Tony guest hosted today's show. Yay! Michelle Tafoya was on the panel. Even bigger Yay!! With all the sports shows ESPN produces, it surprises me they haven't created a sports talk show with an all female panel. Michelle Tafoya, Suzie Kolber, Linda Cohn, Chris McKendry, Shelly Smith... It's not like they don't have the talent available. Don't make it a women's sports show. Make it a sports show with women but expand it to take in the wnba, tennis, golf and womens college basketball.

And whatever happened to the Fabulous Sports Babe? I liked her.

This may betray my feminist leanings, but I'm not sure what an all-female panel would accomplish. It would make the women reporters seem inferior, IMO. They're just as talented -- no need to separate them from the men.

I'm looking at it from a marketing point of view. I think there's a huge, untapped female market out there for some flavor of ESPN's programming. They've already begun to address that issue with Cold Pizza, in my opinion. It's debatable whether that venture is/will be successful. ESPN2 is pretty much an afterthought. Why not set aside an hour or two in that wasteland to develop some type of hardcore sports show (or shows) that taps into that unrealized market of potential female viewers?

/ot I LOVED the Fabulos Sports Babe. For about ten minutes her radio show was broadcast on ESPN2 I think. Her and Arnie Spangler were like crack to my addicted ears in the mid 90's.

Topic? The female talent on ESPN does go untapped - I mean after the NFL seaosn is up what does Suzy Kolber get to do. And when the WNBA (suppresses a giggle) finishes their 'season' what does Michelle Tafoya do.

What kind of programming do you think would convince a female viewer, who would not otherwise watch, to change the channel to ESPN or the Deuce?

As for the all-female panel issue, I think that if you force women like Michelle Tafoya to cover nothing but women's sports, they will always be perceived as "second-class" reporters since men's sports are what garner the most attention and respect. And this is coming from a guy who is probably a bigger women's sports fan than 99 percent of the men out there.

What happened to him??

You missed my point. I didn't say force them to cover nothing but women's sports. I want them to cover the major men's sports just as they do now but instead of spending 20-30 minutes kissing Ray Lewis' butt or talking about Kobe they should spend that time on women's sports and women's sports issues. Women's soccer gets no coverage. The WNBA gets no coverage. Other than the Williams sisters, women's tennis gets little coverage. Women's golf is a footnote. Other than UConn, women's college basketball gets little coverage. Gymnastics. Football 101. There's all kind of shit they could do that would cater to the female jock and/or couch potato. I don't see it as a demotion at all. I see it as a great opportunity for ESPN to do something good as opposed to dumbing down everything like they're doing now. I guess we disagree. No biggie.

When he left Sporting News Network in 98 or 99 I lost track of him. Not sure if he still has a show anywhere.

cheesesteak, if ESPN is willing to hire Rush Limbaugh to increase its ratings, it will never ever ever ever give women's sports the proper coverage it deserves. My views are based on this fundamental assumption.

And I don't think that coverage of gymnastics, women's soccer, etc. on television as an effort to cater towards women will help at all. One of the biggest reasons why the WUSA failed (I was a season-ticket holder all three seasons, BTW) was that the league focused its marketing way too narrowly towards pre-adolescent girls. Just because you play, doesn't mean you'll buy a ticket or watch on TV. ESPN would be making the same mistake with respect to its news coverage.

Like it or not, men tend to follow sports more than women. If the network wants to treat women's sports seriously, it needs to cater towards a much broader audience -- not just women.

Bill Belichek? A "Mozart level prodigy"? Bob Ryan, you are an idiot. . . even taking into account the standard level of hyperbole of sports and sports reporters.

At least he didn't say he would like to smack Mozart around.

Again, Bob Ryan should not have a TV show as long as Elmer Fudd still has his.

Lupica as host. Great. (I finally broke down and read three of his books. He still sucks. And no, I didn't spend a dime. Library all the way.)

