NBC, Some Penn State Critics Lack Focus, Honesty

The two biggest ongoing sports/sports media stories the week (maybe even the year) share a shameful amount of inconsistency.

It's a lack of focus in regard to the Olympics and apparently a lack of honesty (at best) or sheer stupidity on the part of some commentators regarding the Penn State scandal. Unfortunately for listeners and viewers, both approaches fall short as a result.

Tumbling Tenses

Through the first week of competition at the Olympic Games in London, an inordinate amount of attention has been placed on NBC's plan for prime-time coverage.

While the network has wisely delayed the broadcast of major events that attract millions of viewers until prime time, some critics have consistently complained about the approach. Even though the network streams everything live online, gymnastics, swimming and beach volleyball have been the focus of the network's nighttime coverage -- even though the respective competitions were completed hours earlier and many people can and do know the outcome of the events.

Some critics have consistently panned NBC for not televising more events live, never mind that it has been good business and a proven ratings draw. Rival network executives have said they would practice the same approach if they were covering the Games.

Where NBC has faltered, though, has been in waffling between providing the coverage as a rebroadcast of what happened or trying to acknowledge that the events were completed long ago and add context.

That was clear during women's gymnastics coverage Tuesday night. At one point, NBC provided coverage seemingly in chronological order, showing action that had happened earlier as it was called at the time. A little later in the broadcast, though, as women's teams moved through competition on individual apparatus, the NBC broadcast crew with Al Trautwig, Elfi Schlegel and Tim Daggett critiqued a weak floor routine for a gymnast from Russia and hinted strongly that more good things would come for the team. That's because they knew what would happen, because it had already happened.

Either approach -- with as-it-happened calls simply broadcast later in the day, or some bigger-picture coverage that adds context and hints about what's to come -- could work for the coverage, but flip-flopping between the two approaches just provides unnecessary inconsistency.

Maybe NBC waffles between the approaches in reaction to the criticism, which would be a shame -- because the network's process works. It's not producing a sporting event, or even a series of sporting events. It's producing a TV show with a sports theme.

Viewers have proven they'll tune in just because it's the Olympics, and because they're willing to suspend some disbelief and let NBC tell the story of he Games the way it wants. For that to really work at its best, though, the network has to stick with one approach or the other.

Failing Facts ... Fake It

So many critics, near and far, have chimed in on the Penn State scandal and offered a mix of on-the-mark insights as well as uninformed rants.

Not surprisingly, those farther from the story (even some considered among the best reporters and storytellers on the globe) often struggle with appropriate context because of their unfamiliarity with parts of the story. And rather than flesh out their opinions with information, they just keep ranting.

A perplexing example came last week from John Feinstein on Sirius/XM Radio.

As he supported his premise that the NCAA should have shut down the Penn State football program, Feinstein addressed those who would be impacted by such an approach. When discussion with a caller moved toward business and economic impacts, Feinstein said businesses that typically benefitted as a result of football Saturdays in Happy Valley would not necessarily have been punished if games were cancelled.

He suggested the university could have make them whole by simply tapping its endowment to help cover the business losses.

Amazingly, it sounded as if he thought that was a logical option. Never mind that Feinstein is smart enough to know how an endowment works, that universities across the nation and globe maintain such monetary resources -- comprised of monies earmarked for specific purposes -- in order to use the earnings from the fund to support programs, scholarships or other specific endeavors.

In fact, with his profile and relationships in higher education, Feinstein has no doubt been solicited for endowed gifts.

Because he knows enough about the topic, or should, suggesting otherwise fell on a scale that ranged from just ill-informed or uninformed to mean-spirited and feeding an irresponsible shock-jock mentality.

He's hardly alone with that approach to that story in recent weeks. But he's better than that. And with a little more context all such commentators could form more engaging and informative opinions.

Special Clearly Shows Where 'Lines' Are Drawn By Media, Loyalists Regarding Penn State Scandal

Thirty-five hours after the NCAA announced its sanctions against Penn State, ESPN offered an "Outside the Lines" special Tuesday night that represented some of the network's most balanced and engaging programming about the scandal.

As expected from "OTL" and almost anything that involves host Bob Ley, the show was fair, honest and informative.

For viewers fully engaged in the story, there were hardly any revelations, but the hour-long program featured two panel discussions and a one-on-one interview with NCAA president Mark Emmert conducted by Ley that were interesting and never disintegrated into (much) baseless opinion or shouting.

All of the segments produced something good. Of course, certain portions of the show also probably left some viewers frustrated. None of that was Ley's fault, though.

