Around the Horn

A pathetic attempt to be "in your face" and repeat the success of the far superior Pardon the Interruption, also on ESPN. Max Kellerman, quite possibly the single most annoying host of any show this side of Ryan Seacrest, does his level best to show that the special education programs in this country have him as a success model.

The basic premise of the show, is to have Kellerman score the comments of various newspaper writers from around the country. The more outrageous and annoying, the higher Max scores them. One thing you will learn from watching this show is the reason none of these guys went into television. Some of the ugliest, most poorly spoken humans to ever live on the planet are presented here. It is amazing how these college educated, men (mostly) can be completely devoid of any speaking skills.

It was being on shows like this, that pretty much cost the once great Boston Globe reporter, Bob Ryan any credibility. He got so used to trying to be as obnoxious and stupid as possible, that he made degrading and idiotic comments about a basketball players wife. Mr. Ryan forgot to restart his brain after working on this show.

Around the Horn got some of the worst reviews ever when it first premiered, all of them deserved. ESPN ignored the pleas to remove this abomination, apparently because the ratings were pretty good. What I figure is the show is on late enough in the afternoon that the mouth breathing troglodytes with Neilson boxes are too drunk to bother changing the channel.

Avoid this crap. Dont reward the dumbing down of America by watching this show.

This show is probably the best sports show on television. When you get tired of the repetitive Linda Cohn or John Andersen commentary on SportsCenter, or you don't like all of the shouting involved with "Pardon the Interruption," you may want to give this show a shot.

Woody Paige is very funny and has some great banter with Jay Mariotti, Michael Smith, Tim Cowlishaw, and the like. The guys who return day after day are some of the best debaters on television and are very amusing. Even the ones, like Bob Ryan or J.A. Adande, who pop up every once in a while are amusing. The obscure ones like Adam Schefter or Mark Kiszla are not that entertaining, but thankfully, they rarely come up.

Max Keller was borderline annoying, but he is no longer on the show. Although I miss the "Disembodied Voice," the Tony Reali era is more entertaining than the previous one. All in all, this is a very entertaining show. It can hold my attention better than "PTI" because of the scoring, and it is less repetitive than the same old commentary on SportsCenter's top plays. This show is so fast-paced and interesting that, once you become a fan, you find it irresistibly funny and hard to turn away.

It has been more than 8 years since a review of this show was posted. In that time, things have changed.

Tony Reali is still the host. Some of the old guard still peddle their viewpoints on plasmas 1-4. But my, how things have changed.

The original idea was to present a diversity of ideas, from various columnists and sportscasters around the country. Usually featured are writers from Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Miami, Denver, Los Angeles, or Phoenix. They usually cover the professional sports teams in their city. This geographical spread assures that the opinions of "homers" will be balanced by other opinions.

In recent years, the show has apparently sought more diversity among its panelists. That is to say they represent a wider representation of the cultural diversity of America, based upon race, gender, and sexual identity. This does not mean there is greater diversity of opinion. In fact, the opposite is true.

Not just on this show, but on virtually all shows, we now hear nearly uniform views about issues that are political (and more of them are). Sponsors fear backlash from special interest groups. The network fears the loss of sponsors. The newspapers and television shows that employ the panelists fear negative publicity. As a result, you may get differences of opinion about what is going to happen on the playing field, court, or ice, but when it comes to stories about player behavior, for example, the panelists only differ in the degree of their opinions, falling over each other to condemn what ESPN wants them to condemn. And they toe the "company line" in asserting that all athletes in the news should be regarded as role models (despite Charles Barkley's view).

The only other problem I have with the show is that the panelists, like many sports writers elsewhere, tend to advocate for behavior by athletes that makes their jobs easier. This means they like athletes (or coaches) who act erratically, who give fiery opinions, who give "color" to the game by wildly celebrating, by being combative. Personally, I would rather they advocate for good sportsmanship. This means good behavior, respect for your competitors, and a respect for rules of the game.

Despite what these talking heads tell us, the athletes are not always right in their battles with team owners. And the sports leagues are not always wrong when their opinions differ from athletes. And sports can be about more than athletes getting as much money as possible in the shortest possible time period.

I happen to like most of the panelists on this show. I just wish the debates were not so homogeneous.

This sports panel-talk show started to go down the tubes when host Max Kellerman left several years ago. His replacement, Tony Reali, is annoying, obnoxious, and irritating. (Other than that, he's all right!)

Everyone has panelists they either like or dislike. I like Kevin Blackistone and usually Tim Cowlishaw (both Texas guys, oddly) and Jackie MacMullen, from Boston. I used to like Michael Holley, but he left awhile ago after Kellerman left. The worst I've seen are Michael Smith and Bill Plaschke. The guys who are always there but are almost cartoon figures, not to be taken seriously, are Woody Paige and Jay Mariotti.

These last two, along with many of the others, have made so many stupid statements and totally wrong predictions the last two years that the show has lost all credibility.

Add to that a host who thinks he's God's gift to TV and Tony Soprano rolled-into- one, and you have a sports talk show that used to be a lot of fun but now is just a sad joke.

Folks, don't take anything seriously on this show. The winners, of course, are determined beforehand and it's really meant to be nothing much more than a half-hour comedy show.

As with almost all of the ESPN TV talk shows, the subject matter also is way out of balance. If ESPN covers the sport or it's politically-correct, the sport or league will get tons of coverage. If the network (including its owner ABC) doesn't cover something, like hockey, the NHL is will be totally ignored while the NBA will be discussed for 20 of the 30 minutes. It's pathetic.

Bring back Max and a new producer who will give all sports fair representation.

This could be considered a conspiracy theory, but ever since Woody Paige left the Denver Post for New York and became a regular on Cold Pizza he wins almost ALL the time, and when he doesn't win he's usually in the showdown. I like Woody Paige, but his is not the only opinion around and Tony Reali doesn't understand that. The other panelist's have compelling arguments too, and I enjoy then all. Tim Cowlishaw, Michael Smith, Kevin Blackistone, A.J. Adande are all good too....did I mention Jay Mariotti? The show gets on my nerves anymore with Woody getting special treatment (by that I mean bonus points to keep him in the game). It's almost enough to keep me from watching. Anyone that watches this show keep this in mind and see if I'm wrong.