<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Scott's Shots &#187; NBC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://shots.bostonsportsmedia.com/category/nbc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://shots.bostonsportsmedia.com</link>
	<description>Sports Media News and Analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:25:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Point Spread Talk Taboo on Broadcasts; Nantz and Costas Avoid the &#8220;G&#8221;-word*</title>
		<link>http://shots.bostonsportsmedia.com/2008/11/the-taboo-of-mentioning-point-spreads-on-network-broadcasts/</link>
		<comments>http://shots.bostonsportsmedia.com/2008/11/the-taboo-of-mentioning-point-spreads-on-network-broadcasts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:36:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bill Simmons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CBS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jim Nantz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Point Spread Taboos/Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shots]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phil Simms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Point Spread Taboos for Networks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shots.bostonsportsmedia.com/?p=1001</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By David Scott Boston Sports Media Watch *Gambling UPDATED MONDAY NIGHT &#8211; Mostly earneest hat-tips to ESPN for its coverage of this particular game&#8217;s far-reaching impact. But we emphasize &#8220;mostly.&#8221; The morning SportsCenter hotsie-totsie tandem of Josh Elliott and Hannah Storm did more of the insulting footsie playing regarding the gambling element, but the reliable [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>By David Scott<br />
Boston Sports Media Watch</strong></p>
<p><em>*Gambling</em></p>
<blockquote><p>UPDATED MONDAY NIGHT &#8211; Mostly earneest hat-tips to <strong>ESPN</strong> for its coverage of this particular game&#8217;s far-reaching impact. But we emphasize &#8220;mostly.&#8221; The morning <strong>SportsCenter</strong> hotsie-totsie tandem of <strong>Josh Elliott</strong> and <strong>Hannah Storm</strong> did more of the insulting footsie playing regarding the gambling element, but the reliable daily &#8220;Outside the Lines&#8221; with <strong>Bob Ley</strong> hosting hit it head on, leading with the story on the 2:30 p.m. show. But voting at SportsNation indicated the Donovan McNabb OT comments were more disturbing to a vast majority of viewers. (There is a predictable Philadelphia frenzy to bury both the QB and his coach, Andy Reid. This is the same phront-running town that wanted sudden legend Charlie Manuel out of town two seasons ago.)</p>
<p>By dinner time, the network was still walking softly around the two-ton gorilla that apparently is gambling&#8217;s innate tie-in with the NFL. &#8220;Around the Horn&#8221; got into it a bit early in the show, but &#8220;PTI&#8221; buried a great conversation on the topic by delegating to the fifth story of the first block (with a minute-thirty discussion). <strong>Tony Kornheiser</strong> was as bold as anyone getting Disney money could be and said the NFL has a &#8220;<a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/tacit">tacit</a> agreement with gambling.&#8221;</p>
<p>As does ESPN itself, of course.</p>
<p>• Don&#8217;t bother looking for coverage of the gambling angle at <strong>NFL.com</strong>. We couldn&#8217;t find any and the game was terribly underplayed considering it was an historic game (first-ever 11-10 score).</p>
<p>• With news that &#8220;PLAY&#8221; magazine, the <em>New York Times</em> sports quarterly is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/business/media/18play.html?ref=media">ceasing operations</a>, there comes the logical question of what that news may mean for the <em>Boston Globe&#8217;s</em> newest offerring, &#8220;OT.&#8221;</p>
<p>The differences are significant enough &#8211; pay (OT is 50 cents) vs. free(ish); newsprint vs. glossy; weekly vs. quarterly &#8211; to think it won&#8217;t immediately spell doom for &#8220;OT,&#8221; but it certainly isn&#8217;t encouraging news. Our own, random and very unscientific survey of stores carrying the <em>Globe&#8217;s</em> offering has revealed significant stacks of unsolds on various racks.</p>
<p>Simple fact is, it may not be the time to be experimenting with print products. The money may be better spent experiemnting digitally.</p>
<p>Something to keep an eye on anyway.</p>
<p>• Back to hibernation now. . . Thanks.</b></p></blockquote>
<p>SUNDAY NIGHT, ORIGINAL POST<br />
