Glazer Gets It: His Job, Network/Self Promotion

Jay Glazer

Kudos to Jay Glazer of Fox Sports for all his work related to the Miami Dolphins story.

He's been one of the leaders in regard to breaking and following the story since it first surfaced about two weeks ago. It's the kind of NFL reporting many have come to expect of Glazer.

Then, in the aftermath of his one-on-one interview with Richie Incognito that aired Sunday and Monday on different Fox Sports outlets, he has proven just as adept at promoting his home network and programs as well as his work.

With guest appearances on a variety of programs, including ESPN's "Mike and Mike in the Morning" and CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," both of which he visited Tuesday, Glazer appropriately and tactfully drove home the point that his work appeared on Fox Sports programs.

It was self promotion, but it felt more factual than overstated. It's also the kind of thing that some suits at networks invariably worry about when a talent from a rival network appears on one of their shows. Still, that rarely happens, mostly because those doing the reporting (and then the talking about their reporting) are not as deft as Glazer.

In covering the story, and in shaping other people's coverage of the story while promoting his own efforts and network, Glazer has been consistently strong.

Reporters, former players a complement on Incognito

Thank you Adam Schefter, Chris Mortensen and Jay Glazer for the reporting on the Richie Incognito story. When things happen, viewers and listeners get the latest, or at least the latest that can be reported ... thankfully even with some context.

Still, their work -- and even moreso those of sports journalists who call South Florida home and regularly cover the Miami Dolphins -- is just the start of what listeners and viewers expect.

True context comes from the former NFL coaches and players. They have generally not been reactionary, and bring great perspectives to discussion about the issue. As a result, through the past few days of the story, it's been even better to hear from them than the reports.

It's an All-Pro list and a long list of those who have done well, too. In large part because they bring experience to the story that media members who have never played the game simply do not have -- no matter how long they've played the sport.

In that vein, Herman Edwards, Mark Schlereth, Marcellus Wiley and even the surprisingly strongly opinionated Tom Jackson have been among the best. Yes, my listening and viewing habits skew strongly toward ESPN. After three decades, and despite the silliness of "First Take" and obvious commercial moves and conflicts, they've earned my trust.

In the past few days the one-two punch of reporters and former players have proven again they deserve that faith.

Harassment, hazing story separates media, more

The ongoing NFL tale of hazing, workplace harassment, racism and more has provided fodder for every possible part of the sports media world.

Offensive lineman Richie Incognito's apparent mistreatment (and that's an understatement if all the accusations prove true) of Miami Dolphins teammate Jonathan Martin has been examined in every way.

Sports-talk radio, TV sports debate shows, TV sports talking heads and TV sports news shows have all done what they should with the story. Cable and network news have chased the story as well. They have to -- it's interesting, it's unusual and it's the all-powerful NFL.

As a result, the potential aspects and impacts of the story have not been overlooked in terms of business, ethics, entertainment, law and any number of combination of those topics and more.

Still, the separations between serious news and silliness have never been more evident than with this story.

Those talking mostly to hear themselves, encourage debate or incite some type of reaction have done just that -- and done it well. Thankfully, those who bring some sense of measure, nuance and patience to the discussion have found a place as well. Granted, it's a much smaller place, but at least it's there.

At the same time, the separation between fans and the media, and between those in the media with a powerful politically correct perspective that appreciates only black-and-white discussions and those who know the gray that exists in professional sports has proven just as big.

It's clearly a right-and-wrong story. At the same time, the number of voices on all sides of the argument -- from those who have no hesitation vilifying Incognito to those who question the manner in which their teammate has been questioned -- has made the story all the more interesting.

With all the separations, though, fans, listeners and viewers all deserve more even more patience and persistence. Hopefully it will come. Eventually.

So far, Playoff plays media perfectly, and vice versa

We're more than a year away but many media members have fully bought into the College Football Playoff.

With leaks about the makeup of the selection committee over the weekend, on-air TV and radio types have spent too much time talking about how the committee approach -- similar to the NCAA Tournament selection committee -- will be so much better the existing Bowl Championship Series format for college football's top division.

It's become a self-serving discussion from both sides -- the media loves the College Football Playoff coming next season and the College Football Playoff loves the coverage its getting.

