Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, supremebve said:

The most important thing a sports show can have is interesting talent. The format should fit the talent.  PTI works because Wilbon and Kornheiser are fun to watch bicker, the format works so they don't run out of steam on one subject. Inside the NBA works because Charles and Kenny are great together. I hated when they are Shaq at first,  but he found his space and fit in. Ernie is just there to keep the train on the tracks,  which is an incredibly important role in that show. The trick to all sports television is that the sports don't matter that much. Sports happen everyday,  but there are plenty of days where nothing interesting happens. The reason Stephen A. Smith gets paid what he gets paid is because it doesn't actually matter what he is talking about. He can summon a passionate argument about anything. The people matter much more than the sports. The ESPN show doesn't work because it does a terrible job at letting the people shine,  and therefore the basketball feels less important. 

I think what helped Inside the NBA is (1) no competition for that space when it first started to get popular and (2) no real expectation for what had to be discussed other than whatever NBA storylines that happened at the time. 

On point number 1, now you have virtually every show trying to veer into that lane now with varying degrees of success.

On point number #2, it's novel that specifically Charles and Kenny (and add in Shaq now as well) can give an "old head" perspective. The NFL on Fox pre and post game got popular in almost the same way 30+ years ago. However, at the same time, the basketball they're covering is almost an entirely different game than what they played. We're seeing sort of the same issue with Romo and doing color commentary on CBS. Romo was great a year or so after being retired. Not so much now when he's been further away from the game. Since that show already has an existing camaraderie and chemistry, it helps hide those weaknesses of breaking down the game. Put them with other random people, and it will not work especially if they don't really research or watch the games.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Mister TV said:

Everyone was SO full of themselves on the Sports Reporters, god some weeks you'd have Lupica, John Feinstein, Frank DeFord and Mitch Albom!

Lol, and that was bad because…. To da b their own, but Sports Repprters is still my favorite sports talk show. I’ll gladly take the names you mentioned over Bomani Jones, Max Kellerman & pretty much anyone else working today.  I would probably enjoy seeing Steven A on a panel with Lupica & Albom, but that”s about it.

Speaking of Kellerman, is he working anywhere these days? 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

I think what helped Inside the NBA is (1) no competition for that space when it first started to get popular and (2) no real expectation for what had to be discussed other than whatever NBA storylines that happened at the time. 

On point number 1, now you have virtually every show trying to veer into that lane now with varying degrees of success.

On point number #2, it's novel that specifically Charles and Kenny (and add in Shaq now as well) can give an "old head" perspective. The NFL on Fox pre and post game got popular in almost the same way 30+ years ago. However, at the same time, the basketball they're covering is almost an entirely different game than what they played. We're seeing sort of the same issue with Romo and doing color commentary on CBS. Romo was great a year or so after being retired. Not so much now when he's been further away from the game. Since that show already has an existing camaraderie and chemistry, it helps hide those weaknesses of breaking down the game. Put them with other random people, and it will not work especially if they don't really research or watch the games.

The crazy thing about Inside the NBA is that it's the best show about basketball despite the fact that they're awful at breaking down how the current NBA works. Barkley is the basketball Joe Morgan, constantly talking bad about analytics when their hall of fame careers look even better when you use modern statistical analysis. Dude,  playing in the style that you played is what works and you're on television telling everyone that playing that was is stupid just because someone with s calculator said it was smart. Joe Morgan got laughed off television by the end.  Inside the NBA works because Charles Barkley can say anything and get away with it. He's the best athlete who has done television, and the margin between him and second best is the grand canyon. 

Posted
20 minutes ago, supremebve said:

The crazy thing about Inside the NBA is that it's the best show about basketball despite the fact that they're awful at breaking down how the current NBA works. Barkley is the basketball Joe Morgan, constantly talking bad about analytics when their hall of fame careers look even better when you use modern statistical analysis. Dude,  playing in the style that you played is what works and you're on television telling everyone that playing that was is stupid just because someone with s calculator said it was smart. Joe Morgan got laughed off television by the end.  Inside the NBA works because Charles Barkley can say anything and get away with it. He's the best athlete who has done television, and the margin between him and second best is the grand canyon. 

I love that he shows up on TNT's hockey coverage. Qualifications: he likes hockey, he's Charles Barkley. Easy enough.

  • Haha 1
Posted

PTI is the perfect middle step between Sports Reporters which was informative but sometimes too dry and the horrible over the top First Take style shows.

  • Like 6
Posted

For those who aren't baseball peeps, the NY Mets have been terrible this season.  Last week they had Grimace out to throw the first pitch of a game and are now 6-0 since.  NY is fully embracing Grimace-anity.... 

Except...

This clip btw should provide you with all the ammunition you need to defend this as an objectively Good Thing.

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Dolfan in NYC said:

For those who aren't baseball peeps, the NY Mets have been terrible this season.  Last week they had Grimace out to throw the first pitch of a game and are now 6-0 since.  NY is fully embracing Grimace-anity.... 

Except...

This clip btw should provide you with all the ammunition you need to defend this as an objectively Good Thing.

Baseball is better when it's patently ridiculous so I'm in favor of whatever upsets dorks like this.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Posted

It must suck to be that much of a joyless prick. Like, you see this silly thing that's not hurting anyone and people are having fun with it and you get mad about it?

I don't know if it's worse if he genuinely feels that way or if he is doing it to be contrary on his show.

Posted

There is definitely a strain in baseball media that baseball is Very Serious Business and anything that injects fun is an affront to the Dignity Of The Game and to Playing The Right Way.

You see it in other sports, too, but not as much.  I blame George Will.

