According to Fire and Ice, NBC has banned both the Rangers and the Devils from having viewing parties at their arenas for the remainder of their Conference Finals series. This Scrooge-like move was "ratings related" as they felt that fans showing up and watching the playoff games together might have a negative impact when the TV ratings are tallied. This amazingly also isn't the first time NBC has prevented teams from having such parties.

To put it simply, this move to ban team viewing parties is preposturously paranoid. Of the approximately 115,000,000 US television households only 25,000 are Nielsen households that have any effect on the reported TV ratings. So the chances of a substantial number of Nielsen households not tuning into channel 600 (or whatever silly high number OLN VS NBC Sports is) because they were at the stadium is minimal to say the least. Check out this video of Devils fans "packing" the Prudential Center for a viewing party for Game 2 of the Rangers series.

I've been to team viewing parties before. They can be a fun way to bond with your teams fans and build excitement in the city while being blasted with t-shirt cannons at timeouts. You also still get the pleasure of paying way too much money on concessions/parking and whatever else you could want in the arena. I'm sure this is money that the team and most importantly the workers that get to punch-in an extra night would really appreciate.

The NHL Playoffs have been excellent this year. Knowing how much Nielsen households apparently love awful reality shows over actual good TV it's not like they were going to tune in to NBC Sports en masse anyways. I'm a normally peaceful person, but if I ever run into one of the fossils that apparently is a Nielsen household I'd probably release years of nerdrage I've had building up in me and strike them down while cursing them for being the reason "Party Down" was cancelled.

I'm sure even with this move NBC Sports' ratings for the remainder of the Devils/Rangers series will still be substantial in the northeast and less so in the rest of the country. Basically, it's just a bullying move on the network's part.

[Fire and Ice]

Remember that huge UCLA expose from Sports Illustrated that was going to rock Ben Howland's program to the core?  In spite of all the sordid details of the Bruins program spiraling out of control, not too much came from the report, at least from UCLA's perspective.  Howland has stayed with UCLA, the program hasn't been punished in any way by the NCAA, and UCLA only has the #1 recruiting class for 2012 according to ESPN's rankings.

Something else has finally come out of that piece by George Dohrmann though.  A lawsuit.  Former UCLA player Reeves Nelson is suing SI and Dohrmann for defamation because of his "starring" role in the article.  Nelson was cited for his violent acts during practice, being a "classic bully", disrespecting coaches, peeing on teammate's clothes, and ultimately being dismissed from the program in late 2011.  Now, Nelson is fighting back against the characterizations in the Sports Illustrated report and suing for $10 million.  Here's the news from Fox Sports...  

Former UCLA player Reeves Nelson is suing Sports Illustrated for $10 million, citing defamation, false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress over its recent article about problems in the school's basketball program.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Superior Court in Los Angeles names Time Inc. and writer George Dohrmann as defendants. The story titled ''Not the UCLA Way'' initially appeared Feb. 28 on the magazine's website and then in its March 5 print edition. Nelson also wants a retraction and public apology.

The lawsuit includes sworn statements from 18 current and former UCLA players, including Tyler Trapani, the great-grandson of legendary UCLA coach John Wooden. They attest that the article's general description of Nelson as a ''psychotic bully'' is false and that specific instances of Nelson's alleged bullying described in the article never happened or were grossly distorted.

One element this lawsuit from Nelson has to overcome is the SI article explicitly stating that Nelson confirmed all the incidents in the article to SI.  That piece of the puzzle is a parenthetical statement in the Dohrmann report:  

(Nelson confirmed all these incidents to SI and expressed his regret, saying, "On all that stuff, I have no trouble admitting that I lost control of my emotions sometimes. I take responsibility for my actions. I'm really just trying to learn from the mistakes I made on all levels.")

There's another passage in the article where Nelson "did not deny" the allegations against him that he would specifically target individuals in practice situations, where many of the allegations of his violent behavior stem from:

Nelson often reacted to hard fouls or calls against him in practice by committing violent acts against teammates. He did not deny to SI that he would stalk his targets, even running across the court, away from a play, to hit someone.

