3 comments Further Evidence in Case You Didn't Believe Jay Mariotti Was the Lying, Hypocritical, Deceptive Scum of the Earth

I try to be fair here. You may not believe that, but I do try. I try not to make personal, mean attacks on those who I cover here on the blog. I want the focus to be on the work they produce and how terrible it can be. It's easy to focus on the work with some writers and harder to do others. Then there are sportswriters like Jay Mariotti. I just don't think he's a very good guy. I think he's a liar, he's deceptive and he's willing to bash "huge conglomerates" for taking over the sports media, all while trying to get a job with a huge conglomerate. He's consistent only in how inconsistent he is. I remember how he wrote an article about five years ago on how conference tournaments are worthless and then revised the entire column after the Big East Tournament had several thrilling games. Literally revised everything about the column, including whether the conference tournaments were a waste of time. Fortunately I had caught the post he had written when he was bashing the tournaments prior to not bashing them and posted it here.

Well now, after proudly going "indie" at Sports Talk Florida, Jay has gone back to the print media that he once declared was dying a bitter, sad death. Much like his previous employers have done when Jay lays them to waste by slipping out the backdoor in the middle of the night, Sports Talk Florida has removed every trace of Jay, except for his slimy picture. It's usually how it goes with Jay. It's a process:

1. Jay is hired by a sports company/newspaper after leaving his previous position with angry feelings all around.

2. Jay immediately begins bashing the old company/newspaper and talks about how his new company/newspaper is the direction ALL sports media is going, so his other company/newspaper will be gone soon.

3. Jay writes trolling articles and most people who read hate him.

4. Eventually people at Jay's employer start hating him, because he's generally not a likeable person.

5. Jay slips out the door due to the angry feelings he and his new employer feel towards each other and eventually finds a desperate sports conglomerate to hire him in order to bring in ratings.

Then the process starts over again. Well, Jay Mariotti has found a new sucker for an employer. Jay's new employer is a daily newspaper, "The San Francisco Examiner," the same kind of daily newspaper he declared was dead when he left the "Chicago Sun-Times" for AOL. I figured this would be a fun time to follow-up on the introduction he wrote upon joining Sports Talk Florida and see what a hypocrite Jay is. Due to Sports Talk Florida scrubbing all of Jay's columns, I will have to cover what he wrote based on what I wrote on this here ol' blog. It's always funny how Jay hates on those newspapers and big conglomerates that he eventually goes running back to.

I'll also cover a little bit of what I wrote at the time about Jay in italics. Here was part of the introduction:

See, Jay is all "indie sportswriting" now. Corporations suck and big companies just suck the life out of you. This is rich coming from a guy who made a ton of money working for big sports media corporations and this money he made is how he can afford to "go indie" with his sportswriting. Regardless, after making a career on television at ESPN, writing at the "Chicago Sun-Times," and recently pitching his columns to sites like Fox Sports, Jay completely fails to see the contradiction in touting his new indie direction. Basically, he got rejected by the big boys, so now he feels he is too cool and "indie" for them. Jay wants to be The Man, not work for The Man. No really, Jay says something like this in this not-so-brief introduction.

I’m excited to launch a multimedia production that I believe will be the next digital prototype for sports commentators and columnists.

It was not. It was done after less than two years. It became the next prototype for why hiring Jay Mariotti is always a bad idea. Jay is 50% less talented than he believes himself to be. He sees himself as the white knight of sports journalism, while many others see him as an example of how print and sports journalism has handed it's soul over to tabloid and hot take journalism.

At a time when corporate interests have swallowed much of sports journalism and left too much cooperative residue between leagues and mammoth media companies,

Now Jay is working for a free newspaper that is independently owned! While Jay may say he's going even more "indie," he's now not only working in print media again, but is working in FREE print media. I'm sure he believes this to be a massive step-up...at least until the "Examiner" comes to their senses and has a falling out with Jay.

In partnership with Genesis Communications, my plan has come to life. I’ve signed a multi-year deal to provide news and commentary about anyone and anything in sports, media, culture, the world.

"Multi-year" being defined as "1.5 years." After that, Jay wears out his welcome. I wonder if Sports Talk Florida signed Jay to a multi-year deal and then got out of it or Jay got out of the deal with Sports Talk Florida once a better job in an industry he once declared is dead opened up?

In my days away, sports has taken complex and unprecedented turns, and the need for robust, serious commentary and investigative reporting is stronger than ever.

Which is probably why Jay Mariotti hasn't been an active part of sports commentary for the past 3-4 years. There was a need for serious commentary, which is why Jay didn't have a real job in the industry like he used to. Trolling readers and baiting managers into trying to beat him up is Jay's idea of serious journalism. Also, Jay has never done any investigative reporting, unless you want to count investigating how far up his own ass he can put his head.

Sports is a multi-billion-dollar-business — should we be saying multi-trillion now? — and it should be covered as such by commentators who are editorially and financially detached from the mechanism.

That is, until a newspaper offers Jay a job and he has to take it because Sports Talk Florida doesn't want him anymore.

Remember that Jay said in 2009 the future is "sadly not in newspapers." Apparently we are no longer in the future, because Jay has gone back to a daily newspaper for employment. Isn't it weird how Jay bashes industries that he's simply jealous he's no longer a part of? It's almost like a trend with him. He bashes newspapers upon leaving the "Sun-Times" for AOL, bashes huge conglomerates after AOL and ESPN get rid of him for his legal issues and Sports Talk Florida hires him (all while trying to get a permanent job with Fox and ESPN and doing a free lance assignment for ESPN...of course), and now I'm sure he'll bash Sports Talk Florida in some way.

For anyone questioning this vision and my commitment to digital evolution, rewind to 2008, when the Chicago Sun-Times (a newspaper in the Midwest) broke a promise to improve its archaic Web site during our coverage of the Beijing Olympics. I politely resigned after the Games, left $1 million of guaranteed money behind,

This was when Jay Mariotti first declared newspapers to be dead. If you believe he resigned over a web site design then I have oceanfront property in the Midwest I would like to sell you. Look at the "Examiner's" web site. They have auto-play videos and everything! Maybe Jay is just a stickler for good web page design!

I should note I’ve had meetings with ESPN and Fox about joining their operations, and candidly,

They had no interest in hiring you?

I think they’re too corporate, while they have their own opinions of me.

"Too corporate" being defined as "they didn't want to hire me" due to the opinion they had of Jay.

Jay really lives in his own world, doesn't he? He truly believes those things he writes. He convinces himself that he doesn't want to work for ESPN and Fox, mostly because they don't want him to work with him.

I was stunned to hear ESPN’s Michael Wilbon angrily criticize Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, as “gutless” after the league didn’t punish Philadelphia receiver Riley Cooper for his racist remark.

That is a rarity, people.

Jay can't simply leave a previous job. In fact, I'm sure in his introductory column at the "Examiner" he will bash his previous employer. He's so slimy.

Having been painted by previous bosses into conflict-of-interest-driven editorial corners, I’ve opted at this point to be the independent who controls content within a franchise. The goal is to expand with more writers and voices while growing the radio program for Genesis nationally and across Florida.

Then Jay opted to jump right back into the print media that he once declared was dead.

I’m not doing this to get wealthy; 

Because that's what the meetings with ESPN and Fox were for, to see if they would hire him so he could get wealthy. Fortunately, the "Examiner" came along and probably gave Jay a nice monthly paycheck, so he's in the business of getting wealthy again. Jay's agenda and perspective depends entirely on which media outlet is currently rejecting him or accepting him.  

You’re seeing “franchise” sites pop up, such as Bill Simmons and “Grantland” at ESPN and Peter King’s “MMQB” at Sports Illustrated. Those are cool sites oozing of quality, but this will be more cutting-edge.

By "cutting-edge" Jay means "not having 1/100 of the success those sites had and will fail after less than two years." There was nothing "cutting edge" about Jay's site on Sports Talk Florida, so he had to go back to the "cutting edge" of sports journalism, which he suddenly believes to be print media.

I’m not in this business to publicize sports or masturbate to my own prose.

Yes, because Jay is now in a position as sports director to force others to masturbate to his prose and directly make others' live miserable by reminding them of how talentless they are compared to him. It's a dream job for him.

Time to work. With a portable studio — how I love 2013 — we’ll be doing the radio show from L.A., Florida, the Super Bowl, a Mexican bullfighting ring, anywhere and everywhere.

And now, Jay will write about how portable studios are the worst thing ever to happen to sports. That is until he gets an opportunity to do a radio show in a portable studio after the "Examiner" tires of him.

Then in his original first post on Sports Talk Florida, Jay goes on to call the woman who accused him of striking her as a liar who was in it for the publicity and claims he only settled so his family wouldn't have to be dragged through a court case. A court case he TOTALLY would have won, but a court case where his name would have been slandered by a system that was completely against him as a white, male who earns six figures per year. We all know rich white men are the real silent victims in the criminal justice system.

He didn't even make sense at the time when explaining his reasons for settling:

I took the high road, didn’t scream publicly about dirty tactics in the case, accepted the no-contest route and wrote the book in September 2011 not to make money but so all of this could be on public record.

And any testimony at the trial would also have been a part of the public record.

Wrote Rieder: “Life is packed with nuances and subtleties and shades of gray. But the news media are often uncomfortable in such murky terrain. They prefer straightforward narratives, with good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. Those tales are much easier for readers and viewers to relate to.”

This from a sportswriter who made a living off passing judgment on others. Remember the time he jumped all over Michael Phelps for smoking pot?

