FROM ODESSA STEPS MAGAZINE ISSUE 4 OCTOBER 2009
This interview with Miami Herald columnist, Pardon the Interruption fill-in host and WAXY 790 AM (790 The Ticket) talk show host Dan LeBatard was conducted via email over a number of months in 2008 and 2009.
CAN'T STAND DAN? HORSEMUFFINS!
Q: How have things been going since your sabbatical (in 2008) from the Miami Herald/ESPN started? As relaxing as you had hoped?
A: So great. Feels good to exhale. I've never really worked for a living, but I've never realized before that just because it doesn't feel like work doesn't mean it isn't work and just because it doesn't feel like stress doesn't mean it isn't stress. There were a lot of double negatives in there, but I needed to tap the brakes for a second and reevaluate. I'm having a great, great time slowing down and the nonsense of the radio show daily helps
in ensuring that I'm not quitting cold turkey, which might have been a lot harder.
Q: Do you think you will miss writing once the 2008 football season starts, especially given that it's Year One of Parcells and now Pennington? Will having the outlet of radio enable you to get all your thoughts out there?
A: Not going to miss writing daily-event columns. Found those pretty boring a while
ago. Picked a pretty good time in South Florida sports to vanish. When I return, Iwant to
write about more meaningful things. I've seen too many irrelevant regular-season games
the last five or six years.
Q: Since you appear to be a big fan of Mixed Martial Arts (and an acquaintance of
Kimbo Slice), how mainstream do you think the sport can go? Does it need the "stamp of
approval" from ESPN to really grow to the next level?
A: It will get mainstream with or without ESPN. It has captured 18-to-34 [male
demographic], and those people are the tipping point on all that is popular. Tomorrow's
fans will make this huge. It is amazing what MMA has already done without any
mainstream help. A lot of other sports have had a lot more backing without having nearly
this success. MMA is going to be enormous within the next decade. I think it is already
bigger in America than hockey.
Q: Did you go straight from the ESPN Sunday morning radio show to the show on 790 or
was there a gap between the two? How did you end up at 790, which was the second
of the two sports stations in town, yes? How did you end up with Stugotz [Jon Weiner] as
your co-host?
A: There wasn't a gap. I was doing both shows for a while. It was too much. I never liked
getting up at that hour on Sundays but it worked best with my schedule. I had no other
time that fit with ESPN Radio. I ended up at 790 because they called, and it seemed like
fun. The other station had spent the previous 10 years using my column for fodder, and
bashing me, so i figured it would be fun to have another voice in the market, be the
underdog and topple the incumbent in a town where there really isn't room for two
sports stations.
Stugotz became the cohost because I didn't know what I was doing at the beginning
and they needed both a guide for me and someone who could sell things. The Sunday
show was just guest after guest. I was a traffic cop. The 790 thing
was my show, and I didn't know what it was going to be and I needed a baby-sitter until
I figured out how to get on my feet. Didn't like how it went at first, which is why we hired
the executive producer Marc Hochman, my friend since college. We have the same
sensibilities, same sense of humor, and he knows what I like and how I want it to sound
intuitively."
Q: Could you do the radio show if it was just straight sports talk?
A: No. There are so few points made in sports that are original or interesting. If you listen
to sports radio, its just call after call after call. And if you've worked in sports for two
decades, you've heard a great deal of it and its redundant. That's not entertaining to me.
It may be immensely entertaining to the average sports fan, so I'm not saying that our
way is the right way or the popular way. That might be the way to go. But I couldn't
tolerate it for three hours a day. I couldn't tolerate it for 14 minutes a day. Heck, one hour
a week is the Chris Mortenson segment, and he's great and its great for football fans, and
I can barely get through that. I have to be laughing. I have to be enjoying myself. There's
no other reason to do it. And I figure if i'm enjoying it, perhaps others will. And I hope we're
giving the sports fan enough because I love sports and that has to be the base of what
we do. I don't want to be doing politics and religion. I want to be doing sports and
laughing and squeezing the nonsense around sports.