  • Like 2
Posted
6 hours ago, odessasteps said:

For all you old school Lebatard Show listeners

 

McAdoo McAdon't

McAcan MaAwon't

Posted

I generally don't have a dog in the fight in the Stanley Cup.  But I desperately want a Game 7 tonight for two reasons.  The obvious is that a Game 7 Stanley Cup game is probably the best thing in sports.  The other is watching most of southern Florida either completely losing their shit or pretending to lose their shit over the Greg Cote "McOverated" comment and the impact it or may have not had on this series.  

Posted
5 minutes ago, hammerva said:

I generally don't have a dog in the fight in the Stanley Cup.  But I desperately want a Game 7 tonight for two reasons.  The obvious is that a Game 7 Stanley Cup game is probably the best thing in sports.  The other is watching most of southern Florida either completely losing their shit or pretending to lose their shit over the Greg Cote "McOverated" comment and the impact it or may have not had on this series.  

*scribbles notes for later* 

 

Posted

Comedian Gary Vider has been going around the media circuit promoting his new podcast  #1 DAD 

His father was a conman who ran all kinds of scams with his family and children. Then he left them.   This is Gary's attempt to actually learn how deep his father's grifts went and to see if there's any way to reconnect with him.    It's a little disjointed, but ultimately fascinating. 

The reason I'm putting it here is because as a kid in the 1990s, Gary's dad and he would con their way into Madison Square Garden. The scam was, they were posing a photographer and child reporter for Sports Illustrated for Kids.  Vider got to meet tons of famous athletes this way including Michael Jordan, Mark Messier, Wayne Gretzky, and Patrick Ewing.  The scam even continued to work when *the actual reporters* for SI For Kids showed up!

Definitely worth a listen.

Posted
1 hour ago, Dolfan in NYC said:

Comedian Gary Vider has been going around the media circuit promoting his new podcast  #1 DAD 

His father was a conman who ran all kinds of scams with his family and children. Then he left them.   This is Gary's attempt to actually learn how deep his father's grifts went and to see if there's any way to reconnect with him.    It's a little disjointed, but ultimately fascinating. 

The reason I'm putting it here is because as a kid in the 1990s, Gary's dad and he would con their way into Madison Square Garden. The scam was, they were posing a photographer and child reporter for Sports Illustrated for Kids.  Vider got to meet tons of famous athletes this way including Michael Jordan, Mark Messier, Wayne Gretzky, and Patrick Ewing.  The scam even continued to work when *the actual reporters* for SI For Kids showed up!

Definitely worth a listen.

He was on Pablo Torre's podcast, where Pablo points out that Michael Jordan refused to give interviews to Sports Illustrated after they trashed his baseball career. But somehow, someway, this scam worked and Gary Vider, posing as a SI for Kids reporter, talked to Michael Jordan. Meaning that Michael Jordan's last direct interview with a Sports Illustrated property wasn't even with Sports Illustrated, but with a kid being convinced by his dad to scam sports figures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx9YHyc1AEs

The whole interview is fascinating.

  • Like 1
Posted
On 6/24/2024 at 5:04 PM, Dolfan in NYC said:

Comedian Gary Vider has been going around the media circuit promoting his new podcast  #1 DAD 

His father was a conman who ran all kinds of scams with his family and children. Then he left them.   This is Gary's attempt to actually learn how deep his father's grifts went and to see if there's any way to reconnect with him.    It's a little disjointed, but ultimately fascinating. 

The reason I'm putting it here is because as a kid in the 1990s, Gary's dad and he would con their way into Madison Square Garden. The scam was, they were posing a photographer and child reporter for Sports Illustrated for Kids.  Vider got to meet tons of famous athletes this way including Michael Jordan, Mark Messier, Wayne Gretzky, and Patrick Ewing.  The scam even continued to work when *the actual reporters* for SI For Kids showed up!

Definitely worth a listen.

Kind of reminds me of Christopher Titus. In the 90’s, before he got his own sitcom or became somewhat well-known, Christopher Titus was a regular guest on the Bob and Sheri Show, a morning radio show out of NC.  Titus was doing standup at that time, but he would come on the show and just tell stories about his parents (his sitcom and comedy routine was basically the same).  Papa Titus was a womanizing, alcoholic griftee and his mom spent time in mental institutions, so he had a fairly strange upbringing.  Hysterically strange stuff. 

  • Like 2
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
2 hours ago, The Old-Fashioned Gamer said:

It looks like TNT will sue the NBA to try to hang onto their package.  I imagine it will be hilariously awkward if a court forces the NBA to let TNT broadcast games.

Here's what I don't get: either it has matching language or not. Can "we want this network more?" Be a legal reason?

Posted
10 minutes ago, Kuetsar said:

Here's what I don't get: either it has matching language or not. Can "we want this network more?" Be a legal reason?

Supposedly, the contract language gives TNT the right to present a matching offer, but it vague on whether or not the NBA has to accept that. The NBC’s argument seems to be that matching the dollar amounts aren’r enough because NBC/Peacock & Amazon have a higher profile and will hopefully attract more eyeballs (ie, streaming service snd networks are higher up the food chain than cable networks these days).

I can see TNT winning on the merits of the case,  I’m skeptical NBA games are going to air on TNT in 2026. The NBA is making it clear they don’t want to do business with Warner Bros. Discovery. I’d predict an out-of-court settlement but losing the NBA could be disastrous for TNT, so they may not be in a settling mood.

Posted

There's other things, like Amazon put three years right fees up front (over $5 billion), and WBD tried to say a three year line of credit matched, which I don't think it does.

 

This is TNT posturing to try to get SOMETHING out of it, neither side wants to go to court with all the dirty laundry that could be aired between the parties.

  • Like 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...