Bashing Berman an Exercise in Futiltiy

Since the rumor was first leaked earlier this week and confirmed not long after that, the Internet has been a-Twitter (and more) with some fans, sports media commentators and reliable contrarians complaining about Chris Berman's assignment to cover the second game of the "Monday Night Football" doubleheader Sept. 10 on ESPN.

He'll call the Chargers-Raiders matchup -- his first NFL play-by-play assignment -- with Trent Dilfer as the color commentator.

Because of his bombast, Berman has become a caricature of himself through the years. For example, his work on the mostly made-for-TV home run derby at the All-Star Game always draws criticism and his passion for the NFL invariably comes through on his studio work. Passion should not be confused with perspective, though.

Still, the rants about Berman remain somewhat without perspective as well.

Officials at ESPN have experimented with the on-air assignments for the second game of season-opening "MNF" doubleheader since its inception. Because of its late start, it's typically one of the least-watched NFL games of the season for ESPN, so cross promotion and experimentation have been the typical approach.

Others in the booth have included Mike Greenburg and Mike Golic, part of abundant cross promotion on ESPN Radio for a couple of years, and the on-air team has at times included two members and at times three.

Also, like almost every other NFL game -- or any sporting event on TV -- who's working the game does not drive viewership nearly as much as the importance or quality of the matchup.

So, while Berman might be exactly what certain critics claim -- a "disservice" or "insult" to hard-core football fans and fans of the Chargers and Raiders in particular -- he might be just what that particular 'MNF' game needs. Sure, he can be clownish, loud and unfocused but dozens of other potential play-by-play talents can bring those things to the booth as well.

Berman's presence might amp up interest in the game a little bit, which cannot hurt form the perspective of either ESPN or the league. Plus, the balanced, insightful and opinionated Dilfer should keep the broadcast from going far from football. With ESPN's talent in the directing and producing seats, the broadcast will be of expected quality there as well.

Berman, Dilfer and the production team will get a practice assignment. They'll complete a test run during the Aug. 23 Cardinals-Titans preseason game.

Complaints about Berman just seem to be much ado about nothing. He will work the game, unless he's stricken with some illness or injury before Sept. 10. He will be criticized. And he will (most likely) not impact the number of viewers in any significant manner.

So why should network officials care about the assignment or the criticism? Maybe they're giving Berman a chance he appreciates without it coming in a venue that will hurt the brand much at all.

Really, the worst-case scenario for those who dislike the assignment has to be the "what if" that more people watch the game. If Berman's debut, on a game featuring "the Raiders" (and you can hear him drawing the pronunciation of that game out right now), somehow attracts more viewers, the result might be something critics would really dislike -- another play-by-play assignment for Boomer.

Passion, Profit Make Sports Talk Appealing

Twenty-five years ago when one all-sports radio station launched in New York City, it seemed like a laughable endeavor to some. These days, with several all-sports radio networks and their affiliates across the country, the only laughter might be coming from management and ownership as they make their way to the bank.

That's at least part of the reason CBS Sports Radio plans to join the crowded field of sports-talk radio as soon as this fall. A full-fledged launch of the network will come in January 2013.

The seemingly saturated market of syndicated sports talk includes ESPN Radio, Fox Sports Radio, Dial Global, Westwood One and many others. Along with CBS, NBC recently announced its own plans to move into sports-talk radio.

It's an exciting time for on-air talent because more networks mean more opportunities and more suitors for their work.

So, while ESPN Radio typically boasts great depth in terms of it's talent, the quality of people behind the network's main on-air teams might drop in the future -- especially if certain folks depart for other networks to showcase their work and earn a bigger paycheck and more prominent role.

Unfortunately, more sports-talk radio does not mean better sports-talk radio.

While many hosts and programs have crafted a national niche with loyal listeners (and while sports-talk radio success seems systematic at points), not all find the same support. Also, having a host move from one network or station to the next does does not guarantee listeners will follow. Putting a microphone in front of a host who has had success as a regular replacement does not always work, either.

Unfortunately, when hosts and networks start searching for a way to make an impact and remain viable, style and substance often take a backseat to entertainment and information. So, instead of commentary and context, listeners could get less than they expect as sports-talk outlets continue to grow across the county. That means less thoughtful discussion and more contrived debates, rants or uninhibited callers.

