Connect with us

BSM Writers

Draymond Green Has Developed an Absolutely Perfect Gimmick



Draymond Green
Ezra Shaw/Getty Images

I mean that as a compliment not a criticism. That’s because I’m using the term “gimmick” as it’s used in professional wrestling. There it describes a performer’s persona, how they distinguish themselves in the eyes of the audience. A gimmick can refer to the costume, a specific prop, such as a guitar or just the overall attitude. A gimmick is essentially the wrestler’s act, the thing they do to capture an audience’s attention, which is the only truly meaningful measurement in pro wrestling. You don’t necessarily need the audience’s their approval, but you absolutely need their attention. They must be engaged.

In pro-wrestling terms, Draymond Green has been working the “New Media” gimmick over the past month to great success. He has EVERYONE’S attention whether it’s Skip Bayless challenging Green to a debate, Chris Russo complaining about Green on “First Take” or Brian Noe pointing out earlier this week that Green seems to break his own criteria for what constitutes the “New Media.”

This is an absolutely brilliant bit of marketing by Green. Seriously. He has an identity for his brand, defining both what it is — centered on basketball expertise — and what it is not, which is criticism of a player unrelated to specific actions on the court. He has really created a faction, going so far as to name other people who are part of the New Media, and defining quite explicitly who is not (cough, cough Skip Bayless cough, cough). Green has created what is a mission statement in spelling out what exactly the New Media is.

“The New Media, it’s very simple,” he told Stephen A. Smith during a live show that included JJ Redick and Tony Alter. “It’s actually analyzing the game of basketball. It’s actually giving those flowers when flowers are due. It’s being critical. It’s not just saying, ‘Ah man, Steph Curry was great! and when he wasn’t great I’m not going to speak on it.’ Be very critical But tell us the whole truth, and break down why Steph Curry wasn’t great.”

Green then gave an example of what would not meet his criteria for the New Media.

“Don’t just tell me, ‘Steph Curry was bad, he was terrible, his legacy is going to be hurt and all that,’ “ Green said. “But why was he terrible? Can you explain that to me? Can you help me, the average fan, can you help me understand what you’re saying. I think that’s been lost, and what has replaced it is titles and headlines and hot takes for click bait.”

Now Green believes — quite adamantly — that this is how everyone should approach analyzing basketball. I think he’s dead wrong about that. I think there are lots of different approaches that can be effective, some of which have nothing to do with the mechanics of the game. However, the fact that Green believes his way is the absolute best way is exactly the kind of conviction you need on the air. He has a clear vision of not only what kind of content he wants to produce, but why he’s the best person to produce that content.

Green’s content is going to be rooted in the game of basketball. More specifically, it’s going to be rooted in the modern player’s understanding of that game. It’s not about rumors or drama or off-court relationships. It’s basketball. At least that’s how Green spells it out.

Now, anyone who has listened to or watched Green for any extended period of time knows that he’s not exactly rigid about following these guidelines. He makes insinuations, he passes judgment and he responds to critiques that have nothing to do with the actual mechanics of playing basketball. In fact, I would say that he might spend more time criticizing people for failing to adhere to the New Media approach — as he’s described it — as he does following the New Media approach himself.

But here’s a dirty little secret about that: it doesn’t really matter. Not in this business. You can change your mind on a subject frequently — as Colin Cowherd tends to do — or you can remain adamant about the inadequacies of a specific player despite two decades of evidence to his greatness as Skip Bayless has done with Lebron James. You can swear you’ll only talk about the actual game of basketball and spent half your time criticizing the people who don’t talk about basketball. The only criteria is whether people are engaged.

And people are engaged with Green. This month, the man had people watching him play in the NBA Finals, then listening to a podcast he recorded after the game. And the week after his team won its fourth championship in eight seasons, he was on his podcast explaining why he didn’t think Bayless had the resume to warrant appearing on The Draymond Green Show. In doing so, he was elevating his own brand.

“The New Media is here to stay,” he said. “And we taking this thing over, and you know why? Because people don’t want to hear that old, dried up, tired stuff that you’re talking about. Nobody wants to hear that no more. The new media, baby”.

“There’s a reason JJ Redick is going on TV and crushing everybody. There’s a reason they keep calling Patrick Beverly back to TV. There’s a reason why C.J. McCollum just signed that deal. There’s a reason why I signed the deal that I signed. There’s a reason why this podcast —The Draymond Green Show — is doing the numbers that it’s doing.”

That sounds like something a pro wrestler would say, doesn’t it? Again, I’m not being critical, that’s a compliment. He’s absolutely great, and he’s working the invasion gimmick so well that it’s reminiscent of the nWo. Green’s part of a stable, a faction. He’s listing them by name.

Hell, Green is talented enough he could probably put on a headband, dye his mustache blonde like Hulk Hogan did after he joined the nWo. That would be really committing to the gimmick, however.

BSM Writers

Your Football Conversation Has To Be Different

I don’t know why any host would go with B- or C-material just for the sake of providing variety. That’s silly to me.