Is it really plausible to consider a respected publication like Sports Illustrated making up these stories in some sort of vendetta to besmirch the name of Reeves Nelson?  What would Sports Illustrated have to gain from making up these anecdotes in a story that didn't really have much long-term traction in the first place?  According to his lawsuit, Nelson has players that back his side of the story.  However, if you want to take Nelson's side in this lawsuit, you have to not only dismiss the allegations, but the reported confirmation of the allegations.  I think I'll take my chances with Jonathan Vilma having a better chance to succeed with his lawsuit instead.

(Fox Sports)

While this story isn't anywhere near as disturbing as his recent assault on the city of New Orleans not based in fact, or his history of bizarre, reckless social commentary, it still makes you scratch your head.  One of the consistent themes of ESPN Radio host Colin Cowherd's show is his football betting picks.  Cowherd routinely gives selections based on Over/Under win totals for the coming season and who he thinks may be a good bet as beating the set Vegas line.  

Wednesday, he offered four of these picks.  Except, according to Beyond the Bets, Cowherd was using numbers nobody else has...

ESPN’s Colin Cowherd is a favorite around here, and on Wednesday morning he offered his early take on some NFL win totals.

The problem? I have no idea where he got his numbers.

He sure as hell didn’t look at the over/unders released by Cantor Gaming, 5Dimes or BetOnline.

“I’m telling you right now,” Cowherd said, “If you had $10,000 and you gave it to me and said, ‘Colin, bet four teams at $2,500 apiece to win more games than Vegas predicts,’ I’m gonna tell you my four right now.

“I’m telling you, [these four teams] are better than the wiseguys think.”

The discrepancies pointed out by BtB are as follows:

Buffalo - Cowherd's O/U: 6, Actual O/U: 7
Dallas - Cowherd's O/U: 6, Actual O/U: 8.5
Indianapolis - Cowherd's O/U: 3, Actual O/U: 5.5 
St. Louis - Cowherd's O/U: 5, Actual O/U: 6

It's bizarre.  Obviously there's an edge to using faulty numbers.  If you want to pick Dallas over 6 instead of Dallas over 8.5, you've got a lot more room to maneuver with.  But why use numbers that aren't accurate - I'm not saying there's any malicious intent here, it could just be a more innocent slip, but it still doesn't make sense.  It's not like the Vegas numbers are that hard to find.  A quick Google search shows a myriad of articles using and referencing the same numbers used by BtB at the sites mentioned above.  Why can't Cowherd use the actual numbers?

(Then again, much of Cowherd's eccentric social commentary is loosely based in fact to begin with, so perhaps these numbers being pulled from nowhere shouldn't be a surprise.)

On another note, if you're ESPN, why take seriously all the offensive statements and factually incorrect statements Cowherd consistently uses to misrepresent the truth?  Why worry about dealing in fact and serving your audience with the truth?  Why take seriously your own commitment to journalism and transparency?  Why consider the negative impact of inaccurately trashing an entire city or entire regions of the country to a national audience?

Why not go ahead and endlessly self-promote the fact that Colin Cowherd can run a mile in under 6:30, because that's what sports fans really care about.  That's more important.

(Beyond the Bets)

The SEC is soon going to restructure their media deals with ESPN and CBS following the additions of Missouri and Texas A&M, and the end result of the negotiations will more than likely result in the creation of the SEC Network that could be ready to launch by the 2014 football season.

The SEC is apparently talking with ESPN in an attempt to form a partnership to form the network, much like ESPN is involved in the Longhorn Network. It's unknown as of now if the SEC will actually own a chunk of the network like the Big Ten does with the BTN, or just sell its media rights to ESPN, which is currently paying the SEC $150 million a year for rights for all games not broadcast on CBS. In addition to the two possibilies mentioned for the SEC Network, there's also another route, which is currently in use by the Pac-12: owning every regional network, and going from there.

The SEC needs to do something, because right now, that $150 million from ESPN is paling in comparison to the $250 million a year the Pac-12 recently snagged from ESPN and FOX. While the SEC also gets about $55 million a year from CBS, their total take-home is still less than the Pac-12. Hell, it's even less than what the football-deficient ACC is getting from ESPN ($240 million per year).