A general line

An initial panel with Jeremy Schaap, Tom Rinaldi and Don Van Natta Jr. provided moments some viewers -- at least those located in central Pennsylvania and most familiar with the situation -- probably found most frustrating.

Specifically, generalizations, the kind of things some national media members have utilized far too often with this story, were troublesome. At one point, Schaap mentioned the power of former coach Joe Paterno and said campus leaders were clearly the coach's underlings. "Any president that took measures probably would fail and might be fired."

Now, that sounds compelling, but it's also the kind of sweeping generalization that makes national media members sound disconnected. While Paterno's rebuff of an attempt by then university president Graham Spanier and athletic director Tim Curley to oust him in 2003 has been well documented, there was only one such attempt. It's not as if multiple Penn State leaders challenged Paterno and lost through the years.

Similarly, even with three standout reporting talents like Schaap, Rinaldi and Van Natta, some important context for the scandal was lacking during the first part of the show.

Everything, in terms of individuals, remained focused on Paterno. The name of his ultimate boss, and Penn State's overall leader when the scandal arose, Spanier, was never mentioned until 20 minutes into the show. As the NCAA discusses the "culture" of intercollegiate athletics and an emphasis on things other than academics, it was interesting that the folks covering the story focused more on the sports side than those responsible at the highest level.

At one point, Van Natta noted that the Freeh Report was a "damning document" for everyone, including administrators and the Board of Trustees.

Still, no reporting was dedicated to what would happen, or has not happened, to those two groups of people. While that information might still play out, and is not as easy to unearth, or as easy to hear as the clear public outcry against Paterno (which are among the reasons the media has had trouble or simply has not tracked down the information), it remains the kind of hole in reporting on the overall story that some people notice. As a result, people sometimes then generalize that as media bias.

Power line propels story

Lines of bias and inaction work on both sides for the media and in terms of media perception with the scandal, too. For those consuming the story, especially some of those who support Penn State, the program's traditionally clean reputation might be part of the problem. Where those people saw something to tout and share their pride, others on the outside perceived as a holier-than-thou approach. Of course, that made tracking the story all the more engaging for some media members. It has also allowed some to sense a bit of bias by the media. Neither outlook might be true, but both sides have certainly given the other fodder to believe they're correct.

Still, the most powerful factor in the Penn State scandal was confirmed during the 'OTL' special -- and that's been public opinion. During the Q-and-A session with Ley, Emmert said public influence was a factor almost immediately. When the NCAA sent a letter to Penn State last November, it made the letter public, as opposed to doing so in a typically private manner with such matters. Ley asked about the change in tactics. "Well, because everybody was wondering" if the NCAA had a role or would take action, Emmert said.

Later in the interview, Ley appropriately questioned Emmert about NCAA-influenced perceptions that Penn State was somehow failing or at fault academically as a result of a "culture" on campus or the scandal. Ley compared the culture in Happy Valley with that at any major college football school, cited Penn State's previous poster-child status and wondered aloud if the case was really not so much about a culture but moreso about four men at the top of that making faulty decisions over a period of 10 years.

"It could well be," replied Emmert -- which would seem to contradict the entire need or reason for sanctions, and it was not a question that had been asked -- or answered -- in that manner during the first day and a half after the NCAA's actions. But, there was, by that point, even more of a public outcy that necessitated NCAA action. Emmert indicated as much, as the result of appropriate questions and follow-up by Ley.

A final panel on the show -- with Chris Fowler,  Rece Davis and Rod Gilmore (a nice opportunity for him after usually falling lower in ESPN's college football pecking order) -- addressed the uphill battle Penn State faces on the field in the coming years, reiterating the likely impact of the lost scholarships on the team's win-loss record in coming seasons. As always, they expressed concern for the children Jerry Sandusky assaulted and victimized.

They separated that part of the story and also wondered about the sanctions themselves and the role the public (and the NCAA's desire for a strong PR move) played in the decision. It was a perspective not given much time on ESPN or many other outlets in recent days, and the balance and consideration of different angles to the multifaceted story made the show stronger, without leaving the host and panelists perceived as Penn State apologists or somehow out of touch. They were exactly the opposite -- just doing their jobs. And doing them rather well.

Silence on Scandal Serves Blackledge Best

When the Freeh Report was released last week, ESPN officials put former Penn State All-American and longtime NFL and college football analyst Matt Millen front and center to react.

It was a difficult assignment because Millen was put on the spot immediately after the release of the report and because he was clearly conflicted -- wrestling with what he experienced during his Penn State career and believed and thought he knew, and what the report concluded.

