http://www.sportingnews.com/other-s...ing-espn2-new-show/15zk4ozbmsduc1hgshep2r8fpl
SN exclusive: ESPN's Mike Greenberg discusses biggest regret about 'Mike & Mike' breakup
SPORT
- ESPN's Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic(Getty Images)
Michael McCarthy @MMcCarthyREV
Published on Mar. 31, 2017 | Updated on Apr. 25, 2017
ESPN's Mike Greenberg has one big regret about his looming breakup with "Mike & Mike in the Morning" co-host Mike Golic.
It's not about him, or Golic, or some embarrassing moment during their 17-year on-air partnership that began on radio in 2000 and expanded to ESPN2 in 2004.
It's that their loyal TV/radio audience learned from the media, not them, that the popular morning show is nearing the finish line.
"I would have really liked the first place our audience heard about that is to have been from us. On our show," Greenberg said in an exclusive interview with Sporting News. "Because it’s been a really special thing."
View image on Twitter
Follow
Mike Greenberg
✔@Espngreeny
Can't begin to tell you how much I enjoyed
@HankAzaria today. Just hilarious and the new show looks great.
@BrockmireIFC
10:27 AM - 30 Mar 2017
Sorry, Greeny, but that cat is out of the bag.
Richard Deitsch of Sports Illustrated
first reported in January that ESPN planned to give Greenberg, who's now represented by powerhouse talent agency CAA, his own solo show on ESPN.
MORE: Is ESPN too liberal? New poll says yes
Since then, the 54-year-old Golic told SN
in an exclusive interview he's OK with the pending breakup.
"I certainly enjoyed the 18 years with Greeny," he said. "If we move on from that, I’ll enjoy it if I do it with someone else next."
The end of "Mike & Mike" will be just one of many changes up in Bristol.
A cost-cutting ESPN is planning to lay off scores of on-air talent, sparking a
"panic of biblical proportions" on the Bristol campus, sources said.
SN talked with Greenberg as part of his participation in a new ad campaign for Dove Men+Care’s “Real Strength Manifesto." (Greenberg previously did the voiceover for Dove's terrific
Super Bowl commercial about fathers in 2015).
The declaration reads in part: "I BELIEVE IN CHOOSING SPORTSMANSHIP OVER SIDES. BECAUSE OUR PASSION SHOULD PULL US TOGETHER, NOT APART."
Those copy lines hit home with Greenberg.
Some of his happiest memories growing up were attending Knicks games with his parents at Madison Square Garden. He hopes his own kids will fondly remember attending games with him and wife Stacy.
But behavior in the stands has gotten so bad, he said, that it's ruining the experience for many sports fans.
"Unfortunately, what you can't help but notice is the total deterioration of behavior in the stands. This is true at all sporting events. Primarily in football, but it’s somewhat true of everything. At times it’s approaching, if not often, ruining the experience of people who are there."
MORE: Jason Whitlock sounds off on 'liberal' sports media, Bill Simmons
The beauty of waching sports used to be that it united people, not drove them apart, Greenberg said.
"The millionaire and the cab driver could sit next to each other in a bar and have something in common," he said. "I think that’s what it was supposed to be. I’m not exactly sure when, or why, it stopped being that."
During our wide-ranging interview, Greenberg talked about his solo show, whether ESPN has become too liberal and his reaction to "Mike & Mike" critic Bill Simmons losing his own show on HBO.
Greenberg also sounded off on SN's recent story about pending
ESPN free agent John Buccigross.
Greenberg and Buccigross started at ESPNews together in 1996. They're the last two standing from a bunch of young anchors who broke in at the same time.
”If Bucci winds up leaving, I will really be sad to see that," Greenberg said.
Excerpts of my interview with Greenberg:
Sporting News: Tell us about your new solo morning show on ESPN.
Mike Greenberg: I’ve seen a lot of the stuff that’s been written about it. The truth is, it’s all true. It is all true that that is exactly what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the possibility of breaking Mike and me up after all these years. But as I’ve said to many people, and I know a lot of people don’t believe me, it’s premature. There’s a million decisions that have to be made yet. I have to make a bunch of them, Mike has to make a bunch of them and the company has to make a bunch of them.
