Delete This Account Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I don't know why people complain about radio guys whose job it is is to get people to complain. And for the record, I have complete contempt for, and simultaneous utter love for, all nasty miserable Bills fans everywhere. It's who we are, especially when we lose, which is always. At least for the last decade. The reason this board is so great is not because of the John from Hemets, even though we love the guy for his relentless optimism, it's for fearless leader SDS and Alaska Darin and DC Tom and LABillz and 100 other people's snide and often nasty remarks, caustic, often LOL funny smartassinations. Sure, everyone likes good solid football chalktalk, but there is only so much good solid analysis one can get, especially during the off season. I am only speaking for myself here but the reason this board separates itself from the others of its kind, is the quality of its nastiness and negativism as much as its quality of chalktalk. I think this comes close to Ans' definition of being edgy positive, but I could be wrong. jw "smartassinate" that's funny.
Peevo Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I don't know why people complain about radio guys whose job it is is to get people to complain. And for the record, I have complete contempt for, and simultaneous utter love for, all nasty miserable Bills fans everywhere. It's who we are, especially when we lose, which is always. At least for the last decade. The reason this board is so great is not because of the John from Hemets, even though we love the guy for his relentless optimism, it's for fearless leader SDS and Alaska Darin and DC Tom and LABillz and 100 other people's snide and often nasty remarks, caustic, often LOL funny smartassinations. Sure, everyone likes good solid football chalktalk, but there is only so much good solid analysis one can get, especially during the off season. I am only speaking for myself here but the reason this board separates itself from the others of its kind, is the quality of its nastiness and negativism as much as its quality of chalktalk. Totally correct. It's May. Spring has sprung! Go out running. Throw a ball around, shoot some pucks, go to the park and play basketball for free. Go to the gym. Beach. Fish. Good bands are playing here, very soon on Thursdays also for free. There's tons of stuff to do. Football will be there in like 4 months when im depressed summer is over. How much can we get over the ins and outs of the Tampa 2 scheme and the efficacy of 3 down linemen versus 4 and the possibility of a Tackle to Guard transition and blah blah blah when its really nice out? Its sports-radio, yes, but that doesn't mean its good radio if its always about sports 24/7. That'd be dry as Hillary Clinton. Some of the best programming on S & B is when they do totally unsportsrelated stuff. The Presidential Mock draft around election time was AMAZING. This is coming from a political science major, but I love talking U.S. Presidents. The Ulta Mock draft was also hilarious. People gotta stop taking this stuff so seriously. And if you do, then go into the TREMENDOUSLY competitive broadcasting field and show Andy Roth just how much better a job on the radio you can do.
Delete This Account Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 John, Others will probably chime in to yay or nay me, but I only recall reading a few posters in this thread saying they were listening when Schopp said what the OP brought up. So I don't think we are disproving our point. I think a fair amount of people will agree this thread is so large because it is not just a few that dislike Schopp's performances. I also think people would listen again if things changed. By the way John, how often do you listen to the show in question? Skip Like him or hate him, Mike Schopp does have a polarizing influence, and that in his line of work isn't a bad thing. Same could be said about Lurker, but I'd rather not fuel an already disproportionate ego. Oops, too late. As for listening to the show, I'll tune in if I'm in the car and get a taste of what's being discussed. If I like it, I'll keep it on, if not, I'll switch to whatever's in my CD player. Currently, it's Uncle Tupelo's Greatest Hits. That said, I don't listen to radio all that often, and the only station I do listen to regularly is 'GR to get a sense of what's going on. jw
ans4e64 Posted May 6, 2009 Author Posted May 6, 2009 I don't know why people complain about radio guys whose job it is is to get people to complain. And for the record, I have complete contempt for, and simultaneous utter love for, all nasty miserable Bills fans everywhere. It's who we are, especially when we lose, which is always. At least for the last decade. The reason this board is so great is not because of the John from Hemets, even though we love the guy for his relentless optimism, it's for fearless leader SDS and Alaska Darin and DC Tom and LABillz and 100 other people's snide and often nasty remarks, caustic, often LOL funny smartassinations. Sure, everyone likes good solid football chalktalk, but there is only so much good solid analysis one can get, especially during the off season. I am only speaking for myself here but the reason this board separates itself from the others of its kind, is the quality of its nastiness and negativism as much as its quality of chalktalk. I don't have a problem with people complaining so much as I do about WHY they are complaining. Hell, you've been around this board long enough to know I reply with a snide remark to almost everything myself. If someone (like Sully) wants to be negative and complain all the time because they love the Bills and they're frustrated, and they just want to see the Bills do right for once, and win more than anything, then fine. Their anger and frustration is caused because they are sick of losing, and actually want the Bills to win and do well. But when someone (like Schopp) wants to be negative and complain all the time because it's his job to cover a team he doesn't like, so he is in a miserable mood all the time, that is a problem. There is a place for people like Sully.
