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

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.

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.

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.