Connect with us

BSM Writers

There’s No Lasting Impact Of Casey Close Suing Doug Gottlieb

“No matter what Close can prove, all of it is about Doug Gottlieb and Casey Close individually and not about the sports media industry at large.”

Demetri Ravanos



There is no indictment of our industry wrapped up in Casey Close’s lawsuit against Doug Gottlieb. Unless your name is Doug Gottlieb or Casey Close, there are no lasting consequences. It is one guy suing another for one specific thing.

On Friday, my friend Dave Schultz invited me on his radio show in Mobile, AL to talk about the impact it could have on our industry. I can’t think of one. 

I also fielded a text from a friend not in the industry asking “are y’all screwed if he wins?”. I just don’t see how. No matter what Close can prove, all of it is about Doug Gottlieb and Casey Close individually and not about the sports media industry at large.

Casey Close has to prove a lot in order to win a libel case. Not only does he have to show evidence that Doug Gottlieb’s report that Close never presented the Atlanta Braves’ final offer to his former client Freddie Freeman, but he also has to prove that Gottlieb knew it was false and put the report out specifically to harm Close.

There’s a business to protect here. When I look at this from miles away, it is hard to see a relevant media connection outside of the fact that Doug Gottlieb works for FOX Sports Radio. Close’s lawsuit is mostly about advertising.

Just like the burger that stars in a Burger King commercial, it doesn’t matter what reality is. The goal is to make you want a Whopper.

Casey Close needs clients and potential clients to see he is fighting back. He needs them to believe that he would never act against their best interests. Gottlieb, a nationally syndicated radio host, says that isn’t true, so he must take action. Even if he loses, he doesn’t lose lying down.

I know I have written this before, but it bears repeating. I am not a baseball fan. I am not a Braves fan. I want you to know where I am coming from here. I genuinely do not care. Frankly, I can not even confidently say I know where Freddie Freeman plays now. 

Solely from a media perspective, I struggle to find the lesson we are supposed to be taking away from this.

Is it not to make stuff up? I think we all knew that one. I also don’t think that is what Gottlieb did. More on that in a moment.

Is it to make all of your sources public and never rely on quotes or information from people that won’t put their names on it? Well, in a perfect world, I think most of us would prefer every quote and accusation be sourced. In the real world, where the rich get their way with little to no consequence, people with that kind of information live in fear of retaliation. It doesn’t mean they can’t be trusted. It means they understand what is at stake when they come forward and that our libel laws are sensitive to that.

Forget our industry for a moment, it is for the betterment of society that we make libel so hard to prove. The law cannot be applied differently based on if it is a politician, actor, athlete, or agent filing the case.

Doug Gottlieb is a polarizing guy. I know plenty of people that can’t stand him and think he is a hot take artist, and I know just as many people that think he is being real and not filtering his opinions through a veil of what people want to hear.

Whatever you think about him is irrelevant. The fact is, at the moment, there is no irrefutable, compelling evidence that he made up a story about the Braves making an offer to Freddie Freeman that Casey Close kept secret. Remember, “innocent until proven guilty” isn’t a thing in civil court. The burden is entirely on Close to prove Gottlieb was knowingly lying.

I look at this from a common sense standpoint. Remember, I am not making the decision of who wins or loses this case. I am merely applying media logic to what we know to explain my opinion that where there is smoke, there is likely fire.

Anyone who works in this business has been told over and over that their Twitter following is important, but that it has no value to their employer. If you’re a radio host, you get paid for what you do on the radio. TV hosts get paid for what they do on TV, etc. The value you have comes from the value you create for your bosses.

Doug Gottlieb did not spend a day teasing that you need to be listening to FOX Sports Radio at 2:30 pm Pacific time for a bombshell about Freddie Freeman’s exit from Atlanta. If he had done that, every live read he did and every commercial FSR played would have been impacted by his report. 

He didn’t take the story to Dan Patrick or Colin Cowherd, in hopes that breaking major news on a more popular show on his own network would grow his audience and add value to his next contract.

He broke the news on Twitter, a place where his time and effort aren’t compensated and the only people he could count on seeing it were the followers he already has. If the story was made up out of whole cloth, solely for self-promotion, Doug Gottlieb did it the shittiest way possible.

Sure, we will all be watching this lawsuit to see how it plays out, but it should be out of morbid curiosity and not genuine concern. My guess is as good as yours, but if you made me put money on it, I would bet we never get to trial. 

There is no referendum to be made here, no lasting effects to be stamped on this business. This lawsuit is personal. It is either self-preservation or self-promotion for Casey Close. What does that do for any of us aside from providing content in markets that care about the Atlanta Braves?

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.