The SEC, home of the best football in the country, is not only behind the eight-ball in creating a network, but is also taking home less from TV partners in comparison to other conferences. I'm really not sure how this is acceptable for the member schools, especially given the success and branding power of the SEC. Obviously, this will be changing very soon, but the SEC as of yet hasn't stepped up off the field in comparison to the other major conferences.

[h/t: Sporting News]

The internet got pretty fired up on Wednesday afternoon after news that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) will have a new partnership featuring two women (Lena Sutherland and Jules Mancuso) hosting a show dubbed “While the Men Watch” that aims to connect with wives and girlfriends of men who watch hockey during the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Upon checking out the website While the Men Watch, it’s clearly geared to women who just don’t have a clue about sports. I get that there is an audience for that. But should it be featured as a major part of a network's playoff coverage?

While trying to play devil's advocate, I watched their promo video. Big mistake. It was then I understood why so many women were infuriated over this new CBC partnership.

“Ok like, why do the coaches have to wear a suit and tie? I mean, it's like, a hockey game. Why can’t they wear a tracksuit?”

This kind of valley girl sports commentary is given a national audience over a female who represents 40% of the NHL fan base and has probably spent their whole life going the extra mile to prove their fandom to others? Pathetic.

“Why do they [NHL coaches] have to wear a suit and tie? You’re at a hockey game. Why can’t you sport some kind of track suit or sports outfit? And aren’t they uncomfortable? They have to like, stand, the whole time.”

*flips nearest table*

How did this type of show get a national audience? While it’s disheartening to think that two women who both come from Canada could treat something like the Stanley Cup as trivial as they have, it's absolutely maddening that CBC would endorse such a thing on their own website.

It’s a puzzling move for CBC in that 4 out of 10 hockey fans are women and about 1/3 of ESPN's overall viewership regardless of sport is female. Did CBC just not do the research prior to making this move or do they know something that we don’t?

It shouldn't come as a surprise that women want to watch sports the exact same as everyone else. CBC could have hired two qualified females to do actual play-by-play and perhaps throw in some honest analysis or a “did you know” in the live game conversation. That’s appealing to the already-present female fan base without the need to make them feel like an idiot. Instead, CBC has taken us back to the dark ages of sports fandom.

Sure I understand the appeal of the stereotypical girl who just doesn’t have a clue when it comes to sports, but CBC should do better than to perpetuate those lazy stereotypes. They missed out on a large portion of the fanbase for their country's number one sport by partnering with these ladies instead of real fans of the game.

“Matter of fact I think we are the ONLY sports show out there for women”

No ma’am you are not the face of female sports fans. These ladies are.

In one of the stranger reports you'll read about the NBA, ESPN is reporting TNT's Inside the NBA analyst Shaquille O'Neal is under consideration to replace Otis Smith as the new Magic General Manager.  That's right, Shaquille O'Neal.  Magic GM.  Chris Broussard's report goes as far as to say Shaq will at least meet with the team next week in Orlando in what isn't described as an "interview" but sounds close to it...

O'Neal, who began his legendary NBA career in Orlando, may meet with the Magic as soon as next week, sources told ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard. While he has no front office experience, the Magic believe O'Neal's presence within the organization could help them retain Dwight Howard.

Magic officials declined comment Wednesday night when asked about meeting with O'Neal, telling ESPN.com's Marc Stein they will not be publicly discussing the process or timetable of their GM and coach searches in the wake of Monday's dismissals of Stan Van Gundy and Otis Smith.

This makes zero sense for several reasons.  For one, Chris Broussard and his sources don't have the best reputation amongst national reporters as being airtight.  Secondly, Shaq's history with the Magic is just behind LeBron James' relationship with the Cleveland Cavaliers in terms of bad NBA breakups.  Shaq left Orlando high and dry when he ran to the Lakers as a free agent, where he eventually won a few titles.  And finally, The Big Aristotle also has no front office experience.  Maybe he thinks he can't do worse than Michael Jordan, which is a valid argument. (Update: Charles Barkley said on Dan Patrick's show that he was indeed interviewing for the job.)

ESPN also reports Shaq's name being mentioned is directly tied to keeping Dwight Howard in Orlando, which is chock-full of delicious irony on every single level.  The Magic bending over backward for Dwight Howard after the Favrian drama of this past season is just asking for more misery.  Then of course there's the fact that Shaq himself was the original Superman to leave Orlando when Dwight Howard was in elementary school.  Now that I think about it though, hiring Shaq as GM and then losing Dwight Howard anyways would be just about the most fitting end to this quagmire.

In a separate column, Stein reasons the Shaq to Orlando move is unlikely.  t's hard to envision Shaq leaving TNT for a front office job after one year in much the same way Urban Meyer left ESPN to go coach Ohio State.  However, their media career paths have been quite similar to this point.  Both were heavily promoted and hyped acquisitions.  Both were and have been relative disappointments.  O'Neal has had his moments on TNT, but too often he's just taking up space.  It's not that he's been bad, it's that he hasn't met the high expectations.  Sometimes he can be funny, sometimes he can be insightful, but most of the time it falls short of the lofty Inside the NBA standard.  Honestly, from what I've seen, Shaq has been rather average on TNT in his rookie year on television.

With this report now widespread, TNT needs to have O'Neal address it on the air.  Even if it's as much of a pantomime act as Urban Meyer's "denials" about the Ohio State job, TNT owes it to the audience to have Shaq say his piece.  TNT isn't scheduled to have another game until Monday, so they have plenty of time to plan how to answer ESPN's report.  With Shaq's creativity and personality, I'm sure they can find a unique way to do it.

[ESPN]

The Big Ten Network is going to be slashing the academic programming on the network, due to a combination of sagging ratings, lack of contributions from some schools, and varying quality.

When BTN was launched in 2007, the goal was to provide up to 60 hours of academic programming a year from each school. Currently, the programming is down to a bare minimum, with more emphasis on quality productions as opposed to content for the sake of content. The major problem for the academic programming was that there wasn't much of an interest aside from fans of the school being highlighed in most cases. As a Northwestern fan and Penn State alum, why would I want to watch a show about what's going on locally on the Minnesota campus?

Some schools have slashed programming more than others, with Penn State leading the charge by cutting programming a whopping 95%. One major success in the academic field was Impact the World, a show debuting this past January that focused on research at all of the Big Ten member schools. Ratings for the program crushed the other academic programs on the network, and is planned to return for a second season in the fall.

The Longhorn Network plans to air 900 hours of academic programming by the end of their first year in existence, but they're also airing types of programming that BTN never even considered, like class lectures and commencement ceremonies. It's much easier to do this on a network focusing on one school like LHN, as opposed to the BTN and their twelve member focus.

Personally, I didn't watch any academic programming, regardless of the school featured. At its very core, BTN and other college networks are sports networks. The academic programming is largely window dressing and to see them go by the wayside is no surprise. If this leads to more original sports series productions and live sports, I'm all for it, though.

[h/t: AP]

Today was the much ballyhooed #TebowFreeTV edition of First Take.  The "Tebow free edition" came about because the talented DJ Steve Porter won a Webby for his "All He Does Is Win" video mashup featuring Skip Bayless.  

I wanted to take in this spectacle, if only to see First Take collapse on itself like an aging star by not mentioning Tim Tebow.  Except this is First Take, so the "Tebow Free edition" was actually an excuse to talk about Tim Tebow more than ever before.  You see, only Skip Bayless couldn't say Tim Tebow while it was fair game for others.  Pretty much the entire show consisted of ESPN personalities coming on First Take to rip Tim Tebow while Skip Bayless offered shocked and dismayed and heartbroken facial expressions while remaining silent.  

All in all, I counted nine segments devoted to Tim Tebow at an unscientific measurement of just over 35 minutes of airtime discussing Tim Tebow.  Merril Hoge, Michelle Beadle, Marcellus Wiley, Jonathan Coachman, Herm Edwards, Les Shapiro, and Michael Smith all appeared on the program to talk Tebow.  I was going to keep a count of all the "Tebow" mentions just to drive home the lunacy, but First Take actually did the dirty work for me.  How nice of them to be upfront about a circus Barnum & Bailey would be proud of...

Of course, Skip couldn't make it the entire show without saying Tebow and walked over to the camera screaming Tebow's name several times like a crazed lunatic at the end.  No, that's not some kind of sarcastic overexaggeration trying to be funny.  That actually happened.  The above count is almost accurate, except for the two times the DJ Steve Porter mashup was shown with Skip Bayless saying "Tebow" and Stephen A. Smith getting in one more mention after the final count.  That means the "Tebow free edition of First Take gave us well over a half hour of Tebow time and over 125 mentions of Tebow's name.  Keep in mind that First Take mentioned Tim Tebow only 52 times in one episode during the middle of the NFL season and it has been 130 days since Tim Tebow played an NFL game.

I've tried to put the abject horror of First Take into words before, but this particular show on Wednesday May 23rd, 2012 is beyond anything I've ever seen to this point in my years walking this sphere known as Planet Earth.  In fact, I pysically and mentally can't even put into context how terrifying these two hours were to witness.  Maybe some day, the human race will have advanced to the point where they can find words and a language that appropriately describe this madness.  We'll surely all be dead by then, but in the age of flying cars and transportation devices and advanced telekinesis, maybe someone will finally be able to effectively communicate what was witnessed today.  For the sake of our great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren, I hope it happens.

But at least the "Tebow free edition" of First Take wasn't completely in vain.  It did give us this image...

Hockey broadcasting has changed quite dramatically over the last decade, and one of the more notable changes has been the move to put many colour commentators (and even play-by-play announcers on occasion) between the opposing teams' benches. The near-ice location often allows analysts to get a great sense of the reactions from players and coaches on both teams, and it's worked very well on many fronts. However, the increased access also presents a dilemma for between-the-benches commentators like NBC's Pierre McGuire, as they have to choose between reporting everything that goes on and only passing on certain details that won't embarrass the people involved. It's not an easy line to walk, but McGuire's conduct during these playoffs in particular calls into question if he's too heavily invested in preserving the reputations of coaches and the league. As Neil Best of Newsday writes, McGuire has deliberately chosen to keep some things back, especially in regards to the heated Game 4 confrontation between Devils coach Peter DeBoer and Rangers coach John Tortorella:

McGuire, a former NHL coach, said he alone decides what to share about what he hears and is particularly careful about injury information. He said neither NBC nor the league ever has created rules for what he can report, "and for that, I'm appreciative." His approach has led to criticism in some quarters for his withholding of information, including after an even more heated argument between coaches Peter Laviolette and Dan Bylsma in the Flyers-Penguins playoff series. But he said his privileged location and respect for the coaches and players has led him to keep some things off limits. "I think that's part of why it's worked for seven years and will work for a lot longer," he said, adding that producer Sam Flood has been supportive of his philosophy. "The point of 'Inside the Glass' is to try to relay the intensity and passion at ice level," he said. "One of the reasons why it's had such a positive effect is that slowly but surely we've been able to build up a trust factor between the coaches and players and NBC."

McGuire isn't entirely in the wrong here. For one thing, muting his microphone during profane yelling matches of coaches would seem like the right idea; there's always a substantial flap whenever a sports personality swears on-air, and the conversations between hockey coaches like John Tortorella, Peter DeBoer and Peter Laviolette probably make Shaquille O'Neal look like Mother Teresa. Given the way these announcing booths are set up, with analysts chiming in frequently during momentary lulls in play, if McGuire (or any other between-the-glass analyst) recorded a profane tirade from coaches, it would be far too easy for it to somehow get on the air (and cause a massive outcry in the process). Thus, picking up full audio of what coaches say to each other seems out of the question for the moment. 

Doc Emrick is certainly one of the best announcers in the business (hear his AA podcast here).  The way he can describe the action of a hockey game with the vocabulary he does while maintaining a high level of passion throughout is truly remarkable.  But apparently, like most mere mortals, Doc Emrick also can get off course too.  Here, Emrick can't help but editorialize on the diving that takes place in soccer, specifically the MLS game he is about to promote for NBC.

Did Emrick talk to Jeff Van Gundy about flopping?  Yes, soccer players have earned their reputation for flopping, and hockey players have a reputation for toughness that is pretty much the polar opposite.  Even though this ability to think on his feet makes Doc one of the best, I bet NBC wasn't too keen on Doc stepping on a promo for an MLS Cup rematch between the L.A. Galaxy and Houston Dynamo.  Oh well, it could have been worse.  He could have been reading a promo for Lizard Lick Towing.

(h/t Bubbaprog)