With only one weekly football game, no baseball, and no basketball, how has NBC Sports managed to become the worst national broadcaster of sports in the country?

Well, that’s a pretty simple answer: When you screw up the Olympics as badly as they did, and when you consistently mangle your tennis coverage, you end up with a well-earned reputation at being failures at your job. The main problem: NBC refuses to show major sporting events live, insisting instead on putting them in “prime time,” showered with analysis and features. Just show us the damn game/match/event.

There isn’t a lot that NBC Sports is trusted with. But when they are trusted with covering an event, we expect them to do it well. I can put up with glitches in broadcasts and even technical problems — they happen, but what I can’t put up with is not showing the events you are supposed to be showing.

NBC ruined the Olympics in 2008 by insisting on showing the “marquee” events in prime time, even if that meant a long tape delay prior to airing. In today’s world of the Internet and instant news, it is impossible to keep any suspense until the taped coverage begins. So those of us on the West Coast particularly, knew the results of everything that was going to be aired on NBC on the night of Olympic coverage. So what did we do? We didn’t watch it.

Of course, when we really wanted to watch something, NBC forced us to do so on their Web site. Occasionally things were on another channel, which was nice, but too often we were forced to watch these great sporting events in inferior quality on the web. The Olympics was a massive failure for viewers all over the country due to NBC.

This week, they were at it again, as they chose to air a taped Wimbledon match that they damn sure knew was a three set drubbing, rather than show the only American man left in the tournament in the best match of the tournament so far. Viewers in the United States were forced to watch Andy Roddick play Lleyton Hewitt on the Internet (NBCSports.com again), once again in inferior quality, while the television showed a taped, three-hour old Roger Federer drubbing.

Even the New York Times says it is time for NBC to walk away.

The problem is, NBC is convinced that us viewers want to watch a giant production, in prime time, with analysis, of every major sporting event. We don’t. We want to watch the sports, live, as they happen.

NBC screwed up the French Open as well, and they have certainly done this to us sports fans many other times in the past. For that matter, we went through this at Wimbledon last year, too.

ESPN gets it. For all of the things that I don’t like about the Worldwide Leader, at least they show things live. If a big soccer match starts at 3am, ESPN will show it live. Same with tennis and baseball. Now if only they would learn that when they do show things on tape (sometimes it’s necessary), they remove the final score of what they are showing from their ticker. But baby steps…

In fact, ESPN’s coverage of the first week of Wimbledon was fantastic. DIRECTV even provided a mix channel that let me pick what match I wanted to watch — live, at 4am. It wasn’t until the second week, when NBC played their exclusivity card that all of a sudden I couldn’t watch tennis anymore.

While we’re at it, let’s throw in the story that NBC wouldn’t allow the Pittsburgh Penguins to show a playoff game on a big screen outside of their arena, something that the Pens had done throughout the playoffs. They continued to air any games broadcast on FSN, but NBC put the kibosh on their broadcast being used.

Yeah, I get it — it’s all about advertising. NBC wants more people watching their broadcasts of games at the times they want them too to maximize revenue. But at what cost to the actual broadcast? Sports don’t work in tape delays, and sports broadcasts don’t work when the top priority is the advertisers and not the fans.

Say what you will about ESPN, but at least they put the game first.

NBC, on the other hand, could apparently care less about the sports it is broadcasting. When that is the case, then they need to get out.

When it comes to ranking the sports broadcasters in the United States, the only thing that is clear is the NBC is dead last. The day that NBC is outbid for the Olympics and tennis coverage is going to be a great day for sports fans who actually want to watch sports when they happen. Until then, I’ll just continue to not watch sports on NBC, since I already know the results of what they are showing.

So since I first wrote that piece, here are the updates.

Good:
• Home and away feeds are now available (since 2008 season) when possible. Big upgrade.
• Games now in HD (point goes to Fox Sports affiliates for upgrading, not DIRECTV or Major League Baseball for doing anything.
• Mix channel now comes with HD package (at least – may come with regular package). You used to have to pay extra for this. Great channel.

