I am not a Gus Johnson fan in the least. I don't like his style, I don't like his calls. I don't like that his calls become part of the game. I don't like him, and apparently CBS doesn't, either. Gus, who worked at the eye network for 13 years for their NCAA basketball and NFL telecasts, was a favorite with younger fans a the blogosphere for reasons I'll never comprehend, but that's neither here nor there. What I hate the most his the blogosphere's love-affair for what I see as a sub-par announcer, that's the biggest problem I have.
He was never a top-tier announcer, obviously. In 1998, when football returned to CBS, Johnson and Steve Tasker were paired in the #4 spot on the CBS totem pole. In 1999 and 2000, Johnson was paired with Brent Jones in the #4 spot, where he would stay until 2006, when he and Steve Tasker dropped to the #5 slot (Jones left part-way into the 2005 season). Then the next season, Johnson and Tasker dropped to the #7 slot, where they remained until last season.
It has already been confirmed that Johnson will be lead announcer for FOX's college football telecasts for Pac 12 coverage and the Big 10 Championship Game (so we'll have to be exposed to his screaming every week, it looks like). Now, I'll be the first to admit that FOX's performances in college football have been pretty poor (except for last year's Cotton Bowl, which was handled very well by Kenny Albert and Daryl Johnston).
Alright, now I'll digest and prognosticate Awful Announcing's piece about Johnson moving to FOX. It's not pretty:
He is heading to Fox and appears to be in line to be their #1 college sports announcer. With the Big 10 Championship Game and Pac 12 coverage coming to the network, Gus is a big coup to immediately lift Fox's coverage of college sports. Which, as you may remember, has a checkered history at best... ok, it was awful.
Yes it was a disaster but I think the jury is still out on whether or not Johnson will help FOX's college football coverage (I think FOX was desperate and CBS was desperate to cut ties with Johnson, as they probably should have been).
It appears that Gus' talents will also be used for Fox's NFL coverage, where he would be a welcome addition. Look at the stable of NFL on Fox play by play men - Joe Buck, Kenny Albert, Thom Brennaman, Dick Stockton, Sam Rosen, Ron Pitts, Chris Rose, Chris Myers... it's below average, especially compared to CBS. Gus Johnson should be #2 at worst. Let's not get our hopes up that he will replace Joe Buck anytime soon, but we can at least dream of Gus calling the Super Bowl if there's now no chance at the Final Four.
Actually the only one of those announcers that are really bad are Chris Rose and Chris Myers (Joe Buck isn't terrible but he is nowhere near great). FOX needs analysts, bad. They used to have great analysts (Bentley, Baldinger, Madden, Millen when he was sane), but now, not so good. At best I would put Johnson with Billick at #3 (or #4. It's unclear to me if Stockton and Davis are #3 or #4. Your guess is as good as mine).
Just for shits and giggles, here is my mock NFL on FOX batting order including Gus Johnson:
1 - Albert or Stockton, Aikman
2 - Albert or Stockton, Johnston
3 - Rosen, Ryan
4 - Pitts, Billick
5 - Johnson, Davis
6 - Buck, Lynch
7 - Brennaman, Holt/Mora
A CBS source who wanted Johnson back said not only money, but politics was an issue. The source said some of CBS Sports' college hoops voices were not thrilled with Johnson's rise to March Madness' most popular voice.
As they should have been. CBS had some great, and I mean great announcers for their NCAA Tornament coverage (Lundquist, Albert, Harlan, Brando). Apparently Johnson's co-workers and bosses did like his style and his gradual rise up the CBS totem pole.
Viewers will now tune into Fox's college football and basketball and NFL broadcasts because of Gus Johnson.
I agree with this statement, and this is one of the reasons I don't like Johnson, because as a result of his calls, he becomes bigger than the game, which is something an announcer should not become.
Not being a huge Gus Johnson fan, I don't really care what happens to him...but it seems as though he'll be doing some prominent college games for FOX, but it is unclear where he'll be put in FOX's batting order.
Lastly, here is a mock ordering of CBS commentators:
1 - Nantz, Simms
2 - Gumbel, Dierdorf
3 - Eagle or Criqui, Fouts
4 - Harlan, Wilcots
5/6 - Macatee or Criqui, Gannon or Beuerlien
7 - Dedes or Brando, Cross
I'd like to see either Brando come back to football telecasts and for Criqui to move up (he's still just as sharp as he was 30 years ago). Of course my dream CBS pairing would be for Gumbel and Simms to team up again for the top spot (this was their top team when I started watching football heavily).
Perhaps you're wondering why I don't like Gus Johnson very much? It has to do with a few different things. 1.) He's become bigger than the game. 2.) It worries me that so many people are attracted to him when he doesn't get his stuff right. He is just not a very accurate announcer and relies on the emotion of the moment to help the flow of his calls.
I feel like I'm going into "beating a dead horse" territory so I think I'll stop now.
09 May 2011
26 April 2011
TMQ Is Back, And It's Still Just As Bad As Ever
TMQ has returned to mock the mock draft as he does, annoyingly, every year. However he devotes the first third of this column to the NFL labor dispute, only in the way TMQ can, basically saying both sides should have respectfully negotiated somewhere not taxpayer funded and that all these rich fucking crybaby assholes are in it for their own personal gain. Like I said, the only way TMQ can.
