No Nuance -- Just Pontification and Preaching

In lieu of facts and often without a timely point to be made (especially during a long offseason), college football relies on pontification and preaching in an effort to shape perceptions. It's all a power play.

Unfortunately, the media never really knows how to handle such messages or even play the game -- and that's especially so when those messages are delivered by coaches.

For many reasons -- from the desire to be first with news or an ongoing effort to secure higher ratings -- the media simply stumbles. There's no nuance or perspective. All to happy to have anything to report, the media amplifies the shouting, diminishes up the quality of the message and gives fans/viewers less as a result.

Simply ignoring the inane never seems to be an option, either.

In just the past couple weeks, there have been several examples of the approach, as well as the meaningless results.

First, no radio or TV station could avoid the booster club-style remarks of Michigan coach Brady Hoke as he playfully jabbed Notre Dame and its supporters about the end of the schools' series. He talked about the Irish "chickening out" when speaking to a group of Michigan supporters, and in this age of social media the comments got attention all over the country.

Still, the comments were intended mostly for the people in the room, and every media member who propelled them further knew that as well. So, the amplification was irresponsible.

Sure, Hoke's opinions matter but as much as he knows all the factors that play into the hiatus for an on-field football series between Michigan and Notre Dame so too does the media know that he's just making a point in a room full of die-hard supporters of his program. For the comment to go much farther beyond that is simply sloppy.

At the same time, any message delivered over and over sometimes becomes almost accepted as fact -- and that seems to be the approach of some Southeastern Conference football coaches and programs when it comes to Alabama coach Nick Saban.

Too often in recent months, rival coaches have -- again, mostly in program-specific booster sessions -- referred to him as "the devil" or even "Nicky Satan."

Again, they might be nice laugh lines, a cool jab for folks in on the joke, but it should take more for it to become news -- and unfortunately it does not. Vanderbilt coach James Franklin later apologized for his line, "Nicky Satan," but that did not stop Florida offensive line coach Tim Davis from taking a shot at a man on whom's staff he previously worked.

Said Davis when comparing Florida coach Will Muschamp (also a former Saban assistant) to Saban: "I've always wanted to work with Will. Will's got a plan. Will coached under the devil himself for seven years. I only did three. He did seven. And is DNA is not any different than Nick."

Really? You have to wonder how Davis's time served ("only did three") helped propel his career. You also have to wonder how Saban can be so evil is Muschamp's DNA is not any different.

It's just meaningless bull -- a coach talking to hear himself -- and not really news. But, barring any real context or depth, minus a story on anything related to the academics or safety of student-athletes, sports fans get such drivel instead. Sure, the comments end up on message boards after boosters parrot them when they get home from rah-rah events, but there should be a difference between message board fare and honest-to-goodness journalism.

Agreements, New Network Ensure Profits, Stability

While the on-field action at the top level of college sports might not officially be irrelevant or secondary, it certainly took a backseat to a couple of sports-media moves announced in recent weeks that have ensured the profitability and stability of intercollegiate athletics for years to come.

The long-expected announcement of the SEC Network came this week. It's a deal about longevity and revenue.

The Southeastern Conference and ESPN announced the 20-year agreement through 2034 to create and operate a multi-platform network that will launch in August 2014 and be based in Charlotte, N.C. The deal gives CBS Sports the one football game it has had each week for years (usually at 3:30 p.m. Saturday) and the rest of the inventory belongs to ESPN outlets, including the SEC Network.

According to several different sources for revenue estimates, the SEC Network could generate as much as $29 million per season per school, slightly more than the $25 million produced by the Big Ten Network -- which created the business model for conference channels that has produced huge profits and prompted imitators (such as the SEC Network).

The SEC Network could have some advantages, too.

First and foremost, there's ESPN's muscle and multi-platform promotional approach. While the Big Ten Network and partner Fox (which owns 51 percent of BTN) have set an impressive and profitable standard for such a conference channel, ESPN remains the biggest player in the big-money sports business.