Q: Are you consciously trying to follow Tony Kornheiser's model for a "non-sports" sports
show? Or is it just because you both have similar mindsets about the format?
A: It hasn't been conscious, but everyone tells me its similar, so it must be. The only times
I've heard Tony's show is when I'm on it, so I can't say that I know what he has done. We
didn't get him in this market, unfortunately, or there might be even more Tony influences
on the show. I've got to think the similarities come from us having similar barometers for
what's interesting. I think the only thing we've blatantly stolen from his show is the idea of
eliminating pleasantries, and that came from me talking to him about it, not actually
hearing it for myself. Is there anything else that seems borrowed from him? He's the
greatest, and I admire him greatly. But I don't think I've heard his show enough to know
exactly how we're similar. And I don't really have a mindset or a blueprint or a format. I'm
just trying to laugh with Hoch every day. I don't want it to get too serious unless there's
some saban-like issue that has consumed the local area.
Q: Do you forsee a time where you go all electronic media (print and/or TV) and eschew
print totally, or at least drastically cut back?
A: that's a tough question. Its a constant tension. The newspaper business feels like its
antiquated and not catching up, but there's nothing I respect more in journalism. The
paper is my first love. I've never envisioned all this other stuff, which is easier. A lot easier. I
never thought there was money to be made in this business. TV-Radio feeds the vanities
more, which I think is probably why so many people who dabble in tv-radio end up
cutting back on the writing. I don't know how Wilbon has lasted this long writing this
much. I've cut back pretty substantively as it is. I've been writing once a week or so and
then I'll write for two months straight if the Heat make a playoff run or a week straight if
Saban bolts. The paper has been very flexible, which makes all the difference in the
world. They understand I'm working as hard as I can, and selling the brand on tv and
radio is good for the paper too in a changing media world. But I don't foresee getting out
of it totally. I have left a lot of money on the table to continue writing at the paper, which
I know is my bread and butter and the reason for any credibility I may have. Given what
I've turned down in return for selling out completely, I'm essentially paying The Herald to
let me write for them. If I haven't left yet, I don't see why I would -- not with the kind of
flexibility and freedom and support the herald gives me.
Q: How much of your "contrarian" persona is just that, an exaggeration of how you really
feel? As they say in the wrestling business (of which you appear to be some kind of fan),
the gimmicks are just a worker's real personality turned up to 10.
A: That's an interesting way of putting it but I come by this naturally, by happy accident.
Its not an act, believe it or not. I never, ever go into a position thinking 'what's the way to
turn the volume up so loud to bother people?' I'm not trying to instigate on purpose. I'm
not trying to be controversial. I'm just counterintuitive by nature. And I hate the media as
soapbox-standing moral finger waggers when all of us are flawed, in athletics, in
journalism, on earth. Hate that. Read it growing up all the time -- angry media guy railing
against sports and the bad people in it -- and it was just boring and redundant. I love
sports. I enjoy sports. I admire the people who play them professionally. Why bitch about
them? And I've never understood that kind of angry writing and judgment that comes
with it. So I swim the other way. And I think that's where you will find most of the stuff that
gets me called a contrarian or an apologist. I might also be missing a chip in terms of
self-awareness. I really don't know how or why some of the stuff I say -- they are just
opinions about sports, after all -- gets people insane because I think its perfectly logical.
But its not an act. It really isn't. I'm not thinking of a position and then inflating it with
steroids -- though, now that you've made me think about, it WOULD be pretty cool to go
on PTI and do an entire episode as a screaming wrestling persona like the Road Warriors.
One of the weird things about being contrarian' or 'apologist' is that all I think I'm ever
doing is extending compassion and understanding. I'm not excusing behavior; I'm
explaining it. I don't feel it is my place to get all judgmental and castigate Plaxico Burress
or Michael Vick or Terrell Owens. Who the [heck] am to do that? When I don't know what
their lives were like? when I don't have all the details on how they arrived where they are?
I'm not comfortable judging others. I aspire to not do that; Fail all the time, like I did with
Nick Saban because I have a blind spot when it comes to bully dictators, but aspire to it.
