Friday, March 4, 2011

Interview With Jim Nantz

For over 25 years, Jim Nantz has brought to his work at CBS Sports his unique and gentlemanly style, honed by his respect for such predecessors and mentors as Jim McKay, Jack Whitaker, Chris Schenkel, Dick Enberg, Curt Gowdy, Ray Scott, Jack Buck, and Keith Jackson. An Emmy Award-winning broadcaster, Nantz is the lead play-by-play man for the network’s coverage of the NFL, NCAA basketball, and golf, which includes the Masters and the PGA Championship.


During his career he has co-hosted the Olympics as well as covered the NBA, the U.S. Open Tennis Championships, baseball, NCAA track and field, swimming and diving, skiing, speed skating, and gymnastics. Nantz was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 2002 as the youngest recipient of the Curt Gowdy Media Award.
            
In January, Nantz and The Methodist Hospital in Houston announced the creation of the Nantz National Alzheimer Center, a neurological unit dedicated to the research and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease and the care of Alzheimer’s patients and their families. Nantz’s father, Jim Nantz Jr., died in 2008 after being diagnosed with the disease. He was treated at The Methodist Hospital.
            
Nantz spoke recently about his broadcasting career, his book (“Always By My Side”), his father, and his commitment to the Nantz National Alzheimer Center.

Q. About journalism, Tom Brokaw said, "It's all storytelling, you know. That's what journalism is all about." In “Always By My Side,” you wrote that it was your “lifelong aspiration to narrate the great stories of American sports.” Is it a challenge to find fresh stories?

Nantz: It is when you’re covering the same subjects over and over again. Tiger Woods, for example, in his dominant stretch won so many golf tournaments. Telling the story of an individual on his way to victory as the game is winding down or as a golfer is walking up the 72nd fairway…that is really the premium time to put in perspective for that individual just what that moment means. In Tiger’s case, he’s won over and over again on CBS. And through the years, it became a little bit of a difficult test to keep it fresh. But it’s a good problem to have. It’s a good thing to be challenged and a good way to test your creative ability.

Q. A lot of preparation goes into what ultimately comes out, though.
Nantz: It all gets back to that because if you’re lazy in your preparation and you just lean on, say, a media guide to provide you with the information, that can’t hold up for much more than a week. You’ve got to have trust with the people you are covering. You’ve got to have time with them. You’ve got to have the ability to get them to present to you fresh stories, fresh information, and fresh ideas about what’s going on with their abilities, their game, what’s inside their head. That all takes time to be able to developnot only the story but the relationship.

Q. Your work has brought you into contact with athletes, presidents, performers, writers and other talented artists. That’s enviable access to a lot of original and creative personalities
Nantz: Sometimes it’s a little bit hard to believe when you’re playing golf with, say, President Bush and President Clinton that you’re actually in their company. There still is a real sense of awe for the people that I’ve been lucky enough to get to meet and know, whether it’s presidents or whether it’s Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus. People who have made a difference in the world and who I grew up watching on television and respecting when I was a young person—and still do in my adult life. To get to know them and all the many wonderful places and people that would come along with it…. It’s all made it very special. It’s a wonderful life, and I count my blessings.

Q. Speaking of stories, what sports stories are you following closely these days?
Nantz: It changes in my world all the time. I came off a 20-week NFL stretch. It was not our year to call the Super Bowl, as it was just 12 months ago. We let go of football and for a month, I focus on the PGA Tour. It’s kind of fun at this particular time because it’s early in the season and you’ve got all the questions that are out there circling in people’s minds.

Q. Such as?
Nantz: Where’s Tiger Woods going to be with his game? These young players who surfaced in 2010 and seized the moment a year ago—that whole brigade of talented, fearless young golfers—are they going to back up that breakout season of a year ago and perform at a high level again in 2011?

Q. It must be nice to cover golf in January and February and get a head start on spring.
Nantz: It’s kind of nice to be in early at some gorgeous sights in the dead of winter, like San Diego, Phoenix, Pebble Beach, and L.A. This is my four-week stretch. Before then, I transition again. I change hats and I go right into the most riveting, exciting month that you can ever imagine, being on the road to the Final Four on my way to calling another national championship game.

Q. There was no Super Bowl for you and CBS this year, but will there be an NFL season next year?
Nantz: I see people speculating on this who have a lot more knowledge about it than I do. My guess is that we’ll definitely have a season—an uninterrupted season—at some point. There’s just too much money for people to suddenly lose the momentum that they have with the NFL right now. There’s such a trust with the fan base that to suddenly turn your back on the fans when no one can understand, with all these billions being split up, how it can be so problematic. It’s lost on people. Middle America doesn’t get it, doesn’t understand how it’s so mixed up right now.

