Around the Horn

Around the Horn is a pretty good show on espn. It pits four newspaper writers to try to get as many points as they can by giving good comments about the subject. Bad comments mean they lose points. Good concept but I would rather watch four reporters stay for the whole show, but on this show they get voted off if they don't have enough points. This I don't like. I want to hear their opinions for the whole show. Other than that it's not that bad. The reporters all have their different views and express them different ways. Some are calm and collective and some are yellers and screamers. Another problem I have with this show is that they talk about the same things as Pardon the Interruption does. I would rather watch PTI so when I happen to flip over to Around the Horn I'm spoiled with the headlines.

So in conclusion it's a good show but PTI is still much better

I come home every day, grab some Cheese Nips and a Coke, and sit down and watch Around the Horn. It is extremely humorous, yet it still gets to the point like no other sports show except Pardon the Interruption. I truly believe that ESPN has struck gold with Max Kellerman and company, because this show is simply magnificent as far as 30-minute television goes.

Around the Horn is an entertaining show for us sports buffs out there. It's interesting to hear the topics discussed and the opinions presented. If you can stand to sit through all the talk about the Lakers, the Yankees, and the Red Sox then they actually do talk about other teams around the country.

The problems that I have with this show are that nobody ever has to answer for their mistakes. They talk about 10-15 topics a day, and the panelists are usually incorrect about at least half of them, but they are never forced to respond to their mistakes. One of the panelists will get in somebody's face, tell them how dumb they are, and then once the game is actually played, that person is totally wrong. This is kind of a problem with ESPN as a whole. Hyping an event is more important than what actually happens. Anybody else ever noticed that ESPN's pre-game football show, NFL Countdown is 2 hours long, and the highlight show, NFL Primetime, is only an hour.

When ATH first started, they asked the panelists trivia questions from their area as part of the show. They didn't know the answer about 75% of the time, so they stopped doing it. These people come off as experts, but then we find out that they're simply journalism school graduates who got a job in the major market that paid them the highest salary. As examples, I cite the two most often seen panelists, Woody Paige and Jay Mariotti.

Woody Paige is just a flat out idiot. He has no business being on TV. I can only hope, and assume, that he is better writer because on TV he comes off a stupid, arrogant jerk and the shows are so much better without him. The point I'm trying to make is that he used to not know there was a world outside of Denver (he once suggested the Yankees should go after Jay Payton to play center field), but now he has moved to New York because its more prestigious and more lucrative.

Jay Mariotti is the resident Chicago panelist. I, being from Chicago, liked him initially because he seemed to be a very typical Chicago sports fan. I then find out he is from Pittsburgh, and just happens to live in Chicago because that's who pays him.

During the recent Olympics, Bill Plaschke was gone, and Mariotti and Paige were in Greece. The show was the best its ever been. JA Adande, Tim Cowlishaw, and Michael Smith are the three best and most knowledgeable panelists on the show, and they are rarely on because they don't make for particularly good TV by doing or saying something stupid.

If you're looking for entertainment, tune in when Mariotti and Paige are on.

If you're looking for insightful sports knowledge from smart people, steer clear of those two and wait for the three I mentioned earlier, along with Bob Ryan, and Jackie MacMullan.

I just saw where ESPN's other "entertainment show" had several people commenting on it and I didn't want this one to feel slighted in the least. When ESPN announced they were debuting some new shows in 2002, I like many hard-core ESPN and sports fanatics, were skeptical to say the least. My skepticism turned to apathy when I heard Max Kellerman would be the host. From what I knew of Max, he would turn up every time a major bout took place in the world of boxing (and he is a regular on Friday Night Fights on ESPN), and I found him extremely annoying. Some may still after viewing the show, but I have done a 180 turn on Max. He is wonderful in his position as the host as he keeps it moving and manages to be funny and fresh as well. What really makes the show, however, is the panelists, who are journalist for major newspapers around the country. It is enlightening to get views on sports from different coasts and time zones from the men who cover it daily. After experimenting with several different panelists, they seem to have found 4 regulars and they are Woody Paige(Denver Post), Jay Mariotti(Chicago Sun-Times),Bill Plascke(Los Angeles Times),and Bob Ryan(Boston Globe). Michael Holley(Boston Globe),Kevin Blackistone(Dallas Morning News),J.A. Adande(Los Angeles Times),and Michael Smith(Boston Globe) also appear at times. Each one has their own characteristics and traits that make them unique. Woody's humor and mispronouncing of words make me smile after a long day, and Jay Mariotti is almost always right on the money in my opinion. These guys argue or debate topics in the sports and entertainment worlds and garner points for good answers,and are muted for bad ones. Guys are elimintated until a one-on-one showdown determines a winner, who in turn gets 15 seconds of face time to say whatever he likes. But after watching one time, you'll see the points system isn't important. Well, I've said enough I guess but I really wonder why ESPN didn't think of this show sooner. I know for a fact it is a hit among college males and people of the 18-49 demographic. Several people I talk to are regular viewers and can't miss a day. The only thing that sucks is that ESPN continues to air these golf tournaments that 90% of the people could care less about and that causes this show to be preempted at times. All in all folks if you are a fan of sports or missed the previous days stories regarding not only sports,but music,tv,and movies as well,then this is the show for you. And remember, "it's out of bounds where it's all in-bounds".

Woody Paige: Why do always have to be the one to straighten you guys out?

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.