The Divide Between Analysis and Understanding

As America gets reacquainted with the NFL, there are plenty of people having live fantasy drafts over a few beers, rummaging stores for grills in order to tailgate and praying that their preachers speed up Sunday services for the next five months.

We already know what has made the NFL king of American entertainment over the last decade-plus; a few seasons of parity, a more passer-friendly style of play (though not exactly better) and the heavy dependence on the game for live viewing by partner TV networks. The latter, which provides the league revenue streams and advertising beyond comprehension, has been the bread and butter for the NFL since the 1960s under the stewardship of the late commissioner, Pete Rozelle.

With talk about the league pitching an additional eight-game Thursday night package to networks and some scheduling additions made by current league partners, there’s more to consume for the pigskin fan than ever before. 

However, one grossly overlooked aspect of this larger landscape for the NFL is that whether they care to admit so or not, there are still millions of fans that are not as savvy about every nuance of the game of football. [Honestly, the same goes for us media folks.]

Think of how many times Monday Night Football color commentators Ron Jaworski and Jon Gruden give the breakdown of a play and the terminology they use will go over your head. Even for those who know that there are multiple names and variations of the same football plays, it’s not easy to keep up with what ‘Jaws’, ‘Chucky’ or any commentator that played or coached will spit out.

With the bandwidth for programming that networks like ESPN and even the league’s own network possess, there’s plenty of room for a show that can actually explain what in the hell these commentators and analysts are talking about. Who needs another hour of highlight reels or fantasy football uber-analysis when there can be a program or two that will demonstrate what a dig route is or why there’s a need to have different personnel for defensive schemes.



Courtesy of Fort Hayes State Univ.



For those who have known and loved football for years, a show like this can be a way of refining, if not outright testing, your knowledge of the game. Sure, you might have a Master’s in Madden Football and you probably like to debate at the water cooler, but there’s a good chance that you may have thought the Wildcat formation was invented four years ago (single-wing, anyone?). 

Fans who have been introduced to the game in recent years would get a better sense of what makes the superstars so respected and popular. Many came on board because they kept hearing about Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and numerous fantasy football references throughout pop culture. Yet, save for those hackneyed company lines about their greatness – they’re winners, what would their teams be like without them, etc. – there is a lack of understanding what it took for those players to become future first-ballot Hall of Famers. Why? Because explaining the craft is too long for advertising copy.

That guy looks MAD familiar!

Last year while live tweeting a Monday Night Football broadcast, I suggested that the league’s broadcasting partners should actually try teaching the game a bit. I received a few replies, stating that it wouldn’t be a good idea because it’s not the responsibility of said partners – ESPN, FOX, CBS and NBC – to explain anything, at least during the game.

Yet, this isn’t about the guys in the booth explaining each intricate detail as if this is “Football for Dummies”. While it’s not impossible, it would ignore the primary purpose to their jobs; to speak on the game as it happens to a rabid audience.

However, when you look through ESPNews’ programming slate and see nothing but “Highlight Express” or wonder if the over-the-air networks are really serving us with those ginormous pregame shows, it’s not unfathomable to see that there’s room to take a step back and educate people on the game with more than telestrators and corporate-sponsored studio ‘fields’.

The first day that we are 'Back to Football', we can use something new, can't we?

Maybe this program is a once-a-week in-season affair a la Showtime’s (formerly HBO's) Inside the NFL or those weekly fantasy sports shows on your local sports network. Throughout the season, the hosts – experienced television former NFL players and coaches – can use game and/or practice footage combined with live demonstrations from a local semi-pro or high school team to illustrate their points. How cool would it be to see the contrast between how an offensive line works for a pocket passer and a mobile quarterback? The hair-splitting differences between the brilliance of running backs Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson? The real reasons why some teams play a 3-4 defense and a 4-3?

It may sound like one of those instructional tapes that you might buy for middle school-aged kids playing Pop Warner football. Yet, every season, people ask this Scribe how can they best learn the game in order to keep up with television analysis that continually goes over their heads. If this kind of program is crafted properly, it can be more than ‘suggested reading’ from the syllabus. It can be a great hors d'oeuvre before the football feast us pigskin gluttons scarf down every weekend.

