For Those Who Had to Watch, We Salute You

Before turning the page on 2008, I have to post one more thing about Motown's gridiron heroes, the Detroit Lions.

This isn't about the firing of coach Rod Marinelli. That was a no-brainer. The man was the worst ever at his job. No one else has ever gone winless in a 16-game season. How the hell do you bring that guy back? So no surprise there.

No, this post is to stand and give a slow clap to the poor guy who had to watch all of the crappy football southeastern Michigan's most prominent professional and college teams inflicted upon its fans this year and describe it those of us who followed the games on radio. Yes, he was paid for it, as a professional broadcaster. But he also surely paid a price, having to endure some soul-crushingly bad football.

We're talking about Jim Brandstatter, color analyst for both the Michigan football and Detroit Lions radio broadcasts. Out of the 28 games he called this season, Brandstatter provided commentary for only three victories. Michigan went 3-9. The pitiful Lions failed to win a single game. He witnessed the worst season Michigan football has had in 46 years. And as we've already covered, the Lions set NFL history for losing all 16 of their games.

Hey, at least we had the option of turning off the TV or radio. (And I did that more this year than I ever have.) Not Brandy. Hopefully, the strength and discipline instilled in him when he played for Bo Schembechler at Michigan helped him through this.

Salutes must also be given to my buddy Big Al, who live-blogged every single one of the Lions' incompetent performances, in addition to posting related news and commentary each day at The Wayne Fontes Experience. (I thought blogging about the Detroit Tigers was tough.) And to my fellow SB Nation blogger Sean Yuille, who authors blogs devoted to both University of Michigan sports and the Lions. Man, that's a tough year.

Can we please turn the calendar on 2008 in Detroit sports? (Except for the Red Wings. You guys are doing a hell of a job and shouldn't be overlooked. Even though I kind of just did that.) 2009 can't possibly be as bad. Can it?

Rooting For 0-16 Does Not Make Me Less of a Fan

So I'm watching "SportsWorks" on Fox 2 Sunday night, as Dan Miller, Jamie Samuelsen, and Sean Baligian try to pick apart yet another loss (the 14th of the season) by the Detroit Lions. And there's really only so much to say when the losing continues week after week. Maybe the Lions are showing a little bit of fight at the end of the season, especially as it tries to avoid becoming the first team in NFL history to go winless over a 16-game season, but with only two games left on the schedule, they're running out of chances to avoid pro football infamy.

But while discussing that very possibility, Miller asks Samuelsen and Baligian if they're part of the "moron contingent" of Lions fans that is rooting for the team to go 0-16. And when I hear that, I sit up. Because I count myself among the segment of Detroit sports fans that want to see the Lions suck on a historical level. And maybe my perception is influenced by the echo chamber of my friends, but I don't believe I'm in the minority on this. I think many Lions fans believe that the only way the team has any chance of getting better is for the ownership to suffer the kind of humiliating indignity that they'll never want to experience again.

Apparently, that makes me a "moron." Or as MLive.com's Tom Kowalski put it, not a real Lions fan.

If you want these things to happen and you still want to call yourself a Lions fan, I have a huge problem with that. It might be a silly little pet peeve of mine, but I firmly believe that once you start rooting for your team to lose, you're no longer a fan.

My response to Miller and Kowalski on this consists of two words.

Fuck you.

(What, did you think they'd be "Merry Christmas"? I'm sorry, but no other words better capture how I feel about this.)

Let me get this straight: two members of the credentialed Detroit sports media - who are paid to attend games and watch them from what is essentially an office environment in the press box - are going to tell people whether or not they're fans? Miller, as the radio play-by-play man for the Lions, is literally a professional mouthpiece for the team. Kowalski is presumably impartial as a beat reporter, but when you spend that much time around a group of coaches, players, and executives, it's impossible to remain completely objective. And he doesn't.

Am I less of a Lions fan than I was three years ago? Absolutely! This team - and its entire organization - has given me nothing to root for. Their games are a frustrating, joyless ordeal. And I can't even watch another, better team that might play more enjoyable football. (Believe me; I've tried to find a new team. But what fun is it to root for Pittsburgh's team? Or New York's team?) The Lions have actually drained my love of the sport right out of me.

Would I be more of a fan to blindly surrender my loyalty to a team that has given its fans an utterly inferior - and progressively worse - product for eight years? Am I not a fan because I want the team that represents my community to get better and know, deep down, that it can only be rebuilt once it's completely destroyed?

Miller and Kowalski dispute that line of thinking, asserting that changes are going to be made, so there's ultimately no difference between a 1-15 and 0-16 season. No, there is every bit of difference. Other teams have gone 1-15 or 2-14 before. No team has gone winless. And if the Detroit Lions have to carry that weight around their collective necks, maybe they'll work that much harder to make us forget what a laughingstock they've been.

The fact that I'm hoping for that, that I care enough to have typed out 600 words about all this, makes me a fan. How dare someone in the media try to tell me otherwise.

Fear and Loathing in Detroit: Sports Reporters vs. Sports Bloggers

And here I thought I was having plenty of fun yesterday, watching college football while zonked out on muscle relaxers for my frighteningly aching back.  While spending the day away from the computer, lying flat in the blissful state of a relatively flexible and painless lower back, it appears that a column written by the Detroit News' Chris McCosky had much the same effect on the Detroit sports blogosphere as tossing a molotov cocktail through the window of an unsuspecting home during family dinnertime.

This was brought to my attention by The Detroit Tigers Weblog's Billfer, so I'll begin by linking to his retort to McCosky's column.  I don't know if I'm quite as outraged as Bill, but it's definitely amusing that a prominent member of the local sports media apparently feels so threatened by bloggers that he deems it necessary to explain why his work should be considered more credible, going so far as to remind his readers that he actually went to school to learn his trade.

Journalism employs trained professionals.  We actually have to go to school for this stuff.  We take our jobs seriously.  There are rules and standards that we are beholden to.  There are ethics involved.  We actually talk to, in person, the people we write about.  If we rip somebody in an article, you best be sure most of us will confront that person the next day and take whatever medicine we need to take.