Q. The talk is of an 18-game season.
Nantz: I find it interesting that in the last week stories are starting to come out now that the fan out there is repelling this whole 18-game-schedule idea. That had been discussed as if it were a foregone conclusion, which is what the owners wanted. They wanted that to get through without there really being any resistance, but there’s some kickback now. And I think that that’s going to start to get even a little more attention—negative attention, that is—in the weeks ahead. It’s a big part of these negotiations. It’s a big revenue source, another two weeks’ worth of games, but I’m seeing now that there’s a lot of opposition, from the players, and now it’s even coming from the fans. And this thing may not be the big slam dunk that everybody thought it was going to be.

Q. The players are concerned about the debilitating effects of such a violent sport being made even longer.
Nantz: They are. Sure, they’re going to take away two preseason games, but the two that you have remaining, you’re really going to have to get your star players in shape, in game mode, earlier than in the past. Before, teams could gradually work them in across the four preseason games, play them a couple of series one week, a quarter the next week. Now, they’re going to have to play in those two preseason games. Now, you’ve got two additional real games. Of course that’s going to mean more injuries there as well. If you look back on this season, the game’s getting so more physical and faster… my goodness, the Indianapolis Colts, if they went two more weeks, they might not have been able to field a football team.

Q. Would you keep the schedule the way it is?
Nantz: The 16-game season, the way it’s set up, it works. I understand the four preseason games get tiring for all of us. They’re not important. But, you know, they fall in the middle of summer vacation. It’s the time of the year when you don’t care that you’re not that focused on the NFL. It’s O.K. to have four preseason games. So what if they’re sparsely attended. Once you get to Labor Day and schools are in session and people are back in that mindset of “It’s back to work now, summer’s over,” the interest is there, the ratings are there. But if you ever went back and looked at when the NFL would start a season before Labor Day weekend, the ratings weren’t there. Because, again, people’s interests were somewhere else. So don’t put so much stock in the fact that they’re trying to lose two preseason games. It’s not that big of a deal. It’s not a national crisis. 

Q. Let’s talk basketball. The new partnership with Turner for the NCAA basketball tournament could be fun. There will be new voices covering the games. Steve Kerr said that he’s excited about being part of the broadcast team…
Nantz: I’m excited about Steve joining us; Clark [Kellogg] is, too.

Q. How do you assess the field? Admittedly it’s a little early. Any sleeper teams that can make a deep run?
Nantz: I’m on many talk-radio shows where I get asked questions I don’t know the answer to. I decided a long time ago, after listening to a lot of talk-radio, and hearing people in my industry who I thought were bluffing their way through answers… I don’t bluff. If I don’t know the answer to something, I’m not going to tell you. I’m not going to try to manufacture an answer. I have not done one college basketball game in person this year. I’ve watched it on TV, but for me to handicap the field? I can’t do that. Oh, sure, I could probably come up with a very convincing 30-second argument about Duke defending, and the way Ohio State is playing with Jared Sullinger and its decorated freshmen. But I haven’t seen any of them play in person. So, I think it’s more appropriate for me just to be honest and say, “I don’t know.”

Q. You wrote of your “unprecedented broadcasting ‘triple’—the Super Bowl, Final Four, and the Masters.” In 2011 you will call your 26th Masters, so you’re now more than halfway to your goal of calling 50 Masters.
Nantz: I will start in golf terminology by saying that I will begin the back nine come April. I would love to work 50 Masters, God willing, CBS willing, and Augusta willing. If things break my way, I would love to be able to go all the way to the year 2035. That would be my 50th. And, who knows, when we get there, maybe I’ll want to play a couple of extra holes.

Q. There is a song in “The Mikado” in which Ko-Ko lists things that would not be missed. For example, nuisances who write for autographs and people with irritating laughs. What in sports would you not miss if it were eliminated?
Nantz: That’s a great question. I would not miss—and I’m probably looking at this from a media perspective—all the talk and discussion now about television ratings. When I first started in the business, no one at home knew anything about the Nielsen ratings. Those were really in-house numbers that our sales crew would take over to Madison Avenue and try to sell the next golf tournament or football or basketball game off those numbers. But now, everybody thinks that he is some sort of closet expert on interpreting television ratings and crunching numbers. It’s so much out there in the public consciousness now.

Q. It’s true. Everyone seems to be discussing television numbers.
Nantz: Ratings! I get asked about them all the time. I work in the industry, and I’m here to tell you that like anything that involves numbers, they can be misleading. There can be all kinds of factors that are a part of [ratings] that people never take into consideration. Too often it just becomes something that tirelessly you have to answer questions about….  It’s a very easy, amateur view of the success or the failures of an individual or a sport right now because everybody always gets back to what the ratings were. But did they factor in weather? Some people maybe had outdoor activities. There are so many things, I don’t even want to rattle off the list. I get burned out on that. I wouldn’t miss [those discussions] if they went away.

Q. Anything else?
Nantz: I wouldn’t miss athletes who are ungrateful, athletes who don’t give back. Now, most of them are very generous. But there are some still who have a sense of entitlement, who think that the spoils of the life that comes with the million dollar contracts is something that is a birthright. It’s not! The chance to strike it big in your life, to be able to be lucky enough to play the PGA Tour or to play in the NFL…the odds of anyone ever making it to that level are so astronomical that once you get there, I