Going forward, I suppose I could leave behind the daily sports grind, write more books and dabble in other subject material. But why?

So that you don't bother anyone with your existence?
 
Yes, I’ve had meetings with a few media companies about what I might do next. A Fox executive asked if I would be changing my column approach.

“Nope,” I said. “Same guy, same column.”

And of course the "Examiner" didn't take the hint that the "same guy" who was claiming to have a different perspective lasted less than two years at his previous job. I guess they didn't care, but it's on them when this whole "hiring Jay Mariotti" thing blows up in their face like it is bound to do.

I’m confident about this site because I’ve been there when so many haven’t — 14 Olympic Games, 24 Super Bowls and a wealth of World Series, NBA Finals, Final Fours, college football championship games, golf and tennis majors, title fights, etc. I’ve written my 6,500-plus columns, been on national TV a couple of thousand times, done my radio programs for years.

Jay was so confident that he couldn't make it work. What is it about him that makes sports papers/sites continue to hire him? I don't get it. Does he throw his resume in their face and it's so overwhelming that they forget he is a talentless hack who wears out his welcome at nearly every single place he has worked over that last decade?

The Mariotti Show is a site firmly planted in 2013 yet detached from the government-like climates of corporate media.

The "Examiner" sports page will be firmly planted in 2015 when Jay suddenly thinks print media and newspapers still have a chance to survive, yet detached from pre-2009 when Jay thought the newspaper industry was dying and didn't mind telling anyone who would listen that his job at AOL was better. Then Jay decided his job at Sports Talk Florida, away from the AOL and ESPN conglomerate, was better. And now his job for the "Examiner" is better. Everything is better until it's not anymore.

I can tell the truth about any subject I want, anytime I want, and no one can summarily spike content because your boss is friendly with a commissioner or owner, your company is in business with a league or team, your newspaper has a comped suite at the ballpark or your network has a rights deal through 2082 with a major college conference.

It seems your have welcomed your self back into the world that you were so eager to leave...again. I can't wait for Jay to bash print media again after he has a falling out with the "Examiner" and finds a new direction (i.e. someone willing to hire him) for sports media in the future. 

15 comments MMQB Review: Sam Bradford Is Injured...Again Edition

Peter King eulogized Robin Williams in last week's MMQB by talking about what a great actor Philip Seymour Hoffman was, helped his readers understand that depression is serious, decided the 49ers are in serious trouble after their defense collapses this year and Colin Kaepernick gets injured trying to carry the team, and passed on more coachspeak that he thought was wisdom from Chip Kelly. This week Peter talks about why the Seahawks won't win the Super Bowl, mourns Sam Bradford (who would have thought an oft-injured quarterback would get injured?), and has 20 thoughts about the preseason which come right before the entire page of things that Peter thinks he thinks. MMQB in a few years will simply just be six pages of what Peter thinks.

One after one, they fell out of the sky, these perfect or near-perfect throws downfield from Russell Wilson, always landing close to, or in the hands of, a sub-4.4 sprinter like Percy Harvin or wispy rookie Paul Richardson. I mean, always on target. Such beautiful deep balls, and isn’t Wilson supposed to be a system quarterback or game manager, or whatever negative connotation you can think of when you don’t want to acknowledge he’s a top 10 quarterback in the league after two seasons and one Lombardi Trophy?

Every quarterback is a system quarterback in one way or another. I will not acknowledge that Russell Wilson is a top 10 quarterback in the NFL after two seasons. There are 10 quarterbacks who I would take before I took Russell Wilson if I had to choose 10 NFL quarterbacks who I think are the best at their position. Replace Wilson with Jay Cutler and does Wilson have the success that he has had without the Seahawks defense? I'm not sure he does. I think Wilson is a great quarterback and the Seahawks' defense isn't the only reason he has a Lombardi Trophy. He's very good at not making mistakes and running the Seahawks offense. Are there 10 quarterbacks I would rather have than Russell Wilson though? Yes. Do I think he would be more successful than Ryan Tannehill in Miami? Probably, but I'm not sure how much more successful. Basically, Peter needs to calm the fuck down with this "top 10 quarterback" stuff.

If the Seahawks stay relatively healthy, they should be favored to be the first team since the Patriots (2003, 2004) to repeat as champs. But I’m not picking them. History is the reason. Stuff happens. It always does. 

Careful with all of this expert analysis, Peter. You wouldn't want to talk over your readers' heads with all of these technical terms you are using. "Stuff happens" is Peter's reason for not choosing the Seahawks. It sort of sounds like he's trying to think of a reason for the Seahawks not to repeat.

Since New England’s second Super Bowl win a decade ago, and not including the ’13 Seahawks, this is the total playoff victories of the eight Super Bowl champions the following year: 

Zero.

This is a better reason not to choose the Seahawks, but it still doesn't explain how the Seahawks have much of the continuity many of those previous Super Bowl champs didn't have and had season-long success some of the prior Super champs didn't have. The Giants and Packers won three Super Bowls over that last decade, but they had not shown themselves through the season they won the Super Bowl as one of the best teams in the NFL. They peaked at the best possible time. There's nothing wrong with that. The Ravens tore their team apart after the Super Bowl victory and the Steelers lost key players from their team after their Super Bowl victory over the Seahawks. The Seahawks are a Super Bowl champ who has proven themselves to be a consistently great team and have continuity from the previous season. I just don't know if "history" is the right reason not to choose them to repeat. It seems lazy to me and ignores the difference in the Seahawks and the previous 8 teams that won the Super Bowl since the Patriots repeated.

Stubbornness is a good reason why one of the other 31 teams will be my call, but the reality of repeating is that it’s become the toughest thing to do in sports. Think of it: For eight straight years, the defending champ has either not made the playoffs or hasn’t gotten past its first playoff game.

Fine, use stubbornness as an excuse, but don't talk about how the Seahawks were the best team you saw in the preseason (as Peter does here) like you knew how good they were when/if they win the Super Bowl again. I can buy that it's hard to repeat as NFL champs, but it's also important to focus on where each of those previous Super Bowl champs were at when they won the Super Bowl. They were all in different places from each other or had a season-long performance that didn't lead an observer to believe they would be dominating the following season after winning the Super Bowl.

Hard for any team that won the Super Bowl by 35 points to look better the next year. But if Harvin plays every week—which is no lock, with his recent injury history—I could well be eating my prediction in five months.

The three biggest reasons that I see the Seahawks having a good chance to repeat, which Peter is ignoring in favor of "history," are the following:

1. They have consistently been one of the best teams in the NFL over the last two seasons. Their Super Bowl run wasn't them peaking at the right time.

2. They bring back most of their core players and even add better players (Percy Harvin) to the roster which can mitigate any free agent losses they had.

3. It's really hard to win in Seattle and even if the Seahawks are an average road team they will win 11-12 games, which leads to home playoff games.

The biggest reason I can see the Seahawks not winning the Super Bowl again, and again Peter doesn't even touch on this, is that the Seahawks have a great defense, but a run-based offense. If Lynch isn't in full Beast Mode, or Christine Michael isn't going to be good enough to be a #2 if/when Lynch's performance falls off a bit, then I don't know how the offense works with Wilson having more weight on this shoulders to throw the football and win games that way. I could be wrong, but the offense is built around Wilson and a running back who is in his mid-30's in running back years.

And now for some stories from the end of my camp trail. My trip ended Saturday night with the completely forgettable Dallas-Miami game.

Yeah, fuck you Dallas-Miami game. Peter wishes he were with the Rams so he could talk about Michael Sam and ignore Sam Bradford as the real key to the Rams season, then talk about what a great coach Jeff Fisher is when Bradford goes down with another ACL injury so he can prop up his agent's fellow client in his time of need.

And of course Peter will now do damage control (and never ask the question, "Should the Rams be better prepared for this situation?") for the Rams, Jeff Fisher, and Kevin/Marvin Demoff due to Sam Bradford tearing his ACL again. I know very little about Shaun Hill in 2014 and how he differs from Shaun Hill who was the Lions backup for a few years, but unless he is the next Kurt Warner what the Rams have done is a form of coaching/personnel malpractice. They have a quarterback who not only is injury-prone, but coming off an ACL tear and they don't find a more reliable backup for him in the offseason. Great backups aren't growing on trees, but if the Rams season depends on a quality quarterback then wouldn't it make sense to spend the money and time finding a great backup who can take over if Sam Bradford goes down again? It's inexcusable in my opinion they didn't do this. I hope for the Rams' sake I am wrong and Shaun Hill looks like the guy who can make up for Bradford's injury without much fall-off. This is where having friends in the media, friends like Peter King, really helps out. I haven't read anything that is critical of Fisher/Snead for putting their season in the hands of Shaun Hill if/when Bradford went down. I won't read anything like that. Too much effort is put into stating what a "team on the rise" the Rams are, while ignoring the malpractice of putting the season in the hands of Shaun Hill if/when Bradford gets injured again. I'm glad I'm not a Rams fan, because I can't fathom how I would feel today. The Rams are not only turning over the offense to a quarterback who has been in the system for less than a year, but he's also 34 years old, so he's not part of the future and the only thing certain at this point is the Rams will probably have a new starting quarterback next year.

