"There's a greater percentage of me being a broadcaster than playing," Smoltz told SI.com. "I'm just not officially ready to say that's it because there are some unique opportunities that might arise where it would allow me to think about it again. But here is the process: I might think about it. I might train for it. But that does not mean it will happen. The longer I do this and the more I enjoy it, the less likely that something of that magnitude would come into play. I would call it a very, very slim percentage that I will play this year."
As with all ex-players-turned-broadcasters, viewers will quickly learn whether Smoltz's allegiance lies with them or if he's merely a house organ for certain parties. "My criticism won't be a style of harshness," said Smoltz. "I'm not going to be a psychologist. I'm not going to be one of those guys who tells the viewer what the guy is thinking per se, or trying to guess what he is thinking. What I can provide will be experiential viewing, and a narrative of the game that offers insight. I enjoy talking about the game and its insides. More or less, what I will bring is the pitcher-catcher relationship and how that translates into how the game is played."
"I think in some ways Billy was a larger than life presence at CBS and in the college basketball community," McManus said. "He did a spectacular job for many years. A lot people miss him. I miss him. I miss him at our media press conference, which every year managed to have something incendiary, controversial, amusing or of great interest, depending on the word you'd choose. He always had something interesting to say, which was a great asset for us and the college basketball community. Having said that, I think Jim and Clark have very quickly developed into the best team in college basketball. I think Clark has made the transition from studio to broadcast booth seamlessly. From my standpoint, it is an unqualified success but there is a presence that Billy had that is certainly missed."
The latter came after
Good for Nantz. If he believes it, sing it to the masses. Personally, I have zero problem with Woods' language because it's milder than the trash-talking that goes on in a Sunday morning beer league softball game. But I've also never been to Augusta National, so I cop to having a limited take on the culture.
I've tackled this subject before: Is there a Pulitzer bias against sports? Perhaps not overtly, but the current Pulitzer Board lacks anyone with a background in sports, and some remarkable sports journalism (e.g.
Many moons ago, I graduated from the school that hosts the awards (the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism) and once asked
In my opinion, establishing a sports Pulitzer category would bring an inordinate amount of press to the awards, and most importantly, could bring some new (and younger) readers to newspaper journalism. But I wanted to get someone with a better take on the subject, so I
"People will say that there is a bias against sports journalism, but I think the reason is far simpler: Our best work rarely has the impact of the work of the winners," Dorhmann said. "Look
"The category I won in, Beat Reporting, no longer exists (it was replaced after 2006) and I think that hurt the chances of other sports journalists. The way sports beat reporting is headed (less game stories and more analysis and criticism) would have helped with the Pulitzer board. That said, I don't think there should be a category dedicated to sportswriting. The need for one would arise if sports journalism were being overlooked. I don't think it is. If a sportswriter's work is good enough, he or she will win. Also, what makes sports journalism so unique that it requires special status? If you are going to create one for sportswriting, shouldn't you create one for business and other specialties as well? A special citation for sports would be, in my view, like playing golf with a handicap. Your work is one of the best in journalism, all of journalism that year, or it isn't."