Just so you know where I'm coming from on this, I went to school to study journalism too, and have some experience working as a credentialed member of the media.  Some of that work included exchanging e-mails with Mr. McCosky for a Detroit Pistons season preview that I wrote for a magazine last year.  (And even back then, he railed against the sports talk radio/message board culture that was apparently making him chase stories he felt he shouldn't have to.)

Maybe that's made me more reverential toward the media than I should be.  I know beat writers, especially, put in long hours at the arena or ballpark pursuing the latest newsworthy information.  They also have to cull that material - most of which isn't usually very revelatory or compelling - into something readable while working on a tight deadline, which can be pretty stressful work.

However, a lot of "reporting" is also watching a game and recounting what happened for the next morning's paper.  They saw it, you saw it, and I saw it.  Would our accounts of the same event that we all just witness really differ that greatly?  Of course not.  The only difference is that the media can go down to the locker room directly after the game and ask Jim Leyland why he didn't take Jason Grilli out after he loaded the bases or ask Grilli why he threw four straight balls when there wasn't an open base.

But really, how often is the answer to that question really informative?  And how often is the person asking that question really going to challenge his or her subject when he knows he's getting a flat, meaningless response?  If Leyland dismisses a question with "It was the right call, and I'd make it every time," how often is a simple "Why?" the follow-up query?  How often does the mainstream media really take advantage of the access and opportunity that McCosky touts as the shiniest badge of honor for his profession?

I'm not saying it's easy.  To ask a sharp, probing question face to face, and risk an angry response that could affect everyone else trying to do his or her job in that clubhouse, can be a difficult situation to deal with.  I've had Dmitri Young, post-rehab, tell me to my face that he wasn't talking.  And I didn't push the issue because it wouldn't have mattered.  He didn't play in that particular game, and I was just looking for an easy interview to post on my magazine's website.  Maybe I should've pushed it, but I didn't want the fledgling magazine I was working for to lose its credential because of my grandstanding.

I don't think a beat writer for one of the city's two major metropolitan newspapers is going to have the same problem.  Would the Pistons really ban the Detroit News from the locker room or press row because one of the players got angry at its reporter?  I seriously doubt it.  Yet many writers act as if such a penalty could be incurred.

Go ahead and boast that you have to face a player or coach the day after bashing him in print.  But that same boast is also frequently used as a shield to justify not asking tougher questions in the first place.  ("Hey, I have to work with these people every day.  I'm not pissing them off to make my job miserable.")

I've probably spent far too long on that particular point, so let's move on.

With blogging and Web sites, it seems the hard work, standards, accountability, courage all of that is bypassed.  Who needs to study this stuff, or attend games, or conduct interviews when you can just sit in your basement and clack out whatever comes through your head, right?  If I rip somebody, or if I get something wrong, who cares?  Nobody will see me.

This is ridiculously reductive.  To McCosky, it "seems" the hard work is bypassed because he apparently didn't look at much to back up his unsubstantiated assertion.  Study what "stuff" exactly?  If Billfer devotes a post to hitters' spray charts or Lee Panas writes about runs created by position, did no amount of work go into that?  Did they just conjure that information out of thin air?  No, they looked far deeper into the game than any member of the mainstream baseball media.  And they did so because the information provided by those who are ostensibly the be-all, end-all authority on sports reporting doesn't tell enough of the story.

That brings up the ugly truth about the sports blogosphere that the mainstream media doesn't want to acknowledge.  They created us.

Fans are increasingly not getting what they want and need from the conventional outlets of newspaper, TV, or radio.  So we, as readers and fans, are either going to seek out the kind of information that's more in line with our thinking, that gives us another way of looking at the game, or just create that material ourselves.  Along the way, we might even find something that we hadn't previously considered, and that feeling of discovery is a refreshing bit of flavor among all the gruel we're consistently served these days.  And if many other fans weren't beginning to feel that way, McCosky wouldn't have felt it necessary to explain that his job is more important than our hobby.

Furthermore, if we "get something wrong," we're most certainly held accountable.  Not only by our readers, but by other bloggers.  It's why there's a comment section at the end of every post, so that readers can offer up an immediate response to something they agree or disagree with, a luxury conventional media hasn't offered them until relatively recently - likely in an attempt to keep pace with new media.  Maybe that's another reason McCosky's so miffed at bloggers.  Maybe his editors are suddenly asking him to keep up with an outlet that's providing a much quicker fix than the next morning's newspaper.

I want my writing to be taken seriously, so if I write that I believe Brad Wilkerson should be the Detroit Tigers' left fielder next season, I'm going to do everything I can to support that belief.  Otherwise, why should anyone bother to read any of my material?  Nothing's more humbling (and embarrassing) than being called out by a reader who can collapse your argument with a simple breath.  No one understands how precious one's time is than those who invested their own into something almost purely out of love and interest.  Those who don't take their work that seriously won't be getting much more of anyone's time.  We don't receive the benefit of the doubt that many attribute to anything that's in print.

But while we're talking about what's in print, let's address another McCosky assertion:

Bloggers are having a field day speculating on how Joel Zumaya really injured his shoulder.  Nobody believes a heavy box fell on him.  So the Internet is rife with stories about how he fell off his dirt bike.

There is not a single Detroit Tigers blog that posted this rumor about Joel Zumaya injuring his shoulder while dirt-biking.  And if I'm wrong about that, McCosky didn't bother to point me to where I'd find this theory.  As far as I can tell, the closest anyone came to that was me addressing that conspiracy theories were being floated out there and linking to a couple of places where such rumors could be found.  I also said that such conjecture was irrelevant.  And do you know what opened the door to such a subject being approached in the first place?  An article by McCosky's colleague at the Detroit News, Lynn Henning:

The details of Zumaya's mishap, and the long lapse between the incident and Thursday's disclosure, raised at least as many questions as were answered.