Brian Noe




Rejoice! Ball is back, baby. Life is just better when football season is included; am I right? (That was a rhetorical question because I know I’m right in this case.) Like many people in this country, I’m all about the pigskin. Outside of my family and friends, there aren’t many things in life that I love more than BALL.

With all of that being established, a simple question still exists: is there such a thing as talking too much football on a sports radio show?

I think it isn’t as much what you’re talking about; it’s how you’re talking about it. For instance, it isn’t good enough to lazily say, “Ehh, we’ll start off by talking about the game last night.” Well, how are you going to talk about it? Do you have anything original, interesting or entertaining to say? Or are you just gonna start riffing like you’re in a jam band hoping to accidentally stumble onto something cool after six minutes of nothing?

Talking about football is like opening a new burger joint. Hang with me on this one. There are so many options — Burger King, McDonald’s, Five Guys, Wendy’s, In-N-Out, etc. — that you can’t expect to have great success if you open a run-of-the-mill burger joint of your own. Having an inferior product is going to produce an inferior result.

It comes down to whether a topic or angle will cause the show to stand out or blend in. Going knee-deep on a national show about the competition at left guard between two Buffalo Bills offensive lineman doesn’t stand out. You’ll get lost in the shuffle that way.

A show needs to constantly be entertaining and engaging. One way to check that box is with unique viewpoints. Don’t say what other shows are saying. Your burger joint (aka football conversation) needs to be different than the competition. Otherwise, why are you special?

Another way to stand out is with personality. It’s impossible to have unique angles with every single topic that’s presented. A lot of hosts recently pointed out that the Dallas Cowboys committed 17 penalties in their first preseason game against the Denver Broncos. But Stephen A. Smith said it differently than everybody else. That’s what it comes down to; either say things that other shows aren’t saying, or say them differently.

New York Jets head coach Robert Saleh made a comment recently that too much of anything is a bad thing. So back to the original question, is there such a thing as too much football talk on a sports radio show?

Variety is the spice of life, but quality is the spice of sports radio. If a show provides quality, listeners will keep coming back. It’s really that simple. Sure, hosts will hear “talk more this, talk more that” from time to time, but you know what’s funny about that? It means the listeners haven’t left. The show is providing enough quality for them to stick around. If the quality goes away, so will the audience.

It’s smart for hosts and programmers to think, “What’s our strongest stuff?” If that happens to be a bunch of football topics, great, roll with it. I don’t know why any host would go with B- or C-material just for the sake of providing variety. That’s silly to me.

Former NFL quarterback Michael Vick said something interesting last week while visiting Atlanta’s training camp. Vick was asked which team’s offense he’d like to run if he was still playing today. “The offense Tom Brady is running in Tampa,” Vick said. “Pass first.”

The answer stood out to me because throwing the ball isn’t what made Vick special with the Falcons. He was a decent passer and a dynamic runner. The run/pass blend made Vick a problem. I totally understand wanting to prove doubters wrong, but there are a lot of athletes that get away from what they do best while relying on something else that isn’t their specialty.

Los Angeles Lakers guard Russell Westbrook is not an outside shooter. He’s brutal in that area. Yet Russ will keep firing threes at a 30% clip. Why? Attacking the rim and working the midrange is his game. You don’t see Phoenix Suns guard Chris Paul bombing threes if they aren’t going in. He kills opponents with his midrange skills all day.

It’ll be interesting to see how Miami Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa approaches this season. He’s received a steady diet of “can’t throw the deep ball.” Will he try to a fault to prove doubters wrong, or will he rely on what he does best? Beating defenders with timing and accuracy on shorter throws is where he finds the most success.

Working to improve your weaknesses makes sense, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of going away from your strengths. How is it any different in sports radio? If a host isn’t strong when it comes to talking basketball or baseball, it definitely makes sense to improve in those areas. But if that same host stands out by talking football, at some point it becomes like Westbrook jacking up threes if the host gets too far away from a bread-and-butter strength.

Former New York Yankees closer Mariano Rivera is the only player in the Baseball Hall of Fame that was unanimously elected. He relied on his cutter — a fastball that moved, a lot — about 85% of the time. Mo didn’t say, “Man, my four-seam fastball and changeup aren’t getting enough respect.” He rode that cutter all the way to Cooperstown and legendary status.

Rivera is a great example of how playing to your strengths is the best approach. He also shows that quality trumps variety every time. Let’s put it this way: if 85% of a sports radio show is football content, and the quality of that show is anywhere near Mo caliber, it’s destined to be a hit.

One of my buddies, Mike Zanchelli, has always been a hit with the ladies. I think he came out of the womb with at least 10 girls in the nursery showing interest in him. He had a simple dating philosophy: “Always. Leave them. Wanting. More.” That might work in dating, but I think it’s the opposite in sports radio. Most listeners don’t hear the entire show. If they’re in and out, wouldn’t you want them to hear your best stuff when they are tuned in?

That’s why I say screw variety. That’s why I wouldn’t worry about overserving your audience an all-you-can-eat BALL buffet. I think it’s much wiser to focus on producing a quality product regardless if it’s well rounded or not.

