They are believed to be among the highest paid sports talk radio hosts in the country. In 2005, New York Magazine reported Francesa made $1.4 million and Russo made $1.3 million.

Holy crap. I've never heard the show, but based on what I hear here, these guys are overpaid on a Hamptonian level.

Plus, could pay be the reason behind the rift? $100K a year ain't chump change.

I can't imagine either of these guys surviving without the other. It will be a train wreck. And seeing the amazingly horrible job the FAN did in replacing Imus, I can only guess they will find the absolute worst way of handling this.

I'm surprised to hear that these guys aren't getting along. They seemed to have gotten past that and settled into a very amicable on-air relationship.

I wonder if their ratings are hurting because they are so incredibly lazy, ornery, and rude to their listeners. Maybe they're blaming each other for that?

Those signs were subtle, such as Francesa declining to ask Russo how he is after Russo had opened the show by inquiring into Francesa's well-being.

That's a deal-breaker right there.

industry sources with knowledge of the situation said.

This is the only sourcing in the article that indicates this is happening. Russo is signed through 09 and says that this is news to him. Francessa says no comment. Their boss says "They are under contract, and we expect to have a nice, long run with 'Mike and the Mad Dog.'"

Don't you need a little more solid info before running a story like this?

I've never listened to the show, but just knowing it's out there pains me. Good riddance if true.

if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there except Mad Dog who gets squashed by it, would anybody care?

there were rumors of them breaking up years ago; russo apparently thought he was the main driver for the show's success during a period when francesca was on vacation.

francesca has a fair bit of knowledge (which can be deadly since he's got a lot of ignorant areas and he's also got an ego as big as his stomach) and some interviewing skills, but russo has nothing worthwhile. how he ever got this far - and even close to francesca's salary - is stunning.

Holy crap. I've never heard the show, but based on what I hear here, these guys are overpaid on a Hamptonian level.

Fortunately for them, their job isn't "please BBTF commenters".

francesca has a fair bit of knowledge (which can be deadly since he's got a lot of ignorant areas and he's also got an ego as big as his stomach) and some interviewing skills, but russo has nothing worthwhile. how he ever got this far - and even close to francesca's salary - is stunning.

I actually find Russo FAR less annoying than Francesa. He's a loud mouth, over-the-top, ur-fan. That's his schtick, and he knows it. When he's working alone, he doesn't talk down to fans, or act like too-much of an ass.

Francesa is the most obxnoxious windbag ever. He has a small amount of useful knowledge that is overwhelmed by an oil tanker full of ego.

I like their show. They may be idiots, but they give their guests the business (usually) in a way most interviewers don't and they generally are entertaining in a way that Mike & Mike (or whoever) aren't.

I like their show. They may be idiots, but they give their guests the business (usually) in a way most interviewers don't and they generally are entertaining in a way that Mike & Mike (or whoever) aren't.

The Mad Dog is indeed an idiot, and Francessa is often in way over his head when he gets into pop psychology and tries to get all deep and analytical, but I agree that they're entertaining in their own way. In DC we've been spoiled by the likes of John Thompson, Andy Pollin and Doc Walker, but guys like that don't grow on trees in the world of sports talk. And I wonder how long those three will be around now that Little Napoleon has bought the station.

Agreed with #11. I'll download some interviews and they do seem to give it to guests, which is nice compared to the morons The Score in Chicago puts on.

I don't get my analysis or insights from them, obviously.

now that Little Napoleon has bought the station.

I'm beginning to sense that you don't like that guy.

now that Little Napoleon has bought the station.

I'm beginning to sense that you don't like that guy.

Does anyone like this bltch, at least outside of Dallas, New York and Philadelphia? And of course his overpaid players and their agents---I'm sure they love him like a bank account.

In DC we've been spoiled by the likes of John Thompson, Andy Pollin and Doc Walker, but guys like that don't grow on trees in the world of sports talk. And I wonder how long those three will be around now that Little Napoleon has bought the station.

I'll agree on the first two, but Doc Walker? I see nothing intelligent whatsoever that he brings to the table; the guy is a total buffoon.

One thing I'll say about WFAN and Mike and the Mad Dog: they actually talk about this popular American sport known to most of us as "baseball". In the staggeringly myopic Redskins-obsessed world of D.C. sports journalism, it's almost as though the game doesn't even exist. Phil Wood gets to talk about it for an hour or two on the weekend, and that's about it.

Well, you finally did it. I've been reading the links and comments on this site for years, but I've never felt the need to actually register and contribute to the discussion.

But...

When I read someone praise D.C. sports talk radio, in particular Thompson and Walker? Ugh. I couldn't let that one go unanswered.

Walker is completely unlistenable. He can't speak. He can't interview. He can't discuss any subject intelligently. The only thing he is useful for is describing his experiences as a Redskin.

And Thompson...well, you know how they say if you want to look thin you hang around with fat people? You want to sound somewhat intelligible, get on a talk show with Al Koken and Doc Walker. True story about Thompson--he went on and on about a college basketball game he saw one Saturday night. This was I believe back in 2004 and 2005. He raved about this kid who broke the single-game scoring record. His co-hosts and producer were confused--this game had not been in the news. They eventually discovered that John Thompson, alleged college basketball expert, the guy who is paid money to talk about it during the basketball season and then announce NCAA tournament games...was too stupid to realize he was watching ESPN Classic. Yes, he was watching a game from the past, did not realize it, and went on the air to discuss this hot young player a few days later.

