TO is filming in Niagara Falls tonight at 7:30

[Lori]

well, you saw fit to drop a comma right after generation ...

i kid, i kid. couldn't resist.

 

jw

 

ADD: what i do find remarkable is how much attention T.O. is, in fact, getting across the continent this week. in my first nine years here in Buffalo, rarely did anyone e-mail me to point out that a bylined piece of mine showed up in their local paper.

this week, i got e-mails from friends informing me they read my T.O. minicamp/key to the city piece in the Globe and Mail. the next day, another friend informed me my T.O. house-hunting piece landed in the Vancouver Sun.

 

sure i'm in the business and understand how it works, but i'm fascinated by the attention this one athlete is capable of drawing. michael jordan and tiger woods -- gretzky to a slightly lesser degree -- are the only two athletes, whom i've covered, who immediately come to mind to have had this ability.

A question along those lines, if I may. The three other athletes you cite are all recognized as among the very greatest to ever play their sport, certainly in the top two or three of all time. I wouldn't put Owens on a top-five-WRs-of-all-time list. So how much of his celebrity is manufactured, either by him or by the "infotainment" sector of our business?

 

And it's good to hear that your byline is getting out there. It's about time people outside Buffalo know who's been churning out all that copy.

[ricojes]

FYI - A friend of mines parents live next door to a Bed & Breakfast on Park Place in downtown Niagara Falls. He claims that TO & Company will be filming a portion of his VH1 show there tonight at 7:30pm.

Is VH1 still hiring people to bulk up the crowds for TO, as they did at the Buffalo airport?

[Delete This Account]

A question along those lines, if I may. The three other athletes you cite are all recognized as among the very greatest to ever play their sport, certainly in the top two or three of all time. I wouldn't put Owens on a top-five-WRs-of-all-time list. So how much of his celebrity is manufactured, either by him or by the "infotainment" sector of our business?

Good question. Keep in mind, Jordan and Gretzky played at a time when the media, in my opinion, was less celebrity-centric in some ways. Not to say characters didn't garner attention, going back to Mark "The Bird" Fydrich and "The Fridge." And there was always ABC's "Superstars" show, which is now being revived and Billy Jean King versus Bobby Riggs, events that were manufactured to create a buzz.

And Jordan and Gretzky sure got their due, but in a less media cross-over way.

 

T.O. is the athlete that has for various reasons taken it to another level, arriving at a time when ESPN was adding channels, the Internet was getting its legs and TMZ became a part of our lexicon. Owens had the right makeup to capture everyone's attention to cover all of those bases. It helps, of course, that he's a good quote, too, and not fearful of stating his opinion.

 

(And I always raise my eyebrows when people in my line of work knock an athlete for being a good quote or providing his/her piece of mind. Blowhards or not, good talkers make my job much easier.)

 

That said, Owens wouldn't have lasted this long in the limelight if not for his on-field success as a receiver. And I'll make certain comparisons, Anna Kornikova, was an OK tennis player, but rated more attention, I think, because of her looks. Dennis Rodman was a great player in his day, but once he left the Bulls, I think his star began to fade.

Owens, so far, has maintained his profile because his play has not dropped off. He's the rare athlete, I think, that has the personality with the skills to still back up his A-list luster.

Ocho Cinco comes to mind, but to a lesser degree, unable to so far match Owens' staying power.

 

Having now seen T.O. practice up close, I'm impressed in how in shape he is. He is one of the most agile athletes I've seen, and he's 35. It's something to just see him gallop full speed on a route even when the ball isn't going his way.

 

That's not to say that he belongs in the Jordan/Gretzky/Woods category as premier players. For one, Owens hasn't won a Super Bowl. But I think the public sometimes overlooks his ability because it's overshadowed by the mega persona. And I do think, if healthy, Owens will help this offense.

 

jw

[ricojes]

That's not to say that he belongs in the Jordan/Gretzky/Woods category as premier players. For one, Owens hasn't won a Super Bowl. But I think the public sometimes overlooks his ability because it's overshadowed by the mega persona. And I do think, if healthy, Owens will help this offense.

Well why do you think he signed with Buffalo? To resolve that issue, of course....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lori]

Good question. Keep in mind, Jordan and Gretzky played at a time when the media, in my opinion, was less celebrity-centric in some ways. Not to say characters didn't garner attention, going back to Mark "The Bird" Fydrich and "The Fridge." And there was always ABC's "Superstars" show, which is now being revived and Billy Jean King versus Bobby Riggs, events that were manufactured to create a buzz.

And Jordan and Gretzky sure got their due, but in a less media cross-over way.

 

T.O. is the athlete that has for various reasons taken it to another level, arriving at a time when ESPN was adding channels, the Internet was getting its legs and TMZ became a part of our lexicon. Owens had the right makeup to capture everyone's attention to cover all of those bases. It helps, of course, that he's a good quote, too, and not fearful of stating his opinion.

 

(And I always raise my eyebrows when people in my line of work knock an athlete for being a good quote or providing his/her piece of mind. Blowhards or not, good talkers make my job much easier.)

 

That said, Owens wouldn't have lasted this long in the limelight if not for his on-field success as a receiver. And I'll make certain comparisons, Anna Kornikova, was an OK tennis player, but rated more attention, I think, because of her looks. Dennis Rodman was a great player in his day, but once he left the Bulls, I think his star began to fade.

Owens, so far, has maintained his profile because his play has not dropped off. He's the rare athlete, I think, that has the personality with the skills to still back up his A-list luster.

Ocho Cinco comes to mind, but to a lesser degree, unable to so far match Owens' staying power.

 

Having now seen T.O. practice up close, I'm impressed in how in shape he is. He is one of the most agile athletes I've seen, and he's 35. It's something to just see him gallop full speed on a route even when the ball isn't going his way.

 

That's not to say that he belongs in the Jordan/Gretzky/Woods category as premier players. For one, Owens hasn't won a Super Bowl. But I think the public sometimes overlooks his ability because it's overshadowed by the mega persona. And I do think, if healthy, Owens will help this offense.

 

jw

Thanks, John. True, he's certainly no Kournikova or Rodman. It's just interesting to see ESPN et al. keep moving toward celebrity-driven coverage instead of actually, y'know, covering games and such.

(Tim, if you read this, nothing personal. I'm speaking mostly about the broadcast side.)

 

When people ask me what I think about the deal, I have to admit that the Bills did need an upgrade at WR, and he was by far the best guy out there. I'm not worried about him coming in out of shape or not working hard; those have never been issues with him. If he stays happy -- and that's the big if in my mind -- this could end up being a brilliant football move, to go along with the marketing windfall that's already paying massive dividends. If not ... well, we've seen that before, too.

 

And he certainly does make your job more interesting ...

[Dan]

Thanks, John. True, he's certainly no Kournikova or Rodman. It's just interesting to see ESPN et al. keep moving toward celebrity-driven coverage instead of actually, y'know, covering games and such.

(Tim, if you read this, nothing personal. I'm speaking mostly about the broadcast side.)

 

When people ask me what I think about the deal, I have to admit that the Bills did need an upgrade at WR, and he was by far the best guy out there. I'm not worried about him coming in out of shape or not working hard; those have never been issues with him. If he stays happy -- and that's the big if in my mind -- this could end up being a brilliant football move, to go along with the marketing windfall that's already paying massive dividends. If not ... well, we've seen that before, too.

 

And he certainly does make your job more interesting ...

I think that's driven by demand. As many of us here think ESPN should be about sports, or MTV play music videos, or News stations actually report News; there are many more people out there that more interested in the gossippy, celebrity-driven fluff. I'd be willing to bet that ESPN has mountains of data indicating that their most watched programs are the obnoxious ones with pundits screaming about this or that; hence that's what they provide.

 

Those of us that just want factual, intelligent reporting and programming need to just realize that we are in the minority.

 

I agree, regarding TO. My question is... if the Bills were able to sign Coles, would they have gone after TO? I know its been suggested by numerous people that signing TO was a great PR move by the team. But, I'm more of the opinion that that's a corollary effect to the Bills needing a WR and TO becoming available with few options available for either the team or TO.

[Lori]

Valid points all the way around, Dan.

[Delete This Account]

Thanks, John. True, he's certainly no Kournikova or Rodman. It's just interesting to see ESPN et al. keep moving toward celebrity-driven coverage instead of actually, y'know, covering games and such.

Keep in mind, I think there's always been a celebrity-driven aspect to sports, going back to Babe Ruth's days. That's essentially what we do. We focus most of our time covering athletes who are known to the public. No offense to, say, John Wendling, who seems like a good guy. But in my line of work, if I wrote about Wendling on Monday and not T.O., then I'd have someone calling me 2 seconds after I pushed the file button. Maybe sooner.

 

Heck, Donte Whitner saying he expected charges to be dropped were a distant second that day.

 

In any given week, if I have a choice between leading with a known player or starter -- T.O., Trent, Lee, Stroud, Schobel (and you all know who I'm referring to here, without having to insert both names) -- or a backup, then I'd go with the name players, naturally, even if the backup provided me with a better quote in many cases. Of course there are some exceptions, but a backup or role player better have a compelling story in order to merit national attention.

 

So, I don't know if ESPN is the only one moving in that direction, and I don't know whether "moving" is the apt verb. TV, by its very nature, has for a long time been a celebrity-making machine going back to JFK's debate against Nixon.

 

It's no different, I think, with the regular fan in some cases, a reason why there's still many Jim Kelly jerseys spotted at games, and why I'm sure we'll be seeing far more T.O. jerseys than -- to continue using the comparison -- Wendling this fall.

Simply judge the action on this board alone. It was big "news" last week when -- if I recall correctly -- Wendling was the subject of two separate threads. No one blinks an eye when that T.O. has five going at the same time.

 

It might be a chicken-and-the-egg type thing, but I don't think the media is capable of "creating" a star without the public buying in at some point to provide some long-term validation. It happened during the radio payola scandals in the 1960s, when bought-off "hits" only went so far in comparison to public demand. And the same might just apply to athletes.

 

The media can attempt to label an athlete as "the next big thing," but I think the public has a big say in it, too.

 

jw

[Lori]

Can't disagree with any of that. Just for kicks, I pulled this up:

 

The Lycos 50 Top 10 Search Terms for 2008 are:
1)   Poker				   6)  Britney Spears
2)   Paris Hilton			7)  Clay Aiken
3)   YouTube				 8)  Pamela Anderson
4)   Golf					9)  Facebook
5)   Sarah Palin			10)  Holly Madison

 

Games, celebutantes, Internet stuff, a mediocre-but-famous singer, and a Playboy model. Oh, and a U.S. governor and Vice-Presidential candidate whom everyone Googled simply because none of us knew who the heck she was. We are a shallow bunch, aren't we?

[Delete This Account]

Can't disagree with any of that. Just for kicks, I pulled this up:

 

The Lycos 50 Top 10 Search Terms for 2008 are:
1)   Poker				   6)  Britney Spears
2)   Paris Hilton			7)  Clay Aiken
3)   YouTube				 8)  Pamela Anderson
4)   Golf					9)  Facebook
5)   Sarah Palin			10)  Holly Madison

 

Games, celebutantes, Internet stuff, a mediocre-but-famous singer, and a Playboy model. Oh, and a U.S. governor and Vice-Presidential candidate whom everyone Googled simply because none of us knew who the heck she was. We are a shallow bunch, aren't we?

TBD was No. 11, and Wawrow 12, I believe, eh?

[Dan]

Can't disagree with any of that. Just for kicks, I pulled this up:

 

The Lycos 50 Top 10 Search Terms for 2008 are:
1)   Poker				   6)  Britney Spears
2)   Paris Hilton			7)  Clay Aiken
3)   YouTube				 8)  Pamela Anderson
4)   Golf					9)  Facebook
5)   Sarah Palin			10)  Holly Madison

 

Games, celebutantes, Internet stuff, a mediocre-but-famous singer, and a Playboy model. Oh, and a U.S. governor and Vice-Presidential candidate whom everyone Googled simply because none of us knew who the heck she was. We are a shallow bunch, aren't we?

And dumb. How hard is it to type "youtube.com" or "facebook.com" and hit 'enter'? Why would you ever need to search for youtube?