Continue Reading

BSM Writers

ESPN Has Gone From Playing Checkers to Chess In Two Years

Those decisions make the future ones with the Pac-12, the Big 12, NBA and UFC fascinating to watch but what’s clear is that this ESPN strategy is different.



In the days after the Big Ten news leaked regarding some of the details of their upcoming media deals, I was hankering for more information. I wanted more insight as to the “why”. Why did the Big Ten leave such a long-lasting and prosperous relationship with ESPN. I just couldn’t imagine it and it’s why I wrote about it last week.

It was in that pursuit of knowledge that I tuned into a podcast favorite of mine, The Marchand and Ourand Sports Media Podcast. The show’s hosts are deep into the weeds of sports media with John Ourand at the Sports Business Journal and Andrew Marchand at the New York Post. It was Ourand who was dropping dimes of news on the Big Ten deal last week. I wanted to hear him dive deeper, and he did on the podcast. But it was a throwaway line that got my wheels churning.

“This is about the third or fourth deal in a row that ESPN, the free-spending ESPN, to me has shown some financial discipline” Ourand said. “They are showing a bit of financial discipline that I hadn’t seen certainly when John Skipper was there and pre-dating John Skipper.”

I had to keep digging and folks, it’s true. ESPN is essentially Jimmy Pitaro in the above quote, the Chairman of ESPN. Since taking the role in 2018, he was put into an interesting position of being in the middle of a lot of big money media rights deals that would be coming due for renegotiation soon. The rights fees for EVERYTHING were going to balloon wildly. But in the last two years, he has comfortably kept the astronomical rates somewhat within shouting distance.

The big one, the NFL media rights deal agreed to last March, saw ESPN pay a very strong 30% increase for the rights. However, other networks involved had to pay “double” as Ourand so succinctly put it. He also personally negotiated with FOX to bring in Troy Aikman and Joe Buck to make their Monday Night Football booth easily more recognizable and the best in the sport. ESPN in that deal, that did NOT include doubled rates, got more games, better games, and more schedule flexibility. ABC gets two Super Bowls in the deal too. Simply put, Jimmy Pitaro set up ESPN to get a Super Bowl itself, but for now his network will take full advantage of the ABC network broadcast when the time comes (2026, 2030).

The recent Big Ten deal was massive because the conference spent forty years with ESPN and decided to reward that loyalty with a massively overpriced mid-tier package. ESPN balked at the idea. In their back pocket lies a lot of college football media rights deals with a lot of conferences including one that will be a massively profitable venture, the SEC package. ESPN takes over the CBS package of the “top” conference game. Yes, it paid $3 billion for it, but it’s a scant $300 million annually. Sure, that’s over 5X what CBS was paying annually but CBS signed that deal in 1996! I need not tell you all of the advancements in our world since Bob Dole was a presidential nominee. ESPN now gets to cherry-pick the best game from the best conference and put the game anywhere they damn well please to maximize exposure.

The F1 media rights extension is massive because of two things: one, they got it cheap before the sport littered your timeline on weekend mornings and two, when they re-signed with F1 this summer they paid way less than other streaming networks were reportedly willing to pay. The brand, the savvy worked again. ESPN takes a small risk for a potentially exploding sport and much like CBS did with the SEC for 25 years, can make massive margins.

I can keep going, and I will with one more. Sports betting. The niche is growing like my lawn minutes after the summer rainstorm. Pitaro has said publicly that sports betting “has become a must-have” and he’s full-frontal correct. ESPN is in an odd spot with their clear lineage to Disney, but it’s obvious something massive is going to come soon with ESPN reportedly looking for a deal in the $3 billion neighborhood.

Pitaro has been positioning this company from a position of strength. He pays big money for big properties, but knows when he’s getting taken advantage of and most importantly, isn’t afraid to pull his brand’s name out of the deep end.

ESPN may have an issue with dwindling subscribers, but that’s an everyone problem. The difference is ESPN is constantly trying to get you from one network ship you think is sinking into another network life raft. If you want to leave cable or satellite and go streaming, you can. ESPN+ is there to pick up the pieces. Or Sling (with an ESPN bundle). Or YouTube TV (ESPN is there too). Or a myriad of other ways. They are positioned so well right now to be where you think you want to go. Jimmy Pitaro and ESPN have been amazing at doing whatever they can to keep you paying them monthly.

The network has been aggressive with media rights deals but these newer ones have been diligently maneuvered by Pitaro. It was a choice to essentially back the SEC for the next decade, and to put more money into the potential of F1. The effort was a conscious one to keep a tight-lipped mission to bolster Monday Night Football’s booth. It was an understated strategy to reinvest in the NHL. Those decisions make the future ones with the Pac-12, the Big 12, NBA and UFC fascinating to watch but what’s clear is that this ESPN strategy is different. The old adage of “pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered” may have applied to the network under different leadership, but these aren’t eating pigs. These are boars.

Continue Reading

BSM Writers

The Producers Podcast – Big Baby Dave, Jomboy Media

Brady Farkas



Big Baby Dave has his hands in everything for Jomboy Media. He joins Brady Farkas to talk about how he brings a unique sound to each show he works with.






Continue Reading

Barrett Media Writers

Copyright © 2021 Barrett Media.