Give me Mike and the Mad Dog any day.

And Little Napolean is?

Let me guess. Mark Cuban?

Daniel Snyder

In DC we've been spoiled by the likes of John Thompson, Andy Pollin and Doc Walker, but guys like that don't grow on trees in the world of sports talk. And I wonder how long those three will be around now that Little Napoleon has bought the station.

I'll agree on the first two, but Doc Walker? I see nothing intelligent whatsoever that he brings to the table; the guy is a total buffoon.

One thing I'll say about WFAN and Mike and the Mad Dog: they actually talk about this popular American sport known to most of us as "baseball". In the staggeringly myopic Redskins-obsessed world of D.C. sports journalism, it's almost as though the game doesn't even exist. Phil Wood gets to talk about it for an hour or two on the weekend, and that's about it.

WTEM is far worse than WIP, which at least in the past few years has seemed to evolve from "all-Eagles radio" and is actually giving the Phillies the time of day. And with Dan Snyder running the show, WTEM will likely feature even less baseball coverage than it does now, which is next to nil aside from Phil Wood's two hours each Saturday morning. Pollin hates baseball, hockey -- just about everything except the Redskins and U. of Maryland (men's) basketball.

Say what you will about Mr. Francesa and the crazy canine, but I'd love to have either one in D.C.

In Boston we have this show called Dennis and Callahan. Let me tell you, after listening to that Mike and the Mad Dog is like listening to a FRAA vs. uZR panel at the SABR convention. I mean, jesus, at least Mike and the Mad Dog aren't horrible racists. Dale and Holly aren't that bad, but are about as exciting as clotted cream. Sports Talk radio is, by its nature, an idiotic medium: Mike and the Mad Dog are far from the worst offenders out there.

I'll agree on the first two, but Doc Walker? I see nothing intelligent whatsoever that he brings to the table; the guy is a total buffoon.

One thing I'll say about WFAN and Mike and the Mad Dog: they actually talk about this popular American sport known to most of us as "baseball". In the staggeringly myopic Redskins-obsessed world of D.C. sports journalism, it's almost as though the game doesn't even exist. Phil Wood gets to talk about it for an hour or two on the weekend, and that's about it.

OK, I like Walker, too, and we'll just have to agree to disagree about him, but the truth is (and this is a hell of a thing to admit) that I've been so used to WTEM ignoring baseball for so long that I barely even notice it any more. I just take it as a given that until the Nats go into a 20-game winning streak, we're going to get more discussion out of the Redskins summer training camp (which now includes "voluntary" June sessions) than we are about baseball right in the middle of the season. And we're going to hear ten times as much coverage of the NBA playoffs than we ever will about the baseball postseason. Complaining about this is like complaining about death or taxes.

And if they'd trade that fat f*ck Czaban for Mike & the Mad Dog I'd stand up and cheer. Anything would be better than Czaban.
------------------

And Thompson...well, you know how they say if you want to look thin you hang around with fat people? You want to sound somewhat intelligible, get on a talk show with Al Koken and Doc Walker. True story about Thompson--he went on and on about a college basketball game he saw one Saturday night. This was I believe back in 2004 and 2005. He raved about this kid who broke the single-game scoring record. His co-hosts and producer were confused--this game had not been in the news. They eventually discovered that John Thompson, alleged college basketball expert, the guy who is paid money to talk about it during the basketball season and then announce NCAA tournament games...was too stupid to realize he was watching ESPN Classic. Yes, he was watching a game from the past, did not realize it, and went on the air to discuss this hot young player a few days later.

I'll believe that when I hear it from more than one source. But beyond that, Thompson attracts the best guests of any local talk show in the country; he leads them in in-depth discussions; he's one of the very few talk show hosts of any kind, sports or otherwise, who can talk frankly (and truthfully) about race without blowing it through his butt; he's forgotten more about basketball than 99% of the world will ever know; when he doesn't know the answer to a question he's honest enough to admit it, and to ask someone who does know; he's got a terrific sense of humor; and when he's got his biases (mainly the Celtics and secondarily the Yankees) he jokes about them rather than getting obnoxious about it; etc. There isn't a sports talk show in the country that can beat him.

And no, I don't know him personally and I didn't go to Georgetown.

Seriously, Gerry Callahan once called an escaped gorilla a Metco student (Metco is a MA state educational program to help poor urban youth)

That's because Gerry Callahan is one of the 100 worst people currently alive on planet earth. John Dennis is in the top 2000.

I pretty much can't stand Mike and tMD, but I suppose Russo has at least a shred of humility in his craft; Franseca - none. I'd listen to Steve Somers for 100 years before I'd listen to those blowhards for 5 minutes. I can understand Andy (#24) being offended by Czaban in general, I am as well often enough. But at least he works at what he's doing. He doesn't pad his shows with hours of callers saying the same 3 opinions 20 different ways. I don't care for JT and Doc Walker too much, but at least they aren't offensive.

The nice thing about listening to all-Redskins all the time, is that the Redskins usually suck.

Good news.

Although it's probably a ploy to further overpay these clowns.

I can understand Andy (#24) being offended by Czaban in general, I am as well often enough. But at least he works at what he's doing. He doesn't pad his shows with hours of callers saying the same 3 opinions 20 different ways.

