The Voice of New York Sports, Mike and the Mad Dog, Is Done
The most famous sports radio talk show ever, Mike and the Mad Dog, is done. Chris Russo announced Thursday night that he wouldn't return to WFAN and his co-host, Mike Francesa, will now host the 1 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. slot on WFAN by himself.
On Thursday night, pundits on outlets like SNY and WFAN were talking about how Mike and the Mad Dog "revolutionized" sports talk radio. This isn't true. No one ever followed the Mike and the Mad Dog lead. Russo and Francesa, both Long Island natives, had voices constructed for a street corner, not a radio show. No one in their right mind would ever hire them today, and the studied yo-yos that pervade sports radio stations today sound nothing like them. Mr. Francesa's voice is too full; Mr. Russo's squeal too shrill. And yet, behind those voices, like a couple guys you know, was where all the magic happened.
Their faults were many: Mr. Francesa was more than occasionally a blowhard and often horribly condescending; most times, Mr. Russo had no idea what he was talking about. And still, you always came back to 660 AM, particularly after a major New York sports story. When the Jets traded for Brett Favre, someone asked this reporter what Mike and the Dog's take was on it. It was a perfect moment to reflect on what they have meant to the city. For more than 20 years, they set the table for debating New York sports, and like any great duo before them, the whole was dramatically greater than the sum of their parts.
As New Yorker writer (and Observer alumnus) Nick Paumgarten wrote in 2004, "Francesa and Russo are as much a part of the city’s soundscape as jackhammers and accelerating buses, and, depending on your cast of mind, they can be as mesmerizing or as odious as the Teletubbies. Though their faces may be made for radio, their voices, by most measures, are not."
So the racist, sexist, elitist guy with the bad combover is gone from drivetime radio?
Rest assured that prejudice and bad taste live on at the FAN with Baldie and Boring Norman in the Morning and Screech and Slouch in the Midday.
You can thank Mark Chernoff for this.
Why is Russo a racist? Because he thinks that black criminals who masquerade as professional athletes ought to be treated no differently from ordinary crooks?
Is anyone else sick and tired of the liberals' insistence upon using illusory claims of racism as a pretext for character assassination? How long is the white majority going to tolerate this racial McCarthyism?
Mr. Sol,
Russo -- who espoused different standards for white athletes and everyone else -- is the guy who declaimed, "Jews have to sign oath of allegiance to US" in September 2001. He's the guy who said of Pedro Martinez, "I'd love to dunk that Dominican!" in San Francisco bay.
This is the Chris Russo who said he "understood what Sid {Rosenberg} was trying to say" when Sid was suspended for unfortunate comments about the Williams sisters.
Russo's comments on the former Washington Redskins player Sean Taylor are particularly illuminating.
But, in answer to your question regarding the white majority: In 2042 there won't be a white majority in the US any longer.
Until then, I suspect it's fine for you to keep your head in the sand.
Screech said:Russo -- who espoused different standards for white athletes and everyone else -- is the guy who declaimed, "Jews have to sign oath of allegiance to US" in September 2001."
Sol says: So far as I know, all Russo did was suggest that America's close relationship with Israel was a contributing factor in the 9/11 attacks---a position that is eminently plausible if not undeniable. But that matter aside, shouldn't Russo be entitled to say most anything he pleases so long as people are willing to listen? Should freedom of speech be limited to those opinions with which you agree?
Screech: "He's the guy who said of Pedro Martinez, "I'd love to dunk that Dominican!" in San Francisco bay.
Sol says: So what? Had he said of another player, "I'd like to dunk that Irishman in San Francisco bay," would you have been offended? Of course not. Why? Because, so far as liberals are concerned, white men are appropriate targets for any jab, whereas nonwhites cannot be so much as acknowledged as different, let alone held to the same standards as whites.
Screech said : This is the Chris Russo who said he "understood what Sid {Rosenberg} was trying to say" when Sid was suspended for unfortunate comments about the Williams sisters.
Sol says: So what? The two women don't look like women; they look like men. Acknowledging that fact is hardly "racist." Certainly, similar remarks were made about East German athletes during the Cold War. And really, any liberal outrage over the remark is merely a reflection of the liberals' own racism. After all, if liberals didn't regard the native Africans of National Geographic as so loathsome in the first place, they wouldn't have been so offended by Rosenberg's comparison?