In addition, the Big Ten Network has limited itself in a way the SEC Network might not. By not accepting ads for alcohol and other vices, the BTN has made money with some apparent standards. It's not clear the SEC Network would partner with such advertisers, but the SEC has never attempted to burden itself with all the academics-first and student-athlete rhetoric of its rival conference to the north.

Because ESPN has a 100-percent ownership stake in the outlet, the SEC Network could also impact everything from game selection to college football news in general -- including what gets covered and what does not. At the least, it will impact the perception of those things.

The 20-year agreement gives conference members guaranteed revenue, and a reason to stay put. Not that any school would consider leaving the SEC.

Last month, though, the Atlantic Coast Conference moved to keep its teams from departing through a similar approach -- when all current ACC members surrendered their media rights to the conference, even if they were to leave the league. Because TV money holds the key to any conference's lifeblood, that move prevents any program from exiting for the Big Ten Network or someplace else.

That approach was a bit more unexpected, an unusual, than creating a conference network, but it certainly made an impression. And it should keep the ACC together and viable -- perhaps for as long as the ESPN-SEC deal lasts. (Or at least until some other really rich conference, one like the Big Ten or SEC that has its own network, figures out a way to make a move somehow more lucrative for a school to move.)

While the ESPN-SEC agreement does not automatically result in riches for everyone involved, it's darn close, and work during the next 15 months -- as ESPN and the SEC Network iron out agreements with cable networks throughout the Southeast -- could hold the biggest key to what happens initially.

For example, Big Ten Conference officials had trouble getting some cable networks agree to carry their network (it took more than a year in some instances), but once a cable company came on board the channel could start collecting higher per-subscriber fees to carry the channel. If the rabid approach of SEC fans carries over to their cable subscribers, those negotiations could be interesting.

They'll either go quickly, because cable operators will know they need the programming to keep viewers happy, or they could become contentious and lag. In that case, it'll be interesting to see who gets painted as the bad guy in the process.

Either way, the profits will come for conference members. And with that comes a reason to embrace stability.

An Anniversary, An Apology and More

Sports media reaction has been predictable in the wake of Jason Collins' announcement that he's gay.

The free agent NBA center, who has played for a half dozen teams during his 12 years as a pro, made his coming-out announcement in Sports Illustrated this week. It's the magazine's cover story (LINK) and it ignited a to-be-expected mix of knee-jerk reaction, thoughtful response and, not surprisingly, media-on-media attacks as people shared their opinions.

Reaction on on radio and TV ranged from ignoring the information (an approach championed by satellite radio sports-talk heavyweight Chris Russo) to focused discussion, as should be expected on ESPN's usually excellent "Outside the Lines."

Still, no matter the venue, lines were drawn. And one of the early notable lines was drawn by ESPN the Magazine senior writer Chris Broussard, who left the politically correct approach at the curb when he shared his opinion on the matter. That response can be found in the first of two links below. At the same time, Broussard showed his personal opinions do not impact his reporting during a "SportsCenter" segment, visible in the second of two links below.

Broussard Video -- Opinion on 'OTL' / Reporting on the NBA

There's nothing wrong with what Broussard did in either appearance. Maybe he was too frank on a touchstone topic, but he was doing his job. And where other media members, or members of the public, fail the media and themselves is when they criticize Broussard for having an opinion. He has been open about his opinion on the matter before, and he knows the climate that exists around team sports in the United States.

Many people who cover sports, play sports or watch sports have many divergent opinions on controversial topics. Broussard should not be penalized -- in any way -- for doing his job.

Collins' announcement follows months of buildup (and some legitimate news) for the NFL Draft. In fact, the NFL (and the Collins news this morning) has relegated other potentially important and interesting sports media news to almost irrelevant or overlooked status in the past week or so.

Here's a look at some of what should stand out -- as well as a couple pieces of news sports media types have given a little too much attention.

