Dan Patrick is leaving ESPN
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
in Sports Talk
Saying he wants to "try something different," Dan Patrick has resigned
from ESPN after 18 years as an anchor of "SportsCenter."
Most recently, Patrick was host of "NBA Countdown," the studio program
preceding pro-basketball games on ABC, including the primetime NBA
Finals.
Patrick has also hosted ESPN Radio's "Dan Patrick Show" since 1999.
Patrick will devote his last radio broadcast, scheduled for Aug. 17,
to reflecting on the show's most memorable segments.
In a statement, Patrick said, "I've spent a third of my life at ESPN.
All my children were born while I was employed here." He added that "I
have extremely mixed emotions about leaving."
from ESPN after 18 years as an anchor of "SportsCenter."
Most recently, Patrick was host of "NBA Countdown," the studio program
preceding pro-basketball games on ABC, including the primetime NBA
Finals.
Patrick has also hosted ESPN Radio's "Dan Patrick Show" since 1999.
Patrick will devote his last radio broadcast, scheduled for Aug. 17,
to reflecting on the show's most memorable segments.
In a statement, Patrick said, "I've spent a third of my life at ESPN.
All my children were born while I was employed here." He added that "I
have extremely mixed emotions about leaving."
0
Comments
<< <i>I wish Stuart Scott wanted to try something different. I like Dan Patrick. >>
I just pray Dan doesn't pull an Olbermann and go political on us.
i wish They axed Stuart Scott, what a maroon!
Dan Patrick will be sorely missed. He is a class act.
Interesting rumor about the Price is Right....
<< <i>
i wish They axed Stuart Scott, what a maroon!
>>
Please, have him take Joe Morgan with him . . . . . please!!
<< <i>If anyone needs to leave ESPN/ABC it's Berman, more often than not, it seems to me that he thinks he is the show, not the message he's bringing or broadcasting. Sports have grown long past him, please retire so I don't have to see your mug on my tv (actually, I don't even watch when he's on) or listen to your 1980's style of broadcasting!!!! >>
"He....could....go...ALL THE WAY!!!!!!"
I'm not sure who they're going to get to replace him, but it should be interesting. John McEnroe's brother, Patrick, has done guest hosting in the past and is great.
As far as Olbermann goes, why can't sportscasters get political? Olbermann's one of the finest news journalists today - the right wing folk have no one near as eloquent or intelligent, and they fear him.
<< <i>
<< <i>I wish Stuart Scott wanted to try something different. I like Dan Patrick. >>
I just pray Dan doesn't pull an Olbermann and go political on us. >>
Yeah, tell me about it. I used to like Olberman before he started spouting his liberal bull. What I really hate is when he makes his politics apparent when he's guest on DP's radio show. If I tune in ESPN radio, I want to hear sports... not some liberal's political rant.
All-time favorite athletes:
Steve Sax, Steve Garvey, Larry Bird, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Andre Agassi, Karch Kiraly, Wayne Gretzky, Ichiro Suzuki, Andres Galarraga, Greg Maddux.
"Make the world a better place... punch both A-Rods in the face (Alex Rodriguez and Andy Roddick)!"
Berman... the guy is just a sick, sick bag of wind. I think he made up a few some what decent nicknames about 15 years ago, and now that's like his whole schtick. Hearing him call that HR contest is soooo painful... it's the same "back, back, back" time after time... the guy simply has no talent and needs to go.
Joe Morgan... OK, the guy was probably one of the best 2nd basemen of recent time, but god almighty, he is not half as baseball smart as he thinks he is. I must have heard him spout dozens of statements as fact that are best just opinion and at worst, down right wrong. He truly needs to get over himself.
Stuart Scott... uh yeah... nuff said, dude never belonged, but to me is more bearable than the 2 above.
And, for the radio side, I've got to through in Collin Cowherd. I'm ashamed to say that this guys actually used to be one of our local sportscasters here in the Portland area. He was bad then and he's even worse now. It's like his whole show is about him trying to be funny and he's about the farthest thing from it! Seems like he's trying to be another Jim Rome, but he's a far cry from it. Plus, at least Romey mixes in some real athletes on his show.
Anyway, I wonder what the heck ESPN will do now. Most of what they've got left are jokes. Gammons is pretty solid but outside of that, I can't think of too many other good ones.
All-time favorite athletes:
Steve Sax, Steve Garvey, Larry Bird, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Andre Agassi, Karch Kiraly, Wayne Gretzky, Ichiro Suzuki, Andres Galarraga, Greg Maddux.