What makes it more irritating to me is the amount of draft picks and time the Rams have put into putting offensive weapons around Bradford. I would think that they would think they would want a better backup plan than Shaun Hill to utilize the offensive weapons they have gathered around the quarterback. I understand teams can't draft quarterbacks they don't believe will be successful, but quarterback is such an important position, and the Rams could not have believed Bradford would play the whole season with a straight face. The Rams have done a lot to put a great offensive around Bradford and I wish they had another more certain quarterback, or young quarterback who the team can test drive for a year to see if he can be the guy, to use these offensive weapons. Tom Brady is envious of the draft picks the Rams have spent trying to make Sam Bradford successful. Maybe I'm drastically underrating Shaun Hill, but the Rams have done so much to have a great offense I can't imagine why they put most of their eggs in the Sam Bradford basket. 

MRI early Sunday morning. A couple hours later, a trainer called Jeff Fisher and said, “Come on down to the trainer’s room.’’ Fisher knew that was bad. If it was good news on Bradford, the trainer would have said, “He’s fine.” And when Fisher got in the room, there was the trainer and Bradford. “I could tell,” Fisher said Sunday night from St. Louis. “I could sense it, and feel it in the room.”

Then Fisher added, "Well, just be sure to add how I need more time as the Rams coach in your column. My contract is up in two years. I would like an extension soon. You can't just turn a team around in one year in the NFL. I would even accept only $7 million per year in my next contract extension. I'm worth it. 8-8 just doesn't happen by itself."

The only good news: The ACL is torn, but nothing else in the knee, apparently, is damaged. He should be able to return whole in 2015. To where? Who knows.

I feel bad for Bradford. Of course, he's made a lot of money (a lot more than Josh Freeman by the way...there is a difference in injury and ineffectiveness, I recognize) and not proven he can stay healthy, but I still feel bad for him.

“We’ve got to go on,” Fisher said, “and that’s basically what I told [backup] Shaun Hill. Shaun shifts gears, and we go. I told him, ‘This is why you’re here. Let’s go.’

Hill is 34. He’s started 26 games (13-13) with San Francisco and Detroit—but his last start was four seasons ago.

This is part of my issue too. Hill isn't the present or the future. The future at the quarterback position isn't on the Rams roster most likely. Jeff Fisher just bought himself three more years. He's a "name" coach who has suffered some bad luck and honestly hasn't done much to help his luck at the quarterback position, but that doesn't matter. The Rams are probably going to draft a quarterback in the upcoming draft, which they probably should have done this year, and Fisher will start over. I don't hate Jeff Fisher or the Rams, but Rams fans deserve better than this. Fisher is incredibly overrated as a coach. He's not a bad coach, but he and Snead have made crucial personnel mistakes at the most important spot on the roster. They've built a really good team around a quarterback who can't stay on the field. Logic would dictate the best backup plan isn't Shaun Hill. Hill is an okay backup and he very well may succeed this season. I feel like Fisher and Snead are getting a pass for completely counting on a injury-prone quarterback who may not even be very good when healthy. I'm not sure I could even tell you what kind of quarterback Bradford is because he can't stay on the field. That's the point. I would feel better about this situation if the Rams had a younger guy they wanted to see play (I don't think Austin Davis counts as that guy) if/when Bradford got hurt. It would give that younger guy a chance for some snaps to see if he can stick with the team.

The Rams are in the toughest division in the NFL. Don't they realize if they really want to compete they can't rely on Bradford so much? Why does this frustrate me so? It's just proof to me of how untouchable Jeff Fisher and Les Snead are. It's the third year of the Jeff Fisher era, where he is 14-17-1, is he really that cocky or unconcerned about his job security that he felt comfortable relying on Shaun Hill as the backup if/when Bradford gets injured? I guess he knows his buddies in the media will go to bat for him. Can't be on the hot seat if no one reports that he is on the hot seat. Sorry, I'm done boring everyone with my ranting about this.

The Rams will monitor cut quarterbacks and may sign one to back up Hill, or to compete with Hill or backup Austin Davis. But I didn’t get the sense talking to Rams people Sunday that this was a priority, because Hill’s been in the system for five months and a newbie wouldn’t be familiar.

This is true. Maybe Hill is the best the Rams could do in the offseason. I find that difficult to believe though.

Now the Rams have to confront reality.

The Rams should have confronted reality in the offseason. Bradford is going to be a free agent soon and he was coming off major ACL surgery. My biggest regret about what I wrote here about the latest NFL Draft is I edited out a rant (I know right, me ranting about the Rams...by the way I also edited out a rant about how Khalil Mack is another athlete/football player the Raiders have blindly drafted based on him having great athletic skill, so we'll see if I'm an idiot about that or not...also, you can see I tend to edit my rants at times and it's a good thing) in my NFL Draft non-grades about how I wish the Rams had taken a quarterback. It sounded silly and petty to me at the time because they got Aaron Donald in the first round and I think he was a good pick. I also didn't hate Lamarcus Joyner in the second round. But the Rams had questions at the most important spot on the roster and it's hard to feel good about that.

By the end of this season, Bradford would have started 49 NFL games and sat for 31 of them, and made $65 million in the process; his was the last silly rookie contract before the new CBA made rookie salaries rich but not kooky.

It's not a great parallel but know Bradford has made $65 million for 49 games, while Peter King busted Josh Freeman's ass for getting paid $2 million to be the Vikings third quarterback this past season.

There is a saying on the whiteboard in Rams general manager Les Snead’s office.

"If anything goes wrong, call Marvin Demoff, who will then call Peter King to try and do some PR on the issue you are having."

“Build to dominate using Redskin picks!” it reads. The Rams made the mega-trade with Washington in 2012 that allowed their NFC neighbor to draft Robert Griffin III. The Rams, meanwhile, thought they had their quarterback of the future, and didn’t draft one until the sixth round this year in SMU’s Garrett Gilbert.

How many years in a row can one team try to figure out if Sam Bradford is the future or not? It's fine to wonder this, but there must be a "quarterback of the future" backup plan in place. The Rams traded those picks three years ago. Three years and they probably know as much about Bradford now as they did then. But hey, they have Shaun Hill for this year and then they will draft a QB. I don't know how Rams fans feel, but I know how I would feel.

Fisher has won with lesser players before. The Titans signed Kerry Collins in 2006 as quarterback insurance, and he ended up winning nine starts in 2008.

Fisher has also not made the playoffs since 2008 and been very average with lesser players before. Simply because he signed Kerry Collins and two years later he won 9 starts as the Titans starter doesn't mean the Rams should try to win games with lesser players at the most important position on the roster. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Hill certainly will have some talent around him on offense, but in the NFC West, St. Louis’s road just got loaded with potholes.

Like I said, almost no NFL teams have spent the draft picks that the Rams have spent to upgrade their offensive side of the football. They are in the toughest division in the NFL. I really hope for them it works out.

The Cards had their eyes on three players as the first round neared its midpoint: Ryan Shazier, Zack Martin and Calvin Pryor. But Shazier went at 15, Martin at 16, Pryor at 18. Now the Cards had a grading gap in the next set of players they liked, and Keim had an idea. There was this one under-the-radar prospect the Cardinals loved: Brown, a wideout from Pittsburg State. The Cards had him rated their fifth wide receiver in the draft. Early second-round grade.

The Cards now had four picks in the top 100: 27, 52, 84 and 91. Keim figured the team had several priorities other than wideout, where they were fine (Larry Fitzgerald, Michael Floyd, Ted Ginn), 

I feel like I should laugh at the idea of the Cardinals being "fine" with Ted Ginn as their third wide receiver. I know I never felt good with him as the third wide receiver for the Panthers last year. He was third on the depth chart in Carolina because there weren't better options in front of him.

Keim paced. He called around to see which teams between 85 and 90 might take a receiver. He had a scout call Brown in a vague hope to tie up his phone line (as if he wouldn’t have call-waiting) as the picks went by.

First off, this is sort of a dick move to make sure John Brown isn't taken earlier than the Cardinals pick, and second, does Steve Keim think it's 1988? Seriously, "tie up the phone line" was his plan? Part of me likes it because it seems so random.

Arians is lining up Brown in the slot, tight to the formation as a faux tight end with blocking responsibilities, and wide on either side. I watched practice Friday, and Brown was in on six early snaps with the first unit, more than Ted Ginn or Juron Brown. 

Who could have ever envisioned a decent receiver would knock Ted Ginn down the depth chart? Certainly not Miami Dolphins or San Francisco 49ers fans.

So, the penalties are still high in Week 3 of the preseason, but they’re down from the hair-raising 20.8 per game last weekend. For the 16 games this weekend, the combined accepted penalties were 17.6 per game. Average accepted penalties per regular-season game in 2013: 12.2.

I try not to get in a panic about preseason, but the amount of penalties in NFL games is concerning to me. The flow of the game is being disrupted and parts of the preseason games I saw were a little unwatchable at times. I'm sure penalties will be decreased in the regular season. I keep telling myself that.

Joe Haden doesn't seem to mind the rule changes.

In Detroit [in the first preseason game], I got one official say something to me on one play. I went to go jam and my hand hit him in the face mask. He was like, “23, get your hands lower. Get your hands lower. Keep your hands lower.” Once he gave me that one warning, I was just playing my normal technique the way I normally play and I got no flags called. If they obviously see jersey pull, if they see things like that, that is a hold. But if it’s just messing around, bumping, touching, things like that I don’t think they’re going to be too strict on that, because I was playing it in that game in Detroit and it didn’t happen. If it’s pulling and grabbing when the ball is in the air, and all that contact, they’re throwing on that.