Yeah, but instead what we get is two hours of Redskins gossip and psychoanalysis, and 45 minutes of golf gossip, with lots of stories about his own golf game. Which leaves about fifteen minutes for everything else, including his endlessly expressed opinion of how boring baseball is.

The nice thing about listening to all-Redskins all the time, is that the Redskins usually suck.

Every real Redskins fan roots for them to go 0 and 16 for about 5 straight years, so that Snyder will either sell the team, or even better, kill himself. There is no other possible positive solution to the Redskins problem.

Actually, WJ, that was John Dennis who did that. But don't let facts get in the way of antipathy for someone with a different point of view. If only the Herald knew that Gerry Callahan was a horrible racist. If only you weren't the only one who knew this.

My god.

I don't particularly like their show but the reflexive labeling of Callahan and Dennis as racists is comical. It's the stereotypical lefty thing. They disagree with me, ergo, they're racists. Aside from John Dennis's bad Metco quip, supply some evidence that he or Callahan are racists.

I don't particularly like their morning show but at least they can have simple conversation. The execrable Glenn Ordway on in the afternoon doesn't know how to have a conversation like an adult. I think one's IQ goes down for each hour listening to him and the other buffoons on with him.

Michael Felger is much much better.

I rarely ever listen to Mike and the Mad Dog since I got XM Radio three years ago. Charlie Steiner's Baseball Beat destroys listening to Francesa and his FOBP arrogance (Friend of Bill Parcells).

If he were dumped, I could stand Chris Russo. That wasn't alwasy the case, but the FOBP got to be too much to handle.

No, actually, it was both of them. And if you want to take the burden of defending those two wastes of carbon, go right ahead. I certainly won't waste my time arguing with you.

WEEI added a sister staion in the Springfield area @ a year and a half ago and you can pick it up in Hatford.

D&C;spend half of their time talking about nonsports topics it seems. The Big Show is four or five guys trying to shout over each other. Mike Adams bashes Manny Ramirez more than the rest of the Bay State combined. I'm not sure if they have an overnite guy in Boston, but out here in the sticks we get Fox Sports Radio which makes the ESPN guys sound like Alistair Cooke. (But the Whiner Line can be funny at times.)

Dale and Holly aren't that bad, but are about as exciting as clotted cream.

I'm not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing. In any event, I've gone back to listening to the Red Sox on WTIC so I can get some local news when I wake up in the morning

Chris Russo's pretty clearly a racist. You don't have to listen long to see how minority players have to follow a different set of rules in his world.

One of the signs that M&MD;has jumped the shark is that they find themselves and their industry endlessly fascinating, and assume their listeners do too. If MD goes to a Springsteen concert, we get to hear every detail of the show and everything that happened backstage afterward. At Christmas, there's an entire show dedicated to their exchange of presents. Once or twice a week, they will play a game where Mike tries to guess the ratings of a particular event. "Okay Mikey, Men's tennis on Thursday night." "Let's see, it was up against the Office, I'm going to say a 1.3." "Oooh, Mikey, 1.6. Good job by them."

I also cannot stand the fact that Chris Russo ends interviews by telling people "Good job." Gee, this moron thinks I did a good job talking? What a feather in my cap.

It's the stereotypical lefty thing. They disagree with me, ergo, they're racists. Aside from John Dennis's bad Metco quip, supply some evidence that he or Callahan are racists.

Calling inner-city youths "monkeys" pretty much is the evidence, as far as Dennis is concerned. "They disagree with me..."? Huh?

So, WJ. You have no other examples. Quel surprise.
Now, WJ isn't going to respond because any defense (to any degree) of two guys on radio, one of whom once made a somewhat racist remark and the other of whom laughed at it, any defense of such people is inexcusable.

But anyone else reading might want to note that WJ called them both "horrible racists". It seems a bit incongruous with such a label that WJ cannot supply *any* examples of behavior that would cause a reasonable, impartial person to apply such a label. I mean, Callahan writes a column for the Boston Herald, what, once or twice a week? He's on the air five mornings a week. Could someone so crude as to be a "horrible racist" disguise this with so much public exposure? Seems unlikely, doesn't it? Maybe more unlikely than someone casually throwing around labels that should be serious terms of condemnation.

I'm not even a fan of Dennis and Callahan. I'm a libertarian. Callahan's an avowed conservative and Dennis seems as though he likely is of a similar persuasion. And I don't enjoy their arguments with callers over their take on the outrage of the day. But I've talked with probably dozens of lefties in the metro Boston area who reflexively slapped a label on them of "racist" or some such lefty designation of evil. And not one, including WJ, has ever backed it up. Which is more likely, that they all had multiple examples of terrible behavior that any reasonable person would accept but that none of them could remember? Or is this just such a hyperbole culture that we really have to jump to terms like "horrible racist" before anything else? Just not the same kick, the same frisson from "reactionary"? It's very sad. Intelligent people who simply cannot abide someone having a different point of view. It smacks of the farthest thing from that lefty sacred cow, "diversity".

One of the signs that M&MD;has jumped the shark is that they find themselves and their industry endlessly fascinating, and assume their listeners do too. If MD goes to a Springsteen concert, we get to hear every detail of the show and everything that happened backstage afterward. At Christmas, there's an entire show dedicated to their exchange of presents. Once or twice a week, they will play a game where Mike tries to guess the ratings of a particular event. "Okay Mikey, Men's tennis on Thursday night." "Let's see, it was up against the Office, I'm going to say a 1.3." "Oooh, Mikey, 1.6. Good job by them."