Certainly, liberals weren't offended by the media's comparison of Bjorn Borg to a Viking conqueror. Why? Because, deep down, the liberals hold the very same racist opinions of which they blindly accuse others. Indeed, with regard to Borg, they thought, "Viking? Hmm. Let's see. Tall, blond white guy with blue eyes? ADMIRABLE! STRONG! IDEAL! Jet-black African guy with a spear and a loin cloth? DANGEROUS! STUPID! AMORAL!" Indeed, the only reason that liberals found the comparison to national Geographic offensive is that they're APPALLED by the people depicted in National Geographic! They'd be pinching their noses and clutching their purses if one of them so much as stepped into the same elevator.
Screech:Russo's comments on the former Washington Redskins player Sean Taylor are particularly illuminating.
Sol: What was wrong with them? Sean Taylor was a gun-wielding thug who had a considerable police record. But because he was black, liberals want to whitewash the truth about him.
Screech said: But, in answer to your question regarding the white majority: In 2042 there won't be a white majority in the US any longer.
Sol: Hahahaha! This is classic liberal hypocrisy. Whenever a white person points out that hispanics and blacks breed like rabbits, he is immediately lambasted by liberals as a "racist." Then, not two minutes later, the same liberals triumphantly proclaim that whites will soon be the minority in America by X date---BECAUSE BLACKS AND HISPANICS BREED LIKE RABBITS!!!
Hahahaha! Have to love liberals. They can't get out of their own way.
Sol,
Thanks for your comments. I'm all for free speech and I'm very intrigued by your comments.
I'm not sure, though, that your characterisation of me as a 'liberal' is correct. Mind you, I'm not questioning it so much as inviting an ongoing discussion.
Firstly, Russo didn't merely "suggest" that US-Israeli relations were a "contributing factor" to the events of 9/11.
He asserted this as fact. Further, he demanded that "Jewish people need to sign an oath of allegiance to the United States."
This is egregious and quite revealing of Mr. Russo's worldview. Indeed, if he included your Irishman in this equation, I'd be more inclined to give Russo the benefit of the doubt.
Had he done so, one might have inferred that Mr. Russo was correctly referring to my country as a nation-state that harbours terrorists.
But Mr. Russo's point -- and I encourage you to seek the transcript -- was unmistakable. It's difficult to view these comments as anything other than anti-Semitic and irresponsible.
I'm inclined to agree with you about my point on Pedro Martinez. In raising that particular instance, I was hoping to use a recent comment as example of the type of "coded
discourse that Mr Russo engages in on a regular basis.
It's not Mr. Russo's inelegant phrasing -- whilst certainly in poor taste -- is, in itself, terribly damaging. But when one considers the frequency and velocity with which such terminology is deployed, I'd like to submit that a very clear pattern emerges.
We never hear of Mr Russo's desire to "dunk" David Wright, Tim Linceum, Joe Torre, Bill Parcells, or Brett Favre. Indeed, I'm sure if Dan Murphy went into a prolonged slump, he wouldn't be too concerned about the Prince of New Canaan throwing him off the dock in the World's Fair Marina.
This is not a luxury, I'm afraid, afforded to the likes of a Jose Reyes or Jimmy Rollins.
To be clear, Mr. Russo's racism, though general, is seldom specific. More to the point, I don't believe much -- if any -- is intentional. I certainly don't think it's intended to inflict damage.
But if it's latent, it's also instinctual. Hence my reference to Sean Taylor. I recognise that Mr Taylor, may he rest in peace, may not be a model citizen, but Russo's willingness to treat him as another one of "them" before he knew the details of his untimely death also speaks to Mr. Russo's inability and/or unwillingness to conceive of "the other."
And isn't that the essence of sports, especially in this great country?! Don't we see all the great narratives -- regionalism, class, race, etc -- running through all our cherished games? Isn't that part of their value?
All I mean to suggest is that Mr. Russo's "side" doesn't exactly require uniforms in order to show their true colours.
Finally, with respect to the Williams sisters. Mr. Rosenberg's comments didn't compare them -- as you did -- to men. Rather, he said they were animals.
If he were speaking of an Irish, English, or Nigerian woman, I think my response is the same.
I believe Mr. Russo's made his position clear on this.
I'd be curious to know yours.
Screech said: Firstly, Russo didn't merely "suggest" that US-Israeli relations were a "contributing factor" to the events of 9/11. He asserted this as fact.