But it’s odd to me, really odd, that I get tabbed with contrarian and apologist because of
what I believe to be simply extending empathy in all instances.
Now, I'm not saying that the people who hit me with that are wrong and I'm right. There
are probably times that I'm not self-aware and my tone stinks and i sound like I'm
defending inexcusable behavior. So I'm sure I'm contributing to the way I get received; I
just don't know whether I'm contributing 10 percent to it or 90 percent to it. I don't think I'm
all right and everyone else is all wrong, but I just get frustrated with the idea of Donte
Stallworth as a conversation point, for example. OF COURSE, he shouldn't have done that.
OF COURSE he was wrong and it is awful and tragic that someone died. We can all agree
on that, but if the family is ok with his
penalty, and the legal system is, why can't we be? There's an entire conversation to be
had, an interesting one, after you get past the consensus of him being wrong for
what he did....but it seems to me that we get stuck too often in the name-calling
muck of stepping on him (jerk! drunk! entitled athlete punk!) for being wrong and to me
the conversation after that and around that is more interesting.
Q: Speaking of, why all the wrestlers on the show? Just a kitsch thing?
A: Live everything else, just an accident. I enjoyed it growing up but I haven't watched
wrestling in 25 years. We were talking about wrestling one day, got a wrestler on to
continue the discussion and, not surprisingly, he was interesting and entertaining and
ridiculous. And it seemed to hit a nerve. It is funny, when you think about it. We're only
putting on wrestlers from my childhood, really, so it ends up being nostalgic and where-
are-they-now and, good god, they're still the same act? It just makes us laugh every time
and it's completely surreal to be talking to them. But not a lot of thought went into it.
Doesn't sound, looking back on this, that a lot of thought has gone into
much of anything that I've done. I sculpted one craft. Writing. I poured myself
into that with a decade of maniacal zeal. I didn't think there would ever be
a radio or tv future for me. Didn't even think in those terms. I just loved
writing about sports and everything after that (the tv stuff, the ridiculous
wrestlers on the radio, the good and the bad) was born from that love."
This interview with Miami Herald columnist, Pardon the Interruption fill-in host and WAXY 790 AM (790 The Ticket) talk show host Dan LeBatard was conducted via email over a number of months in 2008 and 2009.
CAN'T STAND DAN? HORSEMUFFINS!
Q: How have things been going since your sabbatical (in 2008) from the Miami Herald/ESPN started? As relaxing as you had hoped?
A: So great. Feels good to exhale. I've never really worked for a living, but I've never realized before that just because it doesn't feel like work doesn't mean it isn't work and just because it doesn't feel like stress doesn't mean it isn't stress. There were a lot of double negatives in there, but I needed to tap the brakes for a second and reevaluate. I'm having a great, great time slowing down and the nonsense of the radio show daily helps
in ensuring that I'm not quitting cold turkey, which might have been a lot harder.
Q: Do you think you will miss writing once the 2008 football season starts, especially given that it's Year One of Parcells and now Pennington? Will having the outlet of radio enable you to get all your thoughts out there?
A: Not going to miss writing daily-event columns. Found those pretty boring a while
ago. Picked a pretty good time in South Florida sports to vanish. When I return, Iwant to
write about more meaningful things. I've seen too many irrelevant regular-season games
the last five or six years.
Q: Since you appear to be a big fan of Mixed Martial Arts (and an acquaintance of
Kimbo Slice), how mainstream do you think the sport can go? Does it need the "stamp of
approval" from ESPN to really grow to the next level?
A: It will get mainstream with or without ESPN. It has captured 18-to-34 [male
demographic], and those people are the tipping point on all that is popular. Tomorrow's
fans will make this huge. It is amazing what MMA has already done without any
mainstream help. A lot of other sports have had a lot more backing without having nearly
this success. MMA is going to be enormous within the next decade. I think it is already
bigger in America than hockey.
Q: Did you go straight from the ESPN Sunday morning radio show to the show on 790 or
was there a gap between the two? How did you end up at 790, which was the second
of the two sports stations in town, yes? How did you end up with Stugotz [Jon Weiner] as
your co-host?
