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

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.

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.

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 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.