That was in print.  In a newspaper.  Speculation.  By a professional journalist.  And message boards and commenters ran off from there.  No blogger created that.  Yet apparently, we're all swimming in the same cesspool that McCosky used to soak the brush he's painting the Detroit sports blogosphere with.  This is exactly the type of irresponsible conduct he's charging sports bloggers with carrying out.  And it didn't even happen.  How's that for accountability?

Finally, McCosky proves just how original his thinking really is with the same old, tired shot that all those who find themselves threatened by new media love to take:

But you do have to know most reporters at legitimate news sources work hard to deliver fair, accurate and pertinent information.

And what they do is vastly different than what the clever dude in his pajamas is doing on his computer, down in his basement.

This is right up there with saying that Detroit sports fans still light cars on fire when they're celebrating a championship, the old stand-by writers from other cities pull out whenever their teams are playing one of ours.  It's a throwaway comment that's actually easy, thoughtless hackery.  Should I now make a crack about freeloading sportswriters gorging on complimentary food in the media lounge?  (And the food provided on McCosky's beat at the Palace of Auburn Hills is pretty good.)

I'm also offended because I'm typing this in my home office (which happens to be on an upper level of my house) while wearing a sweatshirt and jeans.  That's pretty much the same thing your sportswriting colleagues wear, based on my personal experience.  The pajamas went in the hamper before I took a shower this morning.  Get your facts straight like they taught you in school, McCosky.  Well... at least he called us "clever."  Maybe that's what McCosky was trying to be here, and this was just some poorly executed attempt at satire.

It's baffling to me how writers like Chris McCosky get so defensive about this stuff.  Ask most sports fans where they get their news, or how they caught up on last night's game.  A majority of them will still probably say the newspaper.  And if they do read sports blogs, they still know who was on the scene to report on events as they occurred.  They hear who's called an "insider" on the radio each week.  They see who ESPN puts on the air as "experts."

So why feel so threatened?  Why act like old man Tom Smykowski in Office Space, having to explain his job to that consultant, Bob Slydell, so he doesn't get laid off?  ("Can't you understand that?  What the hell is wrong with you people?")  Is it because he sees his job changing, and doesn't like it?  Is he having to chase rumors or write website material that you previously didn't have to?  Are bloggers suddenly getting more credit than he thinks they should?  (And if that's the case, let me know where that credit's being handed out, because I think a lot of us would love some of that.)

Maybe that's something he can address in print, after talking to some of the bloggers he criticized.  You know, in person.  Or even via e-mail.  As an accountable professional journalist is supposed to, upholding the standards and ethics he or she was taught in school.  Or is it just easier to attack and move on?

He Would've Been a Great Sports Blogger

I wrote my thoughts on Kurt Vonnegut's death yesterday on my personal blog, but there's a footnote that is just too funny not to share. And it's sports-related, which is why I'm repeating it here. If you haven't seen this already, Awful Announcing (via The Wade Blogs) posted a hilarious anecdote about Vonnegut's early writing career.

In its early days of publication, Sports Illustrated tried to boost the quality of the magazine's writing by brooming out mediocre sportswriters in favor of literary-grade storytellers who may or may not have cared or known anything about sports, but could write one hell of a feature. One of those writers was Vonnegut, who was hired to compose a piece about a race horse that had jumped over the fence and into the stands.

How did that go? Here's the account from a 1998 review in the Lexington Herald-Leader on Michael MacCambridge's The Franchise: A History of Sports Illustrated Magazine (which appears to be out of print):

Kurt Vonnegut worked briefly at SI until being told to write a story about a race horse that had jumped the rail and terrorized the infield at a local track. Vonnegut stared at his desk for what seemed like hours before finally departing the building without a word. Inside his deserted typewriter was this: ''The horse jumped over the fucking fence.''

C'mon, how great is that?! Vonnegut's editor certainly couldn't have complained that he buried the lead. Maybe I'll try that on the sports blog. Here's how a post on tonight's Pistons-Raptors game could go tomorrow might go: One basketball team scored more fucking points than the other one.

▪▪ "Who is more to be pitied, a writer bound and gagged by policemen or one living in perfect freedom who has nothing more to say?" -- Kurt Vonnegut

Happy Hour 04/06: You Know, I Never Liked That Guy

I won't make a habit of recycling content from Bless You Boys over here, but I think this case deserves an exception. Not only is it an outrage, but frankly, I still feel bad about not showing more blogger solidarity the last time Colin Cowherd showed disrespect for the blogosphere, and wish I'd have chimed in at the time. Hopefully, this makes up for it in some regard.

I originally found out about this indirectly when I wanted to link to The Big Lead for a story on Curtis Granderson. Then I read Deadspin's account of it, and later Big Al's.

If you're not familiar with the story, this is basically what happened: For whatever reason, Cowherd thought it would be funny to flex some nationally syndicated radio muscle and use his audience to take down some unsuspecting (yet apparently successful enough to attract such attention) blog. So he asked his listeners to flood TBL with hits, thus crashing the server and taking the site down (where it still remains as I write this).

This is the same guy, mind you, who previously thought blogs were so insignificant that he could just swipe their material without proper credit or attribution.

Why would Cowherd do such a thing? I have no idea, but a conspiracy theory is gnawing at me. The Big Lead has aired out a lot of ESPN's dirty laundry in its year-plus of existence, so maybe someone at the network decided to strike back. So who on the ESPN Radio roster would abide such a request? Mike & Mike and Dan Patrick still have some professional and journalistic integrity to them, and likely wouldn't accommodate such a fool's errand.

Hey! Let's go with our resident corporate stooge, the one who will do anything we ask him to do. Get Cowherd! He already hates blogs for exposing him as an unoriginal fraud and complete tool. Tell him this will get his show on in a couple of large markets that won't put it on the air. And if he hesitates, threaten to take away that three-minute segment of his that we bury at the end of the Sunday morning SportsCenter.

Again, I don't know why Cowherd would do this, other than to try and defend the corporate interests and big markets he frequently sucks up to (unlike his predecessor, Tony Kornheiser) from something they all don't really comprehend, and therefore feel threatened by.

