What's everybody think of the new local WDFN?
The morning and afternoon shows are good. However, I think that Shep and Sharp is one of the worst sports talk shows ever. I'd like to know if I'm alone on that one.
Printable View
What's everybody think of the new local WDFN?
The morning and afternoon shows are good. However, I think that Shep and Sharp is one of the worst sports talk shows ever. I'd like to know if I'm alone on that one.
I'm just happy that there is again an alternative to the babble on 1270.
Shep and Sharp have their moments, but admittedly can come off as a little unpolished. But that can be a good thing.
That said, I really miss Stoney and Wojo. They were fun to listen to on my drive home.
In the afternoon, Jim Rome is so full of himself, I have a hard time putting up with his west coast attitude.
One thing I cannot stomach is when they talk about the Lions. I realize it's our home town team, but they have been losers for so long, they lost me as a fan when Barry left and any talk of them makes me turn the station off. Stafford or Culpepper? Who really gives a crap!!!
I also don't like it when they get into social issues [[racism, politics, etc).
It's called sports radio for a reason.
I do agree with Jefferson that having a sports alternate radio station in this town is great.
Sean Baligian and Tom Kowlaski in the AM is a pleasant listen on the morning commute [[Jay Towers is NOT my idea of entertainment in the morning). Sean & Tom both seem pretty knowledgeable and have interesting observations. Admittedly I did like it when Killer was more of the Lions Insider back in the day.
Jim Rome? FEH! Why in the world would anyone want to call in and be a clone of his? I have no problem with people calling in and debating the hosts. What's wrong with an opposing view or having an intelligent discussion? He runs people for opposing views. Rome rants, raves and really has horrific questions for his few guests. In so many ways, I think Jim Rome is the Rush Limbaugh of sports talk.
Can't speak to the quality of WDFN specifically. It is certainly not unusual for local sports talk radio to broadcast presumptuous, heavily opinionated content. Said better, sports radio commentary is conclusive and decisive based on fact and opinion.
What I'm enjoying most is that with more resources available now, sports fans are empowered to make their own talk. The independence requires additional time, however it gives integrity to the fan who rejects being spoon fed. Navigating online statistics, blogs, webisodes, tube clips, TiVoing, and otherwise finding informed content is like a treasure hunt ending in pleasant surprises. Rules-based big media [[Rome et al) typically fails to provide edge.
And listeners who are referred to as "clones" don't help the case. They often hang on for hours on end to get their miserable little sound bytes in too. I don't mind listening passively to radio but to hang on for hours on end just to imitate the guy seems nutty to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by vetalalumni
The group to which you refer represent a valid business entity.Quote:
Originally Posted by smogboy
I can't believe how offbase Drew Sharp has been, not just in his Freep articles but on the air- he's just rank amateurish at best on the airwaves.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghein
Flog me if you want, but I like Valenti. Yeah, he's an a-hole, I like that about the show.
But I agree that these guys need to stay away from the social/political topics. If I want to listen to people intelligently discuss local issues, I'm not going to be tuning in to sports radio. Their analysis/understanding of the topics is often shallow at best.
No problems with Mike Valenti here. He's opinionated and can hold his own pretty well. When challenged he can defend his POV pretty well. The majority of his opinions are pretty well thought out and are pretty spot on. Now some people might have issues with his "Angry Italian" sort of approach but beyond that, I think he's pretty enjoyable. Teaming him up with Terry Foster is great too. They pretty well informed and don't always agree but can play off of one another with some measure of decorum. It's not always clowning and I'm perfectly fine with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnlodge
I'd take Valenti over Gregg Henson any day of the week.
I like Valenti, too. He's fun. Some of his schtick has not aged well [[such as the sigh before laying out The Truth According To Mikey V.,) but he's got some fiber in his bread, and Foster-- older, more even-handed-- is there to add a nice balance.
I have discussed that other matter with a guy from The Ticket. They are all directed to feature at least one non-sports topic on their shows. Agree with that approach or not, enjoy the results or not, bear in mind that they are carrying out a directive from The Boss.
Skipping through the radio dial a few weeks back, I heard whom I consider to be one of the best and most informed sports people on the air again. It was Jennifer Hammond back on WDFN again; she was across the table from Ryan Ermani. I remember "Hammer" back when she was with WDFN just doing the scores & updates before she jumped to FOX2 television.