I haven't listened to Kornheiser since he switched stations, but when he was on WTEM he'd spend a ridiculous amount of time talking about action movies and American Idol, and would blow off anyone who complained. Which may explain why that station seems to have more trash TV fans than non-Redskins sports fans.

Once or twice a week, they will play a game where Mike tries to guess the ratings of a particular event. "Okay Mikey, Men's tennis on Thursday night." "Let's see, it was up against the Office, I'm going to say a 1.3." "Oooh, Mikey, 1.6. Good job by them."

Haven't they been doing this for years?

Having lived in both Boston and New York, they're all pretty bad. I do have to admit that the Whiner line is funny, and that some of the Ordway hosts are often witty. But they're all really poorly informed and opinionated. Someday there'll be someone who's both informative and entertaining, like a Conan O'Brien of sports talk. Right now, there's crap talent on the radio.

Yes, they've been doing that for years because they jumped the shark years ago.

Perhaps they'll erplace them with the most grating sports radio personality that I can recall.

Yes friends, she's back, The Fabulous Sports Babe.

Raskolnikov. Have you tried the Michael Felger show on 890 am in Boston (something like 3 PM to 6PM weekday afternoons)? He at least seems to have some intellectual curiosity.

Chris Russo's pretty clearly a racist. You don't have to listen long to see how minority players have to follow a different set of rules in his world.

I think he's merely ignorant (that he has held his job for so long demonstrates that he smashed the Peter Principle). Racism is often a consequence of ignorance.

I've listened to a fair amount of Mike & The Mad Dog over the past year or so; it's easy to tivo the show on YES and then have it on in the background.

They can be morons, to be sure, but they also have some useful qualities. And they're far from the worst show out there.

Some good points:

1. They actually bother to talk mostly about sports. Virtually their entire show is sports-related. It's a stark contrast to a show like Mike & Mike in the Morning, which is horrible because Greenberg and Golic waste half the show doing god-awful "man up" type banter and other unfunny, non-sports-related nonsense.

2. They actually bother to talk about baseball. Mike & Mike in the Morning, in stark contrast, act like it's a chore to talk about baseball, and always want to talk NFL draft or training camp instead.

3. They don't waste time talking about hockey. They focus mainly on baseball, football, and basketball, with some tennis/golf/horce racing sprinkled in. They never talk NASCAR.

4. Francesa is fairly perceptive about sports, with some notable exceptions; Russo has a good memory, though he's more a knower-of-facts than a serious analyst.

5. Their interviews are usually interesting.

Some bad points:

1. They get most of their information from the New York rags -- you can see the papers open on their desk -- and they don't know how to use the internet to access the information they need for the show. Russo actually calls in for the scores on the weekends; it's like he doesn't know that ESPN has a website now.

2. For baseball, they focus on RBIs for hitters and Wins for pitchers. They know what OBP/SLG/OPS is, but mention it only rarely (and mainly OBP). They don't know what OPS+ or ERA+ is. Or VORP or EqA or any other such statistic. They don't know much about adjusting for park or era. I don't know how one can seriously analyze baseball without being aware of these things, or by using RBIs and Wins as a major part of the analysis. They also talk too much about intangibles and chemistry with an over-emphasis on postseason performances.

As for the point of this story, the only thing I've noticed recently is that they've gotten into a few more lengthy sports-related arguments than usual. Most times in the past, they've just agreed to disagree and then they've moved on.

I'd like to see more posts about the media like Ray's analysis. It's more than a simple "This guy sucks/rules."

I have listened to the FAN in the past, but not often lately. A friend raves about Kenny Mayne's show But I can't get the feed at work.

Here's a question. The show is obviously successful (and I listen to it plenty despite my complaints). Is one of these guys the key to the show more than the other. I think it would have to be Maddog. He's sort of unique in his excitement and idiocy. Francessa's just a run of the mill blowhard.

GGC, where can I pick up Kenny's show?

Is one of these guys the key to the show more than the other.

Jerome.

Jerome's not still on anymore, is he? I haven't heard him in a long time.

On the other hand, they seem to have a new Jerome, who Mike hates and starts ripping as soon as he gets on the air. I forget his name.

Francesa is an incredible egotist. He's knowledgeable but nowhere near as good as he thinks he is (the Bill Walton story doesn't surprise me). From New Yorker article a few years ago: Francesa’s greatest weakness may be his self-regard, which he cops to, under the stipulation that it is justified. “I’m one of those people who would’ve made money no matter what they did,” he told me one afternoon.

Francessa knows a lot about baseball, particularly New York baseball. This is his only real redeeming feature - he is an incredible blowhard, but at least some of the time he's right. But his disrespect for his callers is really obnoxious. When he's right, it's funny. I heard him completely blow off a guy who wanted to trade A-Rod in 2005 by yelling at him that he was leading the league in HRs and RBIs (sabermetric or not, that's a good comeback stat for someone who wants to trade A-Rod) and sighing "People are nuts!". But I also heard him blow off a guy who was saying Catfish Hunter was a free agent before Andy Messersmith (which is true) and Mike simply wouldn't have it, and kept arguing with a guy who clearly had read Lords of the Realm about it. He will never admit he is wrong. So I don't listen to them when people call in.