All that blind love does nothing for honesty, journalism or reporting, though.

Instead, everyone involved is perpetuating a myth that, someday (but not any day soon) the media itself will eventually debunk. At it's core, it's all a public relations battle -- an effort to enlighten and improve the discussion about the selection of contenders for the national championship.

It sounds so good. But it's too good to be true.

We're talking about the selection of four teams to play in two games at the end of next season. That's it. Four games. Two teams. One will come from the Southeastern Conference, with the winner of that conference's championship game making it to the national semifinals.

With that pretty much guaranteed, we're now we're talking about three teams to round out the remaining spots in what will be the national semifinals and championship game. That's it. Three teams. And to accomplish that goal, college football's top division will need a group of a dozen to a dozen and a half people, who will not meet -- with much accompanying hoopla -- to debate and determine the field for playoff.

It will be nothing more than further glorifying a bunch of people many media members already like (that's the reason for so much early love for the process as the initial names were leaked) and nothing less than the thoughtless investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars (when you consider lodging, time and everything associated) to accomplish a rather simple task.

When the selection committee meets for the NCAA Tournament, the group is working to determine spots for more than 30 at-large berths in the tournament. They also determine game sites and seeding.

Their football counterparts must determine only who gets in (again three teams, maybe fewer depending on who remains unbeaten at the end of next season along with the SEC champion) because game locations are set and seedings will be irrelevant -- save for generating slightly better TV ratings.

Adding a "human" factor, to the the selection process will not improve which teams get picked. It might change why they get picked, but that's about it.

So we're getting all this media-driven hype for a system that's really no better than the beleaguered BCS, which relies on computer-based and human polls. The College Football Playoff is just the "plus-one" model that many in college football and the media railed against -- until they were asked to be a part of the process. Now that's a way to control a message.

At it's best, the closed group (though they'll pledge transparency) of College Football Playoff selectors will huddle to debate and determine between the fourth team in the field and the fifth, sixth or seventh -- those who do not make the cut. It's important stuff, the difference between a huge, double-digit millions of dollars, payout for College Football Playoff participants (and their conferences) and much less for those who do not make the cut.

As the process plays out, though, the lack of clean-cut or consistently defensible decisions by the committee will become obvious (exactly what happens with the NCAA Tournament from year to year). And, at some point, the supporting media will take notice and the relationship might get a bit more icy.

What should happen -- and it will, though not quickly -- will be a full-fledged eight- or 16-team playoff. A national champion for college football will eventually get decided on the field because that's the best way. The best way is not a way that includes injury justifications as part of a late-season presentation in a boardroom or statistical spreadsheets that get gauged and nuanced by people in that same room.

Even worse -- and things are just beginning -- the process has already prompted the expected attacks by self-defined enlightened-media on those they consider less qualified. That's why some people piled on ESPN analyst David Pollack last Saturday after he said he hoped more people who had "played football" would be part of the selection committee.

Of course, that led to the politically correct portion of sports media to bash Pollack and make all kinds of comparisons about how someone could not judge something if they had not done so before themselves. But here's the thing: Pollack was not wrong, and neither were those who took shots at him. Any committee that would do such a job for college football needs both types of those people. And if it's to exist it also needs some rational people who know that such a statement is not as incendiary as they think. It's just one guy expressing an opinion. That's Pollack's job.

What's most missing from the proposed selection committee are student-athletes. Yes, college football players. Just like kids playing sports at any level, they know who's better than them and who's not. They know who belongs and who doesn't.

What's also missing from the process so far is a bit more balance or curiosity on the part of the media. Rather than getting pulled along for the ride or picking on each other, the media could be doing much more.

Tuesday Thumbs: Up for Pereira, Down for 'OTL'

So many analysts and angles exist for media covering the NFL that it's difficult for the experts to separate themselves from the pack of constant noise. And, in fairness, an abundance of quality information exists out there on TV, radio and online. It's really not just noise.

As a result, it often comes down to viewer preference -- whether folks want to get get their information from Jason La Canfora, Jay Glazer, Chris Mortenson, Adam Schefter, or any number of other experts and "insiders." Dozens of former players have jobs that allow them to capably share their insights, too.

