Not A Fan

Norm MacDonald is back on TV with
a satire sports show on Comedy Central

As if there isn’t enough sports coverage available to avid fans across the globe already, Comedy Central keeps throwing its hat into the ring of sports journalism…only to get KO’d.   

After the debut of the ESPN-parody called the Onion SportsDome this past January (a show whose luster has already faded), the relentless cable comedy channel is taking another shot with Sports Show with Norm MacDonald, which debuted on April 12.  And once again, it’s off the mark.  

The main reason for my disapproval is that with Sports Show, Comedy Central is trying to stretch the definition of “sports journalism” into something it really isn’t: a comedian making lame and even inappropriate jokes out of actual sporting news.

 

The disgusting-ness of this image sums up
MacDonald's new sports show.

Another cause of my disdain for the show is Norm MacDonald himself.  Norm is most known for his time behind SNL's Weekend Update anchor desk…from which he was fired in 1997.  His Wikipedia page notes that Comedy Central (his current employer) graciously crowned him #83 in their list of "100 Greatest Stand-Ups of All Time."  Number 83, what an honor!  Couldn’t they have chosen anyone below, say… #50 to host Sports Show?

This isn’t just a rip-on of MacDonald, but here are the plain facts: He’s awkward.  His delivery is poor and very scripted.  And frankly, his jokes aren’t funny.  Cork Gaines agrees in his critique of the show’s debut:

Norm hits us with a couple of more mediocre jokes. You know the kind. The jokes that you think are funny, but not funny enough to bother laughing. We are only four minutes in, and I am already hoping Adam Sandler will make a guest appearance…The final segment is something called "Garbage Time" with a 90-second running clock. In that period, he tells eight jokes, of which two had nothing to do with sports. But that's cool.

In the premier episode, MacDonald pretends to get a makeover to look like NBA star Blake Griffin, and then MacDonald’s voice is dubbed over Griffin’s words as he practices with a teammate.  To be honest, I did muster an audible chuckle or two when watching this clip.  However, I hate to say it, but the real cause of my laughter was more Griffin’s great acting skills (!) than MacDonald’s comedic powers.  See for yourself:

 

The other part may just be that I really have no desire to watch a sports comedy show.  It’s worthless if it doesn’t provide me with any valuable sports news…and it’s doubly worthless if it’s not even funny.  If I need a good laugh, I always know that the infinite supply of cute baby videos on Youtube is usually good for a giggle.   

Perhaps Craig Sanger put it best in his online review of Sports Show:

During his polarizing three-year reign as Weekend Update anchor on “Saturday Night Live,” mellow funnyman Norm Macdonald splintered viewers into two distinctive factions: love him or hate him.

Unfortunately, I fear more people will choose the latter after watching MacDonald's latest masterpiece.

Locker Room Lockout?

Mark Cuban is a horse of a different color.  He isn’t merely the owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks.  He’s an outspoken NBA owner, actor, dancer (with “The Stars”) and blogger.  He knows how to get his voice heard.

Cuban, the owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, thinks that
Internet reports should be banished from NBA locker rooms

Right now, sports fans are listening to Cuban’s latest complaint from his personal blog: that journalists (particularly “Internet reporters”) should be kept out of the locker room.  However, his idea is as absurd as playing basketball without…well…a basketball.  His logic doesn’t quite add up.  In his blog post from April 4, Cuban explains:

I think we have finally reached a point where not only can we communicate any and all factual information from our players and team directly to our fans and customers as effectively as any big sports website…I think those websites have become the equivalent of paparazzi rather than reporters.

Cuban says that Internet reporters are more interested in bolstering their page view numbers than actually providing valuable content, which can lead to blogs focused on rumors and off-court drama.  Cuban even turned to CNN to present his case:  

In his blog, Cuban claims that there is a sea of amateur, unintelligent and unprepared journalists roaming locker rooms across America asking “questions that make the recipient look at the person asking and either roll their eyes or wonder why that person is even there.”  Sorry Mark, but I’ll have to disagree with you on that one.  No, I haven’t spent any time in an NBA locker room lately, but I have participated in press conferences for NDSU athletics, and I’ve felt the pressure to not be the one to ask the stupid question.  Multiply that pressure by about 11, and I imagine that’s how nervous an unproven Internet reporter would feel strolling through your locker room, looking to strike up a chat with your players.    

NBC Sports blogger Craig Calcaterra addresses Cuban’s claims and supports his comrades in his own April 6 blog post:

Have any of them asked any players any “have you stopped beating your wife?” questions in the name of tabloid journalism?  If they did, they’d be laughed out of the business or kicked out of the clubhouse by media relations people for acting like idiots.      