Instead of that honesty and internal conflict drawing praise, though, his indecision or unwillingness to produce a loud anti-Penn State perspective prompted criticism from media and TV pundits. Meanwhile, ESPN executives and officials were more at fault. Millen was doing the best he could in a clearly emotional situation while another expert or experts might have produced better, smarter TV.

Still, another longtime college football analyst and former Penn State All-American has proven to be the most savvy, smartest expert regarding the scandal. That's Todd Blackledge, like Millen a member of the ESPN/ABC family but unlike Millen completely unavailable for comment in the wake of the report.

Maybe that's why Blackledge was an Academic All-American. He knows how and when to do his job.

In the past week, it has been to not do his job -- not to put himself in a position, as a former team captain for Joe Paterno and the quarterback of Paterno's first national championship team, to be critical of the program and be criticized for his work as a result. Whatever the reason (coaching his children, family vacation, something else), it's a smart approach. Silence has served Blackledge well, as it might many others in regard to the scandal.

That's because informative, quality analysis about the situation probably exists between what some see as the apologist approach practiced by Millen or local media in central Pennsylvnia and the extreme generalizations and shrill reactions of many who have national platforms for discussion. Both groups of media members have things that impact their ability to do the best work. For those closer to the situation, it's an overabundance of emotion and familiarity. For those farther away, it's a lack of context -- just not knowing what they do not know in some instances.

Also, in terms of criticizing Millen, it's interesting that some who complained and cited his work as flawed or not opinionated enough are the same folks who consistently and justifiably knock shows like ESPN's "First Take" for being one-dimensional, thoughtless displays of personality, ranting and style over substance. Again, really good TV rests somewhere in between those extremes -- with a little patience and perspective as well as some strong, thoughtful opinions. (Of course, if you're silent neither the good nor the bad can happen.)

Fox Sports Gets (Some) Credibility w/Erin Andrews

It's hard to imagine anyone has ever used "credible" as the first word to describe Erin Andrews -- and that's not going to happen here either -- but her debut as host of the Fox Sports college football studio show in 56 days does brings some credibility to the network's college football efforts.

Even before that first show begins, she has more big-time college football experience than almost any other on-air personality in the network stable. She comes with an ESPN pedigree and she should know what makes a strong pre-game show after contributing to one of the best of that genre for the past several years.

It might not be an easy transition to the host of such a show, though.

She proved how ready -- or mostly not -- she was for such an assignment on ESPNU when "College GameDay" expanded and she was supposed to host the first hour. Even during that less-watched first hour, she was OK, at best, and ESPN brass eventually altered the segments and style of the show to take Andrews off center stage.

At Fox Sports, she'll certainly be center stage. And, as networks jockey to position themselves to bid for TV rights to the upcoming Division I playoff system, Andrews could be in a position to become an even more prominent face in college football.

Her challenge remains moving past style and engaging viewers with substance.

She has improved as a sideline reporter, getting more information and asking better questions. At the same time, her biggest career boost was not an interaction with a coach or even her much publicized problems with a stalker. It was a stint on "Dancing with the Stars" that propelled her to a higher Q rating and seemingly more important assignments, such as hosting that first hour of "GameDay."

Unfortunately, she was not stellar in that role, missing the necessary gravitas to carry the show or serve as an adept traffic cop for others. That has to be of some concern for the folks at Fox Sports. If she did not dazzle on Saturday mornings, someone has to be asking how she'll do in prime time with even more exposure and pressure.

Then again, exposure might be the wrong word to ever use with Andrews. She's seems like a connected and knowledgable college football voice, but she's also a TV star, an attractive woman some critics and fans will never see her as more than a pretty face. In fact, Los Angeles Daily news columnist Tom Hoffarth this week offered some of the harshest criticism ever of Andrews.

He might be unfair at spots, but he's not entirely wrong. While critics and fans consistently send inconsistent messages about TV personalities, they often agree that they appreciate people who engage viewers and share information. Andrews can be engaging and informative at times.

To succeed as the face of a network team, though, she might most importantly need to seem more mature, and that's such a tough balance on TV for a woman -- and probably especially so while covering a youthful endeavor such as college football.

Viewers want vibrant and young, but Andrews is 34, so we're probably past the point where bubbly/laughter works. It's still sports and still fun and games, but successful studio hosts usually set an entertaining and strong tone for their broadcasts. Sure, things can be fun, but they're also seriously focused on what's about to follow or what's happening in college football overall.

We'll see Andrews on Fox Sports as soon as this week's All-Star Game (in a more familiar sideline reporting role from the American League dugout), but we'll have to wait until Sept. 1 to find out how she'll do as a host. We'll also find out if network officials really put her in a position to succeed or if they have something else in mind by reworking the typical pre-game show approach.

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.