But they are very good interviewers. One that stands out is an interview with Pedro when he signed for the Mets, where they talked with him about the craft of pitching for half an hour. Far more analytical and intelligent than I ever heard on WEEI. And Mike does defer more to interviewees, particularly players and beat writers.

One need not have more than half a brain or listen to D&C;more than a couple times a month to know that they have a thinly veiled disgust and distaste for poor minority urbanites. How many times to I have to hear Callahan rant about welfare queens, Al Sharpton, urban youth, or this or that black athlete's outrage of the week before I can say with some certainty that the guy has serious issues with poor blacks. He's basically speaking in a kind of code that appeals to old racist white working class people that still number highly in places like Revere, Everett, South Boston, etc.

I just went to the site that linked to the New Yorker article, and man, do they have a thing about Barack Obama. Here's a small sampling of their headlines on that subject, which make up about 80% of their entries. Great stuff:

Charles Krauthammer gives the most unbiased opinion on Barack Obama’s speech on race

High level source confirms Barack Obama will drop out of the race by July 1, 2008

Jeremiah Wright just finished Barack Obama’s campaign

Barack Obama is just another arrogant, aloof, John Kerry clone who calls small town America bitter because they don’t support him

National Review: Hillary Clinton has a “Bombshell” October Surprise that will devastate the Barack Obama campaign

In Scott McClellan’s new book he basically alleges that President George Bush lied about his past cocaine use, just another thing Bush has in common with Obama

The Cult of Obama has their own seal, look out Scientology, this cult actually can achieve world domination

Did the Barack Obama campaign forge his birth certificate, is it a fake Hawaiian certificate??

Is Barack Obama a Muslim? His half brother Malik says Barack Obama was raised a Muslim

Is Felger the one that stole Gary Shandling's theme song?

I don't mind Mike and Mike for football talk, but I don't really know all that much about football so it usually all sounds smart to me.

I've read that article before, about M&tMD;, but the best part remains that Russo likes to listen to Yanni. Yanni!

GGC, where can I pick up Kenny's show?

It's should be on the ESPN affiliate in NYC's website. THey come on in a few miinutes, Darren. I forgot to mention that Max Kellerman cohosts.

Mike Adams is the one with the Shandling theme, wj.

Here's a small sampling of their headlines on that subject, which make up about 80% of their entries.

You can't make up this stuff about linking to made-up stuff.

I remember a right-wing acquaintance linking me to an article on some news site, and I backed up and looked at the top page. There was an article about soldiers taking loads of WMD out of basements in Iraq. "I can't believe [the UN weapons inspectors] missed this stuff," was a quote. A quote. I showed him that and he doesn't refer to that site any more (although he still reads it).

I don't defend Weekly Journalist often. But he's absolutely right about this issue. It only takes a short listen to D&C;to know that both of them are virulent racists. It's not a debatable thing, it's just an absolute fact.

Here's some more examples.

It's should be on the ESPN affiliate in NYC's website. THey come on in a few miinutes, Darren. I forgot to mention that Max Kellerman cohosts.

I was gonna say I didn't know Kenny Mayne had a radio show. You mean Brian Kenny.

Here's some more examples.

Mike North apparently has kindred spirits in Boston.

I remember in the early 90's Francesca was doing college basketball commentary the year after UNLV finally won it all and he kept insisting UNLV was unbeatable. When Bill Walton tried to explain how they could lose, Francesca told him he didn't know what he was talking about. Walton was speechless. He just raised his eyebrows, like "Is this person I'm talking to really that insane?".

Francesca was far from alone in seeing UNLV as unbeatable that year. Okay, they had no bench, but the frontline talent was unbelievable. If Larry Johnson had taken the shot instead of kicking it back to Anderson Hunt, we might still be talking about them.

I mean, I'm not saying they're 1950s Mississippi lynching racists, or Civil War slave owner racists. They're typical towny Boston white guys who don't much care for people who look and talk differently than they do.

They're typical towny Boston white guys who don't much care for people who look and talk differently than they do.

And this is where you lose me. They're typical townie Boston white guys from 1975. Younger townies and even older ones who have realized that they were idiots are not nearly as bad these days. It still exists, but D&C;are well to the racist side of the average Bostonian townie. Sully and Murph aren't as racist as Dennis and Callahan.

Francesca was far from alone in seeing UNLV as unbeatable that year.

Including, notably, UNLV.

I'm not denying that Francesca is a dimwit, but his hubris there is somewhat understandable: plenty of people were declaring UNLV as the G.O.A.T. that year, except John Wooden ("a lot of teams have won one in a row")

Quilvio, it's one thing to call a team the overwhelming favorite. I'm fine with that. But to say they can't lose, well, that's just stupid as hell.

This reminds me of Steve A. a few years ago.

"Did I stutter? Let me say it again. The Detroit Pistons have no chance of defeating the Los Angeles Lakers. It will be a miracle if they're not swept. No chance."

Well, Screamin' A also picked Denver(!) to come out of the West this year.

How about that? Is that batshit or what?

Yes. Yes it is. It's like the 80's again. The Warriors and Nuggets are entertaining but not built for the playoffs. As a Warriors fan, that's good enough for me right now.

Right, Justin T. I'm not good with names sometimes.

I think a lot of sports talk radio is the same in that it has guys who are specialists in one or two sports and then talk about everything which exposes their shortcomings.