So basically just be sure you play the football and get in position to make a play on the football without every touching the receiver in any fashion. Grabbing the jersey has always been a hold, but I've seen defensive backs simply make contact with a receiver in an effort to play the football get called for a penalty. The problem is (and I've never played cornerback at any level, so maybe I'm a moron) once Haden has started grabbing and bumping without the ball in the air, he just has to pull away when the ball is in the air even if he is playing the ball? That has to be a little annoying for a cornerback. Maybe it's the way it has been in the past and I haven't noticed. I'm a little concerned about officials being too strict with cornerbacks who are simply trying to make a play and bump the receiver.

And I think: Cleveland GM Ray Farmer could have two of the top five picks in the draft next April. The Browns have Buffalo’s first-round pick from the Sammy Watkins trade. Marcus Mariota, Jameis Winston (if he comes out) or Brett Hundley … plus either a bookend tackle from a reportedly rich tackle crop next year, or another defensive piece. It’s way too early to project things like this, but two picks in the top five of any draft is gold—gold, Jerry, it’s gold!—and Farmer might just have made a golden deal to help the Browns of 2015 and beyond, even as the team faces another apparently lean year now.

Not that Peter is projecting too far into the future or anything, but he has the Bills and Browns getting top-5 picks in the 2015 draft before the 2014 season has even begun. The best way to impress Peter King is to have a lot of draft picks in the next year's draft. It doesn't matter what you do with those picks, the mere fact you own them will cause Peter to call your team a major player in the upcoming draft and project what great things you as a GM will do with those picks. Peter is very impressed with a team that has a lot of draft picks in future drafts. He even sets up fake quarterback competitions.

Then I think: Manziel versus Mariota in training camp next July. I mean, the national press is going to rent the Courtyard in Berea for a month.

You mean exactly like they did this year to cover Manziel in Browns camp when he was competing against Brian Hoyer, eating lunch or simply breathing? I won't say the Browns won't use a top-5 pick on a quarterback next year, but that would be three first round picks on quarterbacks in four years. That seems excessive to me.

So it seems that Peter thinks Browns fans have next year to look forward to already.

1. We all knew the Niners weren’t the Broncos in terms of offensive explosiveness, but San Francisco still was a team that ran for 2,200 yards and scored 25 points per game last year. But there will be alarm bells going off today with offensive coordinator Greg Roman, particularly in protection, as the Niners get ready to go to Dallas in 13 days for the opener. Look at the Niners—what can you have faith in right now on offense?

It's preseason. That's pretty much the only faith 49ers fans need right now. Maybe the preseason is a sign of things to come, but some teams don't game plan in preseason and the 49ers still have time to work out their protection issues.

3. The Browns were led on the field Saturday night by a dog. A real dog.

Oh, not a fake dog? Wherever did the Browns find a REAL dog?

4. Matt Schaub’s not the answer, Oakland. Unless the question is: “Which player is going to finish the job to get this coaching staff, and maybe Reggie McKenzie, fired?” Schaub’s a fine person and had some very good moments in Houston. But he’s lost his confidence, and the Raiders, very soon, are going to have to admit they see the same thing as the rest of the world.

And of course we will get weekly updates on what a waste of money Matt Schaub has been for the Raiders, right? Not to bludgeon a dead horse or anything, but we got reminders every week of how much of a waste of human flesh Josh Freeman was, so I figure with Schaub getting paid more money the reminders will be even more harsh? Or is it just Josh Freeman who is a horrible person for taking an NFL team's money and not becoming the starting quarterback?

8. You may recall me reporting that, early in training camp, Bills GM Doug Whaley went up to E.J. Manuel at a practice and said to him: “Don’t be perfect. Be a football player.” One view on Manuel is he tries to be too fine, too safe. He was awful Saturday in the loss to Tampa, the Bucs storming out to a 24-0 halftime lead and the crowd at refurbished Ralph Wilson Stadium booing the Bills off the field at the half. After the game coach Doug Marrone said something that I thought was particularly troubling about Manuel. “He tries to pinpoint the ball … and that’s really just difficult to do,’’ Marrone said. “We have all done that when we were kids. You play baseball and you start aiming it. You’ve just got to look at the mitt and throw it.’’ Alarm bells on Manuel.

And of course Peter's suggestion that Manuel take more chances, does that seem like a good idea right now? I just wonder, because it seemed like odd advice at the time as well. I feel like young quarterbacks succeed when the game is simplified and they are less prone to taking chances. Peter's advice to E.J. Manuel was just fling the ball down the field if you think your guy is open.

13. Interesting take from a man inside the Washington building and inside the preseason TV booth watching Robert Griffin III and Kirk Cousins play football this month. Joe Theismann analyzing the two quarterbacks: “Let’s stop beating around the bush. Kirk Cousins has played much better at the quarterback position than Robert Griffin III has. Now Robert is, basically, learning to work out of a pocket. He doesn’t look as smooth and as comfortable throwing the football. I mean, your eyes will tell you everything you need to know. It’s going to be a decision that Jay Gruden is going to have to make … Right now, Robert Griffin III is his quarterback. Now, if there was a quarterback competition, it wouldn’t be a competition. Kirk Cousins would be the man I believe he would have to go to.” Wow.

And the Big Lead's Jason Fisk had an article that basically showed how Kirk Cousins really wasn't the better quarterback when compared to Robert Griffin, but Joe Theismann has his hot sports takes that get attention and Peter seems to like that.

16. Hairline rib fracture for Cam Newton. The Panthers have major protection issues on their totally rebuilt offensive line, and chemistry issues with a brand new receiving corps. Carolina opens at Tampa, which has been terrific on defense this summer. Trap game if there ever was one.

Can the first game of the season be a trap game? Hasn't the media (and not necessarily Peter) spent most of the offseason saying how the Panthers will regress? So, considering the game is in Tampa Bay and it's the first game of the season I'm not sure it can be a trap game. I'm also not sure the Buccaneers aren't the better team overall right now.

17. San Diego is better than we think on defense.

How do you know how good I think San Diego is on defense? What if I think the Chargers are the second-best defensive unit in football? So is Peter saying the Chargers are the best defensive team in the NFL, since that's the only way they could be better than I think?

19. This from Ron Jaworski on the first three weeks of the preseason:

This quote is about Mark Sanchez, but I'm not even going to finish it. Ron Jaworski says things to gain attention so his quotes are starting to mean less and less to me.

“I am most proud of having never missed an assigned game, be it exhibition, regular season or playoffs, throughout my entire career. It really has been a great run.”

—NBA referee Dick Bavetta, who retired last week at 74. He reffed the most games of any official in NBA history—2,635 in the regular season and 270 in the playoffs—and not just by a little bit. He worked 501 more regular-season games than any other ref in league history.

Bavetta can also take pride in that whenever the NBA needing a playoff series to go to seven games they would call on Bavetta and he would make that result happen. It's just another shining example of the negative work David Stern did as NBA commissioner and then magically was forgotten about by the general public. NBA officials fixed games. Who cares? Need a fix? Better call Dick.

“This is so stupid it’s appalling, and I hope that owner keeps fighting for it and never changes it, because the Redskins are part of an American football history, and it should never be anything but the Washington Redskins. That’s the way it is. It’s all the political correct idiots in America, that’s all it is. It’s got nothing to do with anything else.’’

—ESPN analyst and Pro Football Hall of Famer Mike Ditka, on the controversy over the Washington team name, to the Redskins Historian website.

It sounds like Mike Ditka would make for a very good baseball Hall of Fame voter. He misses the argument the opposing side is making AND has an overly-enthusiastic love for how it used to be and doesn't want it ever change.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Notes of the Week

How did I miss the fact that Frontier Airlines charges $35 to bring a small carry-on suitcase onto the airplane?

I don't know, Peter. Usually you are on top of things to bitch about that are travel-related.

Happened to me the other day, Denver to San Diego. Frontier did tell me I could check the same bag for $25. Let’s see: $35 to schlep the bag myself and put it in the overhead, $25 to check it and pick it up in San Diego. Because I was in a rush once I landed, I paid the $35.

Oh, so you CHOSE to pay $35 because you were in a rush? Oh, well then I can see why you are bitching then, since you chose to pay the extra $10.

I understand baggage fees, and I understand the concept of unbundling and paying for exactly what you use. 

Do you though? Do you? It doesn't seem like you do.

As the camp trip ends, I am pleased to report that my favorite hotel in the United States, the Arizona Biltmore, has trouble filling the place in August, when it’s regularly 105 degrees or so during the day. (This year it rained hard Thursday night and cooled off the Valley, and it was only about 85 on Friday morning.) The favorable rate allowed me to, in good conscience, stay at the Biltmore knowing I was being a good company traveler. Comparing rates in some of the other hotels on the trail with the groovy Biltmore:

This isn't the late 1960's nor an Austin Powers movie. The use of the word "groovy" without any sense of irony is unacceptable.

Ten Things I Think I Think

Question: If you’ve got a terrific spread scheme (Green Bay does) and one of the most accurate quarterbacks in football history (Green Bay does) and a quarterback with mobility (Green Bay does), why wouldn’t you go for two after every touchdown? (Other than when a single point is the obvious play late in games.)

So Peter's question is why NFL teams don't go for two after every touchdown, except for those cases where they want to ensure they get at least one point? So basically, the Packers could always want to ensure they get one point and never go for two?

Green Bay scored 46 touchdowns last year. Say they score 50 this year, assuming Aaron Rodgers plays a full season; he missed seven games last year. Isn’t it realistic to think if the Packers spent a few more practice plays each week on the two-pointer that they could go 30 of 50, meaning 10 more points over the course of the season?

Yes, that sounds realistic. Just a note, but this could go for other NFL teams too. Other NFL teams could practice two-point conversions and score more points. It's just a matter of doing it, even in situations when it's "obvious" that a team should kick the extra point. Percentages are fun to use.

