David Stern to Jim Rome: "Do You Still Beat Your Wife?"

[Warner2BruceTD]

Rome has a sense of humor?

Rome is very clever and pretty damn funny. It's not everybody's cup of tea, but what is?

 

[Bomberooski]

Rome positives: He is one of the few radio personalities who will give you an unfiltered, honest opinion. He plays no favorites and will not hesitate to rip anybody if he thinks they deserve it. And unlike a guy like Colin Cowherd, who is essentially a real life troll, always has an angle, isn't really interested in sports, and does whatever is best for his ratings (including taking fake stances and making dishonest statements to rile up the listeners), Rome is genuine. Rome has cultivated a very smooth image and is really a brilliant guy.

Rome negatives: He's not 26 anymore, and shit like "The Smack Off" is easily the worst week or radio in america. Sometimes he overdoes shtick.

Comparing Rome to Cowherd again, Rome has willingly left ESPN twice, despite the fact that in both cases, it resulted in less exposure. He has also never brought his radio show to ESPN, where radio hosts have no creative freedom, are told what topics to discuss, and are encouraged to never take phone calls. So Rome has some professional pride and has become very rich at the same time while sticking to his own personal vision.

Cowherd, on the other hand, will never leave ESPN unless ESPN in no longer #1. Cowherd does whatever is best for his exposure. Jim Rome would never do shallow, vacant shit like 'Sports Nation'. Cowherd readily admits on the air he doesn't have time in his life to watch games. He only watches "big events", and is the perfect ESPN type puppet, because he comes on the air and only talks about the Heat, Tiger Woods, the NFL, and the Yankees.

I do a ton of driving, and Rome is far from my favorite sports radio talkie (I prefer the style of Mike Francesa, or my personal favorite, Chris Russo), but when the shtick is minimized he is one of the best, and I have a ton of respect for his path.

That's good stuff is what that is.


I really truly believe a LOT of people haven't listened to Jim Rome in years. His show is completely different now and although I was a sucker for all the schtick and cheesy "retarded" phone calls I do still enjoy him as his show ages.

 

[FirstTimer]

Rome positives: He is one of the few radio personalities who will give you an unfiltered, honest opinion. He plays no favorites and will not hesitate to rip anybody if he thinks they deserve it. And unlike a guy like Colin Cowherd, who is essentially a real life troll, always has an angle, isn't really interested in sports, and does whatever is best for his ratings (including taking fake stances and making dishonest statements to rile up the listeners), Rome is genuine. Rome has cultivated a very smooth image and is really a brilliant guy.

Rome negatives: He's not 26 anymore, and shit like "The Smack Off" is easily the worst week or radio in america. Sometimes he overdoes shtick.

Comparing Rome to Cowherd again, Rome has willingly left ESPN twice, despite the fact that in both cases, it resulted in less exposure. He has also never brought his radio show to ESPN, where radio hosts have no creative freedom, are told what topics to discuss, and are encouraged to never take phone calls. So Rome has some professional pride and has become very rich at the same time while sticking to his own personal vision.

Cowherd, on the other hand, will never leave ESPN unless ESPN in no longer #1. Cowherd does whatever is best for his exposure. Jim Rome would never do shallow, vacant shit like 'Sports Nation'. Cowherd readily admits on the air he doesn't have time in his life to watch games. He only watches "big events", and is the perfect ESPN type puppet, because he comes on the air and only talks about the Heat, Tiger Woods, the NFL, and the Yankees.

I do a ton of driving, and Rome is far from my favorite sports radio talkie (I prefer the style of Mike Francesa, or my personal favorite, Chris Russo), but when the shtick is minimized he is one of the best, and I have a ton of respect for his path.

No offense, but if Rome's biggest plus is that he's "better than Cowherd".

Meh.