Sports-talk radio has grown because it can be profitable. People -- at least a fairly large male subset of the population -- listen. They're passionate. Plus, sports, and sports talk especially, can be cheap to produce. At the local level, that means a singe board operator might be one of the station's biggest personnel expenses. And that's not a bad option for a small station that can then rely on network shows to keep people interesd.aw the ad revenue of its larger counterparts.

Unfairly Stern, Paul's Power and More

Why does one of the most powerful men in sports, and probably one of the smartest men in sports,  consistently display the thinnest skin and worst sense of timing in all of sports?

Maybe it's an ego thing. Maybe it's a never-ending need to be right.

No matter the reason, NBA commissioner David Stern almost invariably goes beyond explaining what's happening with his league or providing context -- especially in regard to potentially controversial topics -- when he deals with the media. As a result, he sounds mean and it reflects poorly on the league.

The most recent example came Wednesday during an appearance on "The Jim Rome Show" when the show's sometimes combative host asked Stern about rumors that the NBA Draft Lottery had been fixed in favor of the New Orleans Hornets, which had been owned by the league.

With all the rumors and speculation about the outcome of the NBA Draft Lottery since its inception, and especially so with this year's top pick going to the Hornets, the question had to be expected. It was not unfair, either. As is typical, Stern answered the question and then chastised the person asking it. It's his usual approach no matter the network or questioner in such situations.

Of course, because Rome has built is career in part on asking at least combative-sounding questions and portraying himself as edgy, the stage was set for something stupid to happen. Plus, Rome and Stern conduct this dog-and-pony show on at least an annual basis for the benefit of Rome's listeners.

Still, as Stern grew frustrated with the draft question, he tried to show what he believed to be the hypocrisy of Rome's line of questioning with a question of his own. So, Stern asked, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Unfortunately, Stern's example of an poisonous question about a matter that's clearly not true was just mean-spirited. It made him -- again, a powerful and smart man -- seem small. With the league in the midst of the NBA Finals, and additionally with NBA TV showing "The Dream Team," what should've been a great day for the league was marred in part because of its top administrator.

Stern's actions were just one example of some

Act: U.S. Open offers A-list pairing of Phil Mickelson, Bubba Watson and Tiger Woods for first two rounds.

React: TV partner ESPN must anticipate the ratings bonanza this should produce during weekday early afternoon hours. It's probably good for the sport, just because it should generate some buzz during the first two rounds. At the same time, though, any added emphasis on this threesome could come at the expense of anyone else making an early run in the tournament.

Act: Friend of man accused in Auburn shootings calls the Paul Finebaum Show.
React: Only on the Finebaum Show. Seriously, only on that slice of Americana with a strong tinge of SEC partisanship could a nation of sports fans get a true taste of the fan-next-door, small-town vibe that pervades that region of the country. Only on show with such a deep cultural impact would someone so close to such a situation actually decide to call in and share his perspectives. Best of all, Finebaum provides a wonderful mix of deadpan inquisitiveness and honesty that sometimes make it hard to know if he cares or if it's part of his shtick. For all the inherent flaws in that approach, it does produce good radio.

Act: BCS partners consider several postseason options for college football, including a four-team playoff.
React: A playoff might be closer than ever before, powered in large part by potentially hefty payouts from TV partners as the BCS revamps its system. Still, on-air college football types rarely call out those involved -- especially when they utter silly generalizations. One of the most prevalent comes when BCS supporters talk about the benefit/importance of the existing system for student-athletes. In reality, it's the college presidents and other university bigwigs who benefit most from bowl-game related junkets but media members never point out that oh-so-evident contradiction.

Words for Ward Miss What Matters

In the week since Pam Ward's demotion became public, sports media commentators and all those who consider themselves smarter than everyone else (and several people fit in both categories) have taken the opportunity to point out all that's wrong with ESPN's decision to pull Ward off play-by-play duties on college football.

At least they've tackled the issue in general, one-sided terms.

Without using the exact words, it can be surmised that most consider Ward's demotion an affront, an outrage, even a problem for sports on TV in general because it closes the door on an opportunity for women at high levels of sports media.

That's a possible argument, certainly one with merit. At the same time, it's also a generalization and an overstatement.

Ward's work was consistently solid. She was not spectacular on play-by-play of college football, but she was inevitably prepared and mostly mistake-free. With dozens of games televised every week, that's not always the kind of performance viewers get from the professionals in the booth -- and her work was appreciated as a result.