And I don't know what possible recourse could cause his radio show as much damage as he caused The Big Lead. Probably the most productive counter-measure is to follow The M Zone's lead and express your disapproval to those who can actually do something about it. Either leave a comment for ESPN's ombudsman or e-mail presidents of ESPN and ABC Radio.

♦ george.bodenheimer (at) espn (dot) com

♦ john.hare (at) abc (dot) com

It's bad enough Cowherd (or should I say "Schrutebag") gets away with 15 hours of lame radio a week. He shouldn't be able to get away with being a bully and an @$$hole, too.

A Case of "The Block"?

You know, the writing thing just wasn't coming to me today. Sure, the Pistons' 111-93 loss to Golden State last night raised my eyebrows. But, um... I sort of didn't watch it ("Yatta!"), so I couldn't work up much indignation. The sure-to-be brutal month of March isn't off to a good start for Detroit basketball, though.

You've had one of those days, right? Sometimes you just can't manage to do what it is you like to do. If you're a blogger, you're surely familiar with sitting at the computer, wanting to post something but nothing's getting the fingertips pumping. Even if you want to take another swing at Tommy Amaker for saying his job status isn't an issue when it's the only issue surrounding Michigan basketball right now.

On such occasions, it's probably best to just step away and let those writing cells recharge. But then I thought about my good buddy, The Daily Fungo's Mike McClary, and how he's starting up a new blog dedicated to the ballclub with the flashy new threads, your Arizona Diamondbacks.

Wait until Mike finds out the fun stuff that comes with running multiple blogs, like darker bags under your eyes, sore finger joints, chronic coffee mouth, frequent flat-butt, lingering lower back pain, and a DVR that reminds you every single night with its bloated hard drive that you're not watching TV anymore. But that might just be me.

Oh, and I'm hoping Mike devotes plenty of letters to the tangled bale of hair belonging to Mr. Eric Byrnes (who's loved in the Casselberry household for carrying one of my fantasy baseball teams to a league title last season).

By the end of the workday, I'd decided there would be no posts today. I could just copy some information from someone else and pass it off as my own stuff, like Ron Borges did, but that would just look old and musty. How many newspapers even do those "Sunday notes" columns anymore?

No, I was going to sit back with Baseball Prospectus 2007, attempt to expand my understanding of the game, and think about spending summer evenings at the CoPa (even though I never use that term).

But what if the ballpark's name changes, now that Comerica is moving its corporate headquarters from Detroit to Dallas? Will the Detroit Tigers' home have a new name/corporate sponsor? I'm guessing not, since they'll still have 7,000 employees in Michigan and approximately 23 years to go on their naming rights agreement.

I don't think anyone's a fan of corporate names on stadiums, but in Detroit, at least there was a local flavor to the ballpark's sponsor, which made it somewhat digestible. And now the name seems to reflect yet another body blow to the Michigan economy. If I wasn't fighting "The Block," I might actually write about that. But that wouldn't fill a whole post, would it? Neither would the other stuff.

The Case of Miami Sportswriters v. Saban

When Nick Saban's ignorant comments about Cajuns became public earlier this week (you can hear them on the Online Sports Guys' "Count/Pointercount" podcast), I was a little bit surprised that no one expressed any concern that the remarks were said "off the record."

That's not to excuse what Saban said in any way whatsoever, and if that's how he really feels about people in that part of the country, it should've been exposed. But it's been my understanding in my limited experience as a journalist (professional or otherwise) that it's pretty clear what "off the record" means. And I'm a little bit surprised that other journalists didn't point that out when reporting or commenting upon the story.

Of course, that might speak to just how repugnant Saban has become to the media. You're not going to win much support by lecturing reporters not to ask questions about the Alabama head coaching position, telling them how to do their work by saying he shouldn't even have to answer such inquiries, only to then turn around and take the very job he claimed he had no interest in. So it's easy to see how a grudge might develop, and why other media might cut their brethren a break.

But there's also the matter of acting professionally. And passing over "off the record" comments to a sports talk radio host (Gee, do you think he'll play them on the radio?) in Miami might not have been the best way for the Miami Herald's Jeff Darlington (who was one of three Florida-based reporters chatting with Saban on that occasion) to conduct himself.

The Miami Herald apparently feels the same way, having suspended Darlington from further coverage of Super Bowl XLI, otherwise known as Sportswriters Convention in South Beach - WHOO HOO! For his sake, I can only hope the suspension was handed down after the big media party. I hear the food at those things is great. Oh, and the networking. But whatever.

Plus, it could've been interesting to see if Darlington had any words for Orlando Alzugaray, the sports talk host who ran the tape on the air. Ooooh, the tension! Scrum breaking out by the shrimp cocktail bowl! Break it up, fellas! Lots of other people have to get to that spread.

(Via Romenesko)

Happy Hour 01/26: Pick on someone your own age!

I had some time to kill before going to the movies last night, so decided to head across the street and check out some magazines at a bookstore. After pouncing on an open chair with Esquire in hand (there's a very interesting article this month about Chris Snow, the former Red Sox beat writer for the Boston Globe who's now Director of Hockey Operations for the Minnesota Wild - but okay, I was totally checking out Sienna Miller, too), I noticed a disturbing image staring at me from across the aisle.

The face was pale, hollow, and sagging. The hair was thin. The expression was almost blank, with a touch of helplessness. I had to get up (even if it meant losing that chair) to get a closer look.

It was Al Davis on the cover of this week's Sporting News.

The centerpiece of the issue profiles the worst franchise from each of the four major team sports. And TSN opted to give the cover to the Oakland Raiders' 77-year-old owner.

Why? Because it's still football season, and the NFL sells? Because Davis' hubris has made himself one of the biggest targets in pro sports? Because it just wouldn't be as funny to put Peter Angelos or Isiah Thomas on the cover? Or is it because the image of an increasingly frail old man who still insists on wearing a team logo tracksuit shockingly emphasizes the magazine's point?