2. I think every team with a quarterback the coach trusts should go for two after every touchdown—except, of course, in cases where one point is strategically smarter in the last 15 or 20 minutes of a game.

Right, but if the coach trusts the quarterback then what does it matter what is strategically smarter to do in the last 15 or 20 minutes of the game? If a coach trusts the quarterback, trust him, and don't lose that trust when he has a chance to convert a two-point conversion that can give his team the lead. That is the issue with Peter's reasoning. If the coach trusts the quarterback, then in situations where a converted two-point try means more the coach should trust his quarterback and let him go for two, right?

It just makes sense to me that if a coach tells his quarterback, "I trust you to go for two and convert" then he can't stop trusting that quarterback in the last 15 or 20 minutes of the game and blame "strategy." I mean the coach CAN do this, but it's sort of a mixed message.

7. I think you’d be surprised by the laissez-faire attitude of corners I’ve spoken to in the past week about the points of emphasis intended to cut down on hand-fighting downfield between corners and receivers. “That’s the least of my worries, man,” Aqib Talib said in Denver. “There’s so many big-time receivers, big-time quarterbacks out here. We got educated about it, and now I can’t worry about the referees. I’ve got to just play. If I get a call, it’s on to the next play. I’m not gonna worry about it, not at all.”

I don't think the lack of concern from cornerbacks means they don't think the rule will have a huge impact on the season or reflects their personal feelings about the rule changes. I think these quotes from Talib and others, like Joe Haden, just reflect that these corners don't want to get in their head that they can't bump or play aggressive with a receiver because it will impact the way they play in a game. Corners by nature try to forget a bad play and focus on the next great play they will make, so rule changes that could negatively impact their performance isn't something a great corner will think about why playing.

9. I think it’s going to be hard to stash Michael Sam on the practice squad. Hard, but not impossible. With two sacks this month and more quickness than he showed late in his college season (he’s 13 pounds lighter, at 257, than his college playing weight), Sam is pushing hard for a spot on the Rams’ 53-man roster. If not that, certainly the 10-man practice squad. But the Rams know they risk losing him if they do the latter...I’m sure some teams wouldn’t want to deal with a perceived sideshow with Sam and wouldn’t put in a claim. But where exactly has the sideshow been? Sam’s been the anti-distraction since turning down the Oprah reality show in the spring.

Michael Sam is only going to be a "distraction" if the media makes him a distraction. It helps that Johnny Manziel has taken up a lot of the media's attention, but if the sports media treats him like another football player then the distraction miraculously disappears. The less media attention he receives, the less he becomes a distraction. Funny how that works.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

b. The story of the week comes from ESPN’s Tommy Tomlinson, a terrific inside-the-guy’s-head piece on former University of Kentucky and NFL quarterback Jared Lorenzen’s weight problems.
c. One of the best leads I’ve read in a while comes from the story, and from a man, Tomlinson, who has battled his own weight issues: “Jared Lorenzen and I are in love with the same woman. Her name is Little Debbie, and she makes delicious snack cakes.”
d. It’s the carbs, Jared. Attack the carbs.
e. I’m no wise man about that stuff (you couldn’t tell?), but it’s the truth.

WHY FOUR SEPARATE POINTS FOR THE EXACT SAME TOPIC?

All four of these points are about the same topic. In what world do they deserve four separate bullet points?

g. Funnier world: The Red Sox gave a Cuban outfielder, Rusney Castillo, a contract worth $72 million over seven years Friday. They have never scouted him in a game. He has not played in a game since 2012. As one source told ESPNBoston’s Gordon Edes, the Red Sox saw him in maybe 30 live at-bats in a couple of workouts. Sports is risky, but this seems almost a desperate investment.

It was less than a month ago that Dan Shaughnessy called the Red Sox "Kansas City-on-the-Charles" which is obviously inaccurate because the Royals look like they will make the playoffs this year and the Red Sox won't, but also inaccurate because less than a month later the Red Sox are spending money again. Peter originally put this Tweet in MMQB as some sort of confirmation this is what he thinks too. Of course, only the most panicked fan thought the Red Sox had just stopped spending money.

The Adieu Haiku

I know Bradford some.
I’m quite sure he’d trade millions
to be whole right now.

Yeah, he might trade those millions to be whole right now. This would make him different from nearly zero other NFL quarterbacks who have suffered season-ending injuries and have made millions of dollars while starting only 65% of his team's games. Just gotta give Jeff Fisher more time. His team is perpetually on the rise.

3 comments Jay Mariotti Quickly Jumps on the "Ryan Braun's Apology Wasn't Enough" Train and Takes a Ride

I've written a couple of posts about Ryan Braun as it related to his 2011 positive drug test that was eventually overturned. I wrote Braun should not have his 2011 MVP stripped from him. I covered a Mike Lupica article where he basically accused Bud Selig of overturning the 2011 positive drug test because Braun played for the Brewers. Where's Mike at these days with that veiled accusation now that Selig has hit Braun with a 65 game suspension? All I hear is crickets. So Ryan Braun got busted, got a 65 game suspension and sportswriters everywhere got up in arms about how Braun needed to apologize because of "the kids" and how he cheated everyone with his lies and deception. Then Braun apologized in a public statement that was released. Then, in a shocking turn of events, this still wasn't enough for the sportswriters who originally wanted an apology and now they want more details and a better apology. It's now not sufficient that Braun has apologized in a statement, he needs to do more. Presumably if Braun did more and released the details surrounding his PED use this still wouldn't be enough. Jay Mariotti is one of these writers who finds it is never enough to get the apology that was requested and in a fit of writing brilliance has dubbed Braun "Lyin' Braun," which is clever and creative because his name is Ryan Braun and "Ryan" rhymes with "Lyin'."

It might have helped if he’d rented a hotel ballroom, invited every reporter and TV network in America, stood in front of a microphone and spoke to the people — the fans, the baseball industry, the human mechanism that generates the remaining $127 million still owed him — he so farcically has let down.
But I doubt it.

I think this sums it up best. Sportswriters desperately want an apology, but even that's not going to end up being enough for them. They want blood. They want to see Ryan Braun crawl and beg forgiveness from the fans, and even more importantly, beg forgiveness from the sportswriters who cover Braun. An apology is the first step to the public shaming of Ryan Braun. Braun apologizes, but sportswriters want a better apology. It's a never-ending need to convict Braun for lying and cheating.

If Ryan Braun couldn’t explain in 943 written words what we needed to hear, then he wouldn’t have had the guts to muster the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a news conference, where his “apology” should have happened, where we could have looked him in the eyeballs and decided if he was contrite and genuine or simply, as I suspect, full of b.s.

This is the bullshit part of Jay's column (well, it's all bullshit, but I feel like this is the introductory bullshit part of the column). The media doesn't want an apology. They want to be able to serve as the jury as to whether Ryan Braun is truly contrite or not. It's not about the apology, it is about publicly shaming Braun and it is ridiculous. Just accept his apology, which at least Braun made one, and let's all move on. It's not like Braun murdered a member of Jay Mariotti's family, so I don't know why he feels the needs to be the one to stand in judgment of Braun. But any sportswriter who says it is about the apology is most likely lying. The sportswriter doesn't want an apology, he/she wants to look into Braun's eyes and judge Braun's ability to tell the truth about being sorry. I bet if these sportswriters could look into Braun's eyes they would judge that he is indeed not truly sorry.

Oh, he tried hard to make good with his family, his friends, his teammates, the Milwaukee Brewers franchise, the fans, his agents and advisors. “I have disappointed the people closest to me — the ones who fought for me because they truly believed me all along. I kept the truth from everyone. For a long time, I was in denial and convinced myself that I had not done anything wrong,” he wrote in his public letter, which we’ve impatiently awaited since he accepted his 65-game suspension from Major League Baseball.

It's not enough. He's not begging for forgiveness and allowing the media to stand in complete judgment of him while spilling all of the details of his PED use.

And sure, he tried to look like he was beating himself up. As if sitting on an analyst’s couch, he described himself as “self-righteous” and having “a lot of unjustified anger” two years ago while lying

It all depends on your point of view and whether you want to accept Braun's apology. I think that's the key point to be made here. If you want to believe Braun and want to believe he is truly sorry then his apology may not seem sincere, but you believe he is sorry. Of course Braun is probably the most sorriest that he got caught, but that's beside the point. If you don't want to believe Braun and probably aren't ever inclined to believe Braun then this statement won't seem sincere, but seem like a PR move on his part. Of course it was a PR move on his part, but these people probably won't ever believe Braun even if he did make a public apology on television like Tiger Woods did. Even then, I believe these people would only want to judge the sorriness of Braun and still wouldn't think he was truly contrite.

“I’m deeply ashamed,” Ryan Braun said.
Too bad he isn’t deeply forthcoming.

He's apologizing, but he's just not giving enough information. In the words of The Cure, it's never enough. Writers like Mariotti wanted an apology, they got the apology, and now they want details. It's not that they "want" details really, it's they believe themselves to be entitled to details. No story is too sordid and no confession is contrite enough without the proper amount of private details to sell the authenticity of the confession.

Cowardly as it is to hide behind an agency-crafted news release somewhere in southern California, Braun’s biggest strategic error was failing to provide specifics.

I wish Braun had said,

"I'm specifically deeply ashamed."

"I specifically have disappointed a lot of people..."

"I specifically was self-righteous and specifically had a lot of unjustified anger..."

