustive story that trial really was. Daily coverage on ESPN and sometimes beyond. It's hard to think about going back to it because what could we not have gotten to the first time around? 

 

Remarkable about the Bryant piece -- the more recent one -- is that the author assailed the shallowness of the NBA's faux-progressive marketing strategy with no acknowledgment of Deadspin's loyal partnership in that marketing strategy. When I think about who's shoving down my throat that the NBA represents everything in sports that is good and pure and woke, it's Deadspin who comes to mind first, second, and third. I'm glad they said what I've been saying for a while now, that pro sports are not woke and can only fall on a spectrum running from amoral to immoral, I was just surprised, is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kobe on Deadspin stuff caught me by surprise as well, for similar reasons. Kobe was the number one story back in 2003/2004 and he lost all of his sponsorship deals. It's not like he wasn't put through as big a wringer as existed back then because he absolutely was. And, beyond that, it does raise the question if rehabilitation is possible. And I hesitate to say that -- rape is awful and terrible and generally not limited to just once -- but if Kobe was being forthright about his understanding of the events and it was just a big mess (ugh I hate myself now), then does he get to be "forgiven." Or, lacking that, do we move on?

 

I don't know. More players have done worse. Including guys we love. Even white guys.

 

But going after Kobe so many years later...for what? Because we don't have enough to be angry about? Seems like a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now