Bad:
• Still ridiculous home markets. Here in Las Vegas, I am still blacked out from Diamondbacks, Padres, Angels, Dodgers, Giants and A’s games quite often.

Think about how ridiculous that is. I live in a market that has no MLB team. The closest team is several hundred miles away. Only the occasional game from any of these teams is on the local cable (still not on satellite). Yet I am still subjected to the caveman style maps that baseball drew up way too long ago to determine where “local markets” are.

I can’t emphasize this enough: Until the blackout rules are changed and the local markets redrawn, baseball on television will be a failing equation. Yes, I get to watch almost every game that I want to. For that, I thank the powers of technology. But missing just one game because of these absolutely insane rules is beyond explanation.

So in summary, yes Extra Innings is improving, but they still haven’t cured the cancer at the root of it. Basically, they have taken a sick body and given it a makeover and new shoes, but failed to address the disease.

Just add DIRECTV to the list of things that make Bud Selig a terrible commissioner (if you have any room left on that piece of paper).

Madden announced his retirement from broadcasting, saying it was time to leave the booth and spend more time with his family. At 73, Madden has spent 30 years in the broadcast booth after a successful career as a coach prior to that.

He worked everywhere in his career, spending his first 15 yeas with CBS, then going to FOX before taking a gig on Monday Night Football for ABC. He finished his career calling games for NBC.

Madden separated himself as his career went on as one of the best in the business, and when all is said and done, he’ll probably be considered the best color commentator that the NFL ever had.

His decision to retire to spend more time with his family probably means more with him than many others, since he often spent more time away from his family than other announcers. His fear of flying led him to invest in a Madden-cruiser, a tour bus, if you will, to travel around the continental United States. Since he drove everywhere, he was often on the road for more days in a week than a colleague that would fly.

While Madden will always be remembered for his antics, he was arguably the best broadcaster in the game. But his sideshow theatrics were a part of what made him great.

Madden revolutionized the use of the telestrator, he made noises to make his point (boom!), his All-Madden team was the first of its kind, and he’ll forever be linked to the cooking of turduckens all over the country. He was a unique announcer and will be remembered for that as much as he will be remembered for his second-to-none analysis of football games.

Inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2006, Madden will be remembered nearly as much for his video games as he will be for his announcing. The Madden franchise is the top selling sports video game of all time. There is no word on the status of the games with Madden’s retirement.

The only moment of friction seemed to be when Reilly called out Simmons on his criticism of traditional writers squandering their access in the press box, with Reilly ripping Simmons for not being there to judge them for himself. They went back and forth on the issue, and having been on both sides of this one, I completely agreed with Reilly. The amount of information that is gotten during a game is minuscule compared to what is gathered pregame, postgame and during the commercials. Access is vital for a beat writer, and the closer to the action you are, the more you can understand the news story you are covering.

Unfortunately for many bloggers, there was no “feud” to speak of, and the two seemed to genuinely get along together.

Don’t count on the two of them hosting Pardon the Interruption 2.0 together, but any talk of a feud between them should be pretty much put to rest. Clearly they have different views on sports and journalism, but that doesn’t mean that you have to be feuding with a colleague who does different things in the business.

Like any good piece of radio or podcast, as it were, the 45 minutes went fast, therefore it’s a solid piece of media.

In today’s digital world, the P-I’s switch to being an online only paper is certainly not going to be the last one to make the switch, but with revenues down across the board in journalism, it makes you contemplate just how many papers will go the way of the Rocky Mountain News and completely shut down.

While the former writers of that paper are trying to band together to form a new online presence, the idea that a newspaper could reach that point is scary to many people.

The ongoing new media vs. traditional media war has played out quite loudly in the sports and politics sections of the news. As bloggers tackled serious issues and did it quite well, a blow was dealt to the traditional media. Some have embraced it, like Andrew Sullivan in politics or Jason Whitlock in sports. Others have openly rooted for the demise of the others.