If the five basic questions of what remains of journalism are who, what, when, where and why, I’m not certain he has answered any.

Ryan Braun isn't a journalist so he isn't required to provide the answers to who, what, when, where and why simply because these are the answers that Jay Mariotti wants. These are the questions Jay wants answered, but Braun doesn't have to answer these questions. So suck it.

Was this merely about the short-term use of a cream and lozenge? Or is that, too, a lie?

Do I really believe that Jay Mariotti would believe any answer Ryan Braun gave to this question if Braun had answered this question? No. I think Mariotti still wouldn't believe Braun's answer.

If that’s his only wrongdoing, it wouldn’t seem to have warranted a major coverup attempt that has led to a defamation lawsuit against Braun by a former friend; the smearing of a urine collector who also might want to consider legal action; 

I think the major coverup was to prevent Braun from being found out to have used PED's more than anything else. So in itself, having used PED's does warrant the major coverup.

The words “cream” and “lozenge” soften what anti-PED experts would describe as power and confidence, especially when presented with Braun’s numbers down the stretch that season:

It was a PR statement and "cream" and "lozenge" are often terms used to describe the use of certain PED's.

He won the MVP award and was hailed as one of the great hitters in the game, a future Hall of Famer, blessed with business acumen, good looks, considerable popularity and a power stroke that belied a slender build.

Belied, as in lie.

This is sports journalism at it's finest.

Finest, as in it would be a lie to call this writing the finest.

What we require from Braun now is an explanation. What were the precise names of the banned substances?

Previously an apology was required. Jay Mariotti got the apology and now he wants more details. If Jay Mariotti gets the additional details he feels entitled to, then he will want even more details. It never ends and Mariotti's sense of entitlement to stand in judgment of Braun doesn't end either.

Was he aware at the time that Biogenesis was a well-known marketplace for PEDs,

Yes, he probably was.

with 13 players suspended after MLB’s massive investigation of the clinic and founder Tony Bosch?

No, he probably did not or else he would have chosen to go to another clinic to get his PED's.

Why would he stand there and lie at spring training last year, assailing MLB’s testing system as “absolutely fatally flawed” when he was the one with the fatal flaw?

Because he had been cheating and didn't want anyone to know that MLB's testing system was not fatally flawed and that it had busted him red-handed. If Braun had said, "Man, that MLB testing system sure is pretty good" then I'm guessing it would have been fairly obvious to everyone that Braun knew he got busted and it wouldn't make much sense for him to be appealing the first positive drug test. I realize Jay has the brain of a donkey, but part of Braun being in denial and trying to beat the system had to do with Braun stating the system was no good in order to make himself look more credible. I don't need Braun to explain this to me, I can figure this out for myself.

Why would a gifted and accomplished multi-millionaire risk it all to smear some creme on a sore spot and swallow a lozenge? Forgive me for thinking we’re only reading bits and pieces of the truth, not the entirety.

I'm guessing he did it because he thought it would make him better at baseball. That's my thought about why Braun did it. Again, I'm not sure how much more detail I need.

Based on the language in his statement, Braun is trying to warm-and-fuzzy us. No one is in the mood to read it anymore,

Right, because I don't care about nor do I require an apology. I'm not one of those people who feels like he deserves an apology because a player got busted for using PED's. 

Nowhere in his statement does Braun address the most damning claims about him — that he asked his longtime friend, Ralph Sasson, to investigate and smear Laurenzi Jr. and participate in a prank against two ESPN reporters investigating Braun’s failed test.

Part of the reason Braun didn't comment on this is because any statement he makes could be used in a court of law should Sasson choose to sue Braun. So it actually makes a lot of sense he didn't comment on these claims. More importantly, anyone who expects Braun to publicly comment on these claims is an absolute moron. Just like Jay Mariotti couldn't comment on the claims about his legal issues with his ex-girlfriend, Braun can't comment on his potential legal issues with Ralph Sasson.

Didn't Jay just give us a re-introduction to himself where he says he understood athletes better because of all he had gone through over the past couple of years? Here's his first chance to prove it, by acknowledging Braun wouldn't be advised to comment on a potential legal issue, yet Jay acts like Braun had a responsibility to publicly comment against the (most likely) better advice of his attorney. 

According to ESPN, Braun, who is Jewish, went so far to spread word that Laurenzi Jr. was anti-Semitic. 

All Braun did in the statement was scrape the surface on those issues. “I sincerely apologize to everybody involved in the arbitration process, including the collector, Dino Laurenzi, Jr.,” wrote Braun, who should have devoted more words to Dino.

Again, someone who has been through legal issues recently should understand why Braun didn't comment further. Should Braun get sued, the collector will probably try to use a long, drawn-out public apology against Braun during the court case. Use your head, Mariotti. It doesn't take a genius to understand why Braun would not publicly comment on Dino Laurenzi, Jr. Braun also told friends that Laurenzi was a Cubs fan, which is also an accusation that could merit a lawsuit.

As we’ve seen with Alex Rodriguez in his continuing lone-wolf fight against MLB (not to mention his very superiors with the Yankees), teammates still will rally around a PED-troubled player if he produces on the field. If Braun rakes, the Brewers will take him back, even if Milwaukee fans are disgusted.

We should have known in Braun’s previous statement, after he won a reprieve from the positive test, that he protested a bit too vigorously to be believed.

It doesn't matter if he is believed or not, three independent arbitrators ruled the chain of custody was broken, which meant the positive drug test had to be thrown out. Sure, Braun was lying at the time, but if he really had not been using PED's I imagine Braun would have a vehement defense rather than just meekly deny the claims. If Braun had meekly denied the claims then sportswriters like Jay Mariotti would have stated that Braun was guilty because he didn't deny the claims and failed drug test vigorously enough.

Including his claim that Laurenzi Jr. supposedly is a Cubs fan, which Braun also used in trying to woo Brewers teammates to his side. You might have to go back to Richard Nixon to find a public figure who finagled and stretched like Lyin’ Ryan.

The "Lyin' Ryan" moniker is somehow getting dumber. It rhymes though!

“At that time, I still didn’t want to believe that I had used a banned substance,” Braun tried to explain in his statement. “I think a combination of feeling self-righteous and having a lot of unjustified anger led me to react the way I did. I felt wronged and attacked, but looking back now, I was the one who was wrong. I am beyond embarrassed that I said what I thought I needed to say to defend my clouded vision of reality. I am just starting the process of trying to understand why I responded the way I did, which I continue to regret. There is no excuse for any of this.”

More details! In what ways do you regret it? When you say "wronged" give specific examples. This apology means nothing without expansion on the idea of how Braun's clouded vision of reality. Tell us more, Ryan. Do you believe dinosaurs never existed? Is that a part of your clouded vision of reality? Your apologies mean nothing without a discussion of your beliefs on the existence of dinosaurs. Otherwise, the apology is just empty words. 

He is trying to be the anti-A-Rod, the ‘rowdier who fesses up and apologizes. But all he has done with this statement, I’m afraid, is make me think a 65-game ban wasn’t tough enough. 

Yes, that's right, by apologizing like the media wanted him to do this has resulted in idiot sportswriters suggesting because Braun apologized he should get a stiffer sentence. I imagine if Braun had offered up more details in his statement then Jay would have stated the details were so terrible that Braun should get a 265-game ban. You can sort of see why Braun didn't go into further detail. This further detail would only further outrage the sportswriting media (the same ones who insisted Braun should apologize) into suggesting Braun deserves a longer ban. Sometimes more details are not required.

It seems Lyin’ Ryan Braun copped a plea from the commissioner so he can return and collect his $127 million.

When he does show his face next spring, his nose might be longer than his bat.

Like Pinocchio!

Also, is stating that Braun's nose could be longer than his bat a slur against Braun because he is Jewish? I always figured Mariotti for an anti-Semite.

1 comments Oh Poynter Review Project, We Hardly Knew Ye

It appears the Poynter Review Project for ESPN is now officially over. In some ways, it feels like it never really started. I'm not entirely sure what I expected, but when being an ombudsman for a 24/7 entertainment entity like ESPN any amount of coverage that isn't updated at the very minimum every week is going to feel insufficient to me. My opinion is bi-monthly discussions of ESPN's right steps and missteps is always going to feel like playing catchup to those who are eager to read these type of columns. ESPN is a train barreling down the tracks and while I understand it isn't the ombudsman job to stop or derail the train, standing by the side of the tracks screaming criticism as the train roars by seems pretty ineffective. By the time Poynter had discussed ESPN's fascination with Tim Tebow, it had been discussed in thousands of other forums and it was simply too late for their criticism to have an effect. Will ESPN review what Poynter says and then make changes accordingly? Possibly, but writing two posts a month about standards and practices issues at ESPN isn't effective to create the kind of change or tweak in ESPN's policies that may be needed. So Poynter has often come off as apologetic to ESPN and like the disappointed parent who can't change his unruly child's behavior.

A scene from "South Park" recently reminded me of the ESPN/Poynter relationship. For those who don't watch the show, in the latest episode "Obama Wins" Cartman was stealing (and then hiding) ballots in order to help President Obama win the election. When Cartman's mom was told by Cartman's friends that he was doing this she said something to the effect of, "Oh no, he's going to be grounded from watching television," and then she went about putting the groceries up. Clearly nothing was going to be done because she has no control over Cartman, but she continues the facade of being an actual parent.