The NFL players and owners can't possibly be foolish enough to kill a goose that lays $10 billion worth of golden eggs each year, can they?
You would think not but somehow I think it will.
Don't answer that!
I just did.
As the historian Barbara Tuchman wrote, human history reflects a "march of folly" -- people and institutions go out of their way to do that which sabotages their own interests.
Yes, TMQ is a "march of folly". It is a person and an institution who goes out of its way to sabotage their own interests.
The previous agreement had room for improvement, of course. Health benefits for former players were poor. Bonuses for first-round draft choices were getting out of hand. But a routine negotiation could have handled such matters. There was no need for the owners and players to engage in a public meltdown that may damage both their interests.
I actually agree with this statement. Wholeheartedly, too. The problem is both sides wanted to get the fans involved and start lobbying their platform to them. What's worse is that at the onset of this the fans did not care, but both the players and the owners wanted to get them involved.
Are players and owners a bunch of spoiled crybabies, millionaires arguing with billionaires about who pays for the champagne? The simplest explanation is often correct, and this is the simplest explanation. But there is a crazed dynamic at work -- one that must end, so American taxpayers with a median household income of $53,000 can stop subsidizing federal courtroom time for wealthy crybabies to shout at each other. Here's what is happening:
This is a very cryptic way of saying, well, nothing.
That left the bossypants cohort of NFL owners smarting, wanting revenge on someone. Vying for revenge against your own players -- who are the product; not many people come to stadiums to watch the owners -- doesn't make a great deal of sense. But human history is a march of folly.
I seriously don't they wanted revenge. Perhaps they wanted to win, sure, but revenge? Sounds kind of crazy.
Believing they had "lost" the 2006 bargaining round, some NFL owners said words to the effect of, "Let's hire this [expletive] Batterman and crush the NFLPA."
Oh, hyperbole. I doubt this quote was every actually said.
Nevertheless, in 2008 the owners hired Batterman as labor counsel. He laid out a plan to create a lockout, and that's what happened. What does he care if an NFL season is canceled, and the league's popularity declines? He gets the same fee regardless.
Do you really think that the owners are that greedy that they will jeopardize their income (the team playing games, fans filling seats, selling beer, merchandise, etc) just to "win" the labor dispute. I actually don't think so but I'm sure some (Easterbrook included) do. However an outside counsel probably does not care since he'll get paid as Easterbrook said.
On the labor side: Upshaw, a former NFL player, was a gifted negotiator -- he won free agency for NFL athletes, steadily rising pay for them, and benefits for retired players. Because he'd been an NFL star, he was secure in his manhood. Because he'd played in the league, in all things he put the interests of the players first.
Actually the more and more I read in to this the more I side with the owners and not the players. According to TMQ, Smith and a few players (that were said to represent all players) filed a lawsuit that if it success would spell the end of the draft, free agency, and salary cap - scary thought.
Basically it stipulates that high salary players will continue to get paid their high salary, if not more (double their salary, perhaps), while less well-off players' salaries will decline.
I actually agree with TMQ's "The path to the solution" paragraph, but I think it's wishful thinking. I don't think the litigation will escape the courtroom.
What TMQ finds worrisome about Newton is … he played for a BCS title team. That's a major negative; see below. But first, TMQ's annual mock of mock drafts.
Only TMQ would not equate success with success. We'll see. If Newton is a bust, he's a bust. I don't see why it matters that he was a one-hit wonder or if his integrity is questioned (only by moralists like TMQ).
His next segment is what worries me about TMQ. Deadspin hit it on their rant about TMQ's rant about President Obama filling out a bracket. "This is the worst kind of sports column: irrelevant, pedantic, and completely in love with its own righteousness." That, my friends, is TMQ each week.
And then we get TMQ's short-sighted observations and pronouncements about Cam Newton.
Is there more to his recruiting scandal? It's easy to believe a starry-eyed teenager would not grasp that NCAA rules forbid cash in return for signing a college letter of intent. It's hard to believe Newton's father did not grasp this, and it's really hard to believe the full truth of the matter has come out. Any team that drafts Newton runs a risk the NCAA will at some point void Auburn's 2010 season, and Newton will return his Heisman. If this happens, a wave of negativity would wash over a franchise that's just given Newton a check for a staggering amount of money.
Only TMQ would continue to pound this into the ground because for some reason he has an axe to grind with Newton's character. There really is nothing else to say here other than TMQ I'm sure is the only person who still thinks this is an issue.
Why did he leave Florida? Newton was at three colleges in three autumns -- University of Florida, then Blinn, then Auburn. The situation at Florida seemed ideal for Newton: backing up Tim Tebow, learning from a master in Urban Meyer, with the likelihood that as a junior, he would become the face of one of college football's best-run programs. Why did he leave, and suddenly? Not for the challenge of leading Blinn to the NJCAA playoffs. Reports say Newton was about to be expelled from Florida for cheating, which the school will neither confirm nor deny. There's something not right about the whole Florida business.
Maybe because he wanted to play, perhaps? Just maybe? He knew that while Tebow was still there he wouldn't have a chance at starting. And maybe perhaps he knew that if he wanted a chance in the NFL he had to get out of Meyer stupid whatever you call it offense and get into a pro-style offense. Again, I don't know why TMQ has such an axe to grind with Newton.
