Reaction, not Calhoun, embarrassing

Update: Connecticut politicians are now calling for punishment of UConn men's basketball coach Jim Calhoun.

Another day, another non-NFL post — this one also about sports media.

Because I’m at work, I’ll refer to the most recent The Associated Press story to explain the situation that interests me:

Krayeske, a freelancer and political activist, attended the game on a photo press pass and asked the first question of the coach's postgame news conference following a 64-50 win over South Florida. He asked why the coach of a public university was making $1.6 million while the state has a $944 million deficit and a projected $8 billion shortfall over the next two years.

Calhoun first responded with a joke, then grew angry as Krayeske continued the line of questioning.

"My best advice to you is, shut up," Calhoun said.

"Quite frankly, we bring in $12 million to the university, nothing to do with state funds," Calhoun shouted. "We make $12 million a year for this university. Get some facts and come back and see me. ... Don't throw out salaries and other things."

Calhoun has won two national titles at UConn. He is the state's highest-paid employee and is set to make $1.6 million in 2009-10, the final year of his contract.

I’ll also direct you to Hartford Courant columnist Jeff Jacobs’ look at the story (and more importantly, the video of Calhoun's response at the press conference).

I’ll try to make my points short and sweet.

1. Like Jacobs, I feel the question was fair but more appropriate for a different setting. Calhoun is provided to the media by the school at a postgame press conference to answer questions about UConn’s latest win, and not about his salary. If a non-sports topic (such as his salary) was previously in the news, and the subject hadn't publicly addressed it yet, I would be OK with the question in such an environment. Asking the question in this case, however, is rude to the reporters present who are facing a nightly deadline and looking for quotes about the game they just covered.

2. Calhoun certainly could have replied “No comment” and avoided any scene, but I don’t feel his response was inappropriate. He answered the question, and then accused the photographer of not understandings all the facts — i.e. Calhoun brings a significant amount of money to the school, and by extension the state of Connecticut. (It’s also worth noting that Calhoun’s claim that the men’s basketball program brings in $12 million is based on revenue, not profit. The Hartford Courant reports the team spends at least $6.1 million.)

3. The video wasn’t even remotely outrageous. Connecticut governor M. Jodi Rell said, “I think if Coach Calhoun had the opportunity right now, he would welcome a do-over and not have that embarrassing display from last week.” Maybe my perspective has changed because Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy’s infamous rant came only last year, but I expect my “embarrassing” displays to be, well, embarrassing.

Two quotes, or not two quotes?

Despite the NFL scouting combine and impending free agency, my first blog post after a lengthy hiatus was inspired by two Chicago Tribune pieces about the Chicago Bulls and the NBA trading deadline. And my interest isn't even about the story itself -- it's about the reporting.

Here's a quote from a Rick Morissey column:

"Because of the economics of the business, we could be sitting here a year from now at the trading deadline with some expiring contracts and some chips, and there may become a significant player available because a team's not going to be able to keep him," Paxson said.
"You don't know. We're looking at this as, there's a real chance given the state of the league right now that those type of deals may come about."

Here's the same quote (presumably) from a K.C. Johnson article:

"But because of the economics of the business now, we could be sitting here a year from now at the trade deadline with some expiring contracts, and there may be a significant player available because a team might not be able to keep him. There's a real chance given the state of the league now that those types of deals may come up."

We'll presume that both of these interpretations are from one quote given by Bulls general manager John Paxson, which both writers either directly transcribed and/or digitally recorded. That being said, there appears to be a reason people are keen to say that they were misquoted.

Using the first quote as a base, the second has several words that are either added or missing -- "now" "trading" "and some chips" "become" "is" "not going to" "right" "about" -- not including two intro sections that may have been excluded for stylistic reasons. That's 12 words, and the first base quote is 66 words long -- so approximately a 20 percent variance between the two.

I have noticed this phenomenon several times in the Tribune, particularly in their postgame Bears section, where the same quote may be repeated six to eight times across various stories and columns, with every piece including a slightly different recollection of the actual quote. Just as in the above example, those differences can be considered minor -- added or dropped prepositions (as long as it's not "not"), or innocuous synonyms.

This particular case stood out to me because the two quotes were situated less than six inches apart on the same page, making their differences readily apparent. As a current copy editor, and someone who has some experience reporting, I find the differences between the quotes appalling.

I'm not bothered, however, because the differences represent inaccuracies.

It's practically impossible to write down a quote with 100 percent accuracy, due to the difficulty of our brain processing past information (what they said, which you are writing down), current information (what they are saying, which you are listening to) and future information (what they will say, which you are naturally trying to predict) all at the same time.

The latter even accounts for many transcribing errors because there are common phrases that we expect people to say, which can cause reporters to record words that are never actually said. It even takes me two to four times to accurately transcribe as few as two sentences from a taped recording.