My point is why does ESPN even have an ombudsman when it doesn't seem to take the ombudsman or the criticism seriously? Even Poynter in this very column admits they aren't exactly sure what ESPN has done with some of the feedback and criticism they have gotten. I'm not sure I believe ESPN has changed their editorial, sourcing, or any other policies based on Poynter's advice. Why should they? They are making a shit-ton of money and getting good ratings. The ombudsman is nice to have around in an effort to pretend they care, but the ombudsman doesn't write their columns but every two weeks or so, which means usually when an ESPN mis-step occurs they are playing catchup.

Anyway, so here is the final column by Poynter. I haven't heard word on who will replace Poynter, but it wouldn't shock me if ESPN either (a) went without an ombudsman for a while or (b) just hired another firm who will seemingly stay behind the news cycle.

After nearly 40 columns reviewing ESPN content across all platforms, we’ll close with lessons learned over 18 months of observing the network’s various media outlets, 

Think about that. "Nearly" 40 columns in 18 months. The actual count is 32 columns. If I missed other columns, then I apologize, but I don't think I did. I'm not sure how 32 columns becomes "nearly" 40, but that's not my point. How can they sufficiently be an ombudsman for an 24/7 entertainment entity by publishing a column every other week? That's one column for 336 hours of content across multiple networks. They will always be neglecting certain issues (Craig James) or playing catchup to where they can't affect change in ESPN policies. Often by the time Poynter has given feedback on policies or proceduers ESPN has probably "corrected the problem" internally. The columns by ESPN's ombudsman don't always feel timely to me. Even at 40 columns that comes to 2.2 columns per month and at 32 columns over 18 months that is 1.78 columns per month. I'm sure Poynter would classify this as "nearly" a column per week, which is the minimum volume I would like to see.

This is a relatively new phenomenon for ESPN and other media companies, and ESPNers are of two minds about the torrent of discussion, simultaneously appreciating being the center of so much conversation and worrying about a discourse they can’t control. 

And of course we all know how ESPN likes to control the discourse of a discussion. In fact, I would submit the ombudsman often doesn't do much in regard to creating discourse ESPN couldn't control. Poynter doesn't seem to have an idea of what change they have affected and when ESPN confronts an issue they will often handle it their own way. If the problem is out of the spotlight, it is considered corrected. Once a problem with standards and practices arose and Poynter came around to discussing it, then the news cycle was already on to another topic. ESPN asked for forgiveness not permission when a problem did arise.

We hope what we’ve learned will help readers and viewers understand ESPN better, so they can make more informed judgments -- whatever those judgments may be -- about the network’s decisions.

Perhaps to a certain extent Poynter has done this. Again, nobody knows because ESPN likes to stay so insulated.

ESPN’s television presence includes multiple channels -- ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes and ESPNU stand alongside the likes of the Longhorn Network, the broadband channel ESPN3 and the many flavors of ESPN International. The same could be said for ESPN’s digital operations: ESPN.com gets most of the attention, but there’s also espnW, Grantland, the quintet of powerful local city sites, and overseas, sport-specific outposts such as ESPNFC.com. And we haven’t even mentioned ESPN The Magazine, ESPN Radio, the company’s 30 for 30 documentaries or the unrelenting waves of information ESPN pushes out to mobile subscribers.

Why should readers and viewers keep this startling breadth in mind? Because we all fall into the trap of thinking about ESPN as a monolithic organization with a single point of view, mission and set of values.

The fact ESPN isn't a monolith only better goes to show my point that the company needs a more involved ombudsman than one that writes a column every other week. It is interesting how Poynter makes it clear ESPN doesn't have a single point of view, mission or set of values, yet the same content can be seen on 5-6 of these branches of the ESPN empire at the same time. You can hear about Tim Tebow/LeBron James on ESPN, read an article about them on ESPN.com, see the latest news on these players at ESPNEWS, read a printed article about one of them in ESPN The Magazine, and have a discussion about these players on ESPN Radio. So no, there isn't a single point of view, but magically these branches can all come together to saturate coverage of one topic.

It’s a big family, with different priorities and cultures, and most of the time ESPN maintains an uneasy balance between those competing entities. But sometimes they wind up working at cross-purposes or get eclipsed by each other.

Poynter seems to be arguing that getting eclipsed by each other or working at cross-purposes is a bad thing. I would argue these entities working at cross-purposes isn't entirely a bad thing.

And some of ESPN’s worst moments have come when things fall out of balance, as we would argue they did with Tebowmania

Here's the issue with this argument that things "fell out of balance" in this situation. Tebowmania is a situation where ESPN and it's various branches WEREN'T working at cross-purposes. This is when things were out of balance because there was balance across the competing entities. To argue ESPN entities working at cross-purposes is a bad thing would be to ignore that when ESPN entities aren't working at cross-purposes and working towards one goal, that's when the network can be at its worst. The reason entities need to eclipse each other is because when ESPN has an agenda, they tend to ram it down their viewer's throats.

Repetition is method as well as madness: If you watch large blocks of ESPN, you sometimes feel like you’re being cudgeled, subjected to the same stories and narratives over and over again with only the name of the show and the identities of the hosts changing. But here’s the thing: Most ESPN viewers don’t watch this way. 

I am not saying this isn't a true statement, but is there some sort of data that supports this contention? I don't have data that disproves this, but if the ombudsman does have data to prove it, then this would be a good time to include this data. If not, then this should be an opinion-based statement and not represented as a fact. 

Wall-to-wall ESPN watchers are outliers, with a very different experience from that of mainstream viewers. But they’re also the people most likely to tweet and blog about the company.

Again, what sort of evidence does Poynter have that shows this to be true? Any evidence those who watch more ESPN are more likely to Tweet and blog complaining about the company? Otherwise, again, this could be considered coming to a conclusion based on an opinion instead on fact.

This means vocal megafans (not to mention media critics and ombudsmen) have a big social-media footprint that considerably outweighs their value to ESPN as viewers. 

Sort of like how large entertainment entities and their coverage of a player or event can have a bigger social impact on that player or event than outweighs their value to the viewer? Good examples of this would be anything involving Tim Tebow, any LeBron James debate involving Skip Bayless and Brett Favre's late 2000's annual "to retire or not?" hostage situation.

So much like Poynter can't discount the input of megafans who watch ESPN all day, they can't discount the effect the saturation of overblown stories has on the viewers who watch ESPN either. This is true no matter how much a person watches ESPN. To say, "Well, these people just watch too much ESPN," is a cheap excuse in order to get around ESPN's overblown coverage of certain players and events.

That’s important to keep in mind when criticizing ESPN for putting a story in heavy rotation; the network’s strategy is designed to catch viewers who tune in for a single show or game, or drop in and out even within individual shows.

I can understand that, but isn't this the purpose of ESPNEWS or ESPN's Bottom Line? Isn't the purpose of constant rotating sports updates at bottom of the screen to ensure a viewer who comes in and out of a single show or game can get information quickly and easily? Shows like Around the Horn, Pardon the Interruption, First Take, and other shows like that repeat the same material that isn't necessarily informational nor breaking news. This claimed strategy to catch viewers in and out doesn't match with the intended purpose of these shows. ESPN already has the Bottom Line and ESPNEWS for those who want to quickly gain information. That's my issue. Those who watch Around the Horn or First Take probably aren't dropping in and out of the show, so the claim ESPN is using these shows for these individuals who want to drop in or out of a program falls short in my opinion. These so-called "debate shows" aren't informative, but are purely for entertainment. So a person wouldn't tune into hear Mike Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser break news about a topic, but would tune in to hear them discuss a previously reported topic.

I don't even have an issue with ESPN repeating stories, but do we need three or four shows that debate one topic during the day? The issue isn't the repeating of the stories, but the issue is what stories ESPN chooses to cover and saturate the airwaves with. Is it necessary to update what Tim Tebow is doing in Jets training camp or try to turn SportsCenter into a debate program? I don't think it is.

This is not to excuse ESPN’s excesses (again, we’re looking at you, Tebowmania).

But it is to sort of excuse it, because ESPN uses the reasoning that viewers want to hear about him, so that's why they have morning, afternoon, and evening debates, along with coverage of Tebow at Jets training camp. It's to make sure they catch those viewers who only tune into a single show or drop in/out of individual shows. This reasoning essentially can cover everything.

And it highlights the fact that ESPN’s reach gives it a critical responsibility as a news organization. Even in today’s universe of websites and blogs, lack of attention from ESPN can starve a story, and repetition by ESPN can amplify one until other stories feel crowded out.

This is true and goes without saying. Does ESPN understand or care about this critical responsibility? I'm not sure. In fact, in this column Poynter basically says, "you can't argue with ratings" and says this is why ESPN starves or amplifies a story. Viewers can vote with their remote, which while true, seemingly ignores the problems many viewers have with ESPN.

ESPN deserves criticism for its excesses, and it must remain aware of its power in creating and shaping the dominant narratives in sports news.

I'm sure the bi-monthly columns by Poynter have really shown ESPN the light. The simple fact is bi-monthly columns where Poynter aren't timely enough nor do they seem to serve a purpose other than to express mild criticism or try to explain what happened on behalf of ESPN. Perhaps that is the point of an ombudsman, not to do media criticism, but I don't believe an explanation of standards and practices does ESPN viewers much good without tangible evidence ESPN takes these standards and practices seriously.

We get the ESPN we deserve: With a few exceptions, during our tenure, we shied away from media criticism except where ESPN’s own standards and practices came into question. Media criticism wasn’t our job, and there’s no shortage of thoughtful critics keeping an eye on ESPN. 