ans4e64 Posted May 6, 2009 Author Posted May 6, 2009 I think this comes close to Ans' definition of being edgy positive, but I could be wrong. jw "smartassinate" that's funny. I thought someone in your circles would know what the word positive means, and what the word edgy means, and might even be able to put the two together to form a meaning. Obviously, I was stretching.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I don't have a problem with people complaining so much as I do about WHY they are complaining. Hell, you've been around this board long enough to know I reply with a snide remark to almost everything myself. If someone (like Sully) wants to be negative and complain all the time because they love the Bills and they're frustrated, and they just want to see the Bills do right for once, and win more than anything, then fine. Their anger and frustration is caused because they are sick of losing, and actually want the Bills to win and do well. But when someone (like Schopp) wants to be negative and complain all the time because it's his job to cover a team he doesn't like, so he is in a miserable mood all the time, that is a problem. There is a place for people like Sully. I agree with just about all of that. The only part I would add is that we are talking about slightly different mediums. Sully is a columnist for a newspaper. His job is to give his honest opinions about the topics he's assigned to cover, and then to "sell newspapers". The more people talk about him, good or bad, love him or hate him, the better. He's read and he's discussed so he is good at his job. Talk radio is a little different because of the interchange and immediacy. Schopp is also supposed to give his opinions about the topics, and "get ratings", and the more people talk about him the better -- BUT -- it helps more in radio to be a nasty bastard than it does in the newspaper business. People that call into their shows love to B word as much as the hosts. If Schopp were nicer, he would be a worse host not a better one, because he doesn't have the sports or football knowledge to carry on a serious discussion for a few hours. He's doing his job, which is to get listeners and get callers and get ratings. That's his job. In Sully's case, it wouldn't really matter. He could be just as successful being more optimistic as pessimistic if he is a good writer and columnist. He's just calling 'em as he sees 'em.
Delete This Account Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I thought someone in your circles would know what the word positive means, and what the word edgy means, and might even be able to put the two together to form a meaning. Obviously, I was stretching. god have mercy. that's what i meant. kelly's comments were edgy but also relatively positive. edgy positive. it's not an easy thing to do and i thought kelly might have captured this elusive thing because it's a careful line to walk for any columnist. so to explain: i was actually agreeing with you. jw ADD: and for those wondering why i've got so much time on my hands, i'm waiting for the people to come to clean out our outdoor drains. they said after 1, which of course means, 4.
Watching since 1964 Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 People gotta stop taking this stuff so seriously. And if you do, then go into the TREMENDOUSLY competitive broadcasting field and show Andy Roth just how much better a job on the radio you can do. Many us who do or don't listen to that show do many other things this time of year...and all year round. We know the OP liked Schopp. He didn't like his negativity towards covering our NFL team 2 Mondays ago ( I guess it was) especially with the draft ending the day before. To me at least, it seems counter intuitive for the leading sports talk radio station to have a host complaining about covering the team that is the #1 reason people listen to the station. Regarding your last statement... I think they are plenty of people who dislike the show that could do a better job than S & B if they entered the field of sports broadcasting. Like politics though, at all levels of government, some of the best people for the job choose to do something else. And some better broadcasters than S & B could ever be aren't the 'flavor' Entercom wants or perhaps at the price Entercom wants to pay. Too bad, its very within the realm of possibilities they could get a larger audience hence more ad dollars.
bbb Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Totally correct. It's May. Spring has sprung! Go out running. Throw a ball around, shoot some pucks, go to the park and play basketball for free. Go to the gym. Beach. Fish. Good bands are playing here, very soon on Thursdays also for free. There's tons of stuff to do. Football will be there in like 4 months when im depressed summer is over. How much can we get over the ins and outs of the Tampa 2 scheme and the efficacy of 3 down linemen versus 4 and the possibility of a Tackle to Guard transition and blah blah blah when its really nice out? Its sports-radio, yes, but that doesn't mean its good radio if its always about sports 24/7. That'd be dry as Hillary Clinton. Some of the best programming on S & B is when they do totally unsportsrelated stuff. The Presidential Mock draft around election time was AMAZING. This is coming from a political science major, but I love talking U.S. Presidents. The Ulta Mock draft was also hilarious. People gotta stop taking this stuff so seriously. And if you do, then go into the TREMENDOUSLY competitive broadcasting field and show Andy Roth just how much better a job on the radio you can do. Ding ding! We have a winner!.......Thanks to everyone for playing. I'm going to try to see if they archived the presidential draft. I missed that. I love the games like that - the old movie, game, the ultra mock draft, etc.
