I didn't really catch the Iverson interview except the short clip they aired on ESPN trying to publicize his show more. I couldn't help but think how much of a butt kisser he was to Iverson. "Give him a round of a plause people! The man just said he loves his momma!" Well no ****. I know it's foolish of me to assume everyone had great parents, but jeez if you're fortunate enough to be raised under such a household, you damn well better love your mother. I just thought it was pretty silly.
I was very skepitical of the show, but I put it on the tivo and to my surprise, I thought the show was great. AI was generally entertaining. I used to listen to SAS on the radio doing basketball update when I was stuck in St. Louis, so I have seen or watched him grow into this persona that he is. St. louis btw does not have good sports radio, we are lucky here in houston. back to my point, a couple of years ago when SAS was just starting I used to look forward to him on the radio because he had good information, but then he became the tv persona that he is known for now. I am not sold on the show , but a calm and focused SAS can be great. I will continue to watch and decide. Thank god for tivo
I saw the interview and it was good. Iverson was candid and that helped. Hopefully he can keep it going.
Well, bad news. I was impressed with the Iverson interview yesterday, but I'm watching todays show with Charlie Weis and it's almost unwatchable. SAS keeps asking questions more than once like he's trying to get Weis to bad mouth Willingham or something. His questions are horrible tonight. Looks like last night was a one hit wonder with Iverson on the show.
Quite frankly Steven A. talking about sports he knows nothing about is quite painful (today). Charlie Weis is supposed to have a temper and he is surprisingly calm at Steven A's dumbass questions. Two errors I caught in the last segment...he said Davie's name wrong and said Holtz only had two losses at ND. Next up Rocket Ismail. Did he just say Carlson Palmer?
I thought the same thing, but it may have just been the way he said it. Initially it sounded like he said "Notre Dame was 130-2 while Lou was coach" but then I looked up the stats and Lou was actually 100-30-2. So either he said it wrong and he's an idiot, or we just misunderstood him.
100-30-2, He said "100 30 and 2" exactly as it should be pronounced. The interview today wasn't as good as Iverson only because he didn't get Weis to talk about himself as in what makes him tick. It was pretty much about himself and Notre Dame. Still found it entertaining but he should go back and try to do what he did in the Iverson interview. But then again everyone hasn't had as an eventfull life as Iverson.
That's what separates the good interviewers from the not so good interviewers. He's not going to be able to interview his buddies each and every show.
So after two shows, one very good interview and one so-so, you've decided what his interviewing skills are. John McClaine said Charlie Weis is one of the biggest a-holes to the media so the fact that anybody got him to sit down for a candid one on one is pretty good. Have you even seen the show. Wanting somebody to fail and being objective is what separates haters from critics. I mean really, what did the guy do to some of you guys, yell at the T.V. Oh my God he should be strung up.
The classic SAS moment for me was the morning he was on the Sports Reporters. After one of his rants he shouted, "but I REGRESS". Mike Lupica quickly said, "uh, you mean 'digress'?" SAS didn't know what to say. He should not be strung up. Just told to shut up.
The Weiss interview was bad. I was afraid the AI interview would be the exception to the rule... but i'll still give it 2 weeks.
Watched a bit of it, nothing great, just the same ol Football players must be able to get new contract when they want BS that SAS is always promoting.
Gammon's is a dumbass because Billy Beane lied to him? I mean, relying on GMs, assistant GMs, and spies with inside knowledge is all sports journalists have to get us important info. Billy Beane is the smartest GM out there, but I'll bet he can't ever pull that move again because I'm sure Gammons won't use him as a source anymore. As for Stephen A and his experience, I read in the NY Times I think, that he played college ball at Winston-Salem State University and wrote for the school paper. He then stirred up some trouble when he suggested the coach retire because of his health problems.
http://www.nypost.com/sports/26723.htm STEPHEN ANNOYING August 7, 2005 -- HAS anyone seen a copy of ESPN's plan? Surely, there has to be some rhyme and/or reason as to why ESPN and ESPN Radio have chosen Stephen A. Smith to become a rising, rising, rising, all-purpose, all-the-time star. Come to think of it, are there actually people at or near the top of ESPN who truly think that Smith knows what he's talking about? If so, they owe Smith an apology for enabling him to do this to himself and ESPN. As ESPN continues to spread Smith here, there and everywhere, Smith continues to generate more heat but almost no light. And while we understand that ESPN execs are busy turning ESPN into an attitude mill, are they unaware that for every pound of strong, loud, controversial opinions Smith produces, they often don't contain even an ounce of substance? Or is that what ESPN likes about him? Could be. Who knows? Smith, if nothing else, is provocative. He daily provokes head-shaking wonder, as in, what the heck is ESPN thinking about? Could it be that Smith's urban street-hip brotha yak — which he seems able to turn on and off with the drop of a Kangol — is supposed to appeal/pander to young, urban, street-talkin' sports fans? If so, what makes ESPN think that such a target audience would be any more inclined to think that Smith knows what he's talking/shouting/jiving about? We've long maintained that one of the big problems in sports TV and radio is that the guys who do the hiring can't distinguish genuine knowledge and insights from bad-guess artists, yet Smith has sounded some blaring alarms that even ESPN had to hear — and apparently chose to ignore. In promoting Smith's new ESPN2 show, "Quite Frankly," ESPN had Smith point to football as a sport that will highlight his knowledge and insights. But Smith, quite frankly, blew up his football credibility late last season when, on ESPN's "Sports Reporters," he trashed Chargers coach Marty Schottenheimer for not trying a field goal on third down in a playoff game against the Jets. Smith asserted that if the Chargers missed the field goal on third down, they could try again on fourth. Yikes! Last week, on "Quite Frankly," the topic was Notre Dame football, a topic that Smith admitted (and proved), on air, he knows little about. How can ESPN, national sports network, sell Smith to the nation as an all-seeing, all-knowing, strongly opinionated observer of sports — yep, football, too — when he knows nothing about Notre Dame football? Smith's New York radio acumen is no stronger, unless running down a list of free-agent pitchers then hollering that the Mets should've signed this one, and that one, and this one passes for wisdom. Recently, on his ESPN-NY radio show, Smith took time off from blustering superficialities — faking it — to acknowledge that he has critics. Unfortunately, Smith indicated, without explanation, that he's inclined to dismiss his critics. Too bad. He really shouldn't. His critics will prove more helpful to his career than those who'd slap him on the back and tell him that he's doing a great job (although they'd be stuck to offer specifics), while adding to his on-air schedule. You kinda feel sorry for Smith, that ESPN would appoint someone to do this to himself in such full and endless view. But ESPN has chosen Smith as a first-string, all-day, every-day noise-maker, sports expert and TV star. Why? Got me. Sure, ESPN isn't into sports that much, anymore, and, apparently, neither is Smith, but still . . .