We'd occasionally see her doing the sideline gig during the FOX football games, doing the sports for FOX2, and I'd always remember seeing clips of her in the post game of all the Lions games regardless of what station was in there. You'd always see her fighting & clawing her way in that madhouse trying to get a clip. During some of the pre-games shows, you'd know that she had done her homework as well Tom Kowalski or Dan Miller; she'd always be the consummate professional out there.
Never once have I ever heard her embarrass herself. She'd have opinions but they were always based in the facts and observations that she gathered; it'd never seem like blustering that you'd see guys like Rob Parker would make. Jennifer Hammond has always come across as a professional sports journalist to me- no schtick, no gimmicks, and just does her job very well. She's not just a fluffy female sports reporter, she's a top notch sports journalist that just happens to be female.
I happen to think that Valenti is the best sports talker in this market. I just wonder how long before he goes national. He and Foster have great chemistry. I knew it was just a matter of time before they would run down stoney and wojo. Granted the shift to FM helped but I think it would have happened anyway. I'm also glad that Valenti and Foster isn't an interview driven show. Mike is so opinionated, and has his facts together most of the time so I'm sure that the "coach speak" that these guys do in interviews won't fly with Valenti. Valenti is such a sports geek he can back up his views with facts, whereas many sports talkers have there opinions but they have really nothing to base it on other than there gut feel.
And, if you become dis-heartened about the folks on our local airwaves, stay up until 2:00 AM, tune in 97.1 FM and see how long you can tolerate the absolutely nauseating David Stein & his "Celebrating Life Through Sports" vomit-inducing syndicated program.
I am all for positive vibes, and alla that, but this guy should be wearing a plaid jumper and saddle shoes.
About the second time you hear him say, "anyhoodles" [[it should take only about seven minutes,) you'll understand what I mean.
Just on a lark, I decided to take a stab at this show just to see Ravine's point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravine
Granted I only listened to about half hour of this show and maybe I missed the context of this show but WHAT DOES THIS SHOW HAVE TO DO WITH SPORTS? This guy seems to want to turn sports into some odd evangelical movement!
I dunno. Maybe I need to listen to it more to get used to this guy but as a sports fan, I tune into these stations for some insight on the games, I want the scores, I want an opinion on a trade, I want to hear some interviews, I want to discuss drafts, I want to be informed... but if it wasn't for the updates, this show would be worthless. This show reminded me of the Al Franken Stuart Smalley bit he used to do on Saturday Night Live. It truly was feel good nauseating.
Since I listen to more Detroit Sports Radio that I should, I'll add my two cents worth to the discussion. Mikey V's angry guy shtick gets pretty old after awhile. I can't stand when him and Matt Dery go off on one of their rants on how their hometowns have much better teams and leadership. I wish Terry would chime in more and set those two clowns straight.
I think the addition of Mike Stone in the morning is a good move, as I couldn't stand Jay Towers. I hope they make that a permanent move. Also, they need to make the morning show more sports oriented and less pop culture. If I wanted to know what happened on America Karaoke last night, I would listen to any other morning show.
I like the general back and forth banter of Karsh and Anderson, they seem to be two fellas that I could sit and have a few beers with and discuss sports.
Caputto and Fithian at night are pretty good, especially when they have their segments on the Tigers and Red Wings. Besides, they are both local guys who offer decent insight, although I find it entertaining when callers crack on Pat for being a slappy.
I never had any problems with Jim Rome, although some could say thats is because his shenanigans appeal to my juvenile side! :D I am glad that WDFN has local programming again.
Today cemented my hate for Stoney on the 97.1 morning show. The last thing I feel like listening to during the morning drive is some half-wit trying to tightwalk across race relations. So Stoney thinks the guy trying to start an all white basketball league is a racist idiot, but then planned out what his all white team would look like, down to each position? He can't be replaced soon enough for me. I'd take Bill and someone else having light hearted banter about music and crap any day over Stoney's desperate struggle to remain relevant.
I'm the first one to admit I like Mike Stone, but as long as he talks about what he loves- which is sports. When paired up with Wojo back in the WDFN days I thought he was fine; they talked mainly about sports. They could joke about things sports related and occasionally would dabble on a social topic, but it always came back to sports.
