My Ticket-Related Criterion for the Next Cowboys Head Coach

He has to be someone that Gordon or George, or hey, maybe even Craig, can mimic.  I'm sure we'll continue to have visits from Garrett and Wade, but we need someone helming the Cowboys who possesses a distinctive timbre or manner of speaking or pet phrases. 

Whatever we may think of Wade Phillips and Jason Garrett, they blessed the P1 with a decade-and-a-half of comedy gold at the hands of Gordon and George.

*     *     *

Parting Garrett shot:  Everyone is careful to say what a nice guy he was before they dump on him.  Some are even saying that they now feel sorry for him for having coached under Jerry's stifling conditions. 

I'm not sure about that.  I'd feel a lot better about him if I ever heard him take any responsibility for poor game management, spotty preparation, failure to hold players to account, and all manner of other managerial weaknesses. 

As passive as the guy seems, my take is that he has an absolutely massive ego that demanded fealty to his primitive "processes" -- whatever they were -- despite the growing evidence that they were putting the Cowboys a decade behind the rest of the league.   Stubbornness can be a virtue, until it ossifies into not knowing what else to do.

Ahh, whaddya expect from a Princeton guy?

*     *     *

Wishing all Confessors a happy and safe New Year.  Thanks for coming along for the MTC ride in 2019.

                                                                                       -- Plainsman

Will The Ticket Report . . .

.  .  .  on the passing on one of the greatest and most colorful sportsmen -- I'd call him an athlete -- of our time?

 

Junior Johnson, RIP

AMENDMENT:  If you're out of free New York Times articles, try this:

Sporting News Junior Johnson Obit 

Last post's red didn't get enough exposure, so here she is again:

 

 ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

@Plainsman1310

A Very Happy 54th Birfday . . .

.  .  .  to Craig "Junior" Miller.

Advise Whether I Have Inaccurately Noticed Something

I've done a fair amount of Ticket listening over the past several weeks, and it was only today that I heard the word "drydock" used (Sean Bass mentioned it this morning).

In fact, it seems to me that the shows have downplayed the fact that substitute hosts would be appearing through the New Year.  

Don't want to read too much into this, but I'm wondering if the crew has been instructed not to emphasize the fact (which they used to trumpet extensively when year-end rolled around) that regular programming is going away for a couple of weeks.

With The Ticket appearing suddenly vulnerable in the ratings -- whether because of crappy ratings procedures or otherwise -- perhaps they're taking care not unnecessarily to drive off listeners.

Or has the term been used a lot, and I've just missed it?  

*     *     *

My Jah, what is the deal with Troy Aikman's horribly bloodshot eyes on the Fox broadcasts?  

 

I had a personal encounter with Aikman a year or so ago (cue Vivaldi) and he looked great.  But at least in recent months he looks like he has an allergy to Joe's hair-plug fertilizer or something.

Hope your holidays are proceeding satisfactorily.

Scattershooting, While Wondering . . .

.  .  .  at 9:30 a.m., minutes after the firing of Jim Montgomery, whether The Ticket, the Official Radio Station of the Dallas Stars, is "leveraging" (to use an overused bizspeak word) its relationship to track down Daryl "Razor" Reaugh, or ANY Stars-connected person, to comment on this startling development.

It would be understandable if the Stars, including semi-independent employees like Razor, don't want to comment on their understanding of the "unprofessional conduct" that got him fired.  But someone is going to have to say something.  There will be a presser a little later.

It'd be rich if it was one of his Ticket or White Elephant interviews.  Nah, they were harmless fun, actually reflected well on the Stars. 

Inquiring hockey minds want to know.

Actually, posted this just because the redhead was so appropriate:

Cheap White Elephant Comment String

 

Pretty good so far (9:30 AM at this writing).

Corby's good on these shows.  Jake's a good writer.  Junior laying back.  Donovan doubling down on his "Magic did not have HIV/AIDS" conspiracy theory.  Stevie Wonder theory makes more sense.

Comment.