Cuban would like to see a few less microphones in 
players' faces during post-game interviews

Furthermore it doesn’t make sense (as Cuban suggests) to wipe out actual sports journalists and replace them with tweeting NBA players and media-savvy owners…like Cuban himself.  As Yahoo! Sports blogger Kelly Dwyer explains in his response to Cuban, basketball players should focus on playing basketball, not tweeting and facebooking about their team.  Would Lebron James really be able to provide the fair, unbiased, analytical report on an NBA topic that sports fans want?

In this very blog I have accused certain sports journalists of acting like paparazzi, but this is different.  It’s easy for Adam Schefter to sit on camera in front of his bookshelf and speculate on meaningless things.  But, unlike locker room reporters, there’s nobody there to smack him if he says anything stupid.

Now, there are plenty of Internet reporters wanting to smack Cuban.    

Sports + Science= Sweetness

Stats.  They can be a sports journalist’s best friend. But if (over)used and abused, they can make an audience prefer fingernails on a chalkboard.  Stats are a touchy bunch.

Sport Science takes a unique look at the science
and engineering behind athletic performances and events

While others struggle to mend the relationships they have with the arrays of confusing numbers and decimal points, Sport Science has joined in a healthy matrimony with good ol’ statistics…and this union signifies a new and effective way to cover sports.  (All single sports broadcasters should start taking notes.)

Want to know how many decibels of noise you need to make to cause the opposing team to experience “fatigue and irritability?”  Check out Sport Science. 

Want to know whether Chicago Bears punt returner Devin Hester can run faster than an actual bear?  Check out Sport Science. 

Want to know how much your reaction time decreases after spending 15 minutes in 10-degree weather? Check out Sport Science. 

Brenkus is co-CEO of BASE productions
and host of Sport Science

Sport Science is produced by BASE Productions and originally began airing on Fox Sports Net.  But in 2010, ESPN smartly signed on, realizing the potential behind the genius of John Brenkus, BASE co-CEO, and his production staff.

Because the goal of the Sport Science series is to “uncover sports' biggest myths and mysteries by using cutting-edge technology,” the average segment is loaded with numbers and stats.  While the local sportswriter is probably saying, “Why can’t I get away with that?” Sport Science is reveling in the unchartered territory it has made for itself in the sports broadcasting world.

It’s appealing for many reasons: It’s quirky.  It’s fun.  Sometimes it’s fascinating.  But most importantly, it’s different.  Today, media consumers are on a constant quest for more in-depth, behind-the-scenes coverage.  Sport Science gives viewers information they never imagined they’d get, yet once it’s fed to them, they can’t imagine having never gotten it.  For some reason, a true sports fan’s life is more complete knowing that Cardinals wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald can indeed catch passes upside down:

But not everybody’s on the bandwagon.  Rhett Allain, a professor of physics at Southwestern Louisiana University, complained on his blog that Sport Science “kills one physicist at a time” after a segment that suggested Steelers safety Troy Polamalu is literally as fast as a bolt of lightning:

This seems to be Sport Science’s gimmick:

• Find some cool sports phenomena
• Get some number from that. Really, this could be ANYTHING that you want.
• Find some way of comparing that number to something AMAZING.
• If your number doesn’t have a good match, find a different number and try again.

Let’s face it: The average sports fan will never be able to double-check the accuracy of the Sport Science calculations. And yes, the cheesiness from Brenkus, who hosts each segment, can get a bit thick at times.  But the series can, by focusing on current stars or sporting events, actually provide unique insight into both already-explored and unexplored topics. 

Plus, we should be happy that lots and lots of stats have finally found a suitable partner.       

TMZ-ing ESPN

Schefter's NFL Insider reports on ESPN can seem
more like gossip than actual sporting news.

What is news?  What nuggets of information can actually be considered newsworthy and worth spreading to the outside world?  The definition of news has changed, and this shift has even infiltrated the world of sports journalism, as even some prominent sportscasters are getting confused.

Take, for example, ESPN’s hiring of former Denver Post sportswriter Adam Schefter in 2009.  His title: NFL Insider.  What does that really mean?  In short, it means that Schefter’s job is to dig up dirt on athletes, teams and other sports figures and make speculations about developing stories.  To put it another way, he sensationalizes things.

If someone wants to get really good at sensationalizing things, they should simply check out TMZ, a news source that specializes in celebrity gossip.  For example, the fact that Jon Cryer, Charlie Sheen’s former Two and a Half Men co-star, went to a spa with his wife (!) was headline news earlier this week.