While Ward addressed her situation with several leading national columnists, and did so well, comments from higher ups at ESPN about the move have been generally limited.

According to the preferred message, though, Ward was done a disservice and there's no good reason for taking her off play-by-play duties of major college football.

Ward was one of just two women who held such a role, and her departure leaves only Beth Mowins in the male-dominated field. Ward will remain at ESPN, covering other sports and hoping for another chance to return to college football.

Here's the rub, though, it really does not matter who handles play-by-play of most games.

Aside from people who watch games to comment on them, and die-hard fans who listen for every possible perceived slight against their team, few people really care who's in the booth. On-air talent itself does not drive ratings for games. Those folks might generate reaction, but they do not necessarily "move the needle" in terms of viewership. That's especially true for regular season college football games -- even moreso for games that start at midday or early afternoon on ESPN.

So, an argument could follow that Ward should remain, because it does not matter if it's her or some other supposedly play-by-play talent. Plus, with Ward as one of the lone women as her level, coverage and games are more likely to get comment from media commentators and smart people.

Still, with people in Ward's position so generally interchangeable, her demotion might just simply be a business decision. That's the other side of the argument -- the unspoken part so far.

If on-air talent does not matter -- aside from some clearly A-list assignments -- then it's only reasonable that networks and those who handle assignments might try different things from time to time. Maybe they're looking for a different sound. Maybe they want to try another pairing just to hear and see what happens.

Without Ward, college football fans lose a solid professional. Hopefully she'll get a chance to return. However, her loss is not a loss for the sport in general, nor a loss for women. Many opportunities and on-air assignments remain for hard-working and talented women to get on-air assignments, and to make an impact those that will follow them.

Ward has certainly done that in her role, but to burden her with even more responsibility than simply doing a good job seems unfair.

Draft Format Makes Show a TV Success

As a TV show, the NFL Draft has everything it needs for success and there's no mystery why a sports-related show without on-field competition or a final score perennially produces hefty ratings.

First and foremost, the draft provides something of interest for fans of every team in the most popular sports league in the United States.

It has a larger built-in audience than any regular season game. That sets a strong foundation for interest, ratings and viewership.

Last year, draft coverage on ESPN drew ratings that topped almost everything else on the all-sports network except regular season NFL games.

Beyond that, the show's format, with a pick every few minutes,  provides exactly what sports fans love -- bursts of action followed by several minutes to analyze and speculate about what just happened. It's the kind of program people can consume completely, or use as background noise and pay attention in bits and pieces and still feel informed.

The show comes with known characters, too. That begins with the players who have spent a few seasons building name recognition playing college football and includes the on-air talent in the form of ESPN and NFL Network commentators who capably analyze the action.

An always opinionated and vocal audience at Radio City Music Hall should not be overlooked either. Those die-hard fans provide additional color.

Plus, the event almost annually comes with news (five trades reshaped the draft lineup in just the first 23 picks Thursday night) that generates action and reaction. And that's before teams like the Seattle Seahawks reach on a pick that drives even more angst among the analysts.

Finally, hhanks to savvy scheduling by the NFL, draft coverage can win ratings Thursday night (with the first round), Friday night (with second and third rounds) and even pull big numbers Saturday (with the fourth through seventh rounds).

It's simply solid programming, and it has earned its spot as one of the best and most-anticipated TV sports events of the season.

Big Names Find Some Anonymity on TV

Two hypothetical sports media questions found similar, real-life answers this week:

• What one of the more distinctive voices of a generation conducted his labor of love in relative anonymity?
• What if well-known personality someone produced a sports-talk program on TV and nobody watched?

Veteran Bob Costas has relaunched "Costas Tonight," his usually insightful and top-notch sports-talk show on NBC Sports Network (NBCSN), but it continues to go unnoticed by the masses.

The first show as part of the relaunch happened in conjunction with the Super Bowl months ago in Indianapolis. That live show attracted A-list guests (as Costas always does) and it evoked some good information. Even if some segments at the end were rushed, it was still a solid start for a show NBCSN no-doubt hoped would provide something of a regular programing presence.

While Costas has done the show and done it well -- this week's episode focused on the state of college sports from a variety of angles -- it does not seemed destined to become must-see TV.

With NBCSN lost among the high numbers on most cable systems, the show can be hard to find. At the same time, the short attention span of viewers does not match well with the thoughtful work Costas regularly produces.