The best shows are the ones which the hosts who may know the leasts but have the quality guests and can ask good questions. When Tony Kornheiser was on ESPN Radio he had good guests and was willing to let them talk. The only annoying aspect was the constricted time slots to get the necessary commercial breaks.

Fly,
You are absoltuely right to call me on that. I didn't mean my post as any kind of slight against today's Boston, and I absolutely did mean to imply that I was talking about a previous generation. Old Boston townies are not any more racist than my old Italian grandfather from the lower east side.

I agree with winnipegwhip. I sometimes feel like I or most of the people I know who are big baseball fans could do better than most sports talk radio guys. Then I realize that when the hockey and NBA segments came up I could do nothing but refer to my dim memories of the 1994 stanley cup playoffs or John Starks dunking over Jordan.

I thought that you were a Cavs fan. Or was that JWRV?

Well, I own a cavalier dog. And I drive a chevy cavalier.

I thought that you were a Cavs fan. Or was that JWRV?

I'm an East Bay guy. A's and Warriors for me. I also root for the Giants and Niners. The Raiders lost me when they moved to L.A. If I cared about Hockey I'd be a Sharks fan, I guess.

But I also heard him blow off a guy who was saying Catfish Hunter was a free agent before Andy Messersmith (which is true) and Mike simply wouldn't have it, and kept arguing with a guy who clearly had read Lords of the Realm about it.

That was particularly humorous. Francesa didn't understand the relevance that Catfish Hunter's arbitration case had to free agency. He didn't understand that while Hunter's case was of virtually no use to the players as a mechanism for establishing free agency, as it dealt with a quirky and unique contractual issue and default, Hunter nevertheless showed the players just how much money they were missing out on when he got a huge contract after being declared a free agent.

Francesa "informed" his audience that the reason Messersmith/McNally is different from Hunter is that Messersmith/McNally "was a court decision, and not an arbitration ruling." Which, of course, is not true.

Now, I don't expect the average fan to know this; but when it's your job to understand these issues and you're "correcting" a caller who knows more about the topic than you do, you really should know what in the heck you're talking about. All it would take is to read a book on the subject matter, such as Miller's book.

But the thing that was most silly about Francesa's insistence that Messersmith/McNally was a court decision was that, beyond being wrong, it misses the entire point of Miller's strategy, which was that Miller recognized that the courts were not the path to free agency for the players. Miller worked to secure independent arbitration for the players early on, and that's what led them to break the reserve clause.

That Francesa missed that huge point while lecturing the caller was pretty stunning.

Just another example on Francesa. And I don't mean to beat up on the guy, because he's not horrible and I enjoy listening to him. And they've got a difficult job in that they talk contemporaneously for hours a day, and there's just no way to do that without sounding dumb and making factual and logical errors every now and again.

But Francesa told us recently that the Mets should trade Jose Reyes solely to shake the team up -- apparently not realizing that trades made just for the sake of Doing Something are typically disastrous. Especially the trade Francesa suggested -- Reyes for Carl Crawford and a lesser player (who he did not name). "They are the same hitter," Francesa said. "The only difference is that Reyes is a SS and Crawford is a LF."

And I was thinking, oh, is that all? That they hit the same but play on opposite ends of the defensive spectrum -- meaning that one is mediocre and the other is a top player?

Not to mention that Crawford is almost two years older, and costs more.

Just another example on Francesa. And I don't mean to beat up on the guy, because he's not horrible and I enjoy listening to him.

I'm mean to beat up on the guy, b/c he is horrible.

A few years ago when the Mets had a bad bullpen, and he and Chris came to the conclusion that a good bullpen was worth 50 (FIFTY!) wins to a team. I gues that's a good bullpen versus 6 BBTFers chosen at random.

I'm mean to beat up on the guy, b/c he is horrible.

Again, he has some useful qualities. In any event, I listen to them because sometimes I'm just in the mood to hear sports being discussed, particularly baseball. And since we don't yet have BBTF Radio, they fill a void.

I mostly defer to their knowledge about the other sports, because I don't know enough about the other sports to be able to tell when their analysis is off base. Which undoubtedly it often is: since I can tell that they often get the analysis wrong when it comes to baseball, I assume that they often do so with respect to the other sports. So I take their analysis on those other sports with a grain of salt.

Besides, the fast-forward button serves a very useful purpose.

A few years ago when the Mets had a bad bullpen, and he and Chris came to the conclusion that a good bullpen was worth 50 (FIFTY!) wins to a team.

They continually say that Mariano is worth 10 wins a year to the Yankees.

And since we don't yet have BBTF Radio...

What a thought

The common bond between Mike and the Mad Dog is their stubborn streak that leads them to constantly contradict themselves.

For example, Mad Dog screams that he can't deal with NBA playoff games that end around midnight, but whenever a caller thinks he knows about west coast baseball, Chris goes into his "I watch every Giants game, I know the national league west!"

Mike plays favorites, Minaya is the new Parcells for him, and lets that cloud his analysis. Mike also no longer likes the NBA, but doesn't want to relinquish his expert status. November-April the league is "unwatchable." When the playoffs role around, he just picks the Spurs to win the title and yells at callers who actually know who plays for Hornets besides Chris Paul (the Spurs did eek that one out).
The Monday after the Mets-Yankees Sunday night game they were criticizing Jon Miller and Joe Morgan (rightly so). They did this for an hour, with Mike making the point that when "experts" parachute in for an event they sound foolish to hardcore, day-to-day fans. After the break, Mike came back from that rant to give us his take on the NBA without a hint of irony.