Anyway, did Lupica just call Tom Brady the greatest clutch quarterback of all time? WTFF? Do the names Montana, Elway, Favre, Unitas, Bradshaw, Staubach, hell even Aikman, ring a bell? I'd take all of those guys before Brady if I had chose one quarterback to lead a last second SB touchdown drive. And Rhoden called him "this generation's Bart Starr." Sure they were both drafted low and went on to have success, but I don't see Brady leading the league in passing year after year or winning 5 championships. I like Tom Brady fine, but jeez he's been a starter for less than 3 seasons, let's give him some time before we get crazy with the comparisons. It's early in the day yet... "Not a citizen who did not look with envy on his lot -- see him now and see the breakers of misfortune swallow him! Look upon the last day always."

Why was Rhoden crying during his speech about Lennox Lewis there at the end? Was his eye just running?

ET: Q: Did Starr win 5 or 7 championships? Some sites say 5 others say 7... just curious.

Starr won 5 NFL championships ('61, '62, '65, '66 and '67) and the first two Super Bowls - '67 (after the '66 season) and '68 (after the '67 season). Remember, this was back when the NFL and the AFL were separate entities. The NFL championship was what really counted, and the Super Bowl was kind of a sideshow.

Okay, so 5 total counting the 3 NFL championships and the 2 overlapping NFL championship/Superbowl seasons?

That's what I get.

Jeez, I used to love this show. Watched it every Sunday morning. Now, I still TiVo it but I don't usually watch it until later in the week and don't even bother to TiVo the Thursday show. Maybe it's the loss of Dick Schaap, maybe not - I do like John Saunders. I think maybe it's the usual trio of Lupica, Ryan and Albom. They're there too much. Considering it's been two months since anybody posted here, I don't too many other people give a shit either.

I get tired of Lupica yelling over and interrupting others and whenever he is on I can't watch more than a few minutes. I also really like John Saunders but I'd agree that the show isn't the same since Dick Schapp passed.

I think he's talking to you Lupica.

ETA Link to CNNSI.

Yeah, when he wants to make a point, Lupica always starts out quietly and rationally and then STARTS YELLING HIS ASS OFF!!! I just hate him. It's almost pathological. I might have a problem.

I love this letter from The Sports Guy's mailbox.

Anybody catch Lupica yesterday spouting off about Women's Beach Volleyball at the Olympics..I'm paraphrasing, but he said these folks aren't athletes. Can we just go ahead and put him out of his misery? And let's tie his hands behind his back to shut that yapping pie hole of his.

I agree with your comment and particularly cheesesteak's synopsis of Lupica's behavior. As whiny and hard to take as he may be, I deal with him. Why? At least he has an opinion, even if he tends to deliver it in the most annoying way possible. It could also be that the alternatives on the show are no better:

• William C. Rhoden. Mumbling and incoherent, has a terrible time getting his point across. I know he's a good journalist, but when it comes to live debate, he is awful.
• Adam Schefter (sp). Seems way more interested in delivering sound bites with a smug demeanor than actually saying anything I should care about.
• Bill Conlin. Like Lupica, he has an opinion, but they just seem off-the-wall. I don't think I've ever strongly agreed with anything he has said. One thing I would like to see is for him to have an eating contest with...
• Jason Whitlock. He knows his football but I don't find him very convincing otherwise.
• John Saunders. Like Dick Schaap before him, his opinions seem a bit muted, probably because he's the host.

Those are just the ones that come quickly to mind. Given those choices, I'd take Lupica or Bob Ryan any day.

I agree with all of your comments. Lupica does have some interesting points to make, but just not at that decible level. He just reeks of "see me, hear me"! I know a lot of folks don't care for Mitch Albom, but I'll take him, too, over Bill Rhoden. I kind of miss Conlin's argyle socks...

I like Mitch Albom a lot.

Lupica? Must. Control. Fist. Of. Death. My most hated people in the world: 1) Hitler 2) bin Laden 3) Mike Lupica 4) Idi Amin

You pretty much have to ignore the first couple of sentences Bill Rhoden says on every topic because he mumbles, fumbles and stumbles all over the place before getting to his point.

Bill Conlin was missing a front tooth for a good while and all I could think of when he was on was that he looked like a backwoods hick.

I totally forgot about him, even though one of the regulars. Yep, I like him too.


You obviously didn't see the first season of The Surreal Life or you would have put Corey Feldman ahead of Lupica. Maybe even bin Laden, since Feldman is a terrorist on American soil.