He played for a BCS title team. In his one year at Auburn, Newton was surrounded by premium athletes. Newton had stars to hand off to and stars to throw to. The blocking was exceptional. Oh mighty football gods, if I am reincarnated as a quarterback, put me on a stacked team.
Most of those quaterbacks mentioned above played at football factories or something close to it, they didnt' exactly have it the hard way. If teams were smarted, they would draft Newton to a team with either a veteran quarterback or a coach who can help and further coach Newton to NFL standards. And I wouldn't exactly say Vince Young's career is solid.
The NFL players and owners can't possibly be foolish enough to kill a goose that lays $10 billion worth of golden eggs each year, can they?
You would think not but somehow I think it will.
Don't answer that!
I just did.
As the historian Barbara Tuchman wrote, human history reflects a "march of folly" -- people and institutions go out of their way to do that which sabotages their own interests.
Yes, TMQ is a "march of folly". It is a person and an institution who goes out of its way to sabotage their own interests.
The previous agreement had room for improvement, of course. Health benefits for former players were poor. Bonuses for first-round draft choices were getting out of hand. But a routine negotiation could have handled such matters. There was no need for the owners and players to engage in a public meltdown that may damage both their interests.
I actually agree with this statement. Wholeheartedly, too. The problem is both sides wanted to get the fans involved and start lobbying their platform to them. What's worse is that at the onset of this the fans did not care, but both the players and the owners wanted to get them involved.
Are players and owners a bunch of spoiled crybabies, millionaires arguing with billionaires about who pays for the champagne? The simplest explanation is often correct, and this is the simplest explanation. But there is a crazed dynamic at work -- one that must end, so American taxpayers with a median household income of $53,000 can stop subsidizing federal courtroom time for wealthy crybabies to shout at each other. Here's what is happening:
This is a very cryptic way of saying, well, nothing.
That left the bossypants cohort of NFL owners smarting, wanting revenge on someone. Vying for revenge against your own players -- who are the product; not many people come to stadiums to watch the owners -- doesn't make a great deal of sense. But human history is a march of folly.
I seriously don't they wanted revenge. Perhaps they wanted to win, sure, but revenge? Sounds kind of crazy.
Believing they had "lost" the 2006 bargaining round, some NFL owners said words to the effect of, "Let's hire this [expletive] Batterman and crush the NFLPA."
Oh, hyperbole. I doubt this quote was every actually said.
Nevertheless, in 2008 the owners hired Batterman as labor counsel. He laid out a plan to create a lockout, and that's what happened. What does he care if an NFL season is canceled, and the league's popularity declines? He gets the same fee regardless.
Do you really think that the owners are that greedy that they will jeopardize their income (the team playing games, fans filling seats, selling beer, merchandise, etc) just to "win" the labor dispute. I actually don't think so but I'm sure some (Easterbrook included) do. However an outside counsel probably does not care since he'll get paid as Easterbrook said.
On the labor side: Upshaw, a former NFL player, was a gifted negotiator -- he won free agency for NFL athletes, steadily rising pay for them, and benefits for retired players. Because he'd been an NFL star, he was secure in his manhood. Because he'd played in the league, in all things he put the interests of the players first.
After Upshaw's death, DeMaurice Smith was elected head of the union. He is the second supervillain in this story. Smith never played pro sports -- for that matter, had no background in labor law or sports economics. He worked in the Justice Department, then became a litigator for Patton Boggs, a leading legal firm. The first impulse of litigators is to create conflicts; the second, to sustain them. The longer and nastier a conflict is, the more a litigator benefits, in fees and in personal importance.
I actually agree with this statement. It makes sense that the man representing the players should have, well, been a player. He gets paid regardless of what which side wins.Actually the more and more I read in to this the more I side with the owners and not the players. According to TMQ, Smith and a few players (that were said to represent all players) filed a lawsuit that if it success would spell the end of the draft, free agency, and salary cap - scary thought.
Basically it stipulates that high salary players will continue to get paid their high salary, if not more (double their salary, perhaps), while less well-off players' salaries will decline.
I actually agree with TMQ's "The path to the solution" paragraph, but I think it's wishful thinking. I don't think the litigation will escape the courtroom.
What TMQ finds worrisome about Newton is … he played for a BCS title team. That's a major negative; see below. But first, TMQ's annual mock of mock drafts.
Only TMQ would not equate success with success. We'll see. If Newton is a bust, he's a bust. I don't see why it matters that he was a one-hit wonder or if his integrity is questioned (only by moralists like TMQ).
His next segment is what worries me about TMQ. Deadspin hit it on their rant about TMQ's rant about President Obama filling out a bracket. "This is the worst kind of sports column: irrelevant, pedantic, and completely in love with its own righteousness." That, my friends, is TMQ each week.
And then we get TMQ's short-sighted observations and pronouncements about Cam Newton.
Is there more to his recruiting scandal? It's easy to believe a starry-eyed teenager would not grasp that NCAA rules forbid cash in return for signing a college letter of intent. It's hard to believe Newton's father did not grasp this, and it's really hard to believe the full truth of the matter has come out. Any team that drafts Newton runs a risk the NCAA will at some point void Auburn's 2010 season, and Newton will return his Heisman. If this happens, a wave of negativity would wash over a franchise that's just given Newton a check for a staggering amount of money.