Time for a brief emergence from the hibernation headquarters in Hull as the Pittsburgh-San Diego finish on Sunday night (which pre-empted the President-elect on &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221;) will surely be a hot topic to start the week (and, indeed, already emerged on <a href="http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/steelers-chargers-chaos-rattles-vegas-strip/">Sunday night</a>. </p>
<p>A good summary of what happened in the final seconds can be found <a href="http://steeltownsports.blogspot.com/2008/11/107-hand-of-vegas.html">here</a>, but our focus in more on the outright hypocrisy of <a href="http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/2008/11/jim_nantz_offers_veiled_shouto.html">both CBS and NBC</a> (via <strong>Neil Best</strong> at Newsday) in avoiding direct mention of the point spread.</p>
<p>During the game on CBS with <a href="http://sportsontheair.blogspot.com/2008/11/2008-nfl-broadcast-assignments-for-week_15.html"><strong>Jim Nantz</strong> and <strong>Phil Simms</strong></a>, Nantz only alluded to the interest that the final play would draw for some. He certainly never mentioned the 4.5 point spread (with the home-standing Steelers as favorites) as the confusing ending was made even clunkier by the unspoken intrigue caused by the millions of dollars that were at stake for gamblers across America.</p>
<p>But heaven forbid any of the NFL&#8217;s treasured partners should ever let-on that, you know, people like football for more than just the Wildcat Offense. Are they protecting the &#8220;integrity of the game&#8221;? Don&#8217;t they already do that by ignoring the steroid issue in the NFL?</p>
<p>Later, on NBC&#8217;s embarrassingly choppy Sunday Night halftime show (Cowboys/Redskins), <strong>Bob Costas</strong> would only tiptoe around the point spread issue. The lack of commentary was made even more awkward with a shaky edit job with Costas trying to prod <strong>Cris Collinsworth</strong> into commenting on the matter as Collinsoworth squirmed away on his desk chair.</p>
<p>(Also, on ESPN&#8217;s SportsCenter &#8220;Blitz,&#8221; <strong>Chris Berman</strong> avoided mentioning the off-shoots of the reversed call.)</p>
<p>There is clearly some kind of agreement (oral or written) in place between the broadcast (and cable?/) networks and the league to not mention point spreads and gambling. Incredibly, <strong>ESPN</strong> is one of the only hopes in generating a full and open discussion of the bizarre finish and obvious gambling implications. Shows like <strong>&#8220;Around the Horn&#8221;</strong> and <strong>&#8220;PTI&#8221;</strong> (among others) are obligated to explore the gambling angle through discussion, even with Monday Night Football airing on the &#8216;Net that same night.</p>
<p>Really, any discussion of the game (written, spoken or crayoned) needs to AT LEAST mention the finish as it relates to the gambling aspect. We&#8217;d even argue the <a href="http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=281116023">AP Story</a> should have mentioned the spread (perhaps in the part where the official admits the final decision was the wrong one?).</p>
<p>• The fantasy impact is probably pretty negligible I would guess, but there&#8217;s certainly someone, somewhere who got hosed by not getting credit for a Pittsburgh defensive score. What do you wanna <em>bet</em> it&#8217;s the <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/081114">Sports Grouch&#8217;s</a> buddy JerkO?</p>
<p>• More of the early chatter on the <a href="http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72320">game&#8217;s ending</a> and its ramifications. And <a href="http://www.1nflpicks.com/2008/11/san-diego-chargers-pittsburgh-steelers.html"> here</a>.</p>
<p>• Not surprisingly, no mention of the &#8220;Chaos by <a href="http://www.pittsburghgreenstory.org/html/3_rivers.html">The Confluence</a>&#8221; in this CBS recap:</p>
<p><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sjBwNikl_-Q&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sjBwNikl_-Q&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p>
<p><em>David Scott writes from a seaside shanty on the shores of Hull, Mass. and can be reached at shotsATbostonsportsmediaDOTcom.</em></p>
<p><em>Scott&#8217;s first book, with <a href="http://shots.bostonsportsmedia.com/2008/03/shots-proud-to-announce-book-deal/">Memphis Coach John Calipari</a>, is scheduled for release in the Fall of 2009.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shots.bostonsportsmedia.com/2008/11/the-taboo-of-mentioning-point-spreads-on-network-broadcasts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