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE -- Ticket v. Fan Ratings – A Closer Look at the Whitt Report, and Some Different Numbers

In the previous article, I speculated – actually, I just flat said – that Richie Whitt’s information on The Fan overtaking The Ticket, at least as I was interpreting his report, was wrong.  At least, I didn’t believe it.  Most of the reaction I got back on this agreed with me.  Among other things, Confessors wondered why The Fan would move Ben & Skin to afternoons and G-Bag to drive if things were going as great for The Fan as Mr. Whitt’s number’s purported to demonstrate.   They also wondered why The Fan itself didn’t seem to be trumpeting these results.

Since my article appeared, I’ve heard from industry people who have provided me with information that appears to answer these questions.

Now, I don’t know where Mr. Whitt got his information.  And I am not claiming that he inaccurately reported the information he received.  As you’ll see, I think there likely an explanation for why our numbers diverge.  And, as a non-radio guy myself, I don’t have any way of demonstrating that the information you’ll see in a moment is accurate.  As I’ve said in the past, I get tidbits now and then from sources that I personally cannot vouch for.  I suspect that what Mr. Whitt is reporting are apples, and the numbers I have are oranges. 

All I can say is:  This sounds more like it:

There are a couple of different strains to the information I have received.

First, let’s look at the reported numbers themselves.  Reprising Mr. Whitt’s report as to the overall “ratings”:

Among the coveted demographic (Men 25-54) in the money slot (Monday-Friday 6 a.m.-7 p.m.), since May.   The Ticket has tumbled from a 7.6 rating to a 3.2. The Fan, meanwhile, has surged from a 3.1 to a 5.5. Current score: Fan 5.5, Ticket 3.2. In its 25-year history, I can’t imagine The Ticket every getting lambasted by 2.3 points in a month. Ever.

Initially – and this may be the explanation the difference in our numbers – this passage is  unclear as to what period is being reported.  At first he says, “since May,” suggesting that his numbers apply over a several-month period and represents a trend, but his concluding phrase suggests that The Ticket got “lambasted” in some “month.”  I’m going to proceed on the assumption that he’s looking at numbers “since May,” and not in a particular month, since he seems to be suggesting a trend.  I don't want to be unfair in characterizing his piece, but that's how it's being interpreted, whatever his intention.  But if he’s only talking about a single month -- well, that’s a different story than suggesting some seismic shift in listener preferences, which is the tone of his piece.  So that we’re clear, the information I received relates to the entire time period “since May.”

Next, my sources say that what is important in the battle for advertising dollars is “share.”  “Share” includes the stream for the stations in question, as well as all radio signals (i.e., AM and FM for The Ticket).  And when you look at share “since May” – that is, June through October – for The Ticket and The Fan for that period of time, the numbers are:

            The Ticket:  5.3

            The Fan:  5.0

Admittedly close, makes it look like The Fan may be catching up.  But The Ticket is still on top – far from the industry-upsetting arse-kicking Mr. Whitt appears to be suggesting.

Mr. Whitt reports a similar whupping among individual shows.  I do not have any information about individual programs (or individual months), but his report is inconsistent with those June-through-October numbers, if share during that period is what we are measuring.

Again:  with numbers that close, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that as the Niffle season gets underway, The Fan may have bested The Ticket in September or October as some Confessors speculated in the last string.  And maybe that's what Mr. Whitt is actually reporting.  (Somewhat supporting this speculation is that if we go backwards with those share numbers -- back through May, further distant from football season – my sources advise that the delta favoring The Ticket is even greater.)   It wouldn’t shock anyone, and probably not even the CTO (Cumulo-Ticket Overlords), if there were a ratings reversal in a Cowboys month.  But overall, and over recent months, even conceding that particular natural advantage for The Fan during some months, The Ticket continues to outperform The Fan.

Second, and this is probably more important in the long run, sources confirm my speculation that there is currently controversy in the DFW market over Nielsen’s radio ratings procedures (not solely related to The Ticket’s ratings versus its competitors).   Nielsen has reportedly acknowledged industry complaints and is changing its procedures but they are not expected to be reflected in any instantaneous changes in rankings.

This may be another reason that Entercom is keeping its counsel on ratings – the numbers Mr. Whitt is reporting, and the narrow gap in share that I’m reporting, may be an artifact of dubious sampling that will be corrected as quickly as they appeared.  And Entercom knows it.

