Archer v. Spagnola; or, A Modest Proposal on What (if Anything) to Do About “The Ranch Report” – PART 2

In the previous post I rambled on about how colorless and uninteresting The Ranch Report has been, whether in the hands of Mickey Spagnola or Todd Archer.

Before throwing out a couple of respectful suggestion, let us consider the possibility that there just isn't enough news coming out of Valley Ranch on a daily basis to make The Ranch Report compelling listening under any circumstances.

OK, I’ve considered it. I don't believe it. My guess is that the Ticket hosts themselves hear an enormous amount of inside Cowboy information that they do not share with the P1 Refugees. (And inside info re the Mavericks, and Rangers, and Stars (but who cares) and FC Dallas (ditto in spades).) Interesting information; information that affects on-field decisions and performance. Who's up, who's down, who's at the clubs late at night, who doesn’t like white (or black) guys, who got chewed out on Monday, who's switched from D&M Auto Leasing to AutoFlex. That would be a Ranch Report worth listening to.

Of course, all of this is complicated by The Ticket's "partnership" with the Dallas Morning News. (I really need to pick up the DMN to see how the partnership is manifested in its pages. I'm guessing that the DMN needs The Ticket more than vice-versa, but that's a topic for another time.) Maybe they have some kind of legal or moral obligation to feature the DMN beat guy on the station.

If not, then I have several modest proposals:

First, safe suggestion: Get an “outside” Michael Lombardi-type or Peter King-type – he (or she) wouldn’t have to be of national renown, just a skilled and knowledgeable pro sports reporter or observer (ex-jock, but not Troy Aikman) – to do a report devoted solely to the team at issue (Cowboys, Rangers, Mavs, Stars) Might be expensive, but remember, we’re putting on a better show here. Advertisers would pay more to be associated with a name commentator.

For an example of this, think about Mark Followill’s calls to the Hardline. Those are terrific segments. Followill is employed by – hell, I don’t know, but if he’s not employed by the Mavericks, then the Mavericks undoubtedly have a voice in his retention. Nevertheless, his commentary on the Mavericks is informed and candid. It is interesting to listen to because we have come to trust him not to pull his punches.

Second, out-there suggestion: Turn The Ranch Report into more of a TMZ-styled segment in which some of the stuff that sports radio guys actually hear about the Cowboys makes it onto the air. I absolutely understand that The Ticket does not want to traffic in naked rumors, in stuff that has no indicia of reliability, or highly personal information that, if disclosed, would threaten reputations and relationships. But O Confessors, you well know that there is a large amount of credible and juicy information that swirls around a team with the high public profile of the Cowboys, and a lot of it leaks out, and a lot of it visible out on the street. Someone knows that information and can make an informed editor's draw between the likely and the unlikely. Where is that knowledgeable person? Who should be doing The Ranch Report? I have no idea. Hey, I'm not paid to provide all the answers. (Hmm, come to think of it, I'm not paid for ANY of these jewels.)

My modest proposal is that The Ranch Report should be ditched and replaced by a segment with news of interest to P1s. Call it . . .

The Death Star Dish
Voice from the Valley
Cowboy Confidential

.  .  .  or something less crappy. I think I might use a female reporter, even if she were not the source of the information. There are all kinds of ways this could work without significant risk of liability. The Ticket doesn’t have to worry about a paycheck from the Cowboys. It doesn’t have to worry very much about access – how sad would we be if The Ticket were denied access to Martellus Bennett? A small price to pay for even more startling ratings. Can you imagine the hullabaloo if The Little Ticket broke a story or two?

Third – solely procedural – suggestion: Two, three times a week would be often enough for either of these formats. The Ranch Report itself (with Archer or someone like him) might be better if it appeared less frequently and the host could gin up some tidbits for us.

A pipe dream, I know. (Wait until you hear my suggestions for The Hardline, in an upcoming multi-parter – this one will look positively reasonable.) But whatever you do, Cumulus – don't subject us to another year of the sound-check Ranch Report.