Yes, the Raiders are terrible. I should applaud that because they're the only thing keeping the Detroit Lions from being the absolute worst team in the NFL. (But let's be honest, when you look at the history of the two franchises, it's not even close. As inept as they've been lately, the Raiders still have plenty of championship heritage.) Just five years removed from a Super Bowl appearance, the franchise has collapsed. The record since then is worse than Matt Millen's. And Al Davis' stubborn refusal to adjust his football philosophies is a big reason for that.

But that cover, as well as an interior photo of Davis struggling along a practice field with his walker, seems like picking on an old man to me.

The New York Times did the same thing this week, with the picture they ran from Lane Kiffin's introductory press conference. It's a lazy, reductionist way of making an argument: Look, Al Davis is old! HA! And he just hired a coach young enough to be his grandson! No wonder the Raiders stink!

The pictures are actually kind of a deceiving accompaniment to Paul Attner's article, which details several reasons the Raiders have suffered such a steep decline. Most of those mistakes can be traced to Davis' clinging to his team's glory days, when renegade players and chucking the ball down the field, along with the owner's maverick approach, made the Raiders the most infamous team in the NFL.

And now, Davis' meddlesome, egotistical micro-management has made it virtually impossible for him to hire an established, credentialed head coach. Thus, he has to settle for a fresh-faced college offensive coordinator more than happy to jump at the opportunity.

So Davis obviously deserves blame. No one's disputing that. And he probably even deserves ridicule for attempting to dress and act just as he did 20 years ago. He's the Izzy Mendelbaum of the NFL - a guy who thinks he can still take any one of these whippersnappers who dare get in his face and challenge his authority. In reality, however, his day has passed and it's long past time he step aside and yield to the present.

But criticize Davis with the facts. Even if he has made himself into a cartoon, to paste his face all over a magazine to point and snicker at an old man who doesn't know when to step aside strikes me as extremely mean-spirited. And it's just too easy.

Maybe it's hypocritical of me to be bothered by this, considering I said Bill Parcells was too old to be the Lions' general manager. But at least I made that claim about someone who could still probably kick my ass if I said it to his face.

Happy Hour 01/22: The Tao of Chuck Wilson

As something of a follow-up to Friday's post about Chris Sheridan pouring gasoline on the smouldering embers between Rasheed Wallace and Flip Saunders, I thought I'd post a link to an interview from the latest Baseball Prospectus Radio podcast.

This weekend, Will Carroll and Brad Wochomurka talked to Chuck Wilson, formerly of ESPN Radio, and now the host of "On Deck" on XM Radio. Among the many topics they discussed were the many changes in sports broadcasting during Wilson's career - especially with sports talk radio.

How are athletes interviewed these days? What sorts of questions are they asked? Is the idea to make the writer look good, because he was "tough" in the eyes of readers and listeners? No one wants to be accused of asking soft questions. But does a different approach elicit better, more thoughtful answers, and thus everyone learns something about the game?

While listening to the interview, I couldn't help but think about what happened with Sheridan and 'Sheed last week. What was really the story? Was it the tension between 'Sheed and his coach? Or had it become what Sheridan wrote for ESPN.com? And did he really help matters by writing the next day about how he was confronted at practice? Isn't that essentially making himself the story? Even if the article later went on to explore that tension and what may have caused it, which is arguably what he should've done in the first place?

I thought it was a really insightful chat, and of course, the discussion later turns toward the coverage of baseball and how it's approached from so many more angles than it used to be. Writers, managers, scouts, and executives aren't afraid to look at the conventional wisdom of the game and ask "Why?" anymore, resulting in a much different experience with the game.

Does anybody else miss the old days of ESPN Radio with Wilson and Tony Bruno doing late-nights? I spent many a Friday and Saturday night driving home listening to those guys. And you just don't hear the same kinds of long-form interviews Wilson used to have on his "Legends" series anymore. Certainly not on the radio.

The podcast can be downloaded here or from the Baseball Prospectus site itself.

Happy Hour 01/19: Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'

Between counting all of the hits The Wayne Fontes Experience has recently received for a blog-time of ripping on Rob Parker, Big Al wrote an excellent post yesterday that detailed all of the various fires that currently need to be put out in the Detroit Pistons locker room.

However, after the drama that's ensued over the past couple of days at The Palace, I'm beginning to wonder if this soap opera is a reality or a flame started and stoked by the media - especially the national press.

That's not to say that there aren't many real problems with this team. Things most certainly aren't clicking with the Pistons. Injuries and new players that simply haven't worked out have prevented the Pistons from establishing any kind of rhythm, and I'd bet that frustration over these misfires is a large reason for the current existing tension.

But then a national writer comes in, notices something worthy of attention (especially if he's not familiar with the situation), and runs with it. Perhaps the biggest problem he made, however, was not checking with any of the local guys to see if such behavior might be out of the ordinary.

Maybe that's not standard operating procedure for ESPN.com guys. Obviously, Chris Sheridan has covered the NBA for a long time and knows what's going on. But it seems to me that if you want information on a team you might not regularly cover - and I think a lot of columnists would say this - you check with the beat reporters.

In my handful of press box experiences, I saw it frequently. Beat writers from the home team swapping notes with the guys from the visiting team, and vice versa. Granted, such chats are more difficult courtside at the Palace with everyone shoehorned behind a couple of tables than at, say, the more spacious accommodations at Comerica Park. But there's plenty of opportunity to pull a colleague aside at halftime or when the media throng is huddled together looking for post-game quotes.

And I shouldn't presume that Sheridan didn't do that. (He seemed to have for a semi-mea culpa on his ESPN.com blog.) Again, he's been doing this a long time.

But it sure didn't look that way when he slipped the word "hate" in the "Daily Dish" column that spawned assorted blog entries (from the aforementioned local beat writers) and after-practice tirades, and generally been the topic du jour of Detroit sports.

According to the dictionary, sensationalism is defined as "subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions, or to excite." I don't know what you think, but that sounds pretty much exactly what Sheridan when he decided "discord and disharmony" just didn't do the trick, and opted for "hate" instead.