Act: Anniversary of launch of "Wide World of Sports," April 29
React: Hardly anybody mentioned the anniversary of the first quality sports anthology show, and that's a shame. It was probably a non-starter to begin with, especially because the last episode ended in 1998 and the show probably became irrelevant as much as a decade before that, but "Wide World of Sports" created an approach, launched numerous trend-setting careers and saved a network, ABC. The show was imitated, but never successfully, and it remains a cultural touchstone as well as a piece of American  history -- because it introduced so many people in the United States to their neighbors, both near and far, competing in everything from the offbeat to world-class sports.


Act: "Monday Night Football" play-by-play man Al Michaels remains silent
React: It's been a couple of weeks since Michaels was arrested and charged with in with driving under the influence. Yes, he was barely over the legally intoxicated limit, but it's time for him to apologize. As DUIs go, his case seems mundane (though some would certainly argue there's no such thing). Still, that's the process ... make a mistake, take cover from your network's publicist and eventually apologize. It will not prevent him from doing his job, but it's interesting that it's gone this long without an apology.


Act: Love for ESPN's "Elway to Marino"
React: Another standout film in the "30 for 30" series -- an endeavor that regularly showcases the best of the all-sports network and its partners for the films. In this case, the film (and it's a film, not a documentary) was carried perfectly by agent Marvin Demoff and his meticulous notes. Every piece of archival coverage was appropriate and the interviews hit the mark as well. The commitment to reconstruct the ballroom where the draft was held in 1983 was a nice touch as well.

Act: ESPN names Robert Lipsyte as ombudsman
React: The award-winning writer and author begins an 18-month stint as ESPN's fifth ombudsman in June. He'll offer independent analysis and critiques of ESPN's work. It's a necessary role, and a position sports media types have wanted filled for months. Still, it's a position few beyond the business care about. It's an appropriate and interesting hire, but the question is how many people will notice. Then again, if he points out the gaffe's ESPN makes (especially if it continues with some of its recent problems in the past 18-plus months), Lipsyte should not have a hard time getting attention for his work.

Act: Media awaits announcement of selection committee for College Football Playoff
React: Sorry, it just seems to be much ado about nothing. People in charge will invest hundreds of thousands of dollars informing the committee, transporting the committee, housing the committee and making it's work possible and all they have to do is select the top four teams to participate in the so-called playoff system. (Keep in mind it's nothing more than a plus-one approach, but that's another topic for another day.) Honestly, the only thing a committee could do would be to cause problems. The previously existing BCS formula worked as best it could, and someone will still run those models. About the only thing a committee could do to prove it was working wold be to select a team from outside the polls' top four ... and once they do that there will be all kinds of emotional, and probably appropriate, reaction. Waiting to see who gets named to a group that has, at most, a ceremonial role -- or should have only a ceremonial role -- seems much ado about nothing.

NFL Draft Offers Proven, Reliable Reality TV

It was the first and it remains the best. In the world of sports, as in the world of reality television, the NFL Draft holds an unrivaled position.

From Thursday through Saturday, with start-to-finish coverage on two networks (ESPN, NFL Network), the draft will attract viewership that dwarfs just about every other sporting event on TV -- except for NFL games themselves.

The draft is a near-perfect, made-for-TV event, with established stars from college football up for grabs, a reliable schedule, with predetermined time periods between selections, and a rooting interest for dozens of different fan bases. It works as something a hard-core fan could watch from beginning to end, and it works as background noise -- providing regular news and easy-to-find entry points for viewers to get information whenever they want.

Both ESPN and NFL Network will provide on-screen tickers of players selected by team as well as by position. With viewers used to on-screen information now more than ever, they'll be able to see who was just picked, who picks next, and who remains as the best available talent, according to the networks' respective experts.