You’ve been writing a lot recently about a lot of big decisions the company has to make. My one regret in all this is if we do break up, and that’s certainly a very real possibility, I’m not denying that all, I would have really liked the first place our audience heard about that is to have been from us. On our show. Because it’s been a really special thing. This thing has been so far beyond anything I ever imagined it would be when we started. We didn’t launch with a bunch of fanfare, and a bunch of promotion or enthusiasm or anything. When we started, we were the only ones who knew we had a show. We really built the old-fashioned way. Purely through word of mouth. Through people finding us, and liking us, and telling a friend. Slowly but surely, people found out about us. If indeed the sum total of this is we split up "Mike & Mike," which is a very real possibility, I would like for our loyal listeners, the ones who’ve been with us for a long time, to have first heard about that from us. Obviously, that’s not a possibility any more.
SN: We hear your show will be produced in New York, not Bristol. Dream come true for a native New Yorker?
MG: It would be great. I grew up on the campus of NYU (New York University). When I was growing up, I told my parents, "I want to go to NYU." My parents said, "Listen Michael, you’re going to live your whole life in New York, go experience something else." P.S. I’ve never lived in New York again. I left in 1985 to go to Evanston, I went to Northwestern (University). I loved it there. I got a job in Chicago. Loved it there. Ended up meeting and marrying my wife (Stacy Greenberg) there. So Chicago has become very much like a second home to me. But New York is great. It’s a wonderful place. I think it would be very exciting. So if that does work out, I would be thrilled. We talked about doing it a couple of years ago. We were going to move "Mike & Mike" here. Some things happened and it didn’t work out. That was disappointing. So I really do hope that it works out this time. I think it would be great for the show.
https://twitter.com/Espngreeny
SN: Here’s what I'm hearing: Your new show will have a “Greeny & Friends” type format — similar in some ways to “Morning Joe” on MSNBC. True?
MG: Sounds like you know more about it than I do. We haven’t even hired a producer yet. I know people think I’m saying this just to say it, but we really have not officially decided to do this yet. So I haven’t had a single conversation. Maybe other people have. But I haven’t had a single conversation with anyone about this is specifically what we’re going to do. Because I don’t know yet for sure we’re going to do it. I have a bunch of decisions I have to make. I know Mike has some decisions he has to make. I guess a lot of other people have decisions they have to make. The one thing I will tell you about "Morning Joe," I’ve never seen "Morning Joe" in my entire life. Because we’re on at the same time. We’ve been on a lot longer than they have. The one thing I have noticed is that for many, many years on our show, I used to hear, "I switched back and forth between Howard Stern and you" or "I switched back and forth between (Don) Imus and you" or "I switched back and forth between ‘Good Morning America’ and you." But for the last few years I hear a lot of, "I switch back and forth between 'Morning Joe' and you." Which suggests to me that whatever it is they’re doing on that show, it is somewhat similar and appeals to similar people to what we’re doing. That has definitely stuck in my mind. It’s been too frequent to ignore. But I don’t know the show because, again, I’ve been on at the same time since long before they started.
MORE: ESPN may give Sage Steele role on Mike Greenberg's show
SN: OK, let’s flip the question then. If you had you druthers, what kind of show do you want to do?
MG: You know, I don’t think I would do anything that’s all that different from what we’ve done. The beauty of our show has been that we’ve really been able to do whatever we wanted. It started that way because nobody cared what we did. By the time anyone was paying attention to what we were doing, it was kind of working, so they left us alone. So what you see and hear on the air every day is exactly the show that we want it to be. It’s sort of half what Mike wants and half what I want. We’ve just communally decided on what the show is going to be. I don’t think anything I would ever do would be all that different — or I would already have been doing it. I think conceptually we’re doing the right stuff. We’re talking about sports in a way that is, hopefully for some large number of people, interesting. Some days it’s heavier on information. Other days it’s heavier on humor, depending on the news of the day. Some days it’s heavier on opinion. Some days it's heavier on analysis. Those to me are the nuts and bolts of it. The thing about our show, that works very well now, is it's very malleable. I think a show has to be that today. You can’t be rigid. You can’t just be in a very tight format.
