Around the Horn

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.

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.

Around the Horn is hilarious. The host does a great job humiliating everyone with the "mute" and a point deduction. It's a comical but informative show. You don't get as much information as if you watched Sportscenter, but it still does a good job and makes me laugh.

I like it better than Pardon the Interruption because it doesn't sound nearly as scripted as PTI does. At least sometimes the "experts" agree on topics on Around the Horn. PTI is just 2 guys showing both sides of all the biggest stories.

Good show to tune in to and get the sports news and some laughs after a day of work.

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.