I can understand this. When ESPN fires or suspends an employee for using a slur, but then allows another analyst/debate team member (Stephen A. Smith) to use a slur on-air twice, how is this explained to viewers? Not only did Smith not apologize either time, but the second time he was fairly standoff-ish about his insistence he didn't use that word. This comes as a surprise to the many who heard it when the word was aired live, when it was heard on video throughout the Internet, and when ESPN edited this word that Smith didn't say out of further First Take broadcasts. So I get media criticism isn't Poynter's job, but when there is a clear double standard in standards and practices I would expect the ombudsman to address it at some point. Poynter never commented on this topic, at least that I could find. That's very, very disappointing and if they are paid to be ESPN's ombudsman then the failure to comment on this story seems to be an obvious failure at their job.

And some of what they consistently decried came down to questions of taste -- which, ultimately, are questions about ratings.

I think many of the questions would also have to deal with the line between ESPN making news by how often and with how vigor they report on a story, and ESPN reporting on an existing story. A company as big as ESPN can turn a non-story into a huge story, thereby creating ratings for them. Tim Tebow may get good ratings for ESPN, but they have overblown the Tim Tebow story in an effort to chase ratings. Basically, is it a problem that ESPN will blow up certain stories in an effort to chase ratings? ESPN not only covers sports news, but they decide what is and is not sports news. So doesn't ESPN have an obligation to not saturate coverage on a story that isn't really pertinent sports news in favor of reporting on pertinent sports news?

We once called “Numbers Never Lie” a bait and switch -- a show that purports to be about advanced stats but is really just another venue for arguments about heart, momentum and other sports generalities. 

Smith’s comments at the conference fell along similar lines: He said that “Numbers Never Lie” began with different goals but “now is a debate show, like most other shows on ESPN. ... I hate to say it’s not about analytics, but it’s not about analytics.” 

This is just a misleading name for a show.

Unfortunate, but why did that happen? Because, Smith said, ESPN’s research found most viewers didn’t want to watch a show with statistics that had to be explained to them. We’ve heard similar things from other ESPNers; they like smart, dispassionate shows such as “Outside the Lines” as much as we do, but those shows don’t consistently pull in the ratings of, say, “First Take.” 

I understand the concept of ratings. ESPN is a business whose lifeblood is money. Ratings equal advertising dollars and advertising dollars equals profits. Television shows are on the air because they have good ratings and make money. Someone has to be watching these debate shows, just like someone has to be watching "Two and a Half Men" or purchasing Michael Bolton's albums. 

But such choices don’t amount to violations of ESPN’s standards. Yes, ESPN “plays the hits,” to use the expression we heard a number of times. But television is a hits-driven business. The real question might not be why we get so few shows such as OTL – it’s why we get such shows at all. If readers want such fare -- say, more “30 for 30” and less “Around the Horn” -- they need to vote with their remotes. 

It's our fault of course. Hey, there's nothing ESPN can do about this. They don't decide what shows are aired on their network.

It's simplistic to say viewers should vote with their remotes. The real issue is ESPN doesn't have any competition. That's the real issue. Once competition comes along then ESPN will no longer be the only game in town and will be forced to try and find shows which will woo the demographic they have lost to other networks. I personally rarely watch ESPN, outside of baseball or football games.

In ESPN’s early days, the forced insularity of Bristol life fostered a scrappy us-against-them attitude that was a big asset for ESPN, as well as creating a certain boys-will-be-boys cabin fever that the network came to regard as a problem.

After being forced to see this as a problem by female ESPN employees who were being harassed. Let's not pretend ESPN was leading the charge at finding the boys-will-be-boys fever as an issue. They were forced to see it as an issue.

But some prominent ESPNers date back to that era, and both those times and Bristol continue to shape how they see the world.

We don’t want to overdo the psychoanalysis on this point, but it’s a mindset we think is worth keeping in mind when trying to assess ESPN’s decisions, particularly how it reacts to outside criticism. 

This is irrelevant. Everyone else lives outside of Bristol, Connecticut. The fact ESPN has an insulated environment is not an excuse or reason to explain away the mindset that takes hold. The world moves on and exists outside of Bristol and the "Bristol mindset," which sounds like a convenient excuse, makes it seem like these employees have never been outside of the city when this isn't true.

The numbers game: In a given year, more than 1,000 content contributors -- anchors, reporters, columnists and analysts – provide coverage across ESPN properties. If you count guests who call in or contribute via satellite on breaking news stories, the number tops 5,000. Most of its entities are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. ESPN.com says it posts more than 800 new content items a day. 

And yet, the ombudsman writes one column every other week.

Yes, ESPN makes mistakes every day, mistakes of commission and of omission. But given the amount of content ESPN produces, daily mistakes are neither surprising nor necessarily alarming.

Again, the issue isn't the mistake in and of itself, but the amount of sweeping under the rug and lack of humility the company can show at times. Bruce Feldman is given permission to write a book with Mike Leach and then gets suspended for writing a book with Mike Leach. Stephen A. Smith uses a slur on air and then gets indignant in his "apology" that we thought he used that word, even though he clearly did.

Another major issue is sourcing issues. Poynter did a column on this, but I found the explanation given by ESPN to be wholly unhelpful to prevent further issues of sourcing in the future. In reality, the issue of sourcing in regard to ESPN has not stopped. Rick Reilly grabs credit for a scoop about Ben Roethlisberger's injury even though he wasn't the one who reported on the injury. These are the types of things that happened after Poynter wrote their "sourcing" column and will continue to happen. Presumably because ESPN just doesn't care. Reilly made it a point to claim he was the first one on a story when it wasn't true and he was never corrected nor was the mistake acknowledged. I find it hard to believe the "sourcing" column was taken to heart by ESPN.

Jay Glazer then further reported on Roethlisberger's injury and SportsCenter attributed this story to "sources." To make matters worse, ESPN had previously given Glazer credit on ESPN.com and then later removed Fox Sports as being the first to report the story. So ESPN steals Glazer's report and files it under "sources," then replaces what was the correct sourcing on their web site to Fox Sports with "sources." Throw in an interview with a soccer player this summer that never actually occurred (ESPN said it was done by a freelancer, thereby absolving them of any wrongdoing of course) and the whole Sarah Phillips disaster, to where the problem isn't the mistakes but the hubris with which ESPN refuses to admit wrongdoing and correct these mistakes in the future.

Are slips of the tongue treated differently when anchors relatively low on the totem pole make them, compared with what happens to high-profile personalities?

If Poynter had taken the time during one of their bi-monthly columns to cover this story, then yes, they would find out slips of the tongue seem to be treated differently.

It’s hard to judge because ESPN rarely reveals the internal changes it makes in response to external criticism. Often we heard privately that policies were being revised and training was being implemented.

What's the point of an ombudsman if even the ombudsman has no idea if changes are being made? I know the answer to this question, but the fact ESPN shells out thousands of dollars to pretend to care about standards and practices only annoys me further at their hubris. We don't need heads on sticks, but if the ombudsman has no idea if changes were implemented, then how can ESPN's viewers feel comfortable the same issue(s) won't arise again?

The big picture: ESPN’s critics seize on every mistake, which can make the company’s editors, producers and PR folks defensive at times. That’s understandable; it’s not easy waking up each morning knowing you’re a big target. 

(the world's tiniest violin plays for this billion dollar company)

Media analyst SNL Kagan estimates ESPN will make $8.2 billion in revenue this year. It controls the rights to a huge range of live sports, using that content as fuel for its sports-information engine.

While ignoring the sports they don't have the rights to. That's why each SportsCenter doesn't have NHL lockout coverage in the first ten minutes and why when the NBA lockout occurred if David Stern farted too loudly then it warranted courthouse step coverage.

At its best, ESPN’s reporting is thorough and uncompromising about matters of great concern to its business partners: Take its recent series on football concussions, or the throw-the-script-away “SportsCenter” that followed the debacle of an NFL replacement ref’s blown call that cost Green Bay a victory in Seattle. Both storylines served fans and undermined the business interests of the NFL. 

Both times ESPN got credit for doing this from viewers. The off-the-cuff SportsCenter, as well as the reaction from Jon Gruden and Mike Tirico was a breath of fresh air to many fans. It removed many of the barriers and canned opinions from the broadcast and felt like ESPN was actually covering the story as opposed to framing the story in a way to draw ratings.

ESPN can’t be an observer or bystander because its mere presence changes things. This is true not just in business but also in journalism: As noted earlier, if ESPN covers a story, it becomes big news; if it ignores it, often it withers.

Hence the difficulty I have with accepting the "vote with your remote" and "we market towards the fan who only watches one show" reasoning they use for saturating their stations with coverage of one story. ESPN knows they can create or destroy a story, so by saturating their coverage with one story they are determining how big of a story it becomes.

But occasionally, as happened in the wake of the grand jury indictment against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, the rest of the world overrules ESPN’s judgment and the network must reverse course and pursue a story it originally treated lightly. 

Because at the time, accusations of multiple counts of child abuse wasn't nearly as important of a story as how well Tim Tebow was performing for the Broncos. 

we need journalists such as ESPN’s -- and they, in turn, need standards and practices that are clearly and wisely defined, and faithfully followed. 

But who is going to stop ESPN if they don't do this? Is the next ombudsman going to write a column three weeks after an issue occurs or completely ignore that issue (Craig James, Stephen A. Smith)? Mistakes happen and no one has to be burned at the stake as the result of the mistake, but when mistakes do occur it would help if ESPN acknowledged these mistakes. Maybe once ESPN figures out how to make money or get ratings from admitting mistakes they would will be more inclined to do so.