Of course, that may have been exactly his intention. If so, mission accomplished.

Why I wanted the Seahawks to lose?

I didn't watch much of yesterday's Seahawks-Bears playoff game (this isn't helping my sports blogging bona fides), but I suppose I was sort of cheering for Seattle, as my default setting is to root against any Chicago sports team.

Yet while I was watching - and later listening on the radio in my car - my interests changed, and I began pulling for the Seahawks' elimination from the playoffs. It's not because of any dislike toward the team. Their uniforms look pretty cool. It's nothing against Matt Hasselbeck or Shaun Alexander. I like both of those players. I think Mike Holmgren's a very good coach. And Seattle is a city I desperately want to visit someday soon.

But if I had to hear one more reference to Seattle's Pete Hunter being a loan officer, I was probably going to shove a white-hot knitting needle through one ear and out the other.

Yes, I get it. One week, this guy is processing loans for a mortgage office. The next, a Seahawks team with no healthy defensive backs is calling him to ask if he wants to cover Terrell Owens in a playoff game. It's a fun story.

But did we have to be reminded of it every single time Hunter was involved in a play?

"Pass to Berrian out in the flat, tackled by the loan officer."

"Grossman down the sideline, incomplete. Pete Hunter on the
coverage. Did you know he was a loan officer just two weeks ago?

"Hey, maybe after the game, he can help me refinance my mortgage.

Oh yeah, you need all the help you can get with that! HAR HAR!
CHORTLE!

And oh, by the way, a gain of three up the middle for Thomas Jones..."

For the love of Starbucks, how much more of this could we have been subjected to, had the Seahawks advanced? Can you imagine if Seattle made it to the Super Bowl again, and we'd have had two weeks of loan officer stories to listen to?

So thank you, Chicago Bears. Thank you, Robbie Gould, for kicking the 49-yard field goal in overtime that sent the Seahawks home. And thanks also for sending Pete Hunter back to that mortgage office. No offense, Pete.

All the weekend reading you might need

Maybe you've already been through the Detroit News' three-part "Behind the Scenes" series with Michigan at the Rose Bowl (uno, dos, tres), but are still looking for something to kill a little time before today's NFL wild-card playoff games begin.

Well, I realize I'm not giving you much time here if you're about to turn off your phone and lock yourself away before Jets-Patriots. (By the way, is anyone rooting for New England, just so we don't have to hear the nickname "Mangenius" anymore? I'm going for the Jets here, but I'm just curious.)

But if you needed a reminder how seriously they take their Redskins football in D.C., you might want to sit down with the Washington Post's three-part chronicle of 2006, titled "The Lost Season."

Part 1 covers the team's flawed personnel decisions, such as bringing in wide receivers Brandon Lloyd and Antwaan Randle El, and safety Adam Archuleta.

Part 2 concerns the clashes in philosophy between Joe Gibbs and the coach he turned his offense over to, Al Saunders.

Part 3 details the deterioration of the Redskins' defense, considered to possibly be the strength of the team, and asks how much blame should fall on defensive coordinator Gregg Williams.

Oh, and each part is about 3,500 to 4,000 words long. Make sure that chair is well cushioned, and that you have a bottle of water with you while reading. Taking occasional breaks for eye exercises might not be a bad idea either, lest you come down with the eyestrain.

Lost among the epithets

Besides the obvious offensiveness of Ozzie Guillen's choice of insult for Jay Mariotti, what's unfortunate about him using such a slur is that it obscures a very valid criticism. If a sportswriter or columnist is going to bash someone in print, he or she should have the guts to face that person in the locker room the next day. And if Mariotti can dish it out, but can't take it, he deserves to be ripped for that.

Look, my sportswriting experience is limited. I know that. You know that. But it's given me an idea of how the job works. And sometimes, answering for your words is part of that - especially when you're expressing your opinions.

On his old radio show, Tony Kornheiser occasionally talked about the confrontations he had with Charles Mann and Darrell Green in the Redskins locker room. No, it wasn't easy, and he was scared a few times, but that's what (good) sportswriters do. And on his show yesterday, the Detroit News' Terry Foster mentioned an argument he had with the Lions' Brett Perriman, after he blamed the receiver for losing a game.

Should you take a bucket of ice water over your head, as Mitch Albom once did from the Tigers' Guillermo Hernandez? Of course not. But if you take a shot at someone, you'd better be in that locker room the next day to face up to it. Otherwise, you're not going to earn any respect from the people you cover or your colleagues.

Want an example of that? Check out the column from Mariotti's cross-town rival, Rick Morrissey of the Chicago Tribune, in today's edition. To paraphrase the article, showing up and taking your punches is a badge of honor among sports columnists. If you're not doing that, you're not a columnist, you're essentially a blogger. The only difference between Mariotti and many of us who post our opinions most days is that he travels to the events.

And if you read and watch the reports and columns on this story, you'll see writers and analysts taking offense to Guillen's remarks and half-hearted apologies, but you won't see too many - if any - defenses of Mariotti. It's too bad that's not the story being written.

It's Big Al's world - I'm just along for the ride

Yesterday, at my Mother Ship blog, I wrote something about a New York Times panel that named "the single best work of American fiction published in the last 25 years." The book so honored was Toni Morrison's Beloved, a pick that I can't really argue with, having written a looooonnng term paper on it in my last year at the University of Iowa.

Big Al, however, came up with a suitable challenger. And I'm still chuckling at his pick, which is #@$%ing hilarious. He elaborated on the nomination over at Our Wayne Fontes Experience. Surely, newspaper book reviews, literary criticism, and academic journals throughout the country will soon march right behind Big Al in agreement. Expect him to show up at lecture halls and bookstores near you, tweed jacket in tow, as he changes the way we look at literature.

They're so vain

Wasn't yesterday's press conference at Allen Park supposed to be about the Lions, and their new head coach, Rod Marinelli? Yet as I watched the tape of the presser again last night, and listened to some audio of the interviews conducted afterwards, it seemed like there were people in attendance more interested in being the story than writing one.