Print writers want the bloggers, and thus new media to fail and refuse to embrace the changing technology, and bloggers often seem to be calling for all the newspapers to shut their doors.

What neither understands is that they both need each other to survive.

Print journalists, specifically beat writers, will remain relevant and necessary as long as there are sports being played. Yes, they could switch to an all-digital format, but the traditional journalism media must remain intact. Without the beat writers on the front line in the locker room, there are no stories to link to for bloggers, and no investigative pieces with sources and access (see: SI vs. A-Rod). There must be true, salaried, professional authorities in the sports world, forming the foundation of analysis for other mediums.

As for bloggers, they are simply the new generation of sports columnists. Having worked in the media and been in the locker rooms, I can tell you, there are quite a few columnists who utilize their access about as much as the guy in the proverbial parents’ basement. Most columnists are proof that anyone with a sports opinion can write about sports. There are some great ones out there, but really, they are just the original bloggers. Columnists and bloggers tend to both be opinionists and analysts, with both groups having about a 50/50 rate of good-to-bad.

Without the beat writers and real journalists, bloggers will be left to produce their own news. In the future, this might be possible, but right now, it would crash the system. Access is needed to form the news of the sport, while the lack of access is just fine for the analysts. Journalists need to be able to ask difficult questions, something that can’t be done only from home. Sure, you can get some access and interviews, but without being in the locker room or at practice, you don’t get the bigger stories. Only commenting on games is no way to cover a sport. There needs to be a presence at practices and press conferences, and that just isn’t realistic in today’s new media. Again, perhaps in the future, but not right now.

Without the new media of bloggers and online news sources, the writers will struggle to keep up in the 24-hour news cycle of today’s world. Printing the news once a day just doesn’t cut it anymore. But printing the news once a day and putting it online, allowing it to be linked to by multiple other sites indefinitely allows an otherwise old-fashioned news story to live on for much longer.

The worlds of sports media must learn to co-exist. Journalists have a needed role, and the coverage of sports relies on them to lay the foundation of the story. But as technology advances, those stories need the wheels of blogs and Web sites to republish their stories. Bloggers and columnists are doing the same job, one with access to the game, and one with access to the stories.

In today’s world of 800 channels and streaming video and the YouTube, access exists, even without being there. But the fact remains that without the traditional media types being in the locker room asking the hard questions and holding the microphones, the stories won’t get to the bloggers.

The closing of another newspaper is sad news to the journalism industry and a bit of an “I told you so,” from the online world. But in reality, it should be a sad day for anyone who cares about news coverage.

I worked in radio and I now write online, but I know damn well that coverage of the news, sports or otherwise, relies on the traditional, trained journalists who get the stories started.

What we need to see, and will likely see in the years to come, is a joint venture between blogs and journalism, creating a new animal of news and information. Take one part newspaper and one part blog, combine their resources under one friendly Web site, and let the family build a new form of media. Combining the varieties of writers with the access to display video online and we will see a new world of media in the years to come.

As long as both sides get on board with this, it will work. But it has not chance of working until the stupid pissing contests end between new media and traditional media.

Losing a newspaper in print form is bad enough, but losing them altogether — Web presence and all, is terrible.

Chass said that he wanted to write about it back in the day, when Piazza was still active, but since he had never been publicly accused of using steroids, Chass’ editors at The New York Times wouldn’t allow him to discuss it.

Since the bacne is a notable side-effect of the juice, Chass thought it was relevant, but instead sat on his opinion until now.

Recently, Joel Sherman of the New York Post wrote a column that discusses Piazza and the steroid era, so Chass thought this would be a logical time to break his silence.

Chass saw in the locker room the large amount of acne on Piazza’s back when he was in his prime, and then, out of nowhere, it was gone.

So what happened?