Say What?!?!: In writing this post, an old one came to mind. Though younger generations have only come to know John Madden as the guy whose name graces the popular video game, he was once upon a time a great coach and the forefather to the sport’s color commentary. Whether some like it or not, with his retirement from the booth after the 2008 season, his approach to explaining the game to fans (though seemingly ineffective as the years went on) is sorely lacking these days.

Chucky!

It's been said already (via the AP), but heeeeerrrrrrrrreee’s Chucky!

Obviously, the Internets ablaze with news that Jon Gruden is replacing Tony Kornheiser in the Monday Night Football booth as the PTI host and longtime Washington Post scribe points to his fear of flying as the reason to step away after three seasons.

The criticisms of Kornheiser were well-founded as his detractors note his lack of improvement throughout each season. His attempts at humor fell short more often than not, his friendly arguments with Ron Jaworski took away from the action at times and his constant references to the most (in)famous quarterback in the NFL unnerved many. Yet, Kornheiser played his role as it was detailed; to be the ‘voice of the fan’ by way of the sports editor of the local newspaper who is on a deadline and needs an attention-grabbing headline.

As written about during this past season, he was supposed to be the outsider, chomping at the bit to talk about the topic du jour; whether it was the struggling quarterback, the coach who might be canned after another loss, the wide receiver who can’t seem to shut up or whichever player got arrested during the week. Yet, he was more like Joe/Jaquon/Jane Fan than we care to admit, which might have been the underlying reason for the hate spewed in his direction.

So now, ESPN grabs another coach who was just fired after a disappointing stretch (see Edwards, Herm) in hopes of providing veteran insight from years on the sidelines. A quick Google/Yahoo! Search will provide a range of opinions from overjoyed that Kornhieser’s gone to satisfied that Gruden joins the booth to disappointed that another former jock is actually going to talk about the game (if the latter baffles you, you’re not alone). Yet, the opinions are up to you to share here.

If anything, it would be interesting to see what kind of style producers help Gruden develop. Being media-friendly to the beat reporters and talkies is one thing, but to speak nationally to millions of fans for a few hours is a different story.

As most coaches have varying rapports with media members. From my professional experience, Giants head coach Tom Coughlin has certainly become more open to the Giants’ press over his time here and he’s certainly forthcoming and honest towards those that give him respect, even in criticizing some decisions. Yet, he can also be dismissive of certain media types that are looking for a reason to argue with him about the points of the game (and there are several folks in this category).

Now, can these five to ten minute post-game press conferences translate to adding analysis to the viewers for a few hours? That’s pretty hard to determine. It’s been said that Gruden had been pretty good with the media, even taking the Chucky nickname in stride wherever he has gone. In the booth, however, he has to essentially have a conversation with ‘Jaws’, whose breakdown of film and player biographies makes him the preacher to the converted, if you will. He’ll have to work with and around the parameters that Mike Tirico sets as the play-by-play announcer/occasional traffic cop.

What ESPN (and ABC before MNF was moved to Disney’s cash-cow channel) has tried to do was have someone in the broadcast booth that can dumb down the football verbiage for at least the casual or average NFL fan to digest without completely alienating the committed fan. Because the NFL has such a short season (which places games at a premium and captures more attention than the lengthier seasons of other sports) and the constraints of a live broadcast, it is vital for the network to dangle a carrot to those who may pass by the game while flipping through the channels.

You have to wonder if Gruden will be asked to fill that role in any degree. Jaworski is rather entrenched in his role as the breakdown analyst, but I can imagine that going into a fourth season, he’s figuring out how to either add explain the game’s language a bit more or cut down on its use. Gruden could bring the maestro elements of being a coach to the booth; in other words, explain the reasoning behind a play or what the guys in the headsets see and hear. He could also be asked to preach to the converted as Jaworski does and Tirico may have to bring in the casual fan a bit more.

It’s difficult to say how he will do in the booth considering that he hasn’t done it before. Outside of his work with the NFL Network as the Draft neared (which was well-received by some), he doesn’t have any body of work to suggest that he’ll be great or terrible. While he’ll make his debut during the preseason, everyone is working out the kinks from the players and coaches to the media to the concessionaires. It won’t be until the lights come on for the season opener between the Buffalo Bills and New England Patriots on September 14th that we’ll find out how ‘Chucky’ does.