Finally, here's a small glossary:

When Mad Dog says "That's all there is to it" it means "this is a very complex situation that could lead to different opinions based on the known facts. No single truth will ever be known."

When Mad Dog calls a player "underrated," he's heard of the guy, everyone else already knew how good he is, but Mad Dog just realized it from looking him up, or seeing him have a single good game in a game he happened to be watching.

When Mad Dog says "He stinks!" a player he's heard of, who's average to very good with a good reputation, had a bad game in a game he happened to be watching.

When Mike says "Mmmmm hmmm..." It means that a caller has made a bad first impression on Mike with his opening remark. From that point on, the caller could be a genius who has a perfect way for the Mets to make the playoffs, while ending world hunger and birnging world peace, and Mike is shouting at him for two full minutes after he's been hung up on.

When Mad Dog says, "I gotta see him in a big spot," he means, "I play tennis on weekends, spend time with my kids that I complain about on slow days and have to deal with my wife, I can't be bothered to watch a games all weekend. They pay me to talk about sports, not watch them. Besides, I'm capable of distilling an 8000 plate appearance career into 20 in October. That's all there is to it!"

Francesa didn't understand the relevance that Catfish Hunter's arbitration case had to free agency. He didn't understand that while Hunter's case was of virtually no use to the players as a mechanism for establishing free agency, as it dealt with a quirky and unique contractual issue and default, Hunter nevertheless showed the players just how much money they were missing out on when he got a huge contract after being declared a free agent.

What I read as well is that it proved to Miller he could win in arbitration.


Now, I don't expect the average fan to know this; but when it's your job to understand these issues and you're "correcting" a caller who knows more about the topic than you do, you really should know what in the heck you're talking about. All it would take is to read a book on the subject matter, such as Miller's book.

It doesn't even take that, it just takes humility. The caller wasn't losing his temper or yelling with Mike (in fact, it was Mike). His tone should have indicated to a more humble person that the caller knew what he was talking about - at least you agree to disagree and say you'll check during a commercial break.

Again, he has some useful qualities. In any event, I listen to them because sometimes I'm just in the mood to hear sports being discussed, particularly baseball. And since we don't yet have BBTF Radio, they fill a void.

I mostly defer to their knowledge about the other sports, because I don't know enough about the other sports to be able to tell when their analysis is off base. Which undoubtedly it often is: since I can tell that they often get the analysis wrong when it comes to baseball, I assume that they often do so with respect to the other sports. So I take their analysis on those other sports with a grain of salt.

Francesa knows a lot about baseball. He's no oracle on it, but I probably find myself agreeing with him or at least seeing his logic most of the time. By contrast Russo doesn't really know a lot about any sport (other than tennis), though he's a much nicer guy.

Neither of them are tremendously knowledgeable about basketball. Francesa knows a few things about football, but everything is filtered through the Parcells is God viewpoint.

Why the hell is Russo talking about James Garfield?

And since we don't yet have BBTF Radio...


What a thought

I'd probably listen. Especially if Kevin had a weekly show entitled, "These Things I Believe" with very special guest star Gaelan.

Oh yeah, the fact that Russo, a man who can neither think nor speak clearly, is making $1.3M/year to be on the radio fills me with both sadness and rage. Sageness, to coin a word.

A few years ago when the Mets had a bad bullpen, and he and Chris came to the conclusion that a good bullpen was worth 50 (FIFTY!) wins to a team.

They continually say that Mariano is worth 10 wins a year to the Yankees.

Implying that Farnsworth is worth the other 40?

Oh yeah, the fact that Russo, a man who can neither think nor speak clearly, is making $1.3M/year to be on the radio fills me with both sadness and rage. Sageness, to coin a word.

You mean Sadeness, or the urge to subject Chris Russo to weeks of torture and humiliation in a terrifying castle.

I'm glad to see that WJ backed away from the hyperbole.

Sorry that Fly can't. Those "examples" are a support of airport profiling and criticism of a lefty group's call for its sympathizers to stay home from work on some kind of supposed hispanic solidarity day. "Virulent" racism? Then, what room for description is left for Bull Connor?

What's really sad is the way some people (and I don't know if this is true of WJ or Fly) seek to label people as having committed a transgression to rule them out of bounds. But the world is a very complex place. People who are blind or foolish in one area may be quite wise or clever in others. Go read some of Gandhi's statements about blacks in South Africa. You want to talk "virulent" racism! Some people desperate to rule the opinions and words of others out of bounds could really use some encounters with perspectives that differ from their own, like Reason or Liberty Magazines or National Review.

Ever since then, I've regarded Francesca as an ignorant blowhard who just likes to shoot off his mouth and who thinks having a radio show makes one an expert.

Perfectly said. I'm ashamed he's a Yankee fan.

The fun thing about listening to Francesa is how the playoffs have changed in his mind since about, oh, 2004. Back in 2000, the playoffs were a be-all, end-all. You win there or you are nothing. The great teams and players always came through and those who didn't were not great, by definition. And no excuses would suffice.

Contrast that with his recent conclusion that in 2007, the Yankees had a great run, got to the playoffs, Joba got messed up by the bugs and that was that--Just a bad break! He now literally sees the playoffs as a crap shoot.

Good job by you, WallyBackmanFan!