Seeing how media consumers thrive off of the late-breaking news blurbs and all-consuming celebrity dirt, Schefter and the world of sports media has begun to mimic its tabloid counterparts.

So while the National Enquirer speculated on its Web site this week whether Sarah Palin was involved in a nude photo scandal, Schefter speculated on sportsgrid.com reasons why former New York Giants running back (and NBC football analyst) Tiki Barber might be making a comeback to the NFL:

First and foremost I think he had nothing in the world of television, that world is dried up…“[Barber] had nothing in television right now, and he is looking at this, and he’s looking at his brother Ronde, who signed a one-year extension last month with Tampa, and saying to himself, ‘I take good care of myself, I train hard.’  …If he signed some sort of veteran contract, he’s going to make more in football than he could in television right now.

It’s great that Schefter has sound reasoning.  He might even be correct in his assumptions of Barber’s intentions.  But in all honesty, Schefter has no idea why Barber wants to come back to the NFL.  Unless Schefter just got off the phone with Barber’s personal confidant, his agent or Tiki himself, we really shouldn’t care what he thinks.

Schefter’s Twitter account is now considered a legitimate news source, yet he rarely reveals the sources of his reports.  Why? Sometimes, he has no sources to report. 

In December 2009, when the Minnesota Vikings were on their way to the NFC Championship Game, cameras spotted Vikings coach Brad Childress and quarterback Brett Favre having a ‘heated discussion’ on the sideline.  No big deal, right?

ESPN brought Schefter in after the game so he could tell the world exactly what’s going on between Favre and Childress, as you can see here:



Does Schefter have any sources?  Does the story really have any significance?  At times, he does indeed have valuable reports, but all too often he merely comes across as a know-it-all NFL gossip-monger, and not a sports journalist.  ESPN (and Schefter) should start acting less like TMZ…ASAP. 

An Entertainer and an Icon

Eisen is changing the way sports news is presented

Rich Eisen is a funny guy.  Rich Eisen is slow.  And Rich Eisen is a sportscaster. 

How do these qualities fit together?  In the normal mind, they really don’t.  But in Eisen’s creative, unconventional mind, the perfect harmony of these seemingly unrelated things is exactly what has allowed him to be a famous "sports guy."  When this equation is put to action, it demonstrates exactly what a sports journalist in today’s world needs to capture in order to be successful.

An increasing number of sporting media outlets are using entertaining, slapstick tactics to relay sports news. While ridiculous gigs shouldn’t completely replace the conventional way that sporting news is presented, they are a popular and effective supplement to a ho-hum story.

For example, Eisen has embraced his God-given gift of slowness to more creatively cover a routine event: Every year since 2005, during his coverage of the NFL Combine (where rookies gather to showcase their athletic skills to scouts from NFL teams), Eisen participates in the combine’s signature event, the 40 meter dash. 

If you’ve never seen it, you must.  The slow-motion image of semi-unfit man sprinting along the sideline of a football field in dress pants, his necktie flowing in the wind as his belly jiggles makes for good TV in the eyes of a sports fan.

The stint is completely hammed up; in this year's segment, Eisen was rolled onto the field in a BodPod machine with a trumpet fanfare playing in the background.  After he completes his dash, it is replayed over and over and different athletes are super-imposed in the video, as if Eisen is racing them.  Trust me, my description is not enough; check out his dash in 2010 as broadcast on the NFL Network: 

Believe it or not, things like this are now considered legitimate sports journalism...and rightly so.  Who really cares that future NFL star Cam Newton ran his 40 in 4.58 seconds?  What’s actually exciting is that Eisen turned in his personal-best time this year!

Beyond Eisen, ESPN actually invited Usain Bolt, the fastest man on the planet, to its campus in Bristol, Conn. for a day in 2009.  ESPN staff recorded themselves racing Bolt amid hundreds of cheering employees.  That’s not news…but it is fun to watch.           

It’s true; Eisen is a funny, slow sportscaster.  But perhaps Rich’s own definition of himself, as he declared after his record race this past week, is the most accurate: “This proves I’m an entertainer and an icon!”

While his statement was rich with sarcasm, it’s actually something he, and sportscasters everywhere, should fully embrace.  Forget the facts; give me video of the two-hour chuckle-fest with Terry Bradshaw and Jimmy Johnson before Sunday’s NFL game, and I’m happy.

If you don’t like it, you can always tune in to C-SPAN.      

The Extinction of the Sports Guy

We’ve heard the murmurs, the whispers, the rumors.  They all well up into a broad statement that pierces the heart of any current or aspiring sportscaster: Sports anchors are becoming dinosaurs.