"Make the world a better place... punch both A-Rods in the face (Alex Rodriguez and Andy Roddick)!"
<< <i>Patrick's radio show is among the best sports radio there is...unlike so many people on the radio, he's not afraid to ask hard questions. He had Selig on today, asked him if he'd be attending Bonds' HR breaking game, Selig said he hadn't made up his mind...pressed him further...still nothing.
I'm not sure who they're going to get to replace him, but it should be interesting. John McEnroe's brother, Patrick, has done guest hosting in the past and is great.
As far as Olbermann goes, why can't sportscasters get political? Olbermann's one of the finest news journalists today - the right wing folk have no one near as eloquent or intelligent, and they fear him. >>
Are you kidding me about Olberman? If he's such a great "news journalist" then why did he fail so miserably after his initial departure from ESPN. Just because someone is able to spout their idealogical leanings (left or right) does not make them a "news journalist". If it weren't for his exposure from ESPN, he would have never had a chance to spout his opinions to a "national" audience. As far as the right being afraid of of KO, that's the first I've heard of it. I'm relatively well informed politically, and frankly, the guy is pretty much a non-factor. Heck, if I wouldn't have recognized KO from ESPN, I never would have noticed him... completely insignificant on the political scene.
All-time favorite athletes:
Steve Sax, Steve Garvey, Larry Bird, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Andre Agassi, Karch Kiraly, Wayne Gretzky, Ichiro Suzuki, Andres Galarraga, Greg Maddux.
"Make the world a better place... punch both A-Rods in the face (Alex Rodriguez and Andy Roddick)!"
<< <i>
Are you kidding me about Olberman? If he's such a great "news journalist" then why did he fail so miserably after his initial departure from ESPN. Just because someone is able to spout their idealogical leanings (left or right) does not make them a "news journalist". If it weren't for his exposure from ESPN, he would have never had a chance to spout his opinions to a "national" audience. As far as the right being afraid of of KO, that's the first I've heard of it. I'm relatively well informed politically, and frankly, the guy is pretty much a non-factor. Heck, if I wouldn't have recognized KO from ESPN, I never would have noticed him... completely insignificant on the political scene. >>
He failed miserably after his initial departure from ESPN? You mean he wasn't able to jump into a completely different genre and not be an overnight superstar? Has anyone been able to do that, ever? I can't seem to think of one...it takes time to build an audience. Also, he doesn't 'spout' anything, he presents concise and well thought out ideas...something nobody on the right is able to do. o'reilly, rush, etc., all they have are attacks and insults and no real journalistic abilities. Perhaps if you were able to put aside your hatred of anything 'liberal' and actually listen, you'd find someone intelligent and well-spoken. Well if he's so 'insignificant', then why does the o'reilly despise him so? Oh that's right, it's because Olbermann's key demographics have been steadily climbing while billo has been losing viewers by the boatloads, and why his radio show was pulled in Washington D.C. lately.
Actually I watch all news programs as well as read different papers, I think there is no such thing as a "news journalist" - it seems to me that all the leftists (KO, Couric, Rathers, etc.) and the conservatives (Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity) all fall along party lines dispite the arguments or facts they are exposed to.
This is why I like to read and listen and make my own conclusion - gone are the days were news folk gave you information, today they just give you opinions. The two worst for me is Rosie Odonnel and Sean Hannity - just get these two married. Rosie never has a shred of facts to back up her rhetoric but why change now she is the Liberal's darling. And as far as the slef-righteous Hannity I can't wait for him to get caught cheating on his wife or get hooked on drugs/alcohol like is buddy Rush.
Do yourselves a favor and stop being so one-party! Neither is right about everything, do your own research and use your vote to create the best America not the rightest or leftist one.
Didn't know that's what journalism is today. He can bash President Bush all he wants but it doesn't make him any better of a news journalist.
What a waste of great talent.
<< <i>Rumor has it that he's been offered the 'The Price is Right' gig, which I guess is like the holy grail for TV personalities (the pay, I heard, is mid 7 figures. I don't know what ESPN is paying him, but 5-10 mil a year sounds high). >>
I don't think he is a good match for the Price is Right. Most ESPN announcers (including him) have a high level of self important "smugness"
to them that actually works pretty well in a sports format making wry remarks about whatever but in a format where the announcer is
not supposed to be the center of attention and the focus is on the contestants I don't think his style fits well at all.
<< <i>Do yourselves a favor and stop being so one-party! Neither is right about everything, do your own research and use your vote to create the best America not the rightest or leftist one. >>
A-freaking-MEN. I am so sick of full-contact partisan politics.
