Steven A. Smith's Show Cancelled????

Nooooooooooooooooo the brotherhood.

 

THE BROTHERHOOD

 

I honestly do not know what took the NETWORK so long to cancel this show. Stephen A. Smith is a great journalist but he was a horrible host for a sit down show. He is great in spots and reports things no one else knows but really he becomes almost unbearable in long stretches.

 

That is correct. I knew this show was going to be on life-support prior to the launch as it was set up all wrong from the begginning.

Look, some may want to push a "street" (and that is being kind) angle at ESPN, and there are those that may cheer this from the outside, but at the end of the day it is still BROADCASTING (i.e. reaching the BIGGEST audience) and still a business.

QF was set up as a bad Arsenio Hall show (sometimes bordering on a Nat X parody), with a host with no ability or charisma, or energy to carry out that format.

Thus it was already aimed almost exclusively at a real limited audience, and no big name guests CANNOT save that format when the host & or producers have no idea to to make proper use of those guests and make them compelling.

Look, most of America does not want to see the "angry "hard" minority show". Heck, most minorities I know don't either. Especially in sports & executed by a host with no "street cred" himself who couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag (now Joey Porter I would watch). Think about it, most of those shows fail at MTV, where street music & hip hop culture actually are relevant.

Last but not least the format itself is one that is questionable in sports & you have a recipe for disaster.

My own thoughts on the format (in general - sports talk) - it would work fine if you have a great talk show host (i.e. Rome). I mean it works well on his show and on Mike & Mike.

The point is I am a talk show host (multiple formats (news/politics/sports)) and it is NOT easy. You can't just grab some person, regardless of how good of a reporter or how good they are in a segment and put them in that format - as most can't do it. Just like I can't do play-by-play, or delude myself that I am going to win a Pulitzer or write an epic novel anytime soon (read - ever).

I have done 4 hour live broadcasts & thrived. The difference between a 30 second -3 minute segment and carrying an hour show is ENORMOUS! You can see this when one of the 24 hour news channels goes live for an event and many of the anchors look bad as they are swimming in deep water out of their element and forced to improvise after the xth hour of live broadcasts. It is painful to watch & listen to.

Anyway, bad show, bad concept, bad angle - but SA is fine in reporting & segments and can be used well in something else. Although, knowing how TV works with the massive failure of the show higher ups need someone to blame and SA may be their target.

I do applaud ESPN & the effort to get something fresh on the air - this was just the wrong vehicle and wrong guy to do it. If you need some ideas let me know I have some awesome concepts that no one has done yet.

Anyway, my $0.02

John

 

^^^^^^

I disagree!

You hating HARD!

I applaud ESPN for it's leap. Steven A. seemed like a worthy candidate. When his show was announced "FOLKS LIKE YOU" were stunned. Unfortunately, you are going to still see his face and enjoy his screaming.

On the other hand, Steven A. acted like he was Shaq's BITCH! For that, I lost alot of respect for him. He was also proned to vacillation - and he took it personal when folks wouldn't go on his show. It isn't so much as Steven that I will miss; but the guest.

Quite Frankly, HE TALKS TOO DAMN MUCH - he need to learn the art of dropping the bomb and keep it moving.

 

Why is it that John D.'s two cents always feel more like a hundred bucks?

 

Hey Scoop,

Look, I am not hating - I just know TV.

I WANT to see more Steven A - just in the right format. The wrong format will make anyone look bad as well. I have been placed in a tough format before and did well, but it was difficult & limited my true talent, because the format was horrible and the network figured that out.

In another format on the same network I was a rock star. This could be true of SA. Look, TV is NOT easy when you have to do more then read a teleprompter & cue cards (and those are skills as well).

Look, let me put it this way. SA may do great at a Byron Nelson type of format (quick interviews, different locations, set up pieces, more personality & less talk that relies on HIM to carry the show).

Does that make sense?

Again, people - perhaps like you - have some kind of PC agenda here and want to take this up as some great cause. I don't.

I was not shocked when SA got his show. I didn't care.

I am glad the show is gone simply because I want to be able to watch something good on ESPN during those slots & hope SA is back doing something better.

This is no political movement for me or whatever. I simply want good entertaining TV - like most Americans.

The bottom line is I could have crushed that show and made it WAY WAY better. Now while I am actually pretty talented on TV, if can say that then how was SA going to be the right guy to carry that show on ESPN...the WWL??

It does not make sense. It's like get a great talk show host or go with Chris Rock or Dave Chappell or something. Again, I know all you writers love being on Around the Horn, PTI, etc. and dream of getting your own tv shows but most can't do it - simple. Especially that kind of format where it was all SA. I am not against writers being on TV, all for it - just be good that is all I (and the audience) asks.

Come on Scoop - just be honest and see what I am talking about.

Look man, I am not trying to take your job - it is not my gig. Conversely, let people who are good at TV do TV.

Again, not to bring up a sore subject for this board or ESPN types but Rush Limbaugh would have done an awesome show.

They had him at the network and screwed up. Now I don't know if he would have wanted to do that show, had the time, or cared, but Rush is the best talk show host ever & can do TV well. Love or hate Rush - he is box office, he is the real big time, he pulls huge ratings. Anyone that does business with him gets paid large.

He or someone like that has those kind of skills.

The point is ESPN let someone far less talented do this show to fit an agenda. In other words, they sacrificed talent - which you can't do in that format as it will show REAL quick, since there is no where to hide. It's all you & you can lose an audience fast if you can't carry it, which is exactly what happened.

ESPN canned Rush to fit a PC agenda and hired SA to do QF to do the same. We all have our politics but when you sacrifice quality to fit an agenda it is a road that leads to no good place.

Look, Scoop if you are going to get better you gotta be honest and that is just the truth. Learn from this about what you or he would do better next time.

Christ, I will give you tips if you want, some of this is not rocket science (since I have no dog in this fight and am not trying to get on TV now - busy with my business).

I am not hating & you may disagree with me but I am telling the truth as I know it.

 

That is the value John D. Villarreal brings - more that your money's worth every time!

The pitch...he swings....it's a huge shot to center....its gone

 

I think this thread may break the SportsJournalists.com record for using "it's" when it should be "its" and vice-versa.

 

JDV, do you get paid by the word? I might like what you have to say, but I can't manage to wade through a fourth of it before drowning in superfluous verbiage and giving up.

 

A counterfeit hundred isn't worth 2 cents.