Say What?!?!: Ladies, if you want the fulfill your fantasies, just know that he wears protection. This ad is great (at least to me)!

Overlooked

Ron Jaworski raised an interesting point on last night's Monday Night Football game between the Jacksonville Jaguars and Houston Texans.

Shortly after tailback Fred Taylor tied the Jaguars' franchise touchdown record with Jimmy Smith (a truly unheralded wide receiver), a question from Tony Kornheiser was raised about his credentials as he moves up in the NFL career rushing yards tally. Jaworski believes that Taylor's total body of work should place him in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

For the few fortunate souls who were still watching the game, that may have been a head-scratching moment for sure.

Kornheiser immediately asked if the fact that Taylor did not play in major NFL markets such as Dallas or New York (which, in reality, just became a big deal nationally in the last two seasons) actually hurts him.

It was a fair conversation on both sides as not only did they have to try to keep the dwindling audience from turning off their TV sets, but they've seen enough football to know who has really got the goods. Yet, it begs the question: is a player who has the numbers, the longevity and the franchise legacy, punished or praised more because of where (s)he plays?

Most people who may have heard this discourse were probably in disagreement with Jaworski because Taylor wasn't a speed demon (though his was underrated) or because he struggled with injuries early on in his career. They'll point to his lone Pro Bowl appearance, despite the fact that Pro Bowl voting is like that for Prom Queen (I don't know this one and I don't like that one, but this is the only person I recognize on the whole list). Yet, considering that Jacksonville is a relatively unknown city beyond the Jaguars and college football history, the players, even one of his ilk, aren't exactly brand names.

This story plays out in every sport as there are players who defined lesser-known franchises without as much as a sniff of post-career credit. So, which athletes in this category do you feel should receive Hall consideration and why, regardless of sport?

Projection

Projection (noun):

11. Psychology. a. the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.

While watching Monday Night Football, the seemingly strangest idea came to mind:

Do fans who dislike (hate is tossed around too easily) Tony Kornheiser genuinely have a beef with him or do they see something in themselves?

It may sound like psychobabble, but consider this for a moment:

Each of the three men in the booth have clearly defined roles and while they may step on each other's toes at times to get a word out, they rarely, if ever, try to perform another's job. Mike Tirico provides the play-by-play and from time to time, will add wit and opinion to a questionable call or penalty. Ron Jaworski (arguably the best color commentator in sports today) gives breakdowns of plays like nobody's business to the point that you may believe that you can suit up for your local NFL team right now. Kornheiser, ideally in the vein of Howard Cosell with an accidental dash of Dennis Miller, is writing the feature article in Tuesday's newspaper, deciding what goes on the backpage and gives the sixty beat reporters for each team something to run with.

There aren't many complaints about Tirico or 'Jaws' compared to those for the former Washington Post writer. Just explore the blogosphere or Google/Yahoo!/MSN his name and you're bound to find how much he is loathe by many a fan. To summarize the common gripes:

• He does mention Brett Favre a tad much.
  
  
• In his first season and a half, he ran with the "he's on my fantasy team' angle after every entertaining play.
  
  
• On the basis of his Long Island roots and his strong 'Noo Yawk' accent, he invites even more disdain from many across the nation.
  
  
• His pre-game soliloquy about a team's media magnet(s) essentially tells the audience what he will be looking for the entire game.
  
  
• In his banter with Jaworski, it sounds more like he's picking on the ex-jock rather than discussing a point during the game (which is why Joe Theismann was replaced by 'Jaws' in 2007).

With that said, Kornheiser is playing the role he was given. He's supposed to be the outsider, chiming in on any point that the media typically dictates; the hot quarterback of the moment, the prima donna wide receiver, the fiery coach or the coach who's on fire because of the proverbial hot seat, the sexy matchup that is supposed to garner all sorts of ratings, etc. These are some of the things that many sports media consumers seem to pick up on, even if there are far more stories to tell within the game. Yet, while many of his detractors point out his shortcomings, they will just as easily make the same criticisms or quickly jump to conclusions about a player as he or many other 'outsiders' do.

Maybe it's just this scribe's opinion, but are many of those mudslingers just upset that he gets paid to say what some of them might be thinking? Or is there something deeper that seems to go unnoticed? Chime in.