Today they had what is usually their best panel (imo) - Albom, Ryan, and Lupica. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for Lupica to start shouting down Ryan before Ryan had even finished making his point. Lupica often has good points to make - but he needs to leave his ego at home. I think that they need to just get some duct tape and wrap him up while the others are talking, just so that someone else can finish a sentence once in a while

Thankfully he was quiet long enough to let Albom rap for us.

Hee hee hee. Unfortunately, my mouth was full of water when I read this. Thanks a lot.

Come on people! No Lupica yesterday. Let's all do the wave...

Sometimes people say dumb things. Everybody does. But then, when they defend the dumb thing, you have to say to yourself "What the hell is wrong with this guy?" Yesterday, Bill Rhoden said that Barry Bonds' alleged confirmiration that he (unknowingly - hahahaha) used steroids wouldn't change his opinion of Bonds. The other three panelists looked at Rhoden like he was an idiot. Then he tried to defend his position while everybody jumped all over him.

I don't know Cheesesteak. It doesn't really change my opinion of the guy either. I thought Bonds was juicing on something, if for no other reason then he'd stopped getting hurt even at his age. Just like I thought McGwire was on something too when he went through that stretch when he was magically healthy despite being so injury-prone.

In essence - my opinion of Bonds as a player had changed back when the allegations first started, so this mostly just confirms what I thought without changing anything much.

Say no more. I was going to dust off this topic yesterday morning but didn't get around to it.

Bill Rhoden seems likes a nice guy. I enjoy his articles in the Times. But he repeatedly proves himself to be overmatched on this show, having a hard time being coherent or getting his points across. How he is in the regular rotation I don't know. Perhaps because he is from NYC, where the show is filmed (as is Lupica, of course).

That bizarre-O stance he took on yesterday's show regarding Bonds not only made no sense to me but it even had the normally fence-straddling John Saunders all over him. If I didn't like Rhoden I wouldn't feel bad, but sheesh...I just wish he would stick to writing.

I thought he was saying that the gap between Barry and the next best player was so great that it couldn't have all been the result of steroids. If it was just steroids that made you that good, then everyone should think about it as an option. I knew what he meant, but he probably didn't articulate the best way.

See Monday Morning Quarterback's (Peter King) eloquent take on Bill Rhoden's statements. It's about halfway down the page.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writ...ings/index.html






I agree with you there. I think Peter King is an idiot for stating he wouldn't vote for Bonds for the Hall Of Fame.

Bill Rhoden is a smart guy but he's inarticulate. The path from his brain to his mouth has a couple potholes in it.

Bwah! And really, all that need be said.

In Rhoden's defense, it's hard to clearly articulate a position when you have Mike Lupica shrieking like a howler monkey anytime someone pauses to take a breath.

Stephen A. Smith. Seriously. Is this ass-clown going to infect this show too? He makes the ESPN NBA studio action unwatchable, so I haven't. Then he totally ran over yesterday's Sports Reporters in a way that Lupica would envy. Must he YELL everything like a Wheel of Fortune contestant? (I don't mean like Lupica, who at least changes pitch by starting out talking and rising in pitch like a kettle.) Must he tell us about all the things in life he doesn't like, treating them as if they're matters of national importance? Must he be so bad that I miss the understated if occasionally incomprehensible Bill Rhoden?

Also, who introduces himself and includes his middle initial? I know "Stephen Smith" is probably nearly as common as "John Smith", but it's a little ridiculous to introduce yourself on a sports talk show and include your middle initial, unless there is another Stephen Smith somewhere on the panel.

If I took one thing out of yesterday's show, it was how many of the playoff coaches this past weekend were named Mike. Not something worth 22 minutes of my life, but at least it's something.

William C. Rhoden

What cracks me up is that all the other guys will address him as 'Stephen A.' Rhoden is generally called 'Bill,' but Smith is always 'Stephen A.'

I totally wish he would shut it, but I give him points for going through the world as Steven A.

Maybe it's a Smith thing. All the guys I know named Smith use some sort of middle name-type device to distinguish themselves from the mulitudes of Smiths.

Maybe those other guys just have the same notion that I do for what that "A" actually stands for...