In addition, thanks to cooperation from the broadcast partners and the NFL, viewers even get a play-along, top-down approach to the selection process. Never mind breaking any news, neither ESPN nor the NFL Network plans to have its reporters reveal picks before they're announced by the commissioner during the first round Thursday or the second round Friday.

After that, though, news might come without having to originate from the mouth of a league official first.

Still, most viewers (87 percent, according to a poll by Sports Business Daily) like the approach. It might  be ceding control to the league, but fans appreciate and trust the TV approach that has been crafted and protected by the NFL and its partners in regard to the draft.

They should, too, because the NFL does the draft well.

Great Guide
No one who writes about the draft and what to expect on TV does it as completely, or as well, as Richard Deitsch of Sports Illustrated. His preview of what to expect, and some strong opinions about who to watch and why, follows.
LINK: Media Circus

Fox Remembers Pat Summerall

TV Viewer(s) Drive Masters Penalties, Storylines

A vigilant TV viewer pointed out the mistake and prompted what became the most prominent story entering the third round of the Masters.

During the second round Friday, Tiger Woods apparently took advantage of an improper drop on the 15th hole. By signing an improper scorecard after the round, he would typically be disqualified.

Tournament officials said the matter was not that simple.

While those officials immediately reviewed the matter (based on the TV viewer's call) and reached a decision that Woods did not violate the rule, a second caller pointed to Woods' answer during a post-round interview that he had dropped farther back from the original spot on purpose to give himself a better shot -- basically admitting a violation.

When Masters officials were made aware of that, they scheduled a Saturday morning interview with Woods, talked about the situation and levied a two-stroke penalty -- dropping him from three strokes off the lead and tied for fourth to five strokes behind and tied for 17th.

One long-followed, traditional golf rule (Rule 26, which would've prompted the disqualification) was in apparent contrast with another (Rule 33, which prevents after-the-fact penalties) in the situation. Still, with Woods' admission about his mindset in the situation, many golf purists believe he should withdraw because of his intent.

"He unkowingly broke a rule, but he knowingly took and advantage. It casts a dark shadow over the proceedings," Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee said. Chamblee said it was not a matter of disqualification but withdrawal, adding that Woods had a chance to do something bigger than his golf game, acting as a leader in the game by pulling himself from competition.

Still, there was hardly any unanimity on the matter. For every expert or former player who wanted to talk ethics and golf tradition, there was another who pointed to Rule 33, which was implemented just two years ago at least in part to protect players from mistakes later revealed through TV. Conversely, those supporting Woods believed the two-stroke penalty was more than enough.

Beyond the viewers who pointed out the rules violations, there were many others to consider. While CBS Sports officials were not part of the discussions (nor should they have been), the millions who would watch the final two rounds of the Masters certainly had to be a consideration. With Woods, they would have a reason to watch. Without him, they would have a reason to do almost anything else.

Ridley said Woods, the world's No. 1 player, was not given special treatment.

"We felt it might have been prejudicial to Tiger if we had not given him the benefit of the doubt. I can't control what the perception might or might not be. This tournament is about integrity," Ridley said. "If it had been John Smith from wherever, he would have gotten the same ruling -- because it is a good one. I hope it sets good precedent, because I think it was a good decision."

If nothing else, the incident again shows the importance and power of TV viewers. Those two calls, one after Woods shot on the 15th hole and the other after his interview with ESPN's Tom Rinaldi, are typical for golf. Ridley said tournament officials get dozens of calls each year, and that they follow up on every one.

TV also played a role in the other high-profile rules matter during the second round.

Because players have been pushed to play more efficiently in order to keep things moving for TV, that led at least in part to the slow-play violation for the group including 14-year-old Tianlang Guan.

While his playing partners and some others feel bad about the penalty for the youthful player, the rule was applied as it should have been. It exists to help golf build a more TV-friendly profile, though, and that's not a bad thing.

Of course, when a sport -- and especially one big-name player -- attracts a big TV following, the rules and how they apply can sometimes become a matter of debate.