*     *     *

I’m not a full-time media or sports writer and I do not propose to get into a spat with Mr. Whitt over the differences between his numbers and mine (not “mine,” but somebody’s).  As noted, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of my own information, so I have no basis to question his.  I have suggested that the ambiguity in his article over whether he’s talking about an individual month or overall ratings “since May” may have something to do with it, and that we both may be correct, depending on what our respective numbers are purporting to reflect.  The tone of his article suggests some kind of longer-term change has taken place in the sports-talk scene in DFW, and that seems not to be the case.  The longer-term share numbers may (or may not, depending on how faulty the sampling is) signal a tightening race, and that makes more sense than the topsy-turvy 180-degree migration of 18-54 yo guys his article seems to portray.

In fact, I’ve enjoyed Richie Whitt’s journalism for a long time and I thought his Fan show with Greg “The Hammer” Williams – we recall “The RAGE,” do we not? -- was an interesting and frequently entertaining, if doomed, initiative.  Some long-time Confessors will also recall his tryout as a plus-one with Mike R and Corby on The Hardline for a day or so back when the station was thinking of replacing HeeHoo instead of promoting Corby.   So I don’t want this to look like Richie-bashing.  I’m just reporting what I hear in reaction from people who know more about it – or claim to – than I do.

*     *     *

One more thing, speaking of Ben & Skin:  The word in the industry is that the switch to afternoons was not a decision of Dallas management, but an edict from Entercom suits somewhat remote from local programming. 

Their departure shortly thereafter was voluntary on their part; they were not fired.

*     *     *

But what I really want to know is:  What the heck is a “stick-burner”?

ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

@Plainsman1310 

The Fan Kicking The Ticket's Toches? Sum Ting Wong.

Thanks to Surly for posting the link to a Richie Whitt article that describes what is apparently a dramatic turnaround in fortunes between The Ticket and The Fan.

https://www.pressboxdfw.com/whitts-end-11-1-19/

Check out the entire article.  Here are the money graphs, cut and pasted without permission:

Among the coveted demographic (Men 25-54) in the money slot (Monday-Friday 6 a.m.-7 p.m.), since May The Ticket has tumbled from a 7.6 rating to a 3.2. The Fan, meanwhile, has surged from a 3.1 to a 5.5. Current score: Fan 5.5, Ticket 3.2. In its 25-year history, I can’t imagine The Ticket every getting lambasted by 2.3 points in a month. Ever.

Not surprisingly, the individual matchups sing a similar song. In mornings, The Fan’s Shan & RJ beat The Ticket’s Musers in October, 5.2-3.7. In middays, The Fan’s Ben & Skin clobbered The Ticket’s BaD Radio, 6.5-2.9. And in afternoons, The Fan’s G-Bag Nation topped The Ticket’s Hardline, 4.9-3.2.

 That is a huge reversal, and almost instantaneous.

But there's something not right about these numbers.  I speak not as an expert on ratings or as any other kind of expert.

The Ticket has been decisively on top of the ratings heap for a long time.  I and, I think, most people, including advertisers, believed those numbers, thought they were accurate.  Partly because of general trust of media ratings, partly because The Ticket was so plainly the superior station.  If anything, its comparative excellence and dominance was growing stronger with the passage of time.  The Fan was, and (mostly) still is, a conventional sports talker, very average with a bright spot here and there.

So I ask you -- do you believe that anything has changed between these two stations, or in its listenership, to have resulted in these surging numbers for The Fan, and the corresponding plummeting of The Ticket over a period of time that is the blink of an eye in radio-ratings time?  The Cowboys factor may have played a part, but The Fan has had the Cowboys for awhile.  That's not it.

I expect we will hear from the people who don't like Corby, and who think that Mike R has been phoning it in for awhile.  Fine; fair points.  But that can't account for what appears to be a wholesale shift up and down the radio day from The Ticket to The Fan, nor would it even if it were The Hardline alone.

No, I'm guessing that what happened here -- and this is the purest, uninformed speculation on my part, nobody feeding me inside industry dope -- is that there is continued turmoil in the world of radio ratings, changes in how ratings are measured, uncertainty on how to deal with streaming, things like that.  And that sometime within the last year, a switch got flipped on how ratings were measured or collected, and we ended up with what look to me like highly anomalous results.  A complete 180 in listenership in no time.  Not possible no matter how much you dislike Corby.