Only TMQ would continue to pound this into the ground because for some reason he has an axe to grind with Newton's character. There really is nothing else to say here other than TMQ I'm sure is the only person who still thinks this is an issue.
Why did he leave Florida? Newton was at three colleges in three autumns -- University of Florida, then Blinn, then Auburn. The situation at Florida seemed ideal for Newton: backing up Tim Tebow, learning from a master in Urban Meyer, with the likelihood that as a junior, he would become the face of one of college football's best-run programs. Why did he leave, and suddenly? Not for the challenge of leading Blinn to the NJCAA playoffs. Reports say Newton was about to be expelled from Florida for cheating, which the school will neither confirm nor deny. There's something not right about the whole Florida business.
Maybe because he wanted to play, perhaps? Just maybe? He knew that while Tebow was still there he wouldn't have a chance at starting. And maybe perhaps he knew that if he wanted a chance in the NFL he had to get out of Meyer stupid whatever you call it offense and get into a pro-style offense. Again, I don't know why TMQ has such an axe to grind with Newton.
He played for a BCS title team. In his one year at Auburn, Newton was surrounded by premium athletes. Newton had stars to hand off to and stars to throw to. The blocking was exceptional. Oh mighty football gods, if I am reincarnated as a quarterback, put me on a stacked team.
Of the 11 BCS title-winning quarterbacks to enter the NFL, all were hot stuff in college; nine did little in the pros: Tee Martin, Chris Weinke, Josh Heupel, Ken Dorsey, Craig Krenzel, Matt Mauck, Matt Leinart, Chris Leak, Matt Flynn. The 10th, Tebow, has been in the NFL only one season; the sole (albeit current free agent) NFL quarterback with both a BCS title and a solid pro career is Vince Young. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Michael Vick, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, Philip Rivers, Joe Flacco -- none started on college title teams. They learned the hard way.
Newton sure looked great in 2010, but he looked great in a situation that would have made any quarterback look great. That's the big red flag.
Most of those quaterbacks mentioned above played at football factories or something close to it, they didnt' exactly have it the hard way. If teams were smarted, they would draft Newton to a team with either a veteran quarterback or a coach who can help and further coach Newton to NFL standards. And I wouldn't exactly say Vince Young's career is solid.
22 April 2011
2011 NFL TV Schedules Are Out...
...providing there is a 2011 NFL schedule, of course, but one can hope, right?
Let's start with the network that stunk it up in the regular season but shone in the playoffs capped off with great Super Bowl coverage - Fox
Week 1 they have a doubleheader, as always. Of the four games in the 4:15 spot the only one I forsee Buck and Aikman doing (if they are still the top team, which I assume they will be) is N.Y. Giants @ Washington.
Week 2 they have the singleheader capped off with Chicago @ New Orleans.
Week 3 is a doubleheader weekend - Green Bay @ Chicago. Good chunk of the country should see Atlanta @ Tampa.
Week 4 doesn't have great games for Fox on this singleheader weekend. Suppose Joebaby and Co. will do New Orleans @ Jacksonville. Could see them doing San Francisco @ Philadelphia, too.
Week 5, another singleheader weekend. I predict Joebaby and Co. at the Meadowlands for Seattle-N.Y. Giants.
Week 6 is a huge doubleheader weekend for Fox, as they're hosting the Patriots going up against the Cowboys.
They have another doubleheader weekend for Week 7. They're two games are St. Louis @ Dallas and Green Bay @ Minnesota. Chicago-Tampa Bay will be in London that Sunday as well (in the early slot) so Joebaby and Co. possibly will be there.
Week 8 is a fairly mediocre-looking singleheader Sunday. New Orleans @ St. Louis
For Week 9 the Giants will be facing the Patriots at 4:15, however, Green Bay is also at San Diego late.
(From this point on, games fall under flex scheduling)
For Week 10 they have a crappy doubleheader game (N.Y. Giants @ San Francisco). New Orleans @ Atlanta early, though.
Since Fox loves the NFC East they will probably do Dallas @ Washington for Week 11, but they could also do Tampa @ Green Bay.
Week 12 (other than being Thanksgiving) looks pretty crappy:
Let's start with the network that stunk it up in the regular season but shone in the playoffs capped off with great Super Bowl coverage - Fox
Week 1 they have a doubleheader, as always. Of the four games in the 4:15 spot the only one I forsee Buck and Aikman doing (if they are still the top team, which I assume they will be) is N.Y. Giants @ Washington.
Week 2 they have the singleheader capped off with Chicago @ New Orleans.
Week 3 is a doubleheader weekend - Green Bay @ Chicago. Good chunk of the country should see Atlanta @ Tampa.
Week 4 doesn't have great games for Fox on this singleheader weekend. Suppose Joebaby and Co. will do New Orleans @ Jacksonville. Could see them doing San Francisco @ Philadelphia, too.
Week 5, another singleheader weekend. I predict Joebaby and Co. at the Meadowlands for Seattle-N.Y. Giants.
Week 6 is a huge doubleheader weekend for Fox, as they're hosting the Patriots going up against the Cowboys.
They have another doubleheader weekend for Week 7. They're two games are St. Louis @ Dallas and Green Bay @ Minnesota. Chicago-Tampa Bay will be in London that Sunday as well (in the early slot) so Joebaby and Co. possibly will be there.
Week 8 is a fairly mediocre-looking singleheader Sunday. New Orleans @ St. Louis
For Week 9 the Giants will be facing the Patriots at 4:15, however, Green Bay is also at San Diego late.
(From this point on, games fall under flex scheduling)
For Week 10 they have a crappy doubleheader game (N.Y. Giants @ San Francisco). New Orleans @ Atlanta early, though.
Since Fox loves the NFC East they will probably do Dallas @ Washington for Week 11, but they could also do Tampa @ Green Bay.
Week 12 (other than being Thanksgiving) looks pretty crappy:
1:00 PM Minnesota @ Atlanta Arizona @ St. Louis Carolina @ Indianapolis Tampa Bay @ Tennessee
4:05 PM Washington @ Seattle Chicago @ Oakland
It's a toss-up, anyone's guess.
Week 13 looks to be a good doubleheader weekend with Green Bay at the Giants. Depending on what SNF has this game could be flexed though.
I stared at Week 14 for awhile and got nothing:
It's a toss-up, anyone's guess.
Week 13 looks to be a good doubleheader weekend with Green Bay at the Giants. Depending on what SNF has this game could be flexed though.
I stared at Week 14 for awhile and got nothing:
1:00 PM Minnesota @ Detroit Atlanta @ Carolina Philadelphia @ Miami Tampa Bay @ Jacksonville New Orleans @ Tennessee
4:05 PM San Francisco @ Arizona Chicago @ Denver
Week 15, Joebaby and Co. visit the Meadowlands (again) to for Redskins and Giants. (Any NFC East showdown is a good bet to be visited by Joebaby and Co.)
Week 16 (Christmas Eve), Philly-Dallas for the doubleheader.
Week 17 (New Year's Day) has Seattle @ Arizona as the sole doubleheader game (both networks usually get crappy games due to flex scheduling). Depending on how the Cowboys are this year Joebaby and Co. may do Dallas-N.Y. Giants early.
Now for CBS. It has been announced that Jim Nantz and Phil Simms will continue as the lead announcing team for the eye network. Now to the games.
Due to their coverage of the U.S. Open, CBS has not had a doubleheader since 2000, and this year is no different. It's been officially announced in the press release I saw that Pittsburgh-Baltimore will be their lead game.
Their first doubleheader game on Week 2 is San Diego-New England.
Week 3 is a singleheader weekend. My crystal ball says Nantz and Co. will do Jets @ Raiders.
They have a doubleheader Week 4. Your choices are Denver @ Green Bay, New England @ Oakland, and Miami @ San Diego. They could do the GB game to get the Super Bowl champs on.
They have another doubleheader Week 5 with Jets @ Patriots.
Singleheader for Week 6 (and only five games, oddly). I'd say either Bills-Giants or Jags-Steelers.
Week 7 is another singleheader Sunday capped off with San Diego-N.Y. Jets.
Week 8 is a bigtime doubleheader - New England @ Pittsburgh.
Week 9 is a pretty mediocre singleheader Sunday. I suppose they'll do Jets @ Bills.
Week 10 is another singleheader Sunday. Usually Nantz and Co. do Cowboys games when they're on CBS. In which case they'll do Bills-Cowboys, but for fear of doing two straight Bills games (and if the Jags are any good), they could do Colts vs. Jags.
Week 11 - San Diego-Chicago. That was easy.
Week 12. Your choices are New England-Philadelphia or Denver @ San Diego at 4:15.
There are three games involving NFC teams for Week 13: N.Y Jets @ Washington, Kansas City @ Chicago, and Denver @ Minnesota. Nantz and Co. will probably do KC-Chicago.
Even though Week 14 is a doubleheader Sunday, I could see Nantz and Co. doing Indy @ Baltimore early.
Week 15 is also a doubleheader capped off with the Jets at Philadelphia.
Week 16 (still Christmas Eve). It's a crap shoot:
Denver @ Buffalo 1:00
NFL Kickoff: New Orleans Saints at Green Bay Packers
Week 1: Dallas Cowboys at New York Jets
Week 2: Philadelphia Eagles at Atlanta Falcons
Week 3: Pittsburgh Steelers at Indianapolis Colts
Week 4: New York Jets at Baltimore Ravens
Week 5: Green Bay Packers at Atlanta Falcons
Week 6: Minnesota Vikings at Chicago Bears
Week 7: Indianapolis Colts at New Orleans Saints
Week 8: Dallas Cowboys at Philadelphia Eagles
Week 9: Baltimore Ravens at Pittsburgh Steelers
Week 10: New England Patriots at New York Jets
*Week 11: Philadelphia Eagles at New York Giants
*Week 12: Pittsburgh Steelers at Kansas City Chiefs
*Week 13: Indianapolis Colts at New England Patriots
*Week 14: New York Giants at Dallas Cowboys
*Week 15: Baltimore Ravens at San Diego Chargers
Week 16: Chicago Bears at Green Bay Packers (Christmas)
*Week 17: TBA
This schedule is absolutely stacked, even Week 6 Vikings @ Chicago.
Here is the MNF schedule, certainly not as strong as the SNF one.