A: There wasn't a gap. I was doing both shows for a while. It was too much. I never liked
getting up at that hour on Sundays but it worked best with my schedule. I had no other
time that fit with ESPN Radio. I ended up at 790 because they called, and it seemed like
fun. The other station had spent the previous 10 years using my column for fodder, and
bashing me, so i figured it would be fun to have another voice in the market, be the
underdog and topple the incumbent in a town where there really isn't room for two
sports stations.
Stugotz became the cohost because I didn't know what I was doing at the beginning
and they needed both a guide for me and someone who could sell things. The Sunday
show was just guest after guest. I was a traffic cop. The 790 thing
was my show, and I didn't know what it was going to be and I needed a baby-sitter until
I figured out how to get on my feet. Didn't like how it went at first, which is why we hired
the executive producer Marc Hochman, my friend since college. We have the same
sensibilities, same sense of humor, and he knows what I like and how I want it to sound
intuitively."
Q: Could you do the radio show if it was just straight sports talk?
A: No. There are so few points made in sports that are original or interesting. If you listen
to sports radio, its just call after call after call. And if you've worked in sports for two
decades, you've heard a great deal of it and its redundant. That's not entertaining to me.
It may be immensely entertaining to the average sports fan, so I'm not saying that our
way is the right way or the popular way. That might be the way to go. But I couldn't
tolerate it for three hours a day. I couldn't tolerate it for 14 minutes a day. Heck, one hour
a week is the Chris Mortenson segment, and he's great and its great for football fans, and
I can barely get through that. I have to be laughing. I have to be enjoying myself. There's
no other reason to do it. And I figure if i'm enjoying it, perhaps others will. And I hope we're
giving the sports fan enough because I love sports and that has to be the base of what
we do. I don't want to be doing politics and religion. I want to be doing sports and
laughing and squeezing the nonsense around sports.
Q: Are you consciously trying to follow Tony Kornheiser's model for a "non-sports" sports
show? Or is it just because you both have similar mindsets about the format?
A: It hasn't been conscious, but everyone tells me its similar, so it must be. The only times
I've heard Tony's show is when I'm on it, so I can't say that I know what he has done. We
didn't get him in this market, unfortunately, or there might be even more Tony influences
on the show. I've got to think the similarities come from us having similar barometers for
what's interesting. I think the only thing we've blatantly stolen from his show is the idea of
eliminating pleasantries, and that came from me talking to him about it, not actually
hearing it for myself. Is there anything else that seems borrowed from him? He's the
greatest, and I admire him greatly. But I don't think I've heard his show enough to know
exactly how we're similar. And I don't really have a mindset or a blueprint or a format. I'm
just trying to laugh with Hoch every day. I don't want it to get too serious unless there's
some saban-like issue that has consumed the local area.
Q: Do you forsee a time where you go all electronic media (print and/or TV) and eschew
print totally, or at least drastically cut back?
A: that's a tough question. Its a constant tension. The newspaper business feels like its
antiquated and not catching up, but there's nothing I respect more in journalism. The
paper is my first love. I've never envisioned all this other stuff, which is easier. A lot easier. I
never thought there was money to be made in this business. TV-Radio feeds the vanities
more, which I think is probably why so many people who dabble in tv-radio end up
cutting back on the writing. I don't know how Wilbon has lasted this long writing this
much. I've cut back pretty substantively as it is. I've been writing once a week or so and
then I'll write for two months straight if the Heat make a playoff run or a week straight if
Saban bolts. The paper has been very flexible, which makes all the difference in the
world. They understand I'm working as hard as I can, and selling the brand on tv and
radio is good for the paper too in a changing media world. But I don't foresee getting out
of it totally. I have left a lot of money on the table to continue writing at the paper, which
I know is my bread and butter and the reason for any credibility I may have. Given what
I've turned down in return for selling out completely, I'm essentially paying The Herald to
let me write for them. If I haven't left yet, I don't see why I would -- not with the kind of
flexibility and freedom and support the herald gives me.