<< <i>A majority of Keith's show is devoted to celebrity gossip and Bill O'Riley. >>
No, it's not. I suggest you watch it. He does one of 5 stories on celebrity/popular culture, and it's typically the smallest segment. Please stop making baseless accusations that have no basis in reality. Thank you.
<< <i>Didn't know that's what journalism is today. He can bash President Bush all he wants but it doesn't make him any better of a news journalist. >>
And this president and administration in general isn't deserving of criticism? It's one thing to point out faults and errors of a corrupt administration (which is the way Countdown does it), another to 'bash' (which is the way right-wing radio does).
<< <i>If anyone needs to leave ESPN/ABC it's Berman, more often than not, it seems to me that he thinks he is the show, not the message he's bringing or broadcasting. Sports have grown long past him, please retire so I don't have to see your mug on my tv (actually, I don't even watch when he's on) or listen to your 1980's style of broadcasting!!!! >>
Agreed, how many times during that homerun derby last night did I have to hear him say, "back, back, back, back"?? Give it a rest!!
So according to this post are you saying that 'bashing' is done only by the "right-wing"? If that's what you are saying you need to get a realistic view on today's journalism. Neither party is right and both 'bash' - that's what we have created and now tolerate. If you have a thought that does not conform to the "abortion is a womans right, death penalty is bad, God needs to be ignored" or "abortion is wrong, death penalty is god given right to us and taxes are too high" (albeit the last one is right, no pun intended) both parties will trash you and the idea isnever heard.
The reallity of journalism is that all TV news (sans Fox) is liberal and most of the radio is conservative, so if you listen to both sides you will have a much better informed ideas. Yes I think that the Bush administration deserves criticism for the way they handled the Iraq war after the first year, the lack of a border strategy and the lack of international diplomacy this country has always had. However they also deserve credit for not having another Terrorist attack here, taking the offensive on Al Queda and working on keeping the economy going through all this. That's being honest and not pandering to any party! I doubt you would ever hear any "right-doing" of the Bush admin on the Countdown show - I know I have never heard it.
I don't even watch ESPN all that much anymore as it has changed so much from the beginning. Guys like Stuart Scott are forcing it. While it may seem like Berman may be old and tired, why can't it be a good thing that he hasn't changed his style all these years?
Maybe it is a sentimental trip from when I had to wait for the monster truck racing to finish for me to get the highlights, or when I was wondring if Gayle Gardner's carpet matched the drapes, but Berman as tiresome as he has gotten for some, still has to be considered a pioneer of sorts in the field.
So for everyone, watch the All Star game, have a 'Tanana' dachary, and be sure to be home "Bly-leven!"
<< <i>And this president and administration in general isn't deserving of criticism? It's one thing to point out faults and errors of a corrupt administration (which is the way Countdown does it), another to 'bash' (which is the way right-wing radio does).
So according to this post are you saying that 'bashing' is done only by the "right-wing"? If that's what you are saying you need to get a realistic view on today's journalism. Neither party is right and both 'bash' - that's what we have created and now tolerate. If you have a thought that does not conform to the "abortion is a womans right, death penalty is bad, God needs to be ignored" or "abortion is wrong, death penalty is god given right to us and taxes are too high" (albeit the last one is right, no pun intended) both parties will trash you and the idea isnever heard.
The reallity of journalism is that all TV news (sans Fox) is liberal and most of the radio is conservative, so if you listen to both sides you will have a much better informed ideas. Yes I think that the Bush administration deserves criticism for the way they handled the Iraq war after the first year, the lack of a border strategy and the lack of international diplomacy this country has always had. However they also deserve credit for not having another Terrorist attack here, taking the offensive on Al Queda and working on keeping the economy going through all this. That's being honest and not pandering to any party! I doubt you would ever hear any "right-doing" of the Bush admin on the Countdown show - I know I have never heard it. >>
1) Giving them credit for not having another terrorist attack since 9/11 assumes that another attack WOULD have happened if someone else had been in the Oval Office. That is a huge assumption.
2) The fact that Bin Laden is still roaming the Pakistani landscape, and that the hunt for him was abridged so we could go into Iraq does not argue for the notion that we have aggressively pursued Al Queda.
3) Any monkey can keep an economy going if they lower taxes and sell treasury securities; particularly if that country also produces the premier global currency. I-- or you-- could keep our 'personal economies' running quite nicely through any crisis if we had unlimited borrowing power and reduced expenditures.