Lurker Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 He's just calling 'em as he sees 'em. With the perfect world view for Buffalo sports fans. OK, here comes Wawrow in 3...2...1...
Adam Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 To me at least, it seems counter intuitive for the leading sports talk radio station to have a host complaining about covering the team that is the #1 reason people listen to the station. Regarding your last statement... I think they are plenty of people who dislike the show that could do a better job than S & B if they entered the field of sports broadcasting. I disagree on both counts 1. The more you agitate the fan base and make them upset about something, the more they listen- sports fans aren't the brightest bulbs 2. OK, put a fan on the radio instead......we can count up all the "dead" time where nothing is being said
Watching since 1964 Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I disagree on both counts 1. The more you agitate the fan base and make them upset about something, the more they listen- sports fans aren't the brightest bulbs 2. OK, put a fan on the radio instead......we can count up all the "dead" time where nothing is being said # 1 Controversial opinions backed up with sound reasoning, fine. I have heard Schopp do that sometimes. Be rude to people, condescending, talk ad nauseam about your own uninteresting life; this thread has proven a number of people have tuned out. Now some listeners aren't bothered by S & B. Some people like WGR 55 as it is. I accept that. #2 I didn't say put just any fan on the radio, did I? "I think they are plenty of people who dislike the show that could do a better job than S & B if they entered the field of sports broadcasting." When I said enter the field of sports broadcasting, I didn't mean grab anyone off the street. Obviously some education and training in the field is required. It ain't rocket science but boy if someone set out to learn all they could about the game of hockey and football from some people that have played and/or coached at a high level, one would think it would really improve the level of sports conversation on that show. I had to deal with engineers in my job and not being one, I took every opportunity I could to glean as much info from them as possible. It took awhile but eventually I could talk intelligently about what they did. This is not meant to be a personal shot at either one of them, but I happen to believe that just because S & B are on the air, it doesn't mean they are great at what they do. Some of us think it is a very reasonable request to elevate the show to a higher level. We'll see what happens.
bbb Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Speaking of Schoop's personal life, he talked quite a bit about adopting a baby about 6-8 weeks ago. Then, I never heard him mention it again, and the things he has talked about as far as socializing goes didn't sound like what newborn parents would be doing.....Does anybody know if things are OK on that front?
Kingfish Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Speaking of Schoop's personal life, he talked quite a bit about adopting a baby about 6-8 weeks ago. Then, I never heard him mention it again, and the things he has talked about as far as socializing goes didn't sound like what newborn parents would be doing.....Does anybody know if things are OK on that front? I think the kids biological parents flaked out and Schopp had to give him back.
Lori Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I think the kids biological parents flaked out and Schopp had to give him back. I might choose a different phrase than "flaked out," but yes, the birth parents did change their minds, and the Schopps made the incredibly difficult decision to return the child to them. That must have been truly heartwrenching, and my thoughts are with them. If it's all the same, though, can we discuss the radio show without including his personal life? No good can come of that.
Watching since 1964 Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Ok I'll help get your 20. The Monday show on si.com following the first Sunday Night Football game broadcast last season Dan Patrick said this on his webcast... "It felt so good to have makeup on again!" lol
bbb Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I might choose a different phrase than "flaked out," but yes, the birth parents did change their minds, and the Schopps made the incredibly difficult decision to return the child to them. That must have been truly heartwrenching, and my thoughts are with them. If it's all the same, though, can we discuss the radio show without including his personal life? No good can come of that. I agree, Lori, and I wouldn't have brought it up, but Mike made it a big part of the show when they first adopted the child. Since it was part of the show, I thought it was OK to ask..........That really is heartwrenching. I feel so bad for them, and was afraid that that is what happened, when I haven't heard him talk at all about it anymore.
Lori Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Understood, bbb, which is part of the reason I gave you a straight answer. (That, and to head off any speculation.) And if nothing else, perhaps it might remind some people that whether they love or hate him, the guy is more than a disembodied voice on the radio. I should add: most of the people posting in this thread have stayed away from making personal attacks, and I thank you for that.
Watching since 1964 Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 And if nothing else, perhaps it might remind some people that whether they love or hate him, the guy is more than a disembodied voice on the radio. A good thing I think to for hosts of call in shows like these to keep in mind is a number of listeners and callers are people whom sadly have also had some real bad things happen to them and their families. I am not minimizing what happened, but some folks obviously have had far worse things inflicted on them than what we're discussing... You never know what the person on the other end of the phone is going through or has gone through.
Recommended Posts