Balance, Facts Lose to Immediacy, Judgment

Forget balance. Never mind context -- even facts. And, perspective? No way.

Too often those things get lost, even by some respected sports journalists, when people feel the need to chime in, jump on or simply react.

The latest examples come in regard to the major NCAA basketball stories of the past week.

First, in the aftermath of the appropriate coverage of Mike Rice's coaching methods and eventual firing at Rutgers, one important sidebar story was lost and a second developed that has blossomed and earned even more attention.

First, the apparent money-grab request by former RU assistant coach Eric Murdock was overlooked. The practice tapes showing Rice's actions first became available to university administrators through Murdock, who threatened to make them public unless he was compensated (apparently asking for as much as $950,000). 

Sure, that was a secondary story to Rice's tactics, but it was almost ignored for more than a week. Even though many sports fans knew the blackmail story was out there, it seemed of little interest to media members more interested in assessing blame or finding someone at fault. It was just as compelling, but there was no tape (no smoking gun) to drive the Murdock story home with a general audience.

Instead, the story of the day, and days, after Rice was rightfully fired was blame. Never mind that it was clear Rice was most at fault.

Fueled by many in the media, athletic director Tim Pernetti lost his job as well -- despite the fact that he had been prevented from taking more serious action against Rice when he wanted because he was hampered by the university's human resource policies and legal limitations.

Worse, media members piled on with incorrect information. Never mind the facts.

That included the following from USA Today columnist Christine Brennan, a trustee at the Northwestern University who invariably has solutions for every institution of higher education in the nation when scandal breaks. On April 4, she wrote:

"There are two men who are responsible for allowing Rice to represent Rutgers four months too long -- two men who failed the students of Rutgers and their families, who failed the taxpayers of New Jersey, who failed that 2007 women's basketball team and who failed Clementi's memory. They are university president Robert Barchi and athletics director Tim Pernetti. Astoundingly, as of Wednesday night, they both still have their jobs. They still are employed by Rutgers and the people of New Jersey."

That sounds great, but it's factually wrong. Pernetti was not hired at RU until April 2009. So there was no way he could "fail" the women's team in 2007. But why should facts stand in the way of a good story?

Our fast-paced media environment just does not lend itself often enough to balance and context. It's a bigger shame when veterans who know better take the somewhat salacious route, and Bryan Burwell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Peter King of Sports Illustrated joined that group the past two days.

On ESPN's "The Sports Reporters," Burwell lamented that Louisville was taking advantage of injured standout Kevin Ware by raising money using shirts with his name and number on them to benefit a scholarship fund. It's a fair criticism, using a player for a university's gain, but it needs the context that Ware himself benefits from a scholarship (possibly in part attributable to the success of generations of basketball players before him at Louisville) and that Ware would benefit in coming weeks and months from the university's largesse in the form of free medical care for his gruesome injury. 

It's appropriate to critique the NCAA and university for taking advantage of Ware's situation, but context matters.

On Monday, King joined the trio -- and he should have been flagged for his unbalanced piling on in his weekly "Monday Morning Quarterback" column. He wrote:

Factiod of the Week That May Interest Only Me I

Between them, Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice and athletic director Tim Pernetti are due more than $2 million in contract settlements in the wake of leaving university employment.

There is something twisted about that.

Really? Something twisted? C'mon, King knows better. It's not illegal or twisted, it's called a contract. Of all, people, King who regularly writes about NFL contracts and salary cap numbers should have an appreciation that people in the upper reaches of intercollegiate athletic departments have contracts.

When they get fired, it's not as if they leave their office with only the clothes on their back and a cardboard box filled with office supplies. They get compensated.

Sure, it's might seem unseemly to some, but it's business as usual. Without that context, without making it clear that such exits happen all the time, such as when any major college or university fires a coach with time remaining on their contracts, it's an unfair and twisted way to treat Rutgers, Rice and Pernetti as well.