I lived within range of WFAN for a year a little while ago, and I listened to Mike + Mad Dog sometimes. I didnt take them seriously and they amused me. Strangely in Boston, I almost never listen to EEI

BTW, GGC, I often listen to the Kenny/Kellerman show at lunch. They are both very knowledgeable and pretty obnoxious, Kellerman in particular. It's like they are typical sports talk radio who have substituted VORP and OBP for RBIs and BA. It's pretty darn entertaining much of the time.

I got plenty of perspective when I lived on the street. I know a racist when I see one.

With absolute certainty and to what degree? Really? Did you see it in Ben Kingsley's portrayal of Gandhi?

Maybe this is one of those weird cases where you're wrong and the large crowd of people you're calling idiots is right.

Neil Best has a transcribble of Mad Dog today on the subject.

And in this case that trigger point happens to be the quote unquote deteriorating relationship that supposedly Mike and I have been undergoing here for the better part of three or four months, which is not entirely accurate, and let me set the record straight on that. From Easter through May 9, Friday, Molly Russo’s birthday, Easter, right around that period, to May 9, Mike and I were having a lot of issues. If you’re a listener, I don’t have to tell you. Whether it’s Yankee Stadium, good or bad, whether it was David Ortiz-Manny Ramirez, whether it was Don Nelson Hall of Fame, not Hall of Fame, Shaq with Phoenix, Yunel Escobar with the Braves, you name it, we were fighting like cats and dogs.

Hey, our show, I have to take a good part of that responsibility. We were fighting like cats and dogs. The tolerance level of each other, Mike to me, me to Mike, was low. When that tolerance level is low like it is with your wife or your kids, you’re going to have some issues. So from that period to May 9, issues. After I took Sal LaCotta to Lake Compounce on that Sunday, Mother’s Day, with four little kids, Mark Chernoff, our program director calls me up and says, "Listen, can we talk tomorrow? Let’s get this straightened out."

After some initial balking by yours truly, I said, you know what, absolutely. We came down the next day, Mark brought us into his office, Mike and I. I apologized for acting like an idiot at times, Mike did the same thing. Next thing you know we’re back on the same page. So, although we had the occasional skirmish since, I can think of that show at the Belmont with the Manny Ramirez-Youkilis fight, and all those kinds of things, although we’ve had the occasional skirmishes – Spurs, we had a lot of fights on the Spurs – although we had occasional skirmishes, from May 11 or 12 to last Wednesday, I don’t think there was really any problem.

I got plenty of perspective when I lived on the street. I know a racist when I see one.


Unfortunately, you can't see people on the radio.

I heard Maddog today. He seemed a little unsure of what might be going on from Francessa's perspective.

I got plenty of perspective when I lived on the street. I know a racist when I see one.

Unfortunately, you can't see people on the radio.

I'm not sure if you're serious here, but if you are, simply standing and pointing at semantics and wording is kind of weak.

Russo:

From Easter through May 9, Friday, Molly Russo’s birthday, Easter, right around that period, to May 9, Mike and I were having a lot of issues. If you’re a listener, I don’t have to tell you. Whether it’s Yankee Stadium, good or bad, whether it was David Ortiz-Manny Ramirez, whether it was Don Nelson Hall of Fame, not Hall of Fame, Shaq with Phoenix, Yunel Escobar with the Braves, you name it, we were fighting like cats and dogs.

...

So, although we had the occasional skirmish since, I can think of that show at the Belmont with the Manny Ramirez-Youkilis fight,

I called it in #44 when I said:

As for the point of this story, the only thing I've noticed recently is that they've gotten into a few more lengthy sports-related arguments than usual. Most times in the past, they've just agreed to disagree and then they've moved on.

The Manny-Ortiz-Youkilis argument is the one that sticks out (although Russo claims that things were much better by that point). The Yankee Stadium argument was another.

And by the way, from the original story:

On the air, Francesa and Russo have had some spirited arguments, but nothing out of the ordinary for talk radio.

That's true, but it misses the point: the spirited arguments were out of the ordinary for Russo and Francesa.

That said, I thought their newfound spirited arguments were great, and were more interesting than their normal banter.

Of course it's possible Darren. But there's just one problem with what you say. I'm not the one in the minority. The Dennis and Callahan show is a huge success. Rated #1 in its time slot. I'm not a big fan of it. I've never listened to more than about 15 consecutive minutes. But it's extremely popular. So, if you want to believe the Fly/WJ version of things that they're "virulent" racists, don't you have to believe that most of the Boston listening market consists of "virulent" racists? Does that seem right? The management of that station and of the Boston Herald don't mind having "virulent" racists on staff? Or have I simply talked to and exchanged posts with 12-15 fairly hard core lefties (who, btw, I did not call idiots though I did criticize their views) who have an unusual take on things with which I and the great great majority of the populace seem to disagree?

Can you admit that possibility?

So, if you want to believe the Fly/WJ version of things that they're "virulent" racists, don't you have to believe that most of the Boston listening market consists of "virulent" racists?

Yea, you do. So what?

So, the argument from numbers disappeared and you're left with a pretty hard case to argue. You seem to end up arguing that most people are pretty horrible and that only enlightened lefties are any good or some such thing. That may be comforting but I don't think you get very far with that attitude. I don't think that very many liberals want to take that position anyway. Wouldn't it be easier to admit that descriptions were wildly exaggerated?

I haven't all the comments,but here is theBSMWtake on Callahan.