Rome is lame and annoying to me. Every time I tune into his show I'm bored to tears within an hour, get no entertainment value out of it and find nothing he says to be "clever" or funny

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

It's not an open ended question by design. In an interview "yes/no" questions are fucking stupid. Especially in radio where you are trying to fill time with live content.

You can attack the way he asked the question if you want, but if you have David Stern on your show this week, and you don't bring up the lottery and the aura of suspicion around it, you are a terrible interviewer and should find something else to do.

Nobody cares about "Mr. Stern, break down the matchup we have here in the Finals". Please. You need to ask about the lottery, you need to ask about the Seattle situation, and if he hadn't been on my show since it happened, you need to ask about the Artest suspension and why he ruled the way he did which allowed Artest to return for Game 7.

 

[spiker]

It's not an open ended question by design. In an interview "yes/no" questions are fucking stupid. Especially in radio where you are trying to fill time with live content.

That's not what I meant. I meant that the question is wordly "fairly" in that it wasn't a loaded question like Stern implied. It certainly didn't illicit the response question that Stern used to try and prove whatever point he was trying to make. It may have been a yes/no question but since it is an interview, there's always room for follow up questions or probing if Stern decided to be curt. A lot of interviewers make the mistake of asking yes/no questions but they expect follow up or discussion afterwards. I'm sure Steven A. Smith even does it.

 

[FirstTimer]

You can attack the way he asked the question if you want, but if you have David Stern on your show this week, and you don't bring up the lottery and the aura of suspicion around it, you are a terrible interviewer and should find something else to do.

I never said he shouldn't have asked the question. The way he asked the question was shit.

That's not what I meant. I meant that the question is wordly "fairly" in that it wasn't a loaded question like Stern implied.

No, Stern didn't imply it was a loaded question. He implied it a fucking stupid question.

Is the lottery rigged?

Is the pope catholic? etc.(except the oppsite)

The answer is obvious. No the lottery wasn't rigged. What'd Rome expect Stern to say? "Yes?"

 

[spiker]

You can attack the way he asked the question if you want, but if you have David Stern on your show this week, and you don't bring up the lottery and the aura of suspicion around it, you are a terrible interviewer and should find something else to do.

Nobody cares about "Mr. Stern, break down the matchup we have here in the Finals". Please. You need to ask about the lottery, you need to ask about the Seattle situation, and if he hadn't been on my show since it happened, you need to ask about the Artest suspension and why he ruled the way he did which allowed Artest to return for Game 7.

This is so on point. You'd never get anyone at ESPN to ask these questions of Stern because there's a conflict of interest between the NBA and ESPN. They'd rather just sweep the relevant discussion under the rug in the name of shameless self promotion.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I can't stand Rome. I never understood the humor in his radio show with those idiot "Clones" calling in and making retarded inside jokes. The show was horrible. The only humor I find in Rome is when Frank Caliendo is doing his Rome impersonation.

Stephen A Smith has become a caricature......I use to like him, but he's pretty bad now.

My biggest beef with Smith as a radio personality is that I have no respect for his opinions outside the NBA. In his wheelhouse, he's good, because he has tons of sources and is a true NBA insider. But when I lived on the east coast and his show was on in NY, it was a terrible listen unless he was talking NBA.

I think he would be a great flagship guy for an NBA radio station. Which come to think of it, is the only league that doesn't have a station on Sirius/XM.

 

[Bomberooski]

The answer is obvious. No the lottery wasn't rigged. What'd Rome expect Stern to say? "Yes?"

No, but think if he did.

 

[FirstTimer]

My biggest beef with Smith as a radio personality is that I have no respect for his opinions outside the NBA. In his wheelhouse, he's good, because he has tons of sources and is a true NBA insider. But when I lived on the east coast and his show was on in NY, it was a terrible listen unless he was talking NBA.

I think he would be a great flagship guy for an NBA radio station. Which come to think of it, is the only league that doesn't have a station on Sirius/XM.