In short:  I don't believe it.

*     *     *

ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

@Plainsman1310 

I'm Never Buying Another Subway Sammich, Ever

 

*     *     *

ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

@Plainsman1310

A Hearty Congratulations to BaD Radio

I had hoped to get something more substantial up for this notable accomplishment, but  .  .  .  failed.

Congratulations to Bob Sturm and Dan McDowell on their 5,000th show.

I was able to catch some of this today.  Was a kick to hear Gribble, that Nice Young Michael Gruber, and T.C. Fleming again.

On the one hand, the show's obsessive self-chronicling (do they have every show on tape?) is a little self-absorbed.  But forget that hand -- I'm really glad they take the show seriously and archive their stuff, keep track of show numbers, all the rest.  Keep it up, lads.   Whatever one may think of the show, it can't be denied that their show preparation is tops at The Ticket -- yes, topping even the Sainted Musers.

That shows respect to the listeners.

And we shouldn't forget that they turned down an opportunity for (it is said) more money to move to another station not so very long ago.  There's some love there.

I do worry that Bob will take his Large Sports Brain to more lucrative fields full-time (TV, behind the scenes with a network, play-by-play, sports journalism, books), so let's enjoy the team while we can.

A question for wayback P1s:  Don't The Hardline and The Musers each have more shows in the bag -- maybe not at their current time slots, but at least identifiably as the shows they still are -- than BaD?  I don't want to detract from the 5,000-show milestone, but, in the words of an immortal BaD staffer -- am I wrong here, guys?

Again, best wishes and for many more shows to come.

 

False Advertising, and a Couple of Observations

Freshening up the thread with a cheap post:

(1) The Ticket is running ads this morning for Intentional Grounding for 7 PM tonight.  But it will not be on at 7 PM tonight, because of  .  .  .  the Stars!

David and Big Bob did their show last night.

(2) While we're on the subject of Intentional Grounding -- love it, always have, but with all of the self-deprecating show-opening banter and discussion of the lads' non-IG activities of the prior week, football talk doesn't get started until a third of the show is in the books.  It's only an hour show, and it also gets eaten into with Hardline cross-talk and ads.

They gots innarestin Cowboys talk.  Get on with it, D and BB.

(3) The Musers, and Gordon in particular, are way, way too terrified of the ascendance of artificial intelligence.  Maybe it's a bit.  But doesn't sound like it.

There.

As a bonus for reading this cruddy post, you get two redheads today.

 

 

ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

@Plainsman1310

Jury Orders Bart Reagor to Pay Ford $53.7 Million

[[TICKET CONNECTION FOR NEWCOMERS:  Reagor-Dykes Auto Group ads, featuring folksy Bart Reagor, a man who never threw a touchdown pass like Tony Romo, but who could get you Any Car U Want, were ubiquitous on The Ticket for quite some time, before his empire went all completely to hell over the course of a few days in the summer of 2018.]]

*         *         *

A Lubbock jury has found Bart Reagor personally liable to pay Ford Credit $53.7 million and change.

Bart Reagor, Radio Advertising Pioneer

This was not a finding that ol' Bart personally committed any fraud.  The chief culprit here is Reagor-Dykes's Chief Financial Officer at the time, Shane Andrew Smith.   Smith kited checks between multiple banks, and got Ford Credit loans for Reagor-Dykes based on dummy VIN numbers for cars not at the dealership, then used the cash to cover other expenses.  He could get up to 20 years in jail; I haven't been able to find any information on whether he has been sentenced.  Four of his staff have also pleaded guilty and taken deals.

Shane Andrew Smith, Fraudster

Ol' Bart was not criminally charged, but was he aware?  We're talking about nine-figure liability (totaling up other claims) here.  When Ford Credit swooped in and audited the dealerships, Bart claimed this was the first he'd heard of it.  Reagor-Dykes fired Smith and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney.  Was ol' Bart covering his ass, or doing what his lawyers told him he had damned well better do?  He was apparently pretty sure Smith would not implicate him, so maybe he was innocent of the fraud.  He hasn't been charged but has taken the fifth amendment under some questioning.