Week 1: New England @ Miami, Oakland @ Denver
Week 2: St. Louis @ New York Giants
Week 3: Washington @ Dallas
Week 4: Indianapolis @ Tampa Bay
Week 5: Chicago @ Detroit
Week 6: Miami @ New York Jets
Week 7: Baltimore @ Jacksonville
Week 8: San Diego @ Kansas City
Week 9: Chicago @ Philadelphia
Week 10: Minnesota @ Green Bay
Week 11: Kansas City @ New England
Week 12: New York Giants @ New Orleans
Week 13: San Diego @ Jacksonville
Week 14: St. Louis @ Seattle
Week 15: Pittsburgh @ San Francisco
Week 16: Atlanta @ New Orleans
Week 15, Joebaby and Co. visit the Meadowlands (again) to for Redskins and Giants. (Any NFC East showdown is a good bet to be visited by Joebaby and Co.)
Week 16 (Christmas Eve), Philly-Dallas for the doubleheader.
Week 17 (New Year's Day) has Seattle @ Arizona as the sole doubleheader game (both networks usually get crappy games due to flex scheduling). Depending on how the Cowboys are this year Joebaby and Co. may do Dallas-N.Y. Giants early.
Now for CBS. It has been announced that Jim Nantz and Phil Simms will continue as the lead announcing team for the eye network. Now to the games.
Due to their coverage of the U.S. Open, CBS has not had a doubleheader since 2000, and this year is no different. It's been officially announced in the press release I saw that Pittsburgh-Baltimore will be their lead game.
Their first doubleheader game on Week 2 is San Diego-New England.
Week 3 is a singleheader weekend. My crystal ball says Nantz and Co. will do Jets @ Raiders.
They have a doubleheader Week 4. Your choices are Denver @ Green Bay, New England @ Oakland, and Miami @ San Diego. They could do the GB game to get the Super Bowl champs on.
They have another doubleheader Week 5 with Jets @ Patriots.
Singleheader for Week 6 (and only five games, oddly). I'd say either Bills-Giants or Jags-Steelers.
Week 7 is another singleheader Sunday capped off with San Diego-N.Y. Jets.
Week 8 is a bigtime doubleheader - New England @ Pittsburgh.
Week 9 is a pretty mediocre singleheader Sunday. I suppose they'll do Jets @ Bills.
Week 10 is another singleheader Sunday. Usually Nantz and Co. do Cowboys games when they're on CBS. In which case they'll do Bills-Cowboys, but for fear of doing two straight Bills games (and if the Jags are any good), they could do Colts vs. Jags.
Week 11 - San Diego-Chicago. That was easy.
Week 12. Your choices are New England-Philadelphia or Denver @ San Diego at 4:15.
There are three games involving NFC teams for Week 13: N.Y Jets @ Washington, Kansas City @ Chicago, and Denver @ Minnesota. Nantz and Co. will probably do KC-Chicago.
Even though Week 14 is a doubleheader Sunday, I could see Nantz and Co. doing Indy @ Baltimore early.
Week 15 is also a doubleheader capped off with the Jets at Philadelphia.
Week 16 (still Christmas Eve). It's a crap shoot:
Denver @ Buffalo 1:00
Miami @ New England 1:00
Cleveland @ Baltimore 1:00
Jacksonville @ Tennessee 1:00
Oakland @ Kansas City 1:00
San Diego @ Detroit 4:05
I have no idea why Jax-Ten is all boldface and huge.
And for Week 17 they have the doubleheader offerings of KC @ Denver or San Diego @ Oakland.
NFL Kickoff: New Orleans Saints at Green Bay Packers
Week 1: Dallas Cowboys at New York Jets
Week 2: Philadelphia Eagles at Atlanta Falcons
Week 3: Pittsburgh Steelers at Indianapolis Colts
Week 4: New York Jets at Baltimore Ravens
Week 5: Green Bay Packers at Atlanta Falcons
Week 6: Minnesota Vikings at Chicago Bears
Week 7: Indianapolis Colts at New Orleans Saints
Week 8: Dallas Cowboys at Philadelphia Eagles
Week 9: Baltimore Ravens at Pittsburgh Steelers
Week 10: New England Patriots at New York Jets
*Week 11: Philadelphia Eagles at New York Giants
*Week 12: Pittsburgh Steelers at Kansas City Chiefs
*Week 13: Indianapolis Colts at New England Patriots
*Week 14: New York Giants at Dallas Cowboys
*Week 15: Baltimore Ravens at San Diego Chargers
Week 16: Chicago Bears at Green Bay Packers (Christmas)
*Week 17: TBA
This schedule is absolutely stacked, even Week 6 Vikings @ Chicago.
Here is the MNF schedule, certainly not as strong as the SNF one.
Week 1: New England @ Miami, Oakland @ Denver
Week 2: St. Louis @ New York Giants
Week 3: Washington @ Dallas
Week 4: Indianapolis @ Tampa Bay
Week 5: Chicago @ Detroit
Week 6: Miami @ New York Jets
Week 7: Baltimore @ Jacksonville
Week 8: San Diego @ Kansas City
Week 9: Chicago @ Philadelphia
Week 10: Minnesota @ Green Bay
Week 11: Kansas City @ New England
Week 12: New York Giants @ New Orleans
Week 13: San Diego @ Jacksonville
Week 14: St. Louis @ Seattle
Week 15: Pittsburgh @ San Francisco
Week 16: Atlanta @ New Orleans
31 March 2011
Tim Brown Ensenuates That Bill Callahan Changed Raiders' Super Bowl XXXVII Gameplan Out Of Respect For Jon Gruden
It has been known for some time (probably since the game was played) that Bill Callahan changed the Raiders gameplan for their Super Bowl XXXVII bout against the Bucs, as this reveals.
The cliffnotes version of Brown's speech is that the Raiders went into the game with a running gameplan, and that the team had practiced that up to the Friday before the game. On that Friday, he totally switched the gameplan. Now, the Raiders are going to throw it 60 times against a defense that is primed for stopping the pass? And you know what? I believe Brown when he said that Callahan changed the Raiders' gameplan out of respect for Jon Gruden, and that it was one of the contributing factors for Barret Robbins' disappearance.
One would have to wonder, with the Raiders offense that dominant throughout the season and for putting up such a stinker performance in the Super Bowl...
The cliffnotes version of Brown's speech is that the Raiders went into the game with a running gameplan, and that the team had practiced that up to the Friday before the game. On that Friday, he totally switched the gameplan. Now, the Raiders are going to throw it 60 times against a defense that is primed for stopping the pass? And you know what? I believe Brown when he said that Callahan changed the Raiders' gameplan out of respect for Jon Gruden, and that it was one of the contributing factors for Barret Robbins' disappearance.
One would have to wonder, with the Raiders offense that dominant throughout the season and for putting up such a stinker performance in the Super Bowl...
07 February 2011
My Thoughts About The Super Bowl (And The Pro Bowl, Too)
Hey, what's up. I haven't posted in awhile. I figured now would be as good a time as any to share my thoughts about the Super Bowl. Yeah, Chrisitina Aguilera botched the national anthem and perhaps the halftime show was a bit lack-luster (I actually didn't think it was too bad, but I seem to be in the minority). I think they're finally moving in the right direction with the halftime show. I think they've finally shaken off the memory of the Wardrobe Malfunction from seven years ago so they went with a newer act (and you can't please everybody).
While I don't think this Super Bowl was one of the all-time greats, I don't see why this year's game won't top last year's in the ratings department, especially with the impending lock-out (this could quite possibly be the last NFL game we see in a while). Fox's broadcast was top notch. Buck and Aikman were at the top of their games. In fact, I think Fox topped CBS in throughout the playoffs, despite suffering in the regular season. I felt that Simms had too many miscalls and Nantz's inner Joe Buck was coming out. Unfortunately I missed the Ravens-Steelers game that Gumbel and Dierdorf called, but if their past work is any indication, the broadcast was probably solid. Over of Fox, Buck was not so boring and monotonous as he was in the regular season. And never once was the ghost of Brett Favre mentioned throughout the game, which I was glad for.
And yes, I watched something called the Pro Bowl last week...and the broadcast was a disaster. Contrastly, last year's Pro Bowl on ESPN was great even if interest in the game was low. But Fox's, uh-uh. I was hoping to get one last game from Albert and Johnston, but no, who do we get? Brennaman and Billick and Bradshaw - yuck!
So another NFL season is in the books. The ratings were phenomonal this season for nearly every game, and it's a shame that all indications point to a lock-out for next season. CBS rightly so topped Fox in the ratings and clearly their on-screen talent shows it. Football or no football next season, hopefully Fox's success in the playoffs can spear-head efforts to make refinements in their telecasts whenever football may return.
While I don't think this Super Bowl was one of the all-time greats, I don't see why this year's game won't top last year's in the ratings department, especially with the impending lock-out (this could quite possibly be the last NFL game we see in a while). Fox's broadcast was top notch. Buck and Aikman were at the top of their games. In fact, I think Fox topped CBS in throughout the playoffs, despite suffering in the regular season. I felt that Simms had too many miscalls and Nantz's inner Joe Buck was coming out. Unfortunately I missed the Ravens-Steelers game that Gumbel and Dierdorf called, but if their past work is any indication, the broadcast was probably solid. Over of Fox, Buck was not so boring and monotonous as he was in the regular season. And never once was the ghost of Brett Favre mentioned throughout the game, which I was glad for.
And yes, I watched something called the Pro Bowl last week...and the broadcast was a disaster. Contrastly, last year's Pro Bowl on ESPN was great even if interest in the game was low. But Fox's, uh-uh. I was hoping to get one last game from Albert and Johnston, but no, who do we get? Brennaman and Billick and Bradshaw - yuck!
So another NFL season is in the books. The ratings were phenomonal this season for nearly every game, and it's a shame that all indications point to a lock-out for next season. CBS rightly so topped Fox in the ratings and clearly their on-screen talent shows it. Football or no football next season, hopefully Fox's success in the playoffs can spear-head efforts to make refinements in their telecasts whenever football may return.
25 January 2011
What The Hell Is Colin Cowherd Talking About?
Colin Cowherd, to me, is a very polarizing ESPN figure. People either love him to death or hate his guts. Many used to be fans of his but now are not (I fall into this category). Now, before going on, if I were to run into him somewhere, I wouldn't call him an asshole or try to fight him or anything. In fact, there was a time he did his show from Columbus and I thought about going down except the weather was horrid that day, so I didn't.
He started off today's show basically by saying that fans hold onto their team's losses for too long and that players don't really care about losses at all because, besides, it's their job. I don't know if I've ever heard a more bullshit statement in my life than that. The hell they do! Players lament about losses, especially in big games, alot, especially in the correct setting. When they can't sleep I am willing to bet they will go back and think about that interception or that missed tackle that cost them the game. I bet they do, and if they don't, I will be the first to admit that I am wrong, but still, Cowherd's statement smells of bullshit to me.
He then went on to say that the reason the Jay Cutler might have quit on the Bears storyline caught on was because players and fans were making their opinions as such on Twitter, but that their arguments don't hold water to people over 40, because people over 40 have perspective and young people don't and that people over 40 don't know how to use or don't understand Twitter. OK. Fine. I agree with the first part of the argument. People were reading too much into Cutler's demeanor and it also didn't help that anybody from the Bears or Fox provided us with the real info. (By the way, I just threw out 40 as a blanket age. 'Herd said something like "a 45-year-old guy with perspective, a 54, 64-year old business owner") What I have a problem with is his multiple generalizations and stereotypes about...everything. I don't have a Twitter account and I'm 19. Perhaps I'm an outlier but none of my friends who are around the same age as me have Twitter accounts, either. Again, we may be outliers but so-be it.
Getting back to Cowherd, here are my main beefs with him:
1.) Making fun of his listeners, emailers, and callers for calling in and emailing for so much as caring about sports - sort of kills the point of having sports talk in the first place.
3.) His cutsie cultural references and motifs to cover up no real analysis whatsoever.
4.) His claims that's he's progressive only to use stereotypes and generalizations to get his point across ("Overweight people have low self-worth, that's why they're overweight." -- referring to Mark Mangino)
5.) His asinine opinions on the NBA and market size (listen to his show now that football is winding down and you'll figure out what I'm referring to).
I realize this whole post is sort of like letting the terrorists win or letting the playground bully get the best of me, but 'Herd's open today pushed me over the limit, and I just had to write about it. 'Herd used to be cool. He introduced compelling arguments and opinions, but that was several years ago when he was not as prominent. I mean, yeah, he told a caller to shoot themselves and said that all southern white males agree with each other, but, I don't know, it was less annoying. That all changed when he got a TV show. Then I think it all went to his head and he just sort of enjoyed listening to himself talk too much, and wants to take stances just to create controversy and hoopla (perhaps management is making him do this to garner more ratings, but I don't think so).
OK. I think I've decompressed now. Thanks as always for reading.
He started off today's show basically by saying that fans hold onto their team's losses for too long and that players don't really care about losses at all because, besides, it's their job. I don't know if I've ever heard a more bullshit statement in my life than that. The hell they do! Players lament about losses, especially in big games, alot, especially in the correct setting. When they can't sleep I am willing to bet they will go back and think about that interception or that missed tackle that cost them the game. I bet they do, and if they don't, I will be the first to admit that I am wrong, but still, Cowherd's statement smells of bullshit to me.
He then went on to say that the reason the Jay Cutler might have quit on the Bears storyline caught on was because players and fans were making their opinions as such on Twitter, but that their arguments don't hold water to people over 40, because people over 40 have perspective and young people don't and that people over 40 don't know how to use or don't understand Twitter. OK. Fine. I agree with the first part of the argument. People were reading too much into Cutler's demeanor and it also didn't help that anybody from the Bears or Fox provided us with the real info. (By the way, I just threw out 40 as a blanket age. 'Herd said something like "a 45-year-old guy with perspective, a 54, 64-year old business owner") What I have a problem with is his multiple generalizations and stereotypes about...everything. I don't have a Twitter account and I'm 19. Perhaps I'm an outlier but none of my friends who are around the same age as me have Twitter accounts, either. Again, we may be outliers but so-be it.
Getting back to Cowherd, here are my main beefs with him:
1.) Making fun of his listeners, emailers, and callers for calling in and emailing for so much as caring about sports - sort of kills the point of having sports talk in the first place.
3.) His cutsie cultural references and motifs to cover up no real analysis whatsoever.
4.) His claims that's he's progressive only to use stereotypes and generalizations to get his point across ("Overweight people have low self-worth, that's why they're overweight." -- referring to Mark Mangino)
5.) His asinine opinions on the NBA and market size (listen to his show now that football is winding down and you'll figure out what I'm referring to).
I realize this whole post is sort of like letting the terrorists win or letting the playground bully get the best of me, but 'Herd's open today pushed me over the limit, and I just had to write about it. 'Herd used to be cool. He introduced compelling arguments and opinions, but that was several years ago when he was not as prominent. I mean, yeah, he told a caller to shoot themselves and said that all southern white males agree with each other, but, I don't know, it was less annoying. That all changed when he got a TV show. Then I think it all went to his head and he just sort of enjoyed listening to himself talk too much, and wants to take stances just to create controversy and hoopla (perhaps management is making him do this to garner more ratings, but I don't think so).
OK. I think I've decompressed now. Thanks as always for reading.
Jim Cornelison Sings "The Star-Spangled Banner"
As you've probably heard already, Jim Cornelison sang two of the best renditions of "The Star-Spangled Banner" ever heard at both the NFC Divisional Playoff in Chicago and the NFC Championship Game. Well, in case you haven't seen it, or want to see it again and again and again, here it is from the Divisional Playoff Game:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