We’re going to start, we’re going to do the highlights, we’re going to do the news, then we’re going to do that. That doesn’t work. You have to be willing to adjust to the circumstances. I think we do that very well on the fly. So whatever it is I think the next iteration might become for Mike or for me, or for us together, that would be a must. There’s always varying lines of how far outside of sports you want to wander. You can venture a little bit outside of sports on ESPN. But I don’t think you want to venture too far. People ask me sometimes, ‘Do you ever want to talk about things besides sports?’ I have a lot of interests outside of sports. But when I want pizza, I don’t go to McDonald’s. Right? My philosophy — and Mike and I have always agreed on this — is if you really want to hear people talking about other things, you’re probably going to go other places. Most people are coming to ESPN because they want to hear sports conversation. So I’m very cognizant of that. I think it’s important that whatever you do, that that be the center of it.
SN: You've become more aggressive on issues like healthy NBA players "resting." Is "Mike & Mike" throwing punches now rather than taking them? Even with ESPN business partners such as the NBA?
MG: Not purposefully. That was never a conscious decision...This is the best thing I can think of to tell you about the people that I work for. No one has ever in my 18 years, and I can’t speak for anyone else, no one has ever come in and told me, "Don’t say this or that about the NBA or the NFL or anyone that we have a contract with." No one’s ever told me what to say — or more importantly, what not to say. So my problem with the NBA right now is, forget about words, they’re showing you through their actions, that the regular season is meaningless. Between resting and tanking. I’m frustrated. I’m a lifelong basketball fan. I grew up going to Madison Square Garden. Going to those games with my parents? I loved it. It was the greatest thing in the world going to the Garden, when I was a kid, and watching the Knicks. And seeing the big stars on the other teams they played against. So it offends me. They’re almost making you feel stupid for caring about the regular season. As far as being more opinionated? Listen, people can criticize us in any number of ways that are fair. Lots of people like us. Plenty don’t. The one thing I can safely say is we’re just us. We’re just real. Whatever it is you heard me say over 18 years, that’s what I thought at the time. Whatever Mike said, that’s what he thought at the time. So maybe lately there have been a few more things that have aggravated me, maybe I’ve been a little more aggressive, that’s certainly possible. But it hasn’t been a conscious decision. We never looked at each other and said, "Let’s be a little angrier." I’m generally not an angry person. I have a lot to be thankful for. I have a lot to be happy about it. I have a life beyond anything that I ever could have imagined. As we speak, I’m in a car about two minutes from the building I grew up in. I just grew up a kid in New York City loving sports. The fact that of all the millions and millions of kids who grew up in this country loving sports, I’m the one who gets to have this job, I’m very cognizant of how lucky I am for that. I don’t know what I would have to be so angry about. There are days when things happen in sports that make me mad. I feel willing to express that. By and large, I don’t come in there in an angry mood looking to feel aggravated.
SN: So how do you answer the growing complaint that ESPN has become too liberal? That ESPN personalities are talking too much about politics? And not enough about sports?
MG: I would answer the same way I answered your previous question. In my 18 years, no one has ever come to me and told me what to say or what to talk about. So any political discussion or discourse that we have on our show is exclusively up to us. There’s no agenda beyond our own. I would imagine that’s the same for everybody. So I would imagine that whatever it is Stephen A. (Smith) feels, that’s what he says. Whatever it is that Michael (Smith) and Jemele (Hill) and Scott Van Pelt and Will Cain and Michael (Wilbon) and Tony (Kornheiser) on "PTI," and everybody, whatever it is they feel in their heart and in their conscience about various issues, that’s what they say on the air. I can’t imagine it’s different from that anywhere. Speaking solely for our show, I think we are socially conscious people. We talk about politics a little, to the degree there’s an intersection between the political world and sports. At times it’s not avoidable. Colin Kaepernick and all of that last year and a variety of other issues. So I don’t think of it that way. I know for sure that there isn’t some sort of agenda being driven through us. If that is something that people think, then I guess that’s something to consider.
SN: Mike Golic
told me the same thing a few weeks ago.
MG: Look, I know Mike Golic as well as I’ve know anybody in my entire life. Mike Golic is an open-minded, big-hearted person. I would not describe him as being very left-leaning. I don’t think anyone who listens to our show would describe him as that. I respect his conscience enormously. His great values. But I would not describe him as a person who’s extraordinarily left-leaning. I don't think that would be an appropriate example at all.
SN: Any thoughts on the looming layoffs at ESPN? Are nerves getting tight up there?
MG: I don’t because I don’t really know what’s going on. I read what you guys write. I hate it when people I cover say stuff like that. Because it sounds completely not the way I mean it to sound. I guess what I mean is, whatever it is that’s going on, I’m not being consulted about it and no one is talking to me about it. I honestly don’t know what’s happening. I’ve worked at ESPN for 20 years. I love that place. I’m very well aware that for my the rest of my life, the letters ESPN are going to be attached to my name. Literally, everywhere I go, people say, ‘Aren’t you the guy from ESPN?’ I’m proud to say yes. The company has been great to me. It’s given me everything that I have in my life professionally. I only want good things for it. I only want good things for the people who are there. If that sort of thing is going to go on, it will make me feel terrible. I only know what I’ve seen in the media like everyone else has. I hope that isn’t the case. But I honestly don’t know, one way or the other.
MORE: ESPN exec rips FS1 head for taking 'cheap shot' at network
SN: Bill Simmons used to take potshots at you and Mike. Do you think The Sports Guy learned the hard way that TV isn’t easy. Are you and Mike having the last laugh?
MG: Whatever it is that didn’t work out well for him with his show at HBO, I don’t think it means that TV isn’t easy, or he isn’t good at it. Not everything works. He’s a really smart, really talented guy. I have no doubt that he will continue to have enormous success. For whatever reason, that one particular venture didn’t work out. But he’s had a million others that have worked out extraordinary well. So you don’t bat a 1.000. As far as him being tough on us, look, I don’t judge people by what they think of me. Our show isn’t his cup of tea. That’s fine. It doesn’t really matter. He’s a smart, successful guy. I’m sure he’ll do real well. I don’t know exactly what didn’t go right there. But I don’t think it's necessarily some signal that it’s the end. It’s on to the next thing.
https://twitter.com/BillSimmons
SN: You guys wouldn't be partners this long if there wasn't real chemistry. How did the two of you do a four-hour show, every weekday, for so long?
MG: This is our 18th year. Listen, the only way I can think of to describe it, because I’ve had a lot of people ask me about the experience in its totality as though it's over, which it is not, the only thing I can really say is I’m extraordinarily grateful for the success we’ve had. But more than that, I’m extraordinarily grateful for the fun that we’ve had. You said it right: You can’t do four hours a day, every single day, for 18 years, if its miserable. It hasn’t been. We’ve had so much fun. They let us do pretty much whatever we wanted, for the most part, for all of this time. Between Mike and me, we created whatever we wanted to create. We’ve had a great time doing it. I’ve laughed more sitting on the air talking about sports with Mike Golic than I probably have in any other place in my life. That’s invaluable. So whatever much success we’ve had, and however much money we’ve made, and both of those have been terrific, I am most grateful for the all fun that we’ve had.
SN: You’re a long-suffering Jets fan. Will they win a Super Bowl in your lifetime?
MG: How long am I going to live? I think that it is very likely the Jets are about to be the worst team in the NFL this coming year. I think there’s a real chance of that. I certainly hope they will win a Super Bowl in my lifetime. But I haven’t seen any evidence that makes me convinced of it.
JanssenUS 