To be fair to ESPN I've really liked Chris Broussard as of late on the playoffs and Finals post game.

 

[FirstTimer]

No, but think if he did.

Stern :troll: the world

 

[spiker]

No, Stern didn't imply it was a loaded question. He implied it a fucking stupid question.

Is the lottery rigged?

Is the pope catholic? etc.(except the oppsite)

The answer is obvious. No the lottery wasn't rigged. What'd Rome expect Stern to say? "Yes?"

FT, you usually aren't this daft. Stern did imply it was a loaded question when he asked "Do you still beat your wife?" It was out of place because Rome didn't ask a loaded question.

Rome didn't ask the question because he thought Stern would even consider saying "yes". He asked it because it should be asked. The NBA owns the Hornets and people wonder about these things. If anything, Rome set up Stern for the perfect opportunity to put it this nonsense bed and he failed epically.

 

[ralaw]

Stern has a history of going at ad getting into a back and forth with radio announcers (Dan Patrick, Cowherd, Rome, etc) and this is what he did. Stern is a smart dude, and is much smarter than the guys who are interviewing him, and he knows it. Stern can come across as arrogant and an ass, but I really don't think he cares. Stern has been asked the question about the lottery numerous times and he generally gets a little annoyed, because he finds himself having to respond to conspiracy theories. In the end nothing that he says is going to change their mind, so why keep responding to it? By the way Rome asked the question he was trying to set Stern up and Stern caught on to it and blasted him. Meh.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

FT, you usually aren't this daft.

Yes he is.

 

[spiker]

He's not though. I usually agree with him on most things. I think his hate for Rome is blinding.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

It's a rhetorical question, everybody knows he isn't going to say yes, that's why to me I have no issue with the question or the way it was asked. It's designed to give Stern a chance to shoot down the conspiracy theories and explain how it works. Rome himself doesnt believe it's fixed iirc.

It's a question that has to be asked if you are to have any on air credibility. Stern was annoyed and handled it terribly.

 

[FirstTimer]

FT, you usually aren't this daft. Stern did imply it was a loaded question when he asked "Do you still beat your wife?" It was out of place because Rome didn't ask a loaded question.

No, he implied it was stupidly obvious question.

Quit defending Rome's shit house question. It's sad.

The NBA owns the Hornets

No they don't.

And didn't the night of the lottery.

Stupid fans FTW!

 

[ralaw]

My biggest beef with Smith as a radio personality is that I have no respect for his opinions outside the NBA. In his wheelhouse, he's good, because he has tons of sources and is a true NBA insider. But when I lived on the east coast and his show was on in NY, it was a terrible listen unless he was talking NBA.

I think he would be a great flagship guy for an NBA radio station. Which come to think of it, is the only league that doesn't have a station on Sirius/XM.

When he first went national I liked Smith, because he seemed normal, but ever since being a regular on First Take he's become a caricature. I think it's just the way he speaks and how over dramatizes every word. I don't remember him being that overt with it. I agree he knows the NBA, but I prefer Broussard at this point, because he seems normal.

 

[Bomberooski]

Sidenote: I really wish Steve Czaban was still on the national airwaves.

 

[ralaw]

FTRome didn't ask the question because he thought Stern would even consider saying "yes". He asked it because it should be asked. The NBA owns the Hornets and people wonder about these things. If anything, Rome set up Stern for the perfect opportunity to put it this nonsense bed and he failed epically.

It's a rhetorical question, everybody knows he isn't going to say yes, that's why to me I have no issue with the question or the way it was asked. It's designed to give Stern a chance to shoot down the conspiracy theories and explain how it works. Rome himself doesnt believe it's fixed iirc.

It's a question that has to be asked if you are to have any on air credibility. Stern was annoyed and handled it terribly.

The both of you are smart enough to realize that there isn't anything Stern would say that he hasn't already that would change the mind of conspiracy theorist. This is part of the reason why Stern went at Rome the way he did.