Sol says: So what? As I said earlier, I think it's more than apparent that the US relationship with Israel was, in fact, a motivating factor for the 9/11 attacks. But in truth, the question is irrelevant because the objection to Russo's comments was based not on their ACCURACY but on the fact that he dared to question US support for Israel and, by direct extension, the throngs of rich and influential Jews who buy American political support for that country.
For its part, the American Israel lobby has chosen to address these valid criticisms by suggesting that all those who share them are antisemites or neo-nazis looking to persecute, oppress, and kill Jews. So far as the American Israel lobby is concerned, if you don't support Israel to the letter, you're a Hitler-loving, Holocaust-denying Jew-hater. Of course, not even Jews believe that, but they have come to realize that such accusations succeed in quieting dissent and maintaining continued US support for Israel, so they shamefully take part in it. Russo COURAGEOUSLY stated his opinion.
Screech said: Further, he demanded that "Jewish people need to sign an oath of allegiance to the United States."
Sol said: I'd like to see confirmation of this statement in a reputable mainstream publication. I searched briefly for it and found nothing. And given the stifling climate of political correctness in New York City, I think the lack of documentation is more than a fair indication that it never happened.
Screech said: This is egregious and quite revealing of Mr. Russo's worldview. Indeed, if he included your Irishman in this equation, I'd be more inclined to give Russo the benefit of the doubt.
Sol says: I know you would, and that disparate treatment is the very essence of racism. You would treat the statement differently just because a "white" nationality was substituted for that of one of the liberals' pet constituencies---in this case, Hispanics. There's simply no other way to say it. That's racism, pure and simple.
The upset over this comment is yet more evidence that liberals have become so obsessed with their myriad "isms" that they now lack even the vaguest notion of what racism actually is. Instead of pausing a second to decide whether a particular statement is actually racist, they skim conversations, sifting through the substance and searching for certain buzzwords that set off their "racism" alarm. For my part, I prefer to follow accusations of racism by immediately asking the accuser to explain why the remark is racist. Ninety percent of them won't even try. All they know is that someone used a buzzword. It's now reached a point at which even the mere acknowledgment of obvious differences between the races ("nappy" hair or black crime rates) is considered "racist."
Screech: But Mr. Russo's point -- and I encourage you to seek the transcript -- was unmistakable. It's difficult to view these comments as anything other than anti-Semitic and irresponsible.
Sol: As I said above, your reaction is not surprising. To the contrary, it's typical. The Israel lobby has discovered that it can use illusory claims of "antisemitism" to silence and intimidate Israel's critics. It's disgusting, and it needs to stop. Using the murder of six million people as a political sledgehammer to win concessions for Israel is as sickening as it is cynical. As regards your claim that Russo was "irresponsible," I can't help but wonder what responsibility he had and to whom he may have had it. Is he an elected official? A third-grade teacher? He's an entertainer who's paid to have an opinion, and he had one. That you may not like it is one thing, but using utterly disingenuous and increasingly hackneyed claims of "antisemitism" is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Screech said:I'm inclined to agree with you about my point on Pedro Martinez. In raising that particular instance, I was hoping to use a recent comment as example of the type of "codeddiscourse that Mr Russo engages in on a regular basis.
Sol says: As I said earlier, it's increasingly apparent to me that the purported liberal facility with breaking "racist code" is simply paranoia born of their own racist tendencies, which they purport to recognize in others. This racial paranoia is not materially distinct from the brand of hysterical absurdity that prevailed under McCarthy and, before him, at Salem. You have a gaggle of self-interested scumbags who are orchestrating a witch hunt to serve as a pretext for settling personal scores. "Don't like me? Think my mother's a whore? Well, you're a....um....you're a.....wait a minute... you're a RACIST! Yeah, that's the ticket! Oh, and while we're at it, we'll throw in sexist, antisemite, and homophobe for good measure!" You saw as much with Don Imus.
Screech said:It's not Mr. Russo's inelegant phrasing -- whilst certainly in poor taste -- is, in itself, terribly damaging. But when one considers the frequency and velocity with which such terminology is deployed, I'd like to submit that a very clear pattern emerges.