What annoys me is the fact that the Tribune sports department didn't take the time to portray the same quote in the same way. When under impending deadline, I can understand why the cross-checking process might not occur. In most cases, however, there is ample time to keep the quotes consistent, which demonstrates editorial oversight and limits accusations of fabricating quotes.

There are several journalistic philosophies about quotes, and I'm not arguing for or against any in particular. I just think that a publication should remain consistent with whichever policy they choose (which the Tribune may very well be doing by allowing their writers to have moderately free reign) and hope that the same quotes aren't represented differently out of laziness or ignorance.

Baugh, Tarkenton and Tebow

Will Tim Tebow, the University of Florida's star quarterback who already has two national chapionships and a Heisman Trophy on his resume, have a successful NFL career? We won't have any idea until at least 2010, because Tebow is returning to the Gators for his senior season.

Nevertheless, recently fired Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coach Jon Gruden, certainly thinks so.

While answering a question about the spread offense's viability in the NFL during an interview with the Orlando Sentinel, Gruden says:

No question. The hard part is, you have to isolate the option. That's why Tim Tebow is so interesting to me. He's like Brandon Jacobs playing quarterback. He's 250 pounds. He's the strongest human being who's ever played the position. Ever. He will kick the living [expletive] out of a defensive lineman. He'll fight anybody. He is rare. Tebow is the kind of guy who could revolutionize the game. He's the 'wildcat' who can throw. Most of the teams that have the wildcat back there, it's Ronnie Brown, it's Jerious Norwood, it's whoever you want to say it is. This guy here is 250 pounds of concrete cyanide, man. And he can throw. He throws well enough at any level to play quarterback.

I think it would be fascinating to see an NFL team (most likely a bad one) decide to adopt a college-style option or spread offense, simply to see if it could gain a foothold. But, a new coach trying to solidify his career has too much to lose, and a more experienced (theoretically, successful) coach has too little to gain, so it is unlikely we will see a seismic shift in the near future.

That being said, Tebow would be in rare company if he is able to prove Gruden right and revolutionize the professional game by utilizing his skill-set. So far, only two quarterbacks have really done that: Sammy Baugh and Fran Tarkenton, both Hall-of-Famers.

Sammy Baugh, Washington Redskins (1937-1952)
Baugh was an incredible all-around athlete -- in 1943, he led the league in passing, punting and interceptions -- but he revolutionized the game by popularizing the forward pass. Before Baugh, quarterbacks were expected to hand the ball off, or run with it themselves.

But Slingin' Sammy threw the ball, and he could throw it well. His success relative to his contemporaries is reflected in the fact that he led the league in passing yards six times (tied for first with Steve Young). Baugh finished his 16-year career with 187 touchdowns and more than 21,000 passing yards.

The Washington Post's Michael Wilbon recognized Baugh's contributions in a December 19, 2008, column printed shortly after the great quarterback's death.

The nickname may have come from his prowess on the pitching mound, but it fit the way he would play the quarterback position. Benny Friedman threw the football down the field in 1928 for the NFL Detroit Wolverines and 1929 for the New York Giants, but Baugh was the first to play the position as we know it today. "Baugh demonstrated," [NFL Films president Steve] Sabol said, "that the forward pass could be an effective weapon instead of an act of desperation."

Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota Vikings, New York Giants (1961-1978)
Football is a game of cycles and Tarkenton revived the rushing quarterback, which Baugh had so prominently discarded. NFL Films declared Tarkenton the top mobile quarterback of all-time, largely because he pioneered the role.



Scrambing' Fran finished his 18-year career as the top passing (47,003 yards and 342 touchdowns) and top rushing (3,673 yards, 32 touchdowns) quarterback in the NFL. Thirty years after his retirement, only three quarterbacks -- Randall Cunningham, Steve Young and Michael Vick -- have surpassed his rushing totals.

Tim Tebow, Class of 2010
Currently, every quarterback in the NFL falls into one of two categories: A pocket-passer (a la Baugh) or a scrambler (a la Tarkenton). The vast majority are the former, simply because it is hard to stay healthy outside the pocket.

When Tebow joins the NFL, he has the opportunity to blur the lines. Tebow will never be a Hall of Fame quarterback, but he has the size to withstand punishment and his versatility could make him a viable dual threat. I don't think any team will use him as a starting quarterback, but having him split time (much as he did in his freshman season behind Chris Leak) and line up in a variety of positions, could pose serious matchup problems.

Sports Illustrated's Tim Layden captures the uncertainty of the Tim Tebow experiement well in a January column, writing "The NFL is fascinated with Tebow because he represents a potential evolutionary step in offensive professional football. (Emphasis here on potential because it's all a guessing game at this point.)"

Patriots mastermind Bill Belichick is rumored to be interested in Tebow, and I think that would be the most intriguing fit. Tebow is deified in college football, but will likely never be a star in the NFL. Belichick, however, is a throwback -- he has recently playcalled drop kicks and quick kicks, and many players contribute from positions on both sides of the ball -- and the team-first attitude he espouses might be the perfect remedy if Tebow falls back to earth.