Q: How much of your "contrarian" persona is just that, an exaggeration of how you really
feel? As they say in the wrestling business (of which you appear to be some kind of fan),
the gimmicks are just a worker's real personality turned up to 10.
A: That's an interesting way of putting it but I come by this naturally, by happy accident.
Its not an act, believe it or not. I never, ever go into a position thinking 'what's the way to
turn the volume up so loud to bother people?' I'm not trying to instigate on purpose. I'm
not trying to be controversial. I'm just counterintuitive by nature. And I hate the media as
soapbox-standing moral finger waggers when all of us are flawed, in athletics, in
journalism, on earth. Hate that. Read it growing up all the time -- angry media guy railing
against sports and the bad people in it -- and it was just boring and redundant. I love
sports. I enjoy sports. I admire the people who play them professionally. Why bitch about
them? And I've never understood that kind of angry writing and judgment that comes
with it. So I swim the other way. And I think that's where you will find most of the stuff that
gets me called a contrarian or an apologist. I might also be missing a chip in terms of
self-awareness. I really don't know how or why some of the stuff I say -- they are just
opinions about sports, after all -- gets people insane because I think its perfectly logical.
But its not an act. It really isn't. I'm not thinking of a position and then inflating it with
steroids -- though, now that you've made me think about, it WOULD be pretty cool to go
on PTI and do an entire episode as a screaming wrestling persona like the Road Warriors.
One of the weird things about being contrarian' or 'apologist' is that all I think I'm ever
doing is extending compassion and understanding. I'm not excusing behavior; I'm
explaining it. I don't feel it is my place to get all judgmental and castigate Plaxico Burress
or Michael Vick or Terrell Owens. Who the [heck] am to do that? When I don't know what
their lives were like? when I don't have all the details on how they arrived where they are?
I'm not comfortable judging others. I aspire to not do that; Fail all the time, like I did with
Nick Saban because I have a blind spot when it comes to bully dictators, but aspire to it.
But it’s odd to me, really odd, that I get tabbed with contrarian and apologist because of
what I believe to be simply extending empathy in all instances.
Now, I'm not saying that the people who hit me with that are wrong and I'm right. There
are probably times that I'm not self-aware and my tone stinks and i sound like I'm
defending inexcusable behavior. So I'm sure I'm contributing to the way I get received; I
just don't know whether I'm contributing 10 percent to it or 90 percent to it. I don't think I'm
all right and everyone else is all wrong, but I just get frustrated with the idea of Donte
Stallworth as a conversation point, for example. OF COURSE, he shouldn't have done that.
OF COURSE he was wrong and it is awful and tragic that someone died. We can all agree
on that, but if the family is ok with his
penalty, and the legal system is, why can't we be? There's an entire conversation to be
had, an interesting one, after you get past the consensus of him being wrong for
what he did....but it seems to me that we get stuck too often in the name-calling
muck of stepping on him (jerk! drunk! entitled athlete punk!) for being wrong and to me
the conversation after that and around that is more interesting.
Q: Speaking of, why all the wrestlers on the show? Just a kitsch thing?
A: Live everything else, just an accident. I enjoyed it growing up but I haven't watched
wrestling in 25 years. We were talking about wrestling one day, got a wrestler on to
continue the discussion and, not surprisingly, he was interesting and entertaining and
ridiculous. And it seemed to hit a nerve. It is funny, when you think about it. We're only
putting on wrestlers from my childhood, really, so it ends up being nostalgic and where-
are-they-now and, good god, they're still the same act? It just makes us laugh every time
and it's completely surreal to be talking to them. But not a lot of thought went into it.
Doesn't sound, looking back on this, that a lot of thought has gone into
much of anything that I've done. I sculpted one craft. Writing. I poured myself
into that with a decade of maniacal zeal. I didn't think there would ever be
a radio or tv future for me. Didn't even think in those terms. I just loved
writing about sports and everything after that (the tv stuff, the ridiculous
wrestlers on the radio, the good and the bad) was born from that love."