But the method Piazza used became apparent to me. It wasn’t medicine or any substance; it was abstinence. This was during the 2004 season, the first season baseball was testing for performance-enhancing substances with identification and penalties attached. If Piazza had been using steroids and didn’t want to get caught, he had to stop using. If he stopped using, his back would clear up.

His back cleared up. Completely.

Sure the evidence is circumstantial, but his on field performance seemed to peak with his bacne, then decrease with it as well. I’m not pointing any fingers, but if everyone else in baseball’s young 21st century is going to get convicted on circumstantial evidence, then Piazza too should be included.

Now, back to my earlier tease about his Web site being NOT A BLOG.

From murraychass.com’s About page [Emphasis mine]:

This is a site for baseball columns, not for baseball blogs. The proprietor of the site is not a fan of blogs. He made that abundantly clear on a radio show with Charley Steiner when Steiner asked him what he thought of blogs and he replied, “I hate blogs.” He later heartily applauded Buzz Bissinger when the best-selling author denounced bloggers on a Bob Costas HBO show.

Bloggers, however, are welcome to visit this site; so are stats freaks, fantasy leaguers and Red Sox fans. How else will they know what is being said about them by a columnist they love to hate?

Otherwise, this site will most likely appeal primarily to older fans whose interest in good old baseball is largely ignored in this day of young bloggers who know it all, and new- fangled statistics (VORP, for one excuse-me example), which are drowning the game in numbers and making people forget that human beings, not numbers, play the games.

At first glance, it’s just your typical “old writer hates new media” talk that is far too common for me to quote specifics.

But my argument, and the point that Chass seems to miss is this: You’re site is a blog, like it or not.

Let’s look at the evidence.

By definition, a blog is “a series of entries posted to a single page in reverse-chronological order.”

Murraychass.com — a series of entries on a single page in reverse-chronological order. Check.

The other tell-tale sign that you have a blog: You are running your site on blogging software.

A quick check of Mr. Chass’s page source code (View – Page Source) will tell you that he is running WordPress 2.5.1 (time to update, guy), one of the most popular blogging platforms available.

So murraychass.com fits the definition of a blog and is run as a blog on blogging software, but don’t you dare call it a blog.

If people like Mr. Chass and Buzz Bissinger and their friends would understand that a blog is a Web site that falls under a certain format and uses certain software, perhaps they wouldn’t be so afraid of them.

Are there shitty blogs? Absolutely. Are there equally shitty print columnists? No doubt.

Instead of picking a fight with an entire generation of writers and sports minds (some obviously better and/or more influential than others), perhaps you should simply critique or praise writing as necessary and open your mind to a world of information.

It’s fine if you don’t want to use expletives on your site, since that’s not what you did in print journalism. That doesn’t mean that anyone who uses a curse word is a blog and those who don’t aren’t.

This is a ridiculous conversation to have, but unfortunately the last generation likes to make ridiculous generalizations about the next one. If you don’t like this site, or others that may be formatted or written similarly, that’s fine. There is a whole list of print columnists that I have absolutely no respect for.

And for the record, I worked in “traditional media” for many years before enjoying the freedom of these here Intertubes. I’m no stranger to a locker room and if I was respected at one point by print writers, why shouldn’t I be now?

Not everybody who has a blog falls into your definition of “blogger.” And not every blogger is the same. Would you like me to criticize your work because of what Jay Mariotti wrote? I didn’t think so. Just because it’s written on the Internet doesn’t by definition make something poorly written or incorrect.

Perhaps if some of the older writers embraced the new-fangled stats like VORP, they’d better understand the sport they are covering. In the end, isn’t that what the job is really about?

Now, the sports media capital of eastern Michigan is back at it again, this time with some pathetic attempt at radio.

Mike Valenti of the brilliantly named “Valenti & Foster Show,” thought it would be a good idea to read some jokes mocking the boating tragedy involving former Lion Corey Smith. On the Lions flagship station. Well done, Mr. Valenti — you’re the reason that today’s sports radio has the reputation that it has.