Archer v. Spagnola; or, A Modest Proposal on What (if Anything) to Do About “The Ranch Report” – PART 1

When Mickey Spagnola was doing The Ranch Report, we all knew he was an employee of the Cowboys. So we always kinda didn't know what to make of his reports. Was this the straight stuff or was it the company line? He was always a voice-of-reason kind of guy, seldom had any really serious breaking news unless it was fairly minor – someone held out of practice for one reason or another. He came across as a pretty OK guy, and the Ticket hosts seemed to like him.

But I wonder if anyone had the same feeling I had: The Ranch Report usually brought the Hardline (and other shows it was on) to a gentle stop. The most interesting thing about it was Michael's sing-songy introduction. We'd either heard Mickey's stuff already on a Ticket Ticker, or what we were going to hear was not of much significance. Once in awhile he'd offer a tastier observation, but those instances were few and far between. There was never much banter or warmth between Mickey and the hosts. He wasn’t of the shows; he was just on the shows. 

Then the Cowboys moved on to a better signal – and perhaps more respectful treatment at the hands of the local hosts, or more money, or who knows why – and Mickey went with them. Todd Archer, Cowboys Dallas News beat guy, was now reporting from the Ranch. I recall his first few dispatches as pretty good. Good energy, some interesting observations. Seemed to work well with the hosts. Mike seemed excited to have him on.

I would be interested in the observations of fellow Confessors on his performance over the course of the NFL year. I want to be fair. Archer is not a professional broadcaster and should not be held to high standards of audio professionalism. But the tradeoff we’re looking for here is that in return for listening to this press guy’s voice, we’re going to get some shinier nuggets than Spagnola doled out.

Personally, I was disappointed. His reports grew less informative, seldom offering the kind of "inside" stuff that one would expect from an objective report issuing from Valley Ranch. His energy level sank. His radio presence was nowhere near as vibrant as Spagnola's, for about the same amount of not-very-sexy information. Like Spagnola, Archer seems like a real nice guy and a knowledgeable guy, a sense of humor, too, and at least the various hosts didn't show particular contempt for him (i.e., contempt beyond their customary contempt for non-host participants in the show). As it had with Spagnola, Archer's Ranch Reports became an opportunity to punch P2 and listen to "All Things Considered."

Upon reflection, the reason for the lack of interesting information conveyed during The Ranch Report was obvious: Just as one could not blame Spagnola for respecting the source of his paycheck, one cannot blame Archer for (and I am speculating here with zero evidence) protecting the trust that gives him access to inside information he needs to do his job. He surely knows (or reasonably suspects) more than he’s giving us on The Ranch Report. But I feel for the guy -- he can't say what he knows, or pretty soon his Cowboy sources (the sources he needs to do his real job of sportswriting) would cut him off. So we probably need to give both Mickey and Todd a break, concede that they’re good at what they do, and regret that there is a price to be paid in the coin of broadcast discretion in return for a continued paycheck and/or continued access.

If you think I’m being too harsh, O my Confessors, let me ask you this: Would you rather listen to Cowboy talk from either of the “insiders” on The Ranch Report, or would you rather listen to Cowboy talk from “outsider” Michael Lombardi on the Musers?

NEXT – PART 2: A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR “THE RANCH REPORT”

The Hardline -- The Curtains Part (Slightly)

The Hardline boys made one of their rare forays into commenting on the nature of their partnership today. I forget the context, but Corby had said something naughty, and Mike was complaining that if he had said it, the music would have come down and it would have been dumped. Danny then referred to Mike as the “Patriarch” of the show by way of suggesting that Mike’s role was to “keep the monkeys in line” (and, the implication was, to lend some dignity to the proceedings by virtue of his age and seniority). That is, Danny and Corby were arguing that they were allowed to get away with impish misbehavior that Mike should not be associated with and should be discouraged from pursuing. Mike objected that he wanted to be every bit as disruptive (I forget the actual word he used) as monkeys Corby and Danny.