Once upon a time, I actually liked this show. Now it's more and more part of the giant dungheap that is ESPN. This is the only non-live game coverage programming that I watch on ESPN, and my viewing of this show is falling off rapidly as well. Certainly some of that is due to the death of Dick Schaap, but I was pleased when they gave John Saunders the host position after Schaap's passing.

While they're not without faults, generally my preferred panel is Ryan, Albom, and Lupica. (On a day when there's some consensus on the topics, that is...because if anybody ever dares to disagree with Lupica, he becomes a whiny, screeching blowhard. But if he's not in shout-the-others-down mode, he is actually sometimes perceptive and insightful. Alas, those moments are few and far-between.) Jason Whitlock has good days and bad. Among those who I can't stand as panelists are the aforementioned Smith and Rhoden, Dan LeBatard, and the ever-smarmy Adam Shefter.

The show fell off seriously with the death of Dick Schaap (all of sports journalism fell off seriously with the death of Dick Schaap). I also miss Kornheiser and Wilbon, who used to make appearances pre-PTI. They were great on Sports Reporters.

I thought that they both still occasionally made appearances on the show. Maybe they negotiated Sports Reporters appearances out of their new contract with ESPN. I could see being in the presence of Lupica being a deal breaker.

Albom seems like the only guy on SR these days that can make a calm, rational statement. I've lost all respect for Saunders after his placing the blame for the Artest brawl on the fans while covering it live that Friday night, then not backing down from that stance the following Sunday morning. He also has this annoying habit of "capping" everyone's parting shot, often totally missing their point or upstaging them. Schaap always let the guys speak for themselves.

Wow, the opening 10 mins was the "beat up on William Rhoden Segment", and I loved it.

ETA, well someone told them to turn up the heat on the arguments or Mitch Albom just hates Rhoden...

Good. Bill Rhoden established this morning for once and for all that he is incapable of rational thought. His columns aren't as paranoid, but that's because he has editors. On the air, he's on his own--and today he got called out big time.

It was great.

And he's barely coherent, even when he does have something intelligent to say. Which isn't often. He's an embarrassment.

What did Rhoden say? Why was everyone beating up on him? Was it as awesome as it sounds? That guy is a moron, although I don't hate him as much as LeBastard or Bayless, both of whom I strongly suspect go out of their way to take the most ludicrous, contrarian, and generally asinine positions on any issue that comes up. I'm still kicking myself for not TiVo-ing the previous week's episode, when Albom blew off everything LeBastard said with a 1- or 2-sentence verbal haymaker. Good times...

Bill Rhoden was defending John Chaney and Mitch Albom wasn't buying it. I loved how Mitch used firsthand experience to prove his point. I don't understand why John Chaney has been allowed to dictate his punishment. I also think his defenders are using his age as an excuse for what he did. If he was 43 instead of 73 I feel he would have been fired immediately.

Yeah, Rhoden was characterizing the criticism of Chaney as a "media witchhunt." The other panelists pointed out that in fact in Salem, witches didn't actually exist, whereas Chaney's bad behavior certainly did. Lupica snitted, "You don't get to speak for the whole media!"

Down, boys. Here comes mama with your kibble.

Chaney has done some good things for the community...but man, if Bobby Knight had pulled such a stunt, people would be calling for his head. Cheese-us, what was Rhoden thinking?

Argh. I watch this sometimes shitty show faithfully every week, can't remember the last one I missed. But I was recording something else Sunday AM and decided to pick it up on its repeat on The Deuce that night. Naturally, tennis ran over and it didn't record the most talked-about episode in ages. Oh the huge manatee.

Rhoden seems like a nice dude and that's why I can't hate him, but he isn't very good and that seat is being wasted with him in it. If they are looking for a black perspective there are many other African-American journalists who are perfectly competent.

LeBatard, on the other hand, is annoying on top of being an idiot. He and Rhoden have the same thing in common, and it's already been mentioned by j32master: they both seem obsessed with taking a devil's advocate stance on everything. Hell, Rhoden even picked the Falcons and the Steelers conference championship week, no doubt simply because the rest of the panel picked the other two teams. Naturally he couldn't explain his choices in a convincing matter. Annoying!