Honestly, what kind of asshole thinks it’s appropriate to read e-mails or instant messages, take phone calls, or simply opine about the disappearance or death of a local athlete with humor?

He can apologize all he wants for “making a bad decision” or “using poor judgment” or whatever the hell cliche he wants to use, but the simple answer to this is that this is a man who made a decision so bad that he should be currently unemployed.

From the article:

Valenti: “These (e-mail) feedbacks are coming in again.”

Foster: “What’s up? Lay it on me, baby.”

Valenti: “I really don’t even want to read this one.”

Foster: “Yes, you do because you’re … ”

Valenti: “No, but this one is … all right, I’m going to read this but if you’re sensitive to inappropriate stuff you should probably turn the channel …”

And then Valenti told a joke about Smith being lost at sea and concluded by saying “From (listener) in Farmington Hills, thank you for that.”

A short time later, they read another e-mail, making fun of a cap-sized boat.

You know what? If you’re smart enough to warn your listeners of the impending inappropriate-ness, you’re smart enough to stop talking and read something else. There is no excuse and in a situation like this, there should be no second chance.

I was on the air the day that Pat Tillman died in Phoenix. Not for the briefest moment in time would I, or any of my colleagues have thought for a second that making any type of joke mocking his death would be appropriate. He died five years ago and I still wouldn’t do it.

As a person who happens to know Marquis Cooper’s father, I feel personally offended. And I’m sure that being a radio host in Detroit, this guy either knew Corey Smith or knew people that knew him.

And as a former radio host, I know that this guy knew damn well what he was reading. He thought it would get a laugh and he went for it. If you’re capable of making this kind of bad decision, you’re capable of looking for a job elsewhere, in my opinion.

The only conclusion I can draw here is that this guy is just a piece of shit and he shouldn’t be on the radio. I don’t care what kind of excuse he offers, this was a line you don’t cross.

And by the way, I just spent the last half-hour reading the message boards at this guy’s personal site and it is nothing but support for him and his “mistake,” and a ton of bashing the co-host for not standing by him. Are you kidding me? It’s called respect, idiots. There are also a plethora of inappropriate comments in the thread on the same site about Smith and the other three men going missing. Not everyone on the site is an asshole, but clearly enough of them for me to mention it. And since this is Valenti’s site, we can conclude that this guy is just an idiot and and asshole. Enjoy your $7500 homes and living in the murder capital of the country, losers*.

And a big F-you to you, Mike Valenti.

*****

*Not all of Detroit, but if you were the asshole that messaged the joke, or one of the assholes who post on that board (you know who you are), then I’m talking to you. And Mike Valenti.

Channeling his inner Chappelle-doing-Prince, Gottlieb unleashed a quality quote that was far-and-above the call of duty.

In light of Randy Moller revolutionizing the hockey goal call (see below), perhaps there will be a trend of added flavor to calling sports games. One can only hope.

Enjoy:

And of course, the genius original:

All Gottlieb needed to add was “pancakes…”

And Randy Moller’s amazing performances calling goals for the Florida Panthers:

According to USA Today’s Michael Hiestand:

Signing the supposedly retired Brett Favre would bring in a star. Norby Williamson, ESPN executive vice president, says ESPN hopes to meet with Favre next month: “He’s a funny, dynamic guy and would add to anybody’s coverage.”

While I don’t think anyone doubts Favre’s ability to analyze football, the combination of the dominant media source with their man-crush of a story for the last X-amount of years, could result in some really uncomfortable situations.

Take Yahoo! Sports’ Shutdown Corner’s scenario:

Chris Berman constantly leaning over the wall of Favre’s cubicle saying things like, “You know, Brett, I really like the way those Wranglers hang on you,” or “Brett, would you mind bending over and picking up my stapler for me? I seem to have dropped it again. WOOP!” Or Tony Kornheiser stopping him in the hallways, saying, “Hey Brett, why don’t you drop by my office sometime, and we’ll stare at each other’s chest hair?”