Sol says: I ask again: should the breadth of acceptable speech be limited to those positions with which you agree? This is what pains me about people like you. They purport to support "tolerance" but, in truth, have absolutely no tolerance for opinions that don't mirror theirs. After all, true tolerance means tolerance of ALL opinions, including those that you find most abhorrent. But as we have seen, the "tolerance" liberals have no real interest in tolerance; they seek instead to promote the ascendancy of a singular point of view to the absolute exclusion of all rival points of view, and they aim to enforce their tyranny by using threats of social alienation, public humiliation, and loss of position for anyone who dares to raise a contrary claim. Theoretically, it's no different from the policies of Mao, Stalin, or any other totalitarian dictator. The only difference is that the methods of repression haven't been quite as severe---yet. But make no mistake: the use of coercive tactics to quiet dissent is the seed of totalitarianism, whether in Moscow, Nuremberg, or New York.
Freedom of speech was a chiefly American principle---at least in terms of actual implementation. You're a European. This country was founded in ideological and socio-political opposition to just about everything for which Europe stood and, to a large extent, still stands. As of today, almost all of western Europe has become overrun by socialism and the very brand of crippling political correctness that now threatens to destroy the United States. Ironically, in their haste to "tolerate" the throngs of insular Muslims who have flocked to their borders, France and England have sealed their own doom. While the European aristocracy pats itself on the back for its "enlightened" (read: condescending and wildly naive) treatment of the poor, benighted Muslims, a great many of those Muslims spend their nights devising ways to kill French and British citizens, subvert their respective governments, and eventually turn the two countries into New Afghanistan and New Yemen. Of course, the liberals will tell you that this is merely "racist paranoia" and that the incidence of pathological, blood-thirsty Muslims is really no greater than that found in any other religion. This, of course, is a lie. Immediately after 9/11, Bin Laden had a 65-percent approval rating in the Arab world. Sixty-five percent!!! There hasn't been a single American President in the last 50 years who enjoyed such a high approval rating for the duration of his term. Could Gordon Brown get 65 percent of Britons to support him right now? What about Sarkozy? The fact is, most Arabs think that Bin Laden is a pretty good guy, and that's going to spell trouble for western Europe. How long before we have public beheadings in Trafalgar Square? Perhaps not as long as you think.
Screech said:We never hear of Mr Russo's desire to "dunk" David Wright, Tim Linceum, Joe Torre, Bill Parcells, or Brett Favre.
Sol said: Nor have you heard him desire to dunk Barry Bonds or Curtis Martin. Incidentally, Russo doesn't like Parcells and has rooted against him for ages.
Screech said: But if it's latent, it's also instinctual. Hence my reference to Sean Taylor. I recognise that Mr Taylor, may he rest in peace, may not be a model citizen, but Russo's willingness to treat him as another one of "them" before he knew the details of his untimely death also speaks to Mr. Russo's inability and/or unwillingness to conceive of "the other."
Sol: But Taylor WAS another one of "them," and by "them," I mean criminal athletes, not blacks. Don't you see that? Taylor was a thug, and Russo's opinion of him was based not on his blackness but on his police record, which, incidentally, included not only charges of aggravated assault with a firearm but also another incident wherein witnesses claimed that Taylor drew a gun and sprayed a car with bullets. Russo's speculation about the circumstances of Taylor's death may have proved factually incorrect, but it was far from outlandish, given Taylor's previous exploits. If Amy Winehouse or Pete Doherty were found dead in a motel tomorrow, would it be irresponsible to suggest that a drug overdose was the cause of death?
Sol,
Thanks for the posting. Once more, your intellect and argumentative powers are in full evidence. Moreover, your passion and sheer delight in provocation and pursuit of discourse is infectious.
I have one question for you: Why aren't YOU on the radio?
You've said more in a few short paragraphs than that aphasic fool Russo has said in nearly two decades????
didn't mike & the mad dog talk about, um, sports?
"The Mike and the Mad Dog" radio show was only nominally about sports. As Mr. Koblin articulates in his article, what Mike and Chris lacked in talent, they more than made up for in arrogance.
No amount of sloth or indifference would prevent either of them from taking on the tough subjects of the day.
They spent hours guessing Neilsen ratings, comparing the length of bathroom lines at various ballparks around the country, talking about traffic, parking, the intuhnets, debating whether Joe DiMaggio was really Joe DiMaggio, The Sopranos, We Are Marshall, and Bruce Springsteen. Nobody could wax poetic about the difficulties of living in gated communities like Mike and ... oh yeah .. Chris.
They were also committed family men. No sitting in the basement sipping Grey Goose and watching one of six bigscreen tvs while waiting for the Dominos to be delivered for these guys. No way no how!