But it’s easy to incite fear with overarching generalizations that are not factually supported…and it’s working.  The Penn State Center for Sports Journalism asked sports guys if they thought “someday sports may not be a part of the local television newscast,” and 55% of the 216 respondents agreed.

Why would the guys (yes, 92% of the respondents were men) think such a thing?  It doesn’t help that news directors are seemingly nonchalant about the issue; 43% agreed that “the news director at my station does not put enough value on sports.”

When they look around, sports guys see nothing but shrinking, cutting and downsizing.  Some, like former Pittsburgh sports director-turned morning news anchor Andrew Stockey, see the writing on the wall and get out before the buzzer sounds.  According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, When Stockey started with WTAE in 1995, there were six employees in the sports department.  When he switched, there were three.  (Check for yourself whether Stockey made a smooth transition.)

To sprinkle a bit of salt on the wound: According to the State of the News Media 2010 annual report, local TV stations cut 450 jobs in 2009, not counting the 1200 lost in 2008.  That burns. 

Of course, there are numerous factors at play.  The "major trends" listed in the News Media report say that today, people are more interested in national and international topics rather than local news.  Instead of North Dakotans turning on the nightly news to check in on the Oak Grove Class B boys basketball team, they’re flipping to ESPN to see the latest "Not Top 10". 

While some aspects of journalism are shrinking, the analysis and commentary/discussion aspect of news is thriving.  For some reason, people really do care what Trent Dilfer and Herm Edwards think about any topic under the sun.  When we turn on the TV for news, we’re hearing more and more argumentation and opinions instead of good ol’ information.        

And then there’s the internet.  According to the Pew Research Center, the internet is making news more portable, personalized, and participatory. 

“[People] seem to access news when the spirit moves them or they have a chance to check up on headlines...People’s experience of news, especially on the internet, is becoming a shared social experience as people swap links in emails, post news stories on their social networking site feeds, highlight news stories in their Tweets, and haggle over the meaning of events in discussion threads.”

 The web’s instantaneous, at-your-fingertips approach is captivating people.  Meanwhile, the local sports guys have a few options: Sit at the anchor desk, waiting for 6:23 to come so he can finally do his own captivating…or go back to the drawing board.

Madden's Minions

GOOD NEWS!!  Now, NFL fans don’t need to suffer through seasons of injuries to star players, off-field drama involving past-their-prime quarterbacks, or even collapsing stadiums.

EA's simulation picked the Pack back in September

No more! That's because technology and new media are minimizing the game...and deflating the egos of sports broadcasters everywhere.  You see, the genius publishers of the Madden NFL video games can now predict the winner of the Superbowl before the season even begins, so there is no longer any need to actually play the NFL season...or for sportscasters to wretchedly attempt to make their own, human predictions of the outcomes of sporting events.

You see, back in September EA simulated the upcoming 2010 NFL season.  Eric Malinowski of Wired. com explained the results last fall:

Brett Favre may still be gunslinging up in Minnesota, but it’ll be his longtime fans in Green Bay, Wisconsin, that will celebrate a Super Bowl win this February, according to Electronic Arts. 

“We wanted to give it a shot,” Phil Frazier, senior producer of the Madden franchise, told Wired.com. “There are a lot of variables at play with multiple teams, but we wanted to see how we do this year. It was one sim, and we let the chips fall where they may.

The chips fell, to say the least.  In fact, when making its prediction before the big game, EA's chips have fallen in the perfect place six times in the past eight years. 

To be fair, there are some caveats.  First, while EA correctly picked the Packers back in September, after their more recent simulation of Super Bowl XLV, EA pulled a Brett Favre, waffling and picking the Steelers to take the cake.

Plus, EA’s 6-2 record in predicting NFL champs is based on the predictions made just before the Super Bowl is played.  We all know it’s easier to pick correctly between two teams than between 32.  But hey, 6-2 still isn’t too shabby.

We sports junkies usually turn to John Clayton or our favorite human NFL expert for pre-season predictions.  But should we now rely on Madden’s robots instead?  Maybe. Before the season began, the ESPN guys published their picks on ESPN.com and only four of the 16 correctly picked Green Bay.

Peter King, the senior NFL writer for Sports Illustrated deserves a shout-out: In September's issue he foresaw a Steelers-Packers Super Bowl…but picked the black and yellow over the cheeseheads, 33-27.  Close only counts in horseshoes.  Turns out he's a mere mortal as well, just like the rest of us.

Football is a beautiful game.  Picking the Super Bowl winner in September is a beautiful thing.  Computers predicting the outcome of entire sporting seasons months before they actually occur (stealing the thunder of sportscasters like Clayton): not so beautiful.