I just think he should know what he’s in for. All this time that we’ve heard Berman and Kornheiser crushing on him, he’s been playing. He might not even know about it.

Considering this is the network that refused to report on Jay Glazer’s report about Favre giving tips to teams about the Packers, I don’t think there is anything anyone could do to keep the WWL from offering him the job. The city of Bristol is so madly in love with Favre that there is likely no way for us to stop this.

Awful Announcing thinks that this is a publicity grab, similar to picking up Emmitt right after Dancing with the Stars, regardless of his ability to speak English.

Emmitt was hired by the network on the heels of his “Dancing With the Stars” popularity, and while he didn’t pan out, ESPN still got that initial push from the buzz. The only difference in this case is that people weren’t sick to death of Smith, in fact most of the country was in love with him. If Favre ends up under performing like Smith, the network would probably get even more flak for his hiring than the Smith one.

I don’t know what the problem is. Favre has already proven his chops in front of the camera to the point that you’d be a fool not to hire him. His comfort level speaking off of a script is second-to-none. How can you pass on a master thespian talking sports.

And really, what more is there to analyzing football amongst 13 other guys at ESPN than knowing what to read. Sure, he could do his own analysis, but when you can read a script like this, you just load the prompter and let him go to work.

Hell, it’s only a ratings grab, they might as well bring in Matt Dillon and Ben Stiller to fill the MNF booth. Many would say that they can’t be worse than Kornheiser.

We have to accept that ESPN will go after the biggest name they can get to fill Emmitt’s seat. Favre is a recently “retired” future Hall of Famer that is going to be looking for something to do as the summer comes to an end. This move makes perfect sense for ESPN and for Favre. I’ll rip on it because of ESPN’s love of all things Favre, but objectively speaking, this is a logical move on both parts.

Arriving in April will be ESPNChicago.com, ESPN’s first venture into a locals devoted Web site. The site will cater to Chicago sports fans, and provide a “24/7 Chicago sports news operation.”

Currently, MillerCoors is the first advertiser on the site, and ESPN said that if this venture is successful, expect to see ESPN[yourcity].com in the future.

Certainly there is a market in several cities for more in-depth local coverage.

According to the Chicago-Tribune, local talent, as well as ESPN’s own Midwest-based talent will fill the site with content.

And like the cable channel, ESPN Chicago will feature its own “SportsCenter”-style newscast with a three- to five-minute highlight reel of the day’s top stories. It will have original content and include breaking news, provided by Chicago’s WLS-Ch. 7. The ABC affiliate and ESPN are both owned by The Walt Disney Co.

ESPN columnist Gene Wojciechowski, a former Chicago Tribune sportswriter, will write for the site. Other ESPN contributors will write for the Chicago site, as will ESPN 1000 radio personalities Tom Waddle and Bruce Levine.

If this model works, expect this trend to grow very, very quickly. As print media continues to save ground and money, there is a void being left around the nation for local, in-depth sports coverage. As beat writers get laid off, digital media is picking up the pieces. The ability of a site like espnchicago.com to share resources with four or five or more media outlets gives them the ability to provide all of the coverage that a local print paper might have provided in years past.

If you are successful in delivering the information, people will come back, and online, it’s easier to allow users to preview your model and decide what they want.

While ESPN has branded itself the “Worldwide Leader,” they don’t have much experience in the local game. Nearly all of their coverage is on a national level, barring a few specific events. Day-to-day coverage of one town that has two baseball teams, a hockey, football and basketball team, as well as several D-I colleges in the area is a great test to see if they can do this.

Normally I am looking to reel in the power that ESPN yields over consumers, but I truly believe that this is a great step towards them providing the coverage that fans want.

As long as this stays local and doesn’t branch into a giant cross-promotion with all of their national outlets, I see this as a good thing.

A further review will be given when the site launches in April.