I haven’t blogged in a while due to my wife and I having our second child, a son, in March. Needless to say both time and sleep have been extremely limited over the last six months. Many things have gone down in the sports world during this time that I wanted to write about, but when you’re a walking zombie it’s tough to get your thoughts together:).
Some sad news over the weekend compelled me to break my blog silence, and hopefully post more regularly going forward. Sunday morning I heard the news that longtime Detroit Pistons PR Man, Matt Dobek, had passed away when I received an e-mail from Jeff Twiss, my friend, former boss and longtime Boston Celtics PR Man.
It was a shocking message to receive as Dobek was only 51 years old. He worked for the Pistons for 29 years, sported three NBA Championship rings and served as the PR Representative for the original 1992 Dream Team. He was highly respected in the NBA and sports PR world.
Honestly, I didn’t know Dobek all that well, there’s countless people in the NBA that knew him better and could share stories that dwarf mine. But, after reading Jack McCallum’s article on SI.com Tuesday regarding Dobek’s passing, I felt compelled to share a time that Dobek had helped me out when I needed it. (By the way, McCallum’s article is a must read, for it’s background on Dobek, but also as an insight into the world of being a PR person for a professional sports team)
It was the 2004-05 NBA season, the Pistons were making annual runs to the Eastern Conference Finals, and I was in Detroit,well Auburn Hills, with the Celtics for a regular season game. Prior to the trip, Twiss informed me Tommy Heinsohn, Celtics Hall of Famer, Championship coach and current broadcaster requested 4 tickets for a friend in the Detroit area. And when Tommy makes a request you come through.
For a little background, doling out tickets can be one of the more stressful aspects of traveling with a team for a PR person. Each player gets two tickets, but almost all of them want more. There’s plenty of trading and bartering that goes on, and you always have to hope there’s some extra left over for emergencies. To complicate things even more, broadcasters don’t get tickets, so I was going to have to snag four off the top from our team allotment for Tommy before even getting to the players.
Let’s skip ahead a little. It’s 45 minutes before tip-off and I had just closed the locker room to the media. It had been a busier than normal pregame as some fires had come up that I had to put out. I was happy to finally have some down time to grab a bite before the game, so I headed to the press room. Just as I walk in I cross paths with Tommy and he checks with me to make sure his tickets are at will-call. See where this is headed?
As I thought for a second, I could feel the panic overcoming me. I realized I had completely forgotten about Tommy’s request, and to make matters worse I was wiped out of tickets. In a state of panic I did probably the worst thing. Sounding like Ralphy in A Christmas Story when he says to the mall Santa Claus “football, yeah a football”, I muttered to Tommy “tickets, yeah tickets, taken care of”.
Immediately I bolted out of the press room, scurrying in the bowels of The Palace for anyone that might be able to throw a young PR guy on one of his first solo road trips a bone. I had basically just screwed one of the all-time iconic Celtics. Who do I come across, Matt Dobek.
Matt could tell I looked more than a little flustered and asked if I needed anything. Remember, this was the heyday of the Rasheed Wallace-Chauncey Billups Pistons and the franchise was on an incredible run of sellouts. Extremely nervous to make this kind of request to one of the most tenured PR people in the league, basically admitting my mistake, I swallowed my pride and told Matt about my need for four extra tickets for Heinsohn.
Long story short, Dobek made one call and within minutes a Pistons sales rep was outside our locker room with four tickets, good tickets, for Tommy Heinsohn’s guests. Crisis averted thanks to Matt Dobek!
Again, I didn’t know him very well, and this was a less than earth-shattering story, but it certainly meant a lot to me. It would have been extremely embarrassing to hear about Tommy Heinsohn’s guests not getting into the building that night, and might have ended my road trips with the Celtics for a long while. So thanks Matt! RIP!
P.S. Twisster, if you’re reading this I hope you can look back and have a good laugh, as I don’t think I ever shared this with you .
Apparently expanding the greatest tournament on Earth is almost a done deal. According the Sports by Brooks, sources at ESPN say the NCAA basketball tournament expanding to 96 teams is a “done deal”. Many fans of college basketball, analysts and those in the game feel adding 30 teams to March Madness is a horrible idea. Why mess with something that clearly isn’t broken, especially when the NCAA is catching heat every year regarding the mess that is the college football bowl system.
Normally I’d be getting into the PR ramifications of this decision, but when speaking of the NCAA that could really be an entire series of posts. PR isn’t exactly their forte. So instead, as a lifelong college basketball fan, I simply want to give my idea to expand the tournament without destroying the current format, but while also increasing publicity and revenue for the NCAA.
I’ve always had the following idea about the play-in game, and through discussions with friends, other college basketball fans and on #SportsPRChat on Twitter it has evolved. I’m not sure if anyone else has proposed this, but I’ve always felt the play-in game was a decent idea, just horribly executed. First, why should two teams that earned automatic bids have to participate in a play-in game? Second, why do I want to watch two of the worst teams in the field play for the right to get trounced by the likes of North Carolina, Kansas or Duke? There’s zero excitement.
I propose we expand the tournament from 64 to 68 teams by adding three additional play-in games. The change is that the now four play-in games would be between the last four at-large teams in the tournament and the last four out of the tournament. The winners of the four games will then be slotted into the four #12 seed positions. This results in far more exposure, publicity and revenue for the play-in games.
This season for example, instead of watching two small conference teams battle it out to get trounced by Kansas or Kentucky, we could see eight BCS or talented mid-major teams fight it out. Going by ESPN.com Joe Lunardi’s most recent bracketology, with this idea, the Tuesday before the official tournament kicks-off we’d potentially see Maryland vs. Wichita St., Old Dominion vs. Marquette, Cincinnati vs. Seton Hall and Connecticut vs. Louisville.
Who wouldn’t want to watch those teams fight it out for a chance to be an upset special in the Big Dance? Almost every year there’s a #12 seed that makes a run in the tournament.
This might not add as much revenue as the NCAA is looking for, but as mentioned it adds more excitement. The four play-in games would be far more interesting. It wouldn’t render the regular season basically irrelevant, like adding 30 more teams would do, and it wouldn’t minimize the anticipation and excitement of the current first round.
This would probably only slow the move to 96 teams, but I think this change to the play-in system would be a good one even if they don’t expand the tournament. Either way, I’d love to hear thoughts on this idea, or any other ideas on how to improve the tournament in the comments below.
I was having an e-mail discussion with my buddy Chappy Wednesday morning. Chappy lives in Boston, and if you regularly read this blog you know I’ve lived there as well, so our discussion inevitably ended up on the Massachusetts Senate results. We discussed a few different aspects of the race, which eventually led to Keith Olbermann’s comments following the outcome, a win by Republican Scott Brown.
When discussing Olbermann’s editorial, our exchange went into whether Olbermann poses a PR problem for NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. If you remember, it wasn’t too long ago that Goodell had some harsh words for Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was attempting to become a minority owner with a group looking to buy the St. Louis Rams. The basis of Goodell’s objection to Limbaugh being part of the NFL was that “divisive comments” have no place in the NFL.
What does this have to do with Keith Olbermann? For those that don’t know, besides having his own show on MSNBC, Olbermann also co-hosts NBC’s Football Night in America, the NFL’s primetime Sunday night showcase each week.
There’s no question Goodell was under pressure to respond to criticism, whether right or wrong, about Limbaugh’s bid to become an owner. But, by entering the Limbaugh debate so strongly, did Goodell open himself up to answering what exactly is divisive language, from a political perspective, according to the NFL? It’s not out of the realm that reporters, or political groups with an agenda for that matter, could call for Goodell to respond to whether Olbermann’s comments are “divisive”.
Now, this is a Sports PR/Marketing blog, not a political blog, so I’m not really interested in debating conservative/liberal or Limbaugh/Olbermann, at least not in this space.
The question is, did Goodell overplay his hand with Limbaugh, almost setting a precedent where he has to respond when anyone affiliated with the NFL enters political debate? Is it out of line to question Goodell about whether Olbermann is too “divisive” to co-host Football Night in America? Should the NFL just stay away from extreme political commentators/figures playing a visible role in the league?
What say you?
Disclaimer: I hope we can have a healthy debate in the comments section, sticking to the PR aspects of this topic. Any comments using crude language or attacking another poster will be deleted.
I stumbled upon an old Bill Simmons (@SportsGuy33) column in which he discusses the dwindling access that reporters have to today’s athlete. His general premise is that social media is boxing out tradition sports media. Simmons hearkens back to a time when David Halberstam had one-on-one access for his book The Breaks of the Game, and reporters often hungout with the very athletes they covered. He calls it the “Scotch ‘n Sirloin Era”, with the current era being “The Twitter Era”.
But, Simmons may not be the best authority on this topic. In my time in the Boston Celtics PR Department, I never saw Simmons in the locker room or at a shoot-around during media access, and never had a player interview request from him cross my desk, or that of my co-workers. But, his column still raises an interesting topic.
How has the role of the PR person and sports media access in general been affected by social media, if at all? Is social media basically boxing out the traditional sports media?
To gain a little more informed insight, I spoke with someone who’s been in the trenches on this issue from the start, long-time NBA PR man Terry Lyons (@TerryLyons). Lyons worked in the NBA from his days as a PR intern in 1981, up until 2007, when he moved on to start Terry Lyons Sports Marketing LLC. During his time, Lyons worked every NBA Finals, All-Star Weekend, NBA Draft and international event, including serving as the PR person for the Original Dream Team in 1992. He knows and understands this issue as well as anyone!
One word dominated our discussion, “relationships.” Media access has changed, but according to Lyons, it’s better. Like in the “old days”, reporters just have to be willing to build relationships. “People have to develop relationships,” Lyons said. “PR people can assist in that process, but the individual personalities get it done. The media that take time to get to know the players are still the ones that the players end up trusting more, and they’ll get the access.”
Yes, in the NBA specifically, media seating continues to move further from the court, and the hordes of media surrounding players has increased tremendously. But, has the access actually “dwindled faster than A-Rod’s pectorals”, as Simmons put it?
“Access is tremendous,” said Lyons. “NBA players are available more than ever. Shoot-around is a great time, it’s a little easier on the road when there’s less numbers, but if a reporter can develop a close enough relationship with a player, there’s no reason they can’t get the player to walk back to the hotel and grab a cup of coffee with them. It isn’t hard if they spend the time, then they’ll get all the access they need.”
Simmons mentions how athletes use of social media pretty much cuts out the middle man, specifically reporters. But, according to Lyons, “Athletesto fans is not new, it’s just changed. New used to be doing live interviews on radio, then it was TV, then color TV, then satellite and cable TV, now the Internet. Media are now more threatened and more defensive of their ‘turf’… they missed the boat, as they say, because they aren’t a dying breed. The Boston Globe reporters are now Boston.com reporters. Period.”
To answer the question, the access athletes and fans have to each other has evolved, and the way these mediums affect traditional sports media has changed, but the access is still there. Like Lyons suggests, access is still based on tried and true relationship building. Something social media can’t “box out”, it can only enhance, assuming traditional media embraces the changes.