It's good TV, something that can hopefully survive. With Costas' gravitas, as well as the ability to parse the show afterward for excerpts or online audiences, it probably can survive for a while. It's just not something that many people might watch, and that's a shame. It's good TV.

Much like Costas, another big sports name returned to TV this week -- albeit in an even more obscure role. Radio and TV veteran Jim Rome launch his self-named program on CBS Sports Network (CBSSN) following ample promotion while CBS carried the NCAA Tournament and before the network's coverage of The Masters.

With CBSSN still not rated, although company officials have said it's available in 99 million homes, Rome's initial work has gone unnoticed. In fairness to Costas, the work of the two men differs greatly, but they both have legions of fans.

For me, missing Rome is not as concerning as missing Costas and how the respective networks treat the two shows could be interesting. Neither program should be expensive to produce, but sports networks typically thrive on live programming. Without that option, finding a show hosted by a personality could be helpful, and either network would like its show to become a popular staple with viewers.

Still, neither show seems destined for a consistent prime-time spot, either. After all, if sports programming becomes available, most games or matches would play out in prime time and bouncing a talk show could be an easy decision.

In the end, sports typically matters more than sports-talk for TV networks. So, while Costas and Rome are certainly valuable for the respective network brands games matter most. If games become available and viewers remain sparse, it'll be interesting to see how well the commitment of the networks to the shows holds up.

One Reason, Two Gaffes, Two Sports

Two different networks carrying major sporting events over the weekend forgot to simply serve viewers and stumbled as a result.

First up was CBS Sports, which lost its handle on the Final Four game between Kansas and Ohio State on Saturday night by using an inconsistent approach that led to missed action and non-existent context.

The problems started on consecutive trips down the floor for Kansas -- when an apparent foul by Ohio State forward Jared Sullinger was left alone on one trip and a different foul, which appeared a little less harmful than the first, drew the attention of game officials. Unfortunately, even with a stoppage in play CBS did not provide a replay of either incident.

It was in interesting choice because the broadcast team had done such a good job earlier in the game of detailing how a Kansas foul was whistled on the wrong player, and then detailed that the use of video to correct the mistake was not allowed under NCAA rules.

That seemed like an interesting and strong start to the broadcast. Unfortunately, the end of the game did not live up to those standards.

Most egregiously, the confusing final seconds of the game were totally whiffed. As OSU guard Aaron Craft committed a lane violation when trying to quickly launch and rebound a free throw, CBS went to a replay of what happened rather than sticking with live action as KU inbounded the ball and ran out the clock.

There was no controversy on the floor -- the referees made the correct call in that instance -- but CBS missed the action. There was plenty of time for a replay and some context about what happened after the game ended. It's a shame that's not how it happened for viewers.

Context was where another TV partner failed Sunday afternoon. Fox Sports provided coverage of the Sprint Cup Series race in Martinsville, Va., and it got ratings and viewership gold with a competitive short-track race until the final laps.

When Clint Boyer drove hard into the bottom of the first turn and got underneath leaders Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson during a late-race restart, the outcome seemed obvious -- an ugly wreck was about to happen. That's exactly what followed, cars were all over the track, and Ryan Newman eventually survived after another restart to get the victory.

Still, an earlier incident, when David Reutimann stopped on the front stretch, forcing the restart when Boyer made his calamitous move, was where Fox Sports failed.

The network's commentators offered all kinds of opinions, even ''oohs" and "aahs," regarding the accident. That might not have been good work, but it was certainly expected.

Conversely, even with Reutimann's team owner (Michael Waltrip) as part of the broadcast crew, any insights about what happened with that car were missing. Waltrip told viewers it's never clear or easy to know what might be happening in a car during a race, but that was not enough. C'mon, he's the team owner. It was interesting that he did not vehemently defend his driver while some speculated what could've happened. Even if he was not in the pits or on the radio, he's the owner, he's a proven driver in the series, something more was expected.

Thankfully, Fox did get a post-race interview with an emotional and defensive Reutimann who said he had hoped to get his car off the track, but that it broke before he could. Best of all, he provided the necessary context, that he was still running, even nearly 60 laps down, in an effort to gain points and remain among the top 35 in series points -- a cutoff point that guarantees a team a starting spot from week to week.

You'd have thought that context would've crossed the mind of Waltrip, who was already sitting in the broadcast booth. It's a shame that viewers could not have gotten that sooner.