Psychology vs. Super Bowl XLIII

There has been plenty of speculation in the media that Super Bowl XLIII, won by Pittsburgh 27-23 over Arizona, is the greatest Super Bowl ever. The day after the game, Sports Illustrated's Don Banks wrote "Snap judgments require making quick, rapid-fire assessments, but I think even upon further review, with lots of time to mull things over, I'd still come to the same remarkable conclusion: We just witnessed the best Super Bowl in history."

I hesitate to immediately bestow it that honor, however, while recognizing that the game was certainly an exciting one.

My main concern? The recency effect. The psychology term is used to explain the fact that people remember items at the ends of lists more clearly than those in the middle. There is also a primacy effect, which explains why items at the beginnings of lists are also remembered more readily.

A quick experiment, with answers at the bottom of this post:

Name the first three presidents. Name the last three presidents. Name the 13th through 15th presidents. Name the first three Super Bowl winners. Name the last three Super Bowl winners. Name the 13th through 15th Super Bowl winners. I can guess what set was most difficult to recall.

Essentially, it's easier to remember either sides of these lists because when remembering information, we have to start somewhere. Our brains need some sort of touchstone, and it is easy to understand why the most recent Super Bowl would be the simplest to remember. We can then work backwards from there fairly easily. (I can get through the last 15 or so, because the first Super Bowl I remember caring about was between Denver and Green Bay, in 1997).

If I gave you some more information -- like, Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president -- you will use that as a touchstone, and perhaps work backwards from there. It's much easier than starting at No. 1 and working your way up, or starting at No. 44 and working your way back.

All this to say, that I think the media is suffering from the recency effect when so quickly labeling the Steelers-Cardinals game as the best Super Bowl ever. As ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons wrote the day after the game:

(Note to anyone playing the "greatest ever" card -- we quickly overrate the Super Bowl every time it's good. Settle down. The fourth quarter wasn't any more exciting than the Panthers-Pats game. Fitzgerald's long TD wasn't any more or less exciting than Isaac Bruce's long TD that won the Rams-Titans game. The ending wasn't any more dramatic than Bills-Giants or Niners-Bengals II. Let the record show that this game sucked for three solid quarters except for the Harrison play.)

I disagree with Simmons on the point that the game sucked for three solid quarters except for the Harrison play, and may elaborate in a later post. Simmons' broader point, however, is a good one. (He does accidentally, however, suggest that while individual pieces of this year's Super Bowl can be compared to those in past games, that the collective whole may be incomparable.)

If we could substitute any worthy candidate of "The Best Super Bowl Ever" designation with Sunday's Super Bowl, our opinions would likely change. A strong example? Imagine if we had just witnessed the Rams defeat the Titans 23-16 with Tennessee wide receiver Kevin Dyson futily reaching toward the end zone as time expired. Would that certainly not be considered the best Super Bowl ever, with the Steelers-Cardinals fourth-quarter shootout 10 years in the past?

I do need to point out that the most recent Super Bowl could indeed be the most exciting ever. Simply because it is the most recent doesn't change the nature of the game itself. I am just offering the idea that we need to approach the subject with a little more caution. I will follow my own advice, and offer up my personal opinion at a time further removed from the actual event.

Recency effect answers:
First three presidents: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson
Last three presidents: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton
13th through 15th presidents: Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan

First three Super Bowl winners: Green Bay Packers, Packers, New York Jets
Last three Super Bowl winners: Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Giants, Indianapolis Colts
13th through 15th Super Bowl winners: Steelers, Steelers, Oakland Raiders

Super Bowl XLIII Prediction

Update: Steelers 27, Cardinals 23. MVP: Steelers wide receiver Santonio Holmes (nine catches, 131 yards, game-winning touchdown). I thought I had a chance for quite the prediction when the Steelers were winning 20-16 with four minutes remaining, and James Harrison's game-changing 100-yard interception return likely enough to secure him the MVP.

I have been abdicating my blogging duties this week, and for that I apologize. Hopefully, I won't have to apologize in three hours for my Super Bowl pick.

It is certainly cliche to say, but I can see this game going either way. But in this sense -- I think it's equally as probable that the Cardinals win or that the Steelers win by 21, if they start forcing turnovers and Kurt Warner starts getting desperate.

I am a big Warner fan, and I don't think he's ever really had a bad game in the playoffs. He's played in two Super Bowls and holds first and second place for most passing yards in the Super Bowl, winning one MVP in the process.

Let's not overlook the Steelers, though. I read that they would have been favored in the Super Bowl against any team, and I think they're certainly better than the Falcons and the Eagles, and comparable to the Panthers (the three teams Arizona has defeated in the playoffs).

My pick? Pittsburgh 19, Arizona 17, with Steelers linebacker James Harrison the MVP.