Still, one on-air personality remains unrivaled in terms of his expertise and his ability to share that information.

THUMBS UP

• Former NFL official Mike Pereira remains a shining light of information in a sea of uncertainty and sloppiness regarding football officiating and the coverage of reporting. He knows his stuff, even if biased fans disagree, and he knows how to work on TV, making points and offering opinions quickly. Pereira first stared on air for NFL Network in regular segments that made that then-niche channel worth having. He was the best of anything it did before the league gave its own channel a package of games. Now at Fox Sports, Pereira monitors college and NFL games each week, offering opinions about rulings and what goes right and wrong with the officials. He keeps his nearly 170,000 Twitter followers constantly updated. Still, Fox Sports needs to do more with him -- at least more official-specific work. He's at his best pointing out the good and the bad, but a little less so talking straight football news, strategy or Xs and Os. A ton of other folks exist for that, and Pereira should be freed to focus on what he does best. It's something that could then be parsed for social media -- as he did with week with a YouTube video -- and strengthen the hold of Fox Sports and Pereira on a segment of NFL news that nobody else does as well as them.
• With the baseball playoffs coming soon, Fox Sports analyst Tim McCarver might have lost a little bit because of age and might be popular to complain about when he's gone (as he retires after this season), but he set more of a standard for his sport -- without becoming a cariciature -- than John Madden on the NFL. Yes, he never became as beloved, or spawned a video game franchise, but in terms of expertise and sharing that with viewers McCarver always knew what he was talking about and relayed that information well.
• Another documentary on ESPN and another winning, worth-watching result. At 8 tonight, ESPN offers the debut of "The Book of Manning." Good stuff. TRAILER
• Best video from the NFL weekend was not a game, but Schefter catching passes in an ESPN hallway. VIDEO

THUMBS DOWN

• A quarter of of the way through college football season on Fox Sports 1 (and college football was to be a piece of backbone programming for the network), "Fox College Saturday" remains void of a strong information/reporting voice or much of a sense of gravitas and immediacy. That's a big hole when almost every Saturday, and every week, provides some sort of news. No show could even consider rivaling ESPN's "College GameDay" in its rookie season, but FS1 needs to to more if it wants to give viewers a reason to watch. If it's just a matter of killing time and offering some sort of college football-related programming, though, what's there would check that off the list. Another challenge for the show will be the East Coast media bias. Along with ESPN having many of the more respected college football reporters and voices wrapped up (either at ESPN already or in advance of the launch of the SEC Network next year), getting an information person or insider to resonate with viewers might be challenging because of FS1's mostly Pac-12 and western U.S. schedule of games and the fact that viewers could be more familiar with East Coast, Big Ten or SEC-based experts.
• "Outside the Lines" deserves credit for all its solid journalism and reporting. Still, a follow-up piece about the "fixed" 1973 made-for-TV tennis match between Bobby Riggs Jr. and Billie Jean King seems misplaced on "OTL." It's an interesting story that generated buzz and reaction when the first, longer piece aired a month ago around the U.S. Open,  but to sink so much into what many acknowledge was an exhibition when it happened seems a little like overkill 40 years later. Plus, one piece remains overlooked. That's the reasons King and some media members dislike or dispute the story. Again in plays into perceptions and the need for a story to be right, and there would be not better place for that than "OTL."
• It's been held up as a model for conference sports networks, but some might argue that the Big Ten Network's programming choices offer a look the politics within a conference as well. For example, this past Sunday, after a full slate of Saturday games the day before, BTN used an Akron-Michigan game from two weeks ago in its rotation of game replays. Typically those replays come from games the day before and you can bet some conference members were frustrated their game from the day before was not used in place of a UM game that was 14 days old. Maybe programmers would argue it was a good game (with a goal-line stand preserving a michigan victory), but people at other schools might see a UM bias.

Former NFL players enjoy competition as TV analysts

Free agent signings reshape NFL rosters on TV even more than they do team rosters and those impacted by personnel changes know that means competition.

Most welcome that competition -- even if it’s somewhat unfamiliar territory where a linebacker or offensive lineman can compete with a wide receiver.

For example, ESPN analyst and former NFL receiver Keyshawn Johnson is not concerned about the addition of Ray Lewis and Jeff Saturday to ESPN’s lineup this year. While the presence of the former All-Pro linebacker and center, respectively, do no specifically mean less “playing time” for Johnson, the former All-Pro receiver knows everyone must earn their on-air opportunities.

“I didn’t worry about it as a player and I don’t worry about it now,” said Johnson, who joined ESPN in 2007. He most often appears on “Sunday NFL Countdown” and “Monday Night Countdown.” 

After 17 years in the league, Lewis was ESPN’s big off-season acquisition. So far he has been prominent from game sites on “Monday Night Countdown” as well as other NFL programming. Likewise, Saturday has transferred smoothly to TV, sharing the smarts he displayed during 14 years playing pro football.

While Johnson seems secure in his spot, not every former player transitions as well to a high-profile TV gig.

Former Steelers All-Pro running back Jerome Bettis landed at ESPN this year after an opportunity with NBC Sports and “Football Night in America” did not work, or at least did not work well enough for him to keep that job. Likewise, former Steelers All-Pro receiver Hines Work keeps trying to earn his position with NBC Sports. He contributes to “Football Night in America” (after an OK debut season in 2012) and handles studio duties for college football.

It’s not easy staying on any network’s roster because every year there’s another crop of free agent retirees looking for TV work. ESPN’s deep lineup of former players includes insightful, proven contributors such as Cris Carter, Trent Dilfer, Tom Jackson and Steve Young. That’s just the most prominent part of the group.

Make no mistake, TV outlets are always scouting for talent. That includes current Steelers safety Ryan Clark, who regularly contributes to ESPN already, or even someday-in-the-future free agents such as Peyton Manning, the quarterback who will draw the attention of every network with an NFL deal when he retires.

That’s why ESPN’s Tedy Bruschi, the former All-Pro linebacker from the Patriots, prepares so hard. He knows constant competition is one of the most certain routes to success -- just like it was on the playing field.

“I’m always trying to improve, looking for advice and input from people,” Bruschi said. “I’m watching what other people do, taking notes and trying to get better.”

While the TV rookies might not know about all the studio camera angles or just how to hold their hands when they’re on TV, they do know how to compete. And they know that competition and improvement is the key to keeping their jobs, just as it was when they wore a football uniform.

Penn State fans get more 'real' O'Brien on radio

Fans listening to the weekly Thursday night radio show with Penn State coach Bill O’Brien have gotten a bit more of O’Brien’s real personality in recent weeks.

That means answers at times come with attitude and even some critique of the questions themselves. Such an approach offers insight into O’Brien’s sarcastic and smart nature.

That’s a good thing, because fans want to feel close to the football program and its people. They want to feel like they know O’Brien, and they enjoy interacting with him in person.

Fans asking questions have not been mean-spirited or unappreciative of the efforts of the coach, or the team, either. So, when O’Brien gets tough on questioners it’s entertaining, but he also sounds a bit thin skinned.

He’s walking a fine line. It’s one thing to respond to a media member’s question in such a manner, but it’s another to do the same to a question from a fan who’s paying for dinner at the restaurant while “watching” the show and just wants to feel closer to the program.

Honestly, many questions from fans on Thursdays are as good or better than what media members lob at the coach -- especially one that a fan asked about the difference between coaching a college freshman quarterback (Christian Hackenberg) and a Super Bowl-winning, NFL all-pro (Tom Brady) that irked O’Brien last week.

It was a fair question, probably not worded as clearly as possible, but not bad nonetheless. It’s a shame O’Brien heard the question as an affront to his coaching prowess.

Make no mistake, O’Brien’s zingers make for good radio, and good live theatre, but not all fans have the thick skin necessary to trade barbs and some might not want to be the butt of a joke.

Surely SEC

With “College GameDay” on site at Alabama-Texas A&M and that game getting all kinds of attention this week, some fans might think the Southeastern Conference gets too much attention.

That’s just not the case because SEC fans drive college football viewership more than fans in any other region in the country.

ESPN research finds that 38 percent of “GameDay” viewers come from SEC states while no other region of the country accounts for more than 11 percent. Also, one mid-sized city -- Birmingham, Ala. -- almost invariably tops viewership of college football (and that’s almost any game on any network) on a given weekend.