(Photo by Bill Emkow/ MLive.com)

It reminded me of a comment the Houston Chronicle's Richard Justice made on his blog a couple of months ago. To me, Justice is one of the best sportswriters/ columnists in the country (and not just because of his superhero name). Not only is he a good writer with great instincts and insights, but he has a strong sense of what makes a good story. He knows how to do his job, and doesn't get swayed by what the fans think he should be doing.

Here's what he had to say about grandstanding journalists:

First rule of journalism is this: if you've got a good question, if you're really looking for information, you don't ask it in a news conference.

Whenever you hear a reporter asking a tough question in a news conference, that reporter isn't interested in the answer. He's only interested in letting everyone know how tough he is.

Hmm, does that apply to anyone you saw or heard at the Marinelli press conference?

Later in the post, he demonstrates how reporters really get information, and what sorts of questions they ask. They don't fling unanswerable questions at someone in some fraudulent display of bravado and phony machismo.

¿Quien es mas macho, Rob Parker? Wow, what a tough guy. No wonder he calls himself "America's angry black sports columnist." Did he have his shirt unbuttoned with full chest hair showing when he told Marinelli that "fans were tired of the talk," and asked if the Lions were going to make the playoffs next year. Greg Eno used the word "asinine" to describe Parker's question, which seems entirely appropriate. Journalism professors should use it as an example of what kinds of questions not to ask.

For one thing, it's essentially asking for a "yes" or "no" answer, which doesn't make for a good quote. And, as Evan said in response to yesterday's post, what the hell was Marinelli supposed to say? In his column for today's Detroit News, Parker envisions the answer he (and, ostensibly, we) wanted:

"Of course, we are going to make the playoffs next season. There's enough talent here to get that done. We just have to get some things straightened out. And if we don't make the playoffs in the next season or two, I won't be here. You guys will be right back here with a new coach."

Isn't making the playoffs an obvious expectation for the Detroit Lions? If it wasn't, Marinelli wouldn't have been introduced as the Lions' new coach yesterday. Back here in reality, Parker knew Marinelli wasn't going to answer that question (or his ridiculous query about Marinelli's age). And it was silly to expect that the coach would. But Parker was going to ask it anyway. Why? Because he wants to show how big his huevos rancheros are, with everyone watching. He wanted to ask the "tough questions" that no one else in the press corps was asking. And by doing so, he was making himself the story.

And hey, maybe it worked. I'm not writing about Mitch Albom's questions on quarterbacks, am I?

But Parker wasn't the only cowboy in the press corps yesterday. After the press conference, the Detroit Free Press' Drew Sharp asked Matt Millen why Detroit fans should believe his third coaching hire will be right this time. And the Oakland Press' Pat Caputo asked Millen about his accountability, pointing a finger for emphasis. More bold questions - the kinds that fans and readers supposedly want their sportswriters to ask. The kinds of questions that need to be asked!

But no, they don't need to be asked. Not when they won't generate a good answer. Not when their only intent is to make the subject squirm and/ or frown. Maybe that makes for a great sound bite (and Caputo's buddies at WXYT were patting him all over the back yesterday for taking on Millen) or a funny clip on TV when Millen testily answers, "How do you want me to answer that question?"

But is it really good journalism? Did you learn anything more about Matt Millen or the Lions' plans after those questions? (I suppose some might say yes.) Did you think Millen was going to reconsider his plans right there on the spot and resign? So what was really accomplished, other than looking tough in the eyes of fans and colleagues? Did those writers get any good copy for their articles today? Parker had to make up Marinelli's answers to fill out his column.

I'm really not trying to tell these guys how to do their jobs. Okay, maybe I am. But I like journalists. I admire sportswriters. I'd love to be one, in case this blog didn't tell you otherwise. But just as the Parkers, Sharps, and Caputos of the world were presumably demanding more from Marinelli and Millen yesterday, I'm asking for more from the reporters and columnists who cover the teams I follow.

You probably thought yesterday's press conference was about you. Didn't you? But guess what - I didn't pick up today's newspapers to read about you. I wanted to read about the Lions' new head coach. Write the story, don't be the story.

▪▪ Check out Tom Kowalski's thoughts on his colleagues' behavior, courtesy of MLive's Highlight Reel.

Stand up straight, men! It's the Marinelli Live Blog!

10:00 - Here we go. Millen slumbers up to the podium almost sheepishly, with a forced smile. ("Please don't ask me mean questions.") He looks like me when I have to go to church.

10:03 - "We've been patient," Millen said. "It was thorough." There's your slogan for the 2006-07 season. The t-shirts are probably being printed as we speak.

10:05 - Marinelli addresses the press with "Good morning, men." He doesn't ask anyone to stand at attention, or drop and give him 20, though, which has to be a relief to the press corps.

10:06 - Marinelli begins with sort of an Oscar acceptance speech, running through his coaching mentors and philosophies, and the players who worked hard for him - "great men." But will he finish defining himself before the orchestra plays him off the stage?

10:07 - He looks much younger than 56. To me, Marinelli's age was one of the red flags in his hiring. But he's a young, energetic-looking 56. That'll probably change. Millen, who's going on 48, looks much older.

10:08 - Marinelli again addresses the media as "men." This press conference would be much more fun if drums and flutes, or "Ride of the Valkyries," were playing in the background. ("I love the smell of muscle balm in the morning!")

10:10 - Call me a sucker, but as Marinelli talks about how he wants his team to play, and how he coaches, he looks like he's ready to pick up the podium, tear it apart, and tackle someone. Compare that to the awkward dorkiness of Marty ("The bar is hiiigh") Mornhinweg.

10:11 - First question from the press. Marinelli didn't bark back to the reporter, "Ask me like you've got a pair, son!" which is kind of disappointing.

10:13 - "Look at my tape," he says when asked how he sold himself. "That's who I am." You think he ever pulled that line on a first date?