Chris's insights into the art of parenting rival the achievements of Britney Spears. And Mike was always ready and willing to share his profound insights into legal, political, and sociological matters.
Occasionally, too, he'd opine on medical matters. (For those of you who don't listen: Mike doesn't like to brag, but he's got a lot of Asian neighbors who are doctors. He means +lots+!)
Their rallying cries over these last years -- "Didn't see it!" and "Nobody cares!" and "It's got no juice!" -- should follow them wherever they go.
Here is the letter that the ADL said to the station Right afterwareds Anti-Defamation League
Mark Chernoff
WFAN-AM Program Director
Infinity Broadcasting
Kaufman Astoria Studios
34-12 36th Street
Astoria, NY 11106 September 24, 2001
Dear Mr. Chernoff:
Since September 12th, ADL offices in the tri-state area have been flooded with calls complaining about comments made by "Mike and the Mad Dog" show hosts Mike Francesa and Chris Russo. The complaints focus on the hosts suggesting the motive behind the World Trade Center attack is U.S. support for the State of Israel or, more importantly, suggesting a divided loyalty for American Jews between our country and Israel.
We have reached out to you asking for a response to these complaints in order to better inform our constituents about this matter. At this point, we need more than a casual explanation for the comments made by the hosts. The calls continue to come in on a daily basis describing the hosts' continual injection of Israel in connection with the World Trade Center tragedy.
We understand that WFAN is a station whose focus is the sports world. At this time we suggest it would be appropriate for Mr. Francesa and Mr. Russo to be instructed that their listeners tune in to hear an analysis of the game rather than unfounded presumptions about a horrific act of terrorism.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Abraham H. Foxman
National Director
Anti-Defamation League
cc: Lee Davis,
WFAN General Manager
Chris Carlin,
Producer, "Mike and the Mad Dog"
Here are some excerpts Phil Musnick columns in the NY Post
9/24/01:
Several times in recent days, Francesa and Russo were able to put their fingers on the root cause of Sept. 11's terrorist attacks - Israel, U.S. support of Israel and, by extension, American Jews. Such an outdated canard was very interesting considering current world events that apparently elude Francesa and Russo.....
...But Russo and Francesa's most stunning moments, emboldened by the sycophants in their audience - the only callers who are indulged without interruption - came when they suggested that American Jews, on their program, submit to make-believe wartime loyalty oaths to either America or Israel.
I'm sitting there, a third-generation American, my late father a Naval lieutenant who served in two theaters during WW II, four people I know, including a fireman, are missing and presumed dead, and Francesa and Russo, are inviting me to take a loyalty test designed for American Jews to prove their virtue to two sports talk know-it- alls in the wake of an attack by religious lunatics on the United States.
And then On 11/8/02 he write this column
in the ny post.
(Copyright 2002, The New York Post. All Rights Reserved)
UNLIKE Mike Francesa, I'm uncomfortable making myself the focus of my work.
But Francesa told several lies on the air Monday, self-serving lies not easily apparent to his audience. And, as Winston Churchill said, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
And the lies he told, simultaneously on WFAN and the YES Network, were at the expense of my integrity. And so I write, today, both in my own defense and to expose a 50,000-watt clear-signal liar. (And because it's a juicy story, too.)
Monday, Francesa and Chris Russo responded to an item I wrote about them in that day's Post. It noted on the day of the Nets' home opener, they did a rare remote from the Meadowlands, offering, at the top of the show, a bunch of reasons as to why they were there, but likely excluding a significant one: That night's game was the Nets' first regular-season game on YES; and Francesa and Russo are on the YES payroll.
"Dumbest thing I ever heard [sic] in my life," Russo said.
"Not even a kernel of truth," Francesa said.
While, knowing them as I do, I don't believe them, that doesn't mean that I'm right or that they lied. The lies are those that followed.
Francesa: "This is the same guy who last year, when quotes were attributed to me in The Post, and The Times was going to slaughter me, called up and [The Times] had to can the piece because he [The Times columnist] had to admit that The Times never heard it."
Russo: "What was that? I forget that one."
Francesa: "Those quotes about 9/11 and everything, which weren't made and no one ever found them. Plus, so he had to admit that he never heard them, so he got them second- or third-hand and they weren't even true quotes and they didn't even have the quotes, so they couldn't do the story."