Maybe it's just who he's paired up with in the morning but it seems forced an contrived. But then I think a lot of the morning drive radio shows are a little mundane; they try to be cute and clever and somehow fail on both accounts. I think to have entertaining shows they need a team with good chemistry and what they have now fails me. Dropping Stoney into that slot in the morning baffles me. But then having a not funny Jay Towers in there is as annoying as well.
It's moments like this that I gladly tune back to WDFN and hear Sean Baligian and Tom Kowalski. They at least seem to play off off of one another and are slowly building up some chemistry. Their banter is what guys would talk about; I can relate to them [[I at least know what I'm going to get by listening to them) whereas on 97.1 seems to miss the mark with me in the morning. Are they trying to be funny on current news topics [[a lot of their segments start off with the "did you see this in today's news)? Is it supposed to be sports? Is it social issues? It's all too confusing on that radio station in the morning and makes for bad radio. Give me a focus to listen as opposed to sitting on the fence!
As it stands now on 97.1 in the morning, it seems like an awkward fit with Stoney there.
The "Ticket" has actually lost some listeners since DFN has come back. Consider the demographic for sports talk- young, mostly white and male. Just the kind of audience for an asshole like Mikey, and that's what they want. It's all about the ratings, and that's what they want. If he incites you to pick up the phone and call him to argue, then he's done his job. They know you're listening.
Actually I like listening to sports talk radio not because of the "asshole factor" but because some of those guys actually have some insight to sports. It's one thing for someone to be a total jerk [[and Valenti can be) but he's somewhat informed. He has opinions that I don't always agree with but at least one feels he's somewhat genuine in his beliefs. I also suspend just how argumentative people can be because we're all discussing sports- it's not life or death.
I also think part of what makes the Valenti/ Foster show work so well is that Valenti is paired up with a pretty level headed guy in the likes of Terry Foster. When those guys do the show alone [[because of vacations or otherwise), it doesn't seem to work as well. The pair actually plays off of one another well; they have chemistry and can agree to disagree. I think that's what makes interesting and entertaining sports talk.
I think that's why I bristle at the likes of Jim Rome. He's somewhat rude, brusk and doesn't really have anyone to play off of beyond his clones- who in essence are pale imitators to himself. He sports the "asshole factor" by himself for the most part and just doesn't appeal to me. If he's informed, it's hidden by his blustering and pontificating. His interviews sound scripted [[no follow-up questions to answers) and any sort of dialogue with a guest or a caller is feeble at best.
I echo smogboy's comments 100%. And I rarely find myself getting mad at Valenti's schtick, because I generally agree with him. He has the ability to put a thorough smack down on callers who say idiotic things, and what's nice about that is that you hear other people saying those idiotic things all day, and you get to hear somebody tell it to them like it is at the end of the day.
When I do get mad is when he tries discussing social issues, which is NOT an expert on, and shouldn't even be discussing IMHO. But I'm not prompted to call, because there's no point in trying to feed into it. Let's face it, sports commentators are generally not equipped to handle complicated social issues. Leave it alone. You were the guy NOT paying attention in class, and smacking the guys who did upside the head in the hall. Stick to your niche, and leave the thinking to the thinkers.
Just to clarify what I meant to say- I think there's two different schools of thought here between the two stations[[97.1 v DFN). I go back and forth between the two, depending on the topic. Some people prefer to stick with a strictly sports format- others like the "open topic" format. Mike V. doesn't make me angry, or anything. I do have friends though, who say his "Joe Pesci" like approach they don't like. That's why a radio has a tuner. Listen to what you want. It's all good. Better explanation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnlodge
I think Valenti and Foster are being held captive to the format when it comes to discussing social issues. I would really be surprised if they really wanted to talk about issues much outside of sports for any extended period of time.
Right, I've heard it's mandated. Either way, direct my comments at the program directors then.Quote:
Originally Posted by firstandten
Yeah, but what annoys me is when they try to "take jabs" at each other. Most of it seems forced and fake. And please, I'm just not into the "womanizer" angle or the "man issues" stuff. Again, it just sounds and seems disingenuous. Maybe its me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnlodge