SBD/February 17, 2012/Media
ESPN's Decision To Remove Jaworski From "MNF" Booth Questioned By Media Columnists
Published February 17, 2012
NO HARM, NO FOUL: In N.Y. Phil Mushnick writes in removing Jaworski, “relegating him to a desk job while giving chatterbox Jon Gruden even less time to rest, ESPN has sustained its upward and onward path, the one that ends up right where it started.” Jaworski “didn’t belong in the MNF booth to begin with.” He had “never previously distinguished himself as a valued presence -- not for his wit, nor insights -- and he never would." The "best he could be during was just OK” (N.Y. POST, 2/17). CABLEFAX DAILY’s Chad Heiges writes, “I found myself wondering less about whether the net canned the correct color analyst and more about whether sports commentators really affect viewing experiences/audience levels.” The real trick across the sports landscape is “providing additional value in the form of stellar announcing.” Heiges: “Even if I’m not particularly concerned about regular-season NBA games, I will watch any contest featuring Hubie Brown.” His “vast knowledge of the game and unsurpassed astuteness could incite NBA interest among senior women.” Fox' Troy Aikman is “my main man in football, but the view is subjective and doesn’t alter my interest in NFL games 1 iota” (CABLEFAX DAILY, 2/17).
NO RIFT IN THE BOOTH: ESPN's Mike Tirico Friday said he did not know the "management-specifics of the how and the why” behind Jaworski's departure from "MNF," but said, “There’s no rift amongst any of us.” Tirico said he does not “necessarily know the real mechanics of the ‘this is why we want to do this.’” Syndicated radio host Dan Patrick asked Tirico if he had inquired about why the move was made. Tirico replied, “I did say ‘Why?’ and honestly I’m not going to share that with everybody because that’s not everybody’s business and the answer I got, I believe” (“The Dan Patrick Show,” 2/17).