What he was not innocent of (along with Dykes, who settled earlier with Ford Credit) was signing a personal guaranty of Reagor-Dykes's indebtedness to Ford Credit.  Those things are pretty ironclad;  when the primary debtor (the dealership) doesn't pay, you gotta pay and I mean now and no backtalk, and there's almost nothing available to you as a defense, including that the default is someone else's fault (it frequently is).  In fact, 'ol Bart's argument was that the amount of money Ford claimed was much, much more than its actual losses.

The jury did not agree and awarded Ford every penny it sought.  The court had already ruled that the guaranty was valid -- this trial was more or less about where to put the decimal point.


Ol' Bart probably wishes he hadn't threatened to shoot the Ford Credit auditor who showed up to check his books.  (Ford Credit came back a couple of days later with the Ford corporate security team.)  No, he probably wishes he'd made nice and made a deal with Ford, which (as these things usually go) was probably available to him.   After all, the whole thing was more sordid than just a rogue executive screwing Ford Credit.  Rick Dykes has alleged that one of Smith's direct reports, one Pepper Rickman

Pepper Rickman, Enchantress

was having an affair with a Ford Credit guy. (https://www.kcbd.com/2019/03/21/rick-dykes-reveals-corruption-secrets-affairs-within-rdag-witness-statement/)   He said that Ms. Rickman was tipped off to audits in advance and alerted Smith, who moved things around to enable Reagor-Dykes to stave off the day of reckoning.

But no, ol' Bart got his back up and refused to pay, and now he's going to have a court order telling him yeah, you gotta.  I assume he'll appeal.

I'm thinking:  You know, he probably wasn't as nice a guy as he tried to make us think he was in all those ads.  I mean, it's possible.

I'm glad he didn't shoot Tony Romo.

*     *     *

ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

@Plainsman1310

Corby's Laws

On balance, this site defends Corby Davidson.  I think he’s a unique radio talent and he entertains me.  I have probably laughed out loud at his utterances more than I have at those of other hosts.   I don’t look to him (or any Ticket show or host) for highly-informed commentary on current affairs, science, philosophy, or anything that really matters much to me, or that I know much about.    

I do understand less generous opinions about the man.   Critics are not wrong about lack of preparation, exaggeration and hyperbolic descriptions, celeb-sniffing, mic-hogging (but this is entirely a result of Mike R’s and Jeff C’s permissiveness), and excessive holding-forth on matters political.  Perhaps I’ve become inured to them.  In any event, I can’t remember the last time I punched out of The Hardline.   So on balance I’m a pretty strong Corby fan; while I’d insist on some fine-tuning if I were the Catman of the Western Hemisphere, I'm not one of those calling for the ‘Line’s ouster from PM drive.

But  .  .  .  (you knew it was coming):

Corby was on a major rant on the show last week that I’ll describe below, one of those that needed to be about 2/5 as long as it was, and much reduced in vehemence.  Nothing upsetting, not a life-and-death topic.  But as he went on, I formulated a set of rules for  listening to Corby’s extended oral essays, which I call:

Corby’s Three Laws of Inverse Certitude:

First Law:  The more certain Corby purports to be, the more likely he is to be wrong.

Second Law:  The more vehemently Corby expresses his insistence that there is no room for dispute or discussion, the greater the magnitude of his error is likely to be.

Third Law:  The likelihood of error in any rant ending with Corby saying “period, end of story” approaches 100%.

All right, so now I’m being hyperbolic, jes' having a li'l fun here.  Corby isn’t always wrong in his impromptu declamatory lectures.

But this one  .  .  . 

Corby was commenting on the Sports Illustrated story about what happened with Michael Vick’s fighting dogs.  It’s a great story.  The dogs – most, but not all, were pit bulls or near-pit bulls -- were evaluated, and all but three were deemed “re-educable.”   They’re in the process of being treated and placed.  The process is a long one, and the treatment intense.   The new owners themselves appear to be concentrated on the special needs of these dogs.  To date – no maulings.  Not all the dogs are out of the woods yet, but it is a very encouraging tale.

Corby’s conclusion:  Dogs, irrespective of breed, are never inherently problem animals.   Viciousness or aggression in dogs is always the result of bad owners.   Never the breed; always the owner.  He was that black-and-white about it and said it several different ways.  Period, end of story.