The bottom line is this administration is by far the most inept to assume the White House in at least 70 years, and all anyone has to do to 'bash' them is calmly state the facts.
This is an awesome response. I bet you it was as red as a fire engine...
I've always like Berman, I'm not sure why there is so much dislike towards him. I'd rather hear his 'old' schtick than Stu Scott's or Linda Cohn's mouth anyday...
<< <i>
<< <i>[The bottom line is this administration is by far the most inept to assume the White House in at least 70 years, and all anyone has to do to 'bash' them is calmly state the facts. >>
I assume by this you're not familiar with the Carter administration??
And here we see...Axtell is a flaming liberal, who woulda guessed? (sarcasm)
<< <i>I've always like Berman, I'm not sure why there is so much dislike towards him. I'd rather hear his 'old' schtick than Stu Scott's or Linda Cohn's mouth anyday... >>
I just got back from vacationing a few days and happened across this thread. I will miss Dan Patrick for sure, I also agree with the above quote, Berman is the last of the great Espn crew IMO
I agree with most of you replies, but berman has got to go. Dan is the Man (Sportscenter Crew) and I wish Bob Ley was still around, but Berman has worn out all of his lines. Please tell me why he has to don a green jacket on the final day of the masters, have you ever seen his golf swing? Sir Charles could beat him at golf and we've all seen his swing.
2) The fact that Bin Laden is still roaming the Pakistani landscape, and that the hunt for him was abridged so we could go into Iraq does not argue for the notion that we have aggressively pursued Al Queda.
3) Any monkey can keep an economy going if they lower taxes and sell treasury securities; particularly if that country also produces the premier global currency. I-- or you-- could keep our 'personal economies' running quite nicely through any crisis if we had unlimited borrowing power and reduced expenditures.
The bottom line is this administration is by far the most inept to assume the White House in at least 70 years, and all anyone has to do to 'bash' them is calmly state the facts.
1 - No it assumes that the current admin has stopped attacks - period. BTW, How did the Clintons fare after repeated attacks like the WTC, USS Cole and embassy bombings?
2 - The fact that Bin Laden is still roaming the Pakistani landscape - huge assumption there. Since when has this country not been able to carry out more than one mission at a time.
3 - The Clintons destroyed the economy on their watch (a really good eceonomy they inherited from Reagan) so I guess they are dumber than monkeys?
Look at the facts Boo - I will praise were I see it good and critize were I see bad but not because of party lines that's stupidity.
<< <i>
1 - No it assumes that the current admin has stopped attacks - period. BTW, How did the Clintons fare after repeated attacks like the WTC, USS Cole and embassy bombings? >>
Wait, why does the right always try to compare itself to Clinton? Please talk to Bush's record on terrorism. Also, please note that US intelligence is reporting that Al Qaeda is now operating at levels equal to the summer of 2001 - right before the 9/11 attacks. The Iraq occupation has been a huge recruiting tool for terrorism, and the president's choice to shift a majority of our troops and our focus from Afghanistan and Pakistan shows that all the work we've done there in the past 6 years has been for naught. Al Qaeda has regained control of the country, they are as strong now as ever, and we have no way to control the situation because of the Iraq quagmire.
<< <i>2 - The fact that Bin Laden is still roaming the Pakistani landscape - huge assumption there. Since when has this country not been able to carry out more than one mission at a time. >>
Your president has chosen to take on two missions at once, instead of ending the Afghanistan situation before bolting troops for the oil fields of Iraq. And why is it a huge assumption to assume bin Laden is still alive? You don't think for a second that if he were indeed dead, this administration wouldn't be parading that fact all over the world saying 'we got him! we got him!' like we did with Hussein's sons?
<< <i>3 - The Clintons destroyed the economy on their watch (a really good eceonomy they inherited from Reagan) so I guess they are dumber than monkeys? >>
Again with the Clinton reference? First, it wasn't Reagan who handed power to Clinton, it was Bush. Second, when Clinton went out, the economy was sitting with a multi-trillion dollar surplus, which this administration, with its tax cuts in time of war (something that has never been done) and war spending has managed to put us in the hole by trillions of dollars. So please have your facts straight on things before you go attacking Clinton.
<< <i>Look at the facts Boo - I will praise were I see it good and critize were I see bad but not because of party lines that's stupidity. >>
The facts speak for themselves. Bush and his administration have been the epitome of ineptitude: from the Michael Brown FEMA appointment ("you're doing a helluva job Brownie"), to the attempted Harriet Meyers supreme court nomination, to the attempt by Roberto Gonzalez to have illegal wiretapping authorized by Ashcroft as Ashcroft lay in a hospital bed recovering from surgery. The no-bid contracts for the 'reconstruction' of Iraq by Halliburton (Cheney's former company). The missing billions of dollars from Iraq.
It's not just 'party lines' that have shown this administration shows no remorse for their constant breaking of laws and ethics. Look at the number of Republican congressmen breaking party ranks to join the Democrats to get our forces out of Iraq. That the president continues to ignore everyone around him, that in last fall's election, no one wanted him to come campaign with them (something virtually unheard of before this president), the fact that his approval rating in this country is under 30% - how many more facts do you need to prove this administration is totally and completely incompetent?
Bush is not incompetent. Look at how good things are now. No terrorist attacks since 9/11. Good economy. Low unemployment. Good stock market. Hussein is gone. Many other wanted terrorists have been captured. Not to mention we have a President who is actually morally principled. Hey, these are good times in America. That could not possibly be the case if we had an incompetent President. Period. If Hillary were to win in '08, I hate to even think about what things, especially the business environment, will be like. The taxes, the large, irresonsible government, over-regulation of business, etc.
So Bush's approval rating is low right now. Right now emotions are high about the war. But as Bush has said countless times, we will stay the course and bring freedom and stability to that part of the world. It just takes time. Many years from now, history will judge him as one of the better Presidents of the last 100 years.
By the way wasn't this thread supposed to be about Dan Patrick leaving ESPN?
<< <i>By the way wasn't this thread supposed to be about Dan Patrick leaving ESPN? >>
I couldn't have said it better myself!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>By the way wasn't this thread supposed to be about Dan Patrick leaving ESPN? >>
I couldn't have said it better myself!!! >>
Yep. As soon as someone dropped a political turd into this punch bowl, the thread was effectively toast.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>By the way wasn't this thread supposed to be about Dan Patrick leaving ESPN? >>
I couldn't have said it better myself!!! >>
Yep. As soon as someone dropped a political turd into this punch bowl, the thread was effectively toast. >>
We should force feed a glass of that punch to the perp who spiked the punch.
<< <i>) Giving them credit for not having another terrorist attack since 9/11 assumes that another attack WOULD have happened if someone else had been in the Oval Office. That is a huge assumption.
2) The fact that Bin Laden is still roaming the Pakistani landscape, and that the hunt for him was abridged so we could go into Iraq does not argue for the notion that we have aggressively pursued Al Queda.
3) Any monkey can keep an economy going if they lower taxes and sell treasury securities; particularly if that country also produces the premier global currency. I-- or you-- could keep our 'personal economies' running quite nicely through any crisis if we had unlimited borrowing power and reduced expenditures.
The bottom line is this administration is by far the most inept to assume the White House in at least 70 years, and all anyone has to do to 'bash' them is calmly state the facts.
1 - No it assumes that the current admin has stopped attacks - period. BTW, How did the Clintons fare after repeated attacks like the WTC, USS Cole and embassy bombings?
2 - The fact that Bin Laden is still roaming the Pakistani landscape - huge assumption there. Since when has this country not been able to carry out more than one mission at a time.
3 - The Clintons destroyed the economy on their watch (a really good eceonomy they inherited from Reagan) so I guess they are dumber than monkeys?
Look at the facts Boo - I will praise were I see it good and critize were I see bad but not because of party lines that's stupidity. >>
I won't drag down this thread with anymore cyber fighting, but it's fairly clear from this posting that your understanding of economics is such that you probably aren't doing yourself any favors by opining on the effects that various administrations have had on the macro economy. If you troubled yourself to learn a bit about the relationships between trade deficits and budget deficits, for instance (can a country with a negative savings rate support a budget deficit WITHOUT a trade deficit? Mull that one over....), you might find yourself coming to some surprising conclusions.
Also, if we are going to praise Bush for preventing any further terrorist attacks two things need to happen. First, it should be clear that a casual relationship needs to be made between the administration's efforts to thwart terrorism and the fact that no more attacks have taken place. To my knowledge this relationship has not been identified. Secondly, if this relationship is identified then we need to see that the price we paid to thwart these attacks (the Patriot Act, etc) was worth the benefits.
But I digress. If you think Bush is a swell president who's being unfairly maligned by all those communists and homos at the NY Times then God bless you. I can only hope that the rest of the nation is not so deluded come November of '08.
I can't listen to him.
Stuart Scott is even worse, if that is possible.