Wow, damning stuff. I fabricated a story about the content of Francesa's show in the wake of 9/11. Consequently, the New York Times was forced to "can" a story in which it had planned to "slaughter" Francesa based on what I'd written.
Scandalous. I should be fired. But only if it were true.
Sports media columnist Richard Sandomir is the person from The Times who contacted Francesa.
"There was never any overt attempt to do such a story," he said Monday night. "I spoke with Mike, but then had neither the time nor inclination to pursue it. I couldn't, not after [WFAN program director] Mark Chernoff told me that the show [in question] was not taped.
"There was no attempt to slaughter' Mike because there was no attempt to pursue it beyond that conversation I had with him."
Furthermore, Francesa's claim that I fabricated quotes, then attributed them to him is a total lie because I never quoted either Francesa or Russo in that column. I couldn't quote them because WFAN claimed that it did not tape that particular segment.
But I did hear them - first-hand, not "second or third-hand" - then wrote a column critical of them for characterizing the 9/11 attacks as the fault of Israel, and by extension, American Jews.
I criticized them for suggesting that American Jews declare their loyalty to either Israel or the U.S. I wrote that as a third- generation American *** and the son of a World War II veteran U.S. Naval officer, I found their take to be ignorant, repugnant and inflammatory.
And I listened at length, that day, because I'd already received calls, faxes and e-mails complaining about Francesa's and Russo's simplistic, bigoted overview on 9/11, one that ignored the fact that radical, theocratic Muslims were murdering non-Muslims of all faiths, all over the world.
The fact that no tape was, in Francesa's words, "ever found" - he failed to mention WFAN's claim not to have taped the segment I wrote about - was used by Francesa, Monday, as proof that I fabricated a story about him.
And that bogus premise, based in a lie, was used by Francesa as proof as to why The Times killed a piece that would've condemned him.
And that bogus premise, based in a lie, was used used by Francesa as proof that quotes I attributed to him were fabricated - when he was never even quoted.
professional envy, or political correctness run amok? the success these guys enjoyed for nearly 20 years in the toughest media market in the world certainly wasn't attributable to something that offended the adl -- who are, after all, in business to find things to be offended about -- or their views on race relations (for that we have al sharpton & jesse jackson).
the desire of large segments of our population to characterize themselves in terms of how much they've been victimized is troubling.
perhaps, as screech notes, whites will lose their majority status in 2042. i doubt that it will matter, since the odds of blacks, hispanics and asians all just getting along are slim to none. but who will be blamed then for all the problems of the world?
http://njfrogman.blogspot.com/2008/08/sirius-sid-rosenberg-serious.html
SIRIUS Sid Rosenberg? Serious...
So, WFAN and Mike Francesa have let Chris MadDog Russo out of the pound to join SIRIUS Satelite Radio.
Anyone who cares to can take a look at several videos here where Francesa's disdain for Russo was quite evident. I'd be willing to bet that the only reason Dog was let out of his contract was because Mike said so with a thumbs up. Anyone watching the Mike Francesa show the past few days already knows - oh boy, this is a mistake.
I posted a comment in jest on Neil 'the' Best's Watchdog Blog where I suggested that Sid Rosenberg and I would become part of the MF's show. And this became an article in Sunday's Newsday...
Well, I take that back. I hear some singing that Sid the kid would be perfect at...SIRIUS. He already has done some work with Howard Stern so he has SERIOUS connections. Both he and Russo left WFAN. SIRIUS has lined up MadDog right versus MF so why not Rosenberg v. Carton? Carton, talking about 'bad' radio hosts said, "Yeah, he's working in Florida now."
Super Sid sliced back on his radio show with a dagger at Carton: "a cheap imitation of me."
Wouldn't it be perfect to a) Put Sid on right before MadDog v. Boomer and Carton? b) put Sid on with Russo? Either way it'd be a one two combination. Miami is fine with Chad Pennington but don't you think Rosenberg is too big a personality NOT to be up in NYC with Brett Favre here now? Rosenberg co-hosted the NFL Today pre-game show heard nationally on Westwood One for 3 seasons.
It's my opinion that it is time for Sid to sail on back to New York. To SIRIUS. If they think Russo is going to sell some SIRIUS/XM units - think about adding Russo & Rosenberg. Oh, and Mantz....
An email to Andrew Fitzpatrick Sports Media Relations SIRIUS 212-901-6693 afitzpatrick@siriusradio.com has not been answered. If you'd like Sid on SIRIUS - Drop him a note.