Now let me say two things here:  (1) I am not about to claim that the inclination of a dog’s owner, or the dog’s training, has no effect on its tendency toward viciousness.  (2) I am not about to claim that all or even most pit bulls are vicious.

I will point out, however, that studies unanimously show that the pit bull is involved in a hugely disproportionate percentage of bites and fatalities in the U.S.   An organization devoted to dog-bite awareness collected the statistics from 2005 to 2017.  Pit bulls, which account for about 6.5% of dogs, were responsible for 66% of all fatalities.   Another study for the period 1982 to 2012 reports that the molosser breeds (pit bulls, Rottweilers, mastiffs, and some less common breeds) were responsible for 79% of the attacks that result in bodily harm and 77% of those that result in maiming – well more than half accounted for by pit bulls in each case.   A 2000 study by the Centers for Disease Control examining a 20-year period reported very similar numbers.

These numbers alone do not prove inherent viciousness.   Certainly the size and strength of these dogs – and their tenacity and imperviousness to pain once they begin an attack – means their attacks are likely to be far more dangerous than those of a much smaller dog, which would tend to inflate reports of their predations and the seriousness of the attacks.

But these statistics call into serious question -- all but refute -- the assertion that pit bulls do not pose a problem that is not accounted for in all cases by abusive owners (Corby’s position).   They almost certainly do.   Pit bulls are not the only dogs reported to have attacked humans without provocation and with no history of vicious behavior, but the numbers are hard to explain away – surely “bad” or neglectful owners are not gigantically overrepresented among the owners of molosser breeds.  Even scholars who are friends of the pit bull say that the dog’s upbringing requires particular care in socialization.   Numerous courts of appeal have affirmed the inherent dangers associated with the breed.

And, frankly, think about it:   You’ve seen it yourself -- herding breeds will engage in herding behavior whether an owner trains them to herd or not.  A variety bred to kill will be more inclined to violence than one bred to race.   Corby's position is:  It's always nurture, it's never nature.   Oh?  Ever known a rotten kid with great parents? 

 

Let's not forget that Corby has done great work for the Good Puppy Dog for Dallas DogRRR for which he deserves our gratitude.  He may believe he’s helping the cause of the pit bull by absolving them of all inbred vices.   I know some great people who are friends of the “pitty,” and the breed has probably received some bad press it does not deserve.   But to claim that attacking pit bulls are always the result of bad owners is unhelpful.   When it comes to unprovoked, serious assaults on humans, molossers are a problem disproportionate to their numbers, and pit bulls lead the pack.

Period, end of article.

I'd Feel a Whole Lot Better about Buying Insurance from City Credit Union if Sharon Moore Knew How to Pronounce "Insurance"

[EOM]

[Not Sharon Moore.  Insured status unknown.]

Oh, Savannah!!

Hey, what gives?

For the longest time, The Ticket has been telling me that Savannah is my favorite Tight Ends girl.

OK, I have no reason for her not to be my favorite Tight Ends girl.

She seems like a nice girl.

I mean, I never actually met her, but she seems nice to me.

And she promised me in all those ads that:

     --  the beer is frosty;

     --  the food is mouth-watering; and

     --  the T's are poppin'!

I believed my favorite Tight Ends girl, nice Savannah. 

But today, I hear a couple of Tight Ends ads being read by some woman named Joanna, and she says that she's my favorite Tight Ends girl!

What happened to Savannah?  Why can't she still be my favorite Tight Ends girl?

I can't even find a photograph on the World Wide Webs identifying any of the many Tight Ends girls who appear there as Joanna.


I'm sure she's nice, maybe a nice as Savannah, but indications are scarce.

But here's the worst part:  Joanna promises that:

     --  the beer is frosty;

     --  the food is mouth-watering; and

that's it!

Joanna does not promise that the T's are poppin'!

Oh, she says the Tight Ends girls will all dress to impress.  But hell, so does Angela Merkel, and no one would claim that her T's are poppin'.   

So it seems we have come to the end of the era of the poppin' T's at Tight Ends.  Or at least the end of the era where Cumulus Standards and Practices will allow a sponsor to claim that visitors to its establishment will see young women's improbably large breasts exploding out of  their cotton-lycra blend tops.

Savannah, come back!