10:15 - When asked about his offensive philosophy, Marinelli said he wants to "run the ball. With power. And I want to defend it with power." Somewhere in Texas, a tear runs down the face of Roy Williams. Elsewhere, Damien Woody just put down his party sub.

10:16 - First speed bump of the day: Did Marinelli just mention Eric Hipple as a quarterback he had a good relationship with? Not sure that was the right name to drop, Rod... er, I mean, sir. Brad Johnson? Okay, that's a little better.

10:18 - Marinelli points out that he wasn't just a position coach, he was an "assistant head coach." What does that involve? "Interaction with the team... being involved with practice schedules. I've trained to be a head coach." No word on whether he got to wear the headphones with the microphone, though.

Stop slouching, son! Keep reading!

10:21 - Here's the sell job: Marinelli is the anti-Mariucci. "You got to change habits with men... how you work, how you practice... how much you enjoy practicing in pads because it's good for you."

10:23 - When asked about Joey Harrington, he says "I don't know what he was taught, or asked to do." But he sees talent. Somewhere, Tom Izzo is nearby to console Mooch in this moment of need. ("It's okay, Mooch. It's okay. You're still my tough guy.")

10:25 - Larry Lage asks Marinelli if he has the confidence to do the job. "See, I've got confidence." I'm waiting for him to challenge a reporter to "come up here and kick me in the Jimmy!" Go on up there, Larry!

10:27 - Rob Parker, bad-aaassss sports columnist: "Fans are tired of the talk. Is this team going to make the playoffs next year?" Marinelli answers with coaching cliches ("It's a show-me game," "It's every Sunday").

10:29 - But Rob won't back down! That's what you're facing, Coach! Rob Parker is the voice of the fans, sir! "Come oooooooooon, Wod!" What a face-off! It's like watching Sgt. Foley and Zack Mayo go at it in An Officer and a Gentleman. ("You're out!" "I got nowhere else to go!")

10:31 - A line has been drawn. Sgt. Marinelli doesn't like the personal questions. "Don't be too personal." Don't ask him about serving in Vietnam, Nancy!

10:34 - A key question from Tom Kowalski: How do you sell practicing in pads to a team that hasn't done it for five years? Ooooh, Killer - you just walked into the Sargeant's wheelhouse. "I believe in morale," he says. "It's not about punishment... it's about improving... getting better."

10:35 - Sarge isn't done yet. He practically gives a clinic in tackling, right there at the podium. "It's a game of hips when you tackle, not push and shove." He looks ready to tackle Kowalski right now. "You play this game low!"

And after that, Marinelli and Millen went outside, took off their shirts in the show, bumped chests, and killed and ate a deer raw! Well, TV cameras didn't show that. But I think that's what happened.

The whole press conference seemed like a direct response to all the criticism the Lions have been taking, a show for the media and the players. Too soft? This guy is hard. "No excuses, no explanations - just standards." This man watches tape and pushes players to be men. (I'll have to go back and count how many times "tape" and "men" were said.) He ain't filmin' Ford commercials, people!

Again, maybe I'm an easy sell. If so, I'll drop and give you 20. But I was impressed by Marinelli. Was he saying what we all wanted to hear? Sure. (Unless you were hoping for an offensive guru.) I thought there was a little too much "Well, I know what I'm talking about - because I watch tape and you don't" from him. But we want someone to come in here, kick ass, take names, and forge a winning football team. And it looks like that's what we're getting.

I do wonder, however, if Millen's gone a little too far to the other extreme here. Steve Mariucci ran a country club locker room that was easy on the players. His replacement is running a boot camp. It would've been nice if Millen faced the press to answer for this, but maybe he felt he gave the press their shots when he fired Mariucci.

If not for the fact that his former players seem to love him, I'd worry that he'll burn these guys out fast. Of course, there's a big difference between running one single unit and overseeing an entire team. But if players - and people - really want to be led, maybe this is the right guy. I reserve the right to change my mind, however, until we see what kinds of assistant coaches Marinelli is able to bring in. Will we get the wizard offensive coordinator so many of us are hoping for? (My magic 8-ball says no.)

So when does training camp start?

(Image from "Get Fuzzy" ©2006 Darby Conley/ Dist. by UFS, Inc.)

Hello, I'm your blogger

Hey, check out the doofus in the snow!

If you're in the metro Detroit area, and have access to the Metro Times, a certain chronicler of sweaty men is one of nine local bloggers profiled in this week's cover story, "Meet the Bloggers." (And as the links indicate, the article is also available at the MT's website.)

If you've already read the feature, and are visiting for the first time, thanks for stopping by to check this out, and I hope you're intrigued enough to keep coming back in the future. (I'll do my best to keep you interested.)

For those who haven't seen it yet, the article is a fascinating look at the variety of blogs that are being written in Detroit right now, and I'm incredibly flattered to be a part of the piece. It feels a bit strange to see this blog alongside sites covering the city's politics, urban decay, art and music scenes, and community. But sports are a big part of the culture around here, and I'm obviously glad that Sweaty Men Endeavors was considered an interesting enough part of Detroit's blogosphere to be included.

I'd like to thank the writer, Nate Rogers, who was intrigued enough by the "slightly gay name" to check it out, look me up for an interview, and write what is quite possibly the best article the Metro Times has ever published. I'm thrilled with the piece, which reflects the enjoyable conversation Nate and I had last week, and captures the tone of this blog very well.

And I'd also like to thank the article's photographer, Doug Coombe, who made it fun to sit down on snow-covered metal bleachers in an empty Michigan Stadium and make a fool of myself in front of the camera. After trucking through the snow and up the stadium steps, I was ready to collapse and make snow angels (which might have made another beautiful set of photos), but Doug's a busy man and had to get moving. (Just tell me you were as tired and sore the next day as I was, man.) Doug can now add me to a photo resume that includes shots of Oasis and the White Stripes. I'm sure he's thrilled about that.

So please pick up a copy - I promise I haven't taken every one in Ann Arbor - and see what metro Detroit's bloggers have to offer. It's a really cool feature, and I think it's great that the Metro Times chose to cover this subject. We all appreciate your readership.