I don’t know if this has been covered before, but what does everyone think about D. Miller in the box for Monday Night Football? Personally, I thought he was very good. He needs to lose the script; however, when he improvised, he was excellent. Do you think he will stick, do you think he is too boring, or do you think he’ll get fired because of his references to Pi, Nietzsche, and the like?
I was surprised at how good he was. Usually when actors/comedians(sp?) try to change jobs things go terribly wrong but he did a very good job.
I thought he did good, but I laughed more when I saw that people didn’t get his jokes.
Does everyone remember the code word for fuck?
I think he deserves a chance. There are so many horrible sportscasters running around that having someone who’s well-educated and has a pretty good grasp of what’s actually funny is a relief.
I never understood what was the big deal about his comedy routines, anyway. I think he makes a lot more sense than some of the professional journalists on cable TV right now.
Up front: I’m a football fanatic, which means I’d watch Monday Night Football even if Harvey Fierstein and Judy Tenuta were the announcers. Hey, I endured Howard Cosell for years, so I’m quite capable of ignoring moronic announcers. SO are most football die-hards. And that’s precisely why the selection of Dennis Miller makes sense. SERIOUS sports fans like me don’t really care who the announcer is. But MAYBE, just maybe, the right announcer can attract an audience that ISN’T rabidly addicted to football.
Now, let’s face facts: VERY few ex-jock announcers are utterly terrible. Boomer Esiaison wasn’t brilliant, but he wasn’t repulsive. He was NOT the problem with Monday Night Football last year- the problem is NFL parity! All kinds of matchups that must have looked GREAT last summer turned out to be terrible games. Nobody knew that Denver, the Falcons and the 49ers would stink, and nobody knew the Rams, Colts and Titans would be great. Bad matchups hurt the ratings last year, not Boomer.
Still, even though few ex-jocks are terrible, few are really good. Boomer, Dan Dierdorf, Dan Fouts, Phil Simms, Randy Cross, etc. are nice guys, bright guys, articulate guys, and they all know 100 times more about football than I do. And yet NONE of them has EVER told me a single thing about football that I didn’t already know! Most ex-jocks are more concerned about in staying popular among players than about offering interesting opinions or teaching me about the game.
Since MOST ex-jocks are a waste, I like the idea of someone like Dennis Miller. A color commentator can do either of two things: inform me, or entertain me. IF Dennis Miller gives me a few laughs this season, he’ll have accomplished more than Dan Dierdorf did in all his years at ABC.
That said, I saw Dennis Miller’s debut… and while he didn’t stink, I was a little disappointed. He made me laugh a few times, but his jokes were too obviously scripted, and he wasn’t quite comfortable with the format. I expect he’ll get better with practice.
I like the CONCEPT of a comedian in the booth. Time will tell if Dennis Miller is the right one. Sports require someone who can ad lib, and come up with interesting observations on the spot. I don’t know yet if ad libbing and improvising is a strength of Miller’s.
I totally agree with Astorian, parity is a significant problem in the NFL. I don’t know if it is better or worse than the pre-salaray cap NFL since teams like New Orleans or St. Louis generally had no chance. (I think that was a huge problem And I’m a Cowboy fan)
However, I think you are the first person I’ve ever heard that said Diedorf is brilliant. Now, I don’t know the gauy, and I’m sure he knows football like no other, but on the air, that guy came across as the dumbest guy ever (with the possible exception of Gifford, but he was hit so hard, he couldn’t play for a year–so I guess he falls under the Amer. with Disabilities Act.)
IMHO, the only national sportscasters worth a damn in sports these days are Costas and Michaels. I hope Miller gives Michaels a color man of some substance.
sorry about the speling, I didn’t bother to re-read the post.
Johnny Unitas was an announcer for a time, and basically what he said was “That was a great play X ran there” or “that wasn’t a very good play” so he didn’t last long.
My first gripe with Miller is that he seemed to think it was funny that he didn’t know an (albeit somewhat obscure) rule in football about going out of bounds and coming back in. There was a play on a punt where someone was flagged for doing that, and he basically said “I have NO idea what just happened.”
I will admit, though, he wasn’t as terrible as I thought he would be . . . I kinda pity him, y’know?
BTW, the code word for fuck is golly.
I watched that game, and AFAIR, that was the official’s fuckup and not Miller’s. The guy must have corrected himself 3 times when announcing the penalty, and then ended up calling it on a guy who didn’t exist. In the 2 or so seconds of silence between the field mike being cut off and Miller’s line, I remember thinking “What the FUCK just happened here?” And I know that rule.
Can’t wait until Monday to see how he does with a game that should be much more interesting.
I totally agree with Astorian, parity is a significant problem in the NFL. I don’t know if it is better or worse than the pre-salaray cap NFL since teams like New Orleans or St. Louis generally had no chance. (I think that was a huge problem And I’m a Cowboy fan)
=-=-=-=-=-
The fact that any team in the NFL, with decent drafting, solid organization and a good free agency plan, can win the Super Bowl legitimizes it as a sport. What matters isn’t the number of people who live in your city and how much the TV package is worth.
Dynasties are great when it’s your team doing the arse-kicking. I’ve never bought the argument that having a few established “elite” teams over the long haul creates better matchups. It makes for some great games, sure, when those teams eventually play each other, but when those “elite” teams are playing the losers, who wants to watch that game? Parity makes for a better overall product. Ask a Giants fan how much fun it was to see Kent Graham and the boys end the Broncos’ unbeaten streak a couple of seasons ago. Meanwhile, ask a Royals or Expos fan how it feels to be out of it by June. Steinbrenner and Turner haven’t had to make a real baseball decision for years now, and seeing the same 8 teams (oh, right, I guess it’ll be Seattle instead of Texas this year YAY) in the playoffs each year because they’re able to purchase whatever help they need is disgusting. If football became that way it would be just as repulsive.
Whoever is picking games for Monday Night Football either needs to get a better grasp of how teams are going to perform in the upcoming year or else discern a way to change the lineup for the second half of the season. Putting all their eggs into a few baskets isn’t great either. If I remember right, the Falcons were on three times last year. It didn’t take a genius to know that a large portion of that team’s success was due to the fact that Chris Chandler finally made it through an entire season. You have to allow for the fact that he’ll probably get hammered and miss games the next season, with a corresponding decrease in the quality of football the Falcons are going to be able to produce. Having them there for Week 2 against the Cowboys was a good move. Having them in Week 17 against a Niner team that couldn’t help but suck was not. It doesn’t require Nostradamus to be on the payroll, just some common sense and someone other than Generic Marketing Weasel ™ picking the games.
MNF is still clinging to the idea that teams that were good last year will dominate this year. That worked in 1975. In 2000, not so much.
What would really help them would be announcing the first 8 games of the season immediately and then seeing how the season plays out from there for the last 9 weeks. Then, as those “wild-card” weeks approach, move a game from Sunday to Monday. If Cleveland and San Diego are battling it out for AFC home field advantage in Week 15 this year you now have a chance to feature that matchup – even though no-one would have predicted them to be “worthy” of national exposure beforehand. The down side of that is that people have lives to live and may not be able to adjust their schedules from a Sunday-to-Monday switch unless given enough lead time (or, at all).
The game itself is nigh perfect. The downer to some of last season’s MNF games was the lack of any playoff buzz for featured teams – the games themselves were still fun to watch. There were just no consequences of the contests. The NFL, in my opinion, continues to be the model league that in a perfect world, the other big three sports would be emulating. Getting better matchups for a national audience can realistically be done with nothing more than some old-fashioned hard work.