Corby and Danny were right, and this supports something I have written several times in the past:  The one thing missing from the Hardline program since the departure of Greg Williams (which I favored) is balance. Mike has become infantilized because he can’t compete with the barrage of juvenilia issuing from the Danny-Corby axis in the way he used to, when he had some support, however sporadic, from the Hammer. He can’t beat ‘em, so he’s been trying to join ‘em, and it’s a little sad to hear.

I actually have a solution to what I perceive in this one problem with the Hardline, and I’ll sketch it out sometime in the future. (Would need to stretch over a few posts.)  In the meantime, I thought today’s colloquy showed some interesting program self-awareness.

Today's Wife Swap

I thought it was refreshing to hear Mike on the Musers and Junior with the Hardline. Both shows were good, with an exception.

Mike's level needed some brightening. Sounded like he was in a different studio in a different state.

Exception: The "Corby and Danny Speak Their True Minds During Junior's Bicycle Hero Story" bit was so stagey, so written (not that they were trying to conceal it), and so annoying, that it wins the Most Failed Bit of 2009 award and the year is only half over. I was listening to the show on a good stereo and the thing was incoherent and, when audible, a one-joke bit that went on and on. (And the underlying Bicycle Hero story was kind of interesting.) Other than that, a pretty good show. Junior holds his own with those two scamps.

Where's Greggo? How's Greggo?

I'm surprised at how little comment there has been in the blogosphere about the abrupt departure of Greggo from the ESPN evening show. I tuned in a couple of times in mid-run, didn't hear much of anything that made me want to keep listening, although he seemed coherent at the time. I was glad that he was trying to make a comeback, we all root for those American second acts. It wasn't beyond imagining that if he cleaned up his act he might one day rejoin the Hardline. Stranger reconciliations have happened in show biz.

But now -- gone, and nothing much I can find on what's up with him.

I was one of those who thought that Corby and Mike (and the rest of the staff) behaved about as well as one can behave when confronted with the unreliability of the addict. There were a lot of folks out there, though, who carried some special reserve of bile for Corby, blaming his opportunism for the Hardline's problems. Given Hammer's repeat performance at ESPN, that position is pretty difficult to maintain.

The Corby Question

In general, Corby does not suck. He has his broadcasting weaknesses. Too many things are the best or worst of whatever category is up for discussion. Too many "no way"s. Other things we can get into. But he's reliably listenable.

When Greg Williams left the Hardline, we all waited with bated breath to see if Michael and Corby could keep the high-wire act going. In a way, it seems almost impertinent to comment on it, because their amazing success has continued and, if anything, they're doing better than ever. So, you know, who needs any critique of the show? Even Corby's detractors really have to admit that his elevated profile has not wrecked the show for most of its audience. Personallly, I thought the decline of the show in general was becoming pretty apparent in the better part of a year before Hammer's bailout, and I'm one who was glad to see him go. Know that not everyone shares that opinion, but his misogyny, gratuitous vulgarity and obvious lack of show preparation was detracting from my enjoyment of the ride home. So the Corby & Michael show, for me, was an automatic improvement.

But this begs the question as to whether it could be better, and now, more than a year-and-a-half after Greggo's departure, I think the answer is yes. As I say, it's a confession -- I like the two Michaels and Corby and Danny a lot, but I gotta say: The show is overweighted to Corby and Danny, aided and abetted by Gruber. The post-Greggo makeup of the show entirely changed not only Mike's role, but his personality. Whereas he was the appealing Old Grey Wolf before, now he's on the defensive against the onslaught of the youngsters (who aren't all that young). For lack of a better word, he needs an ally to free him to reassert some adult control over the program and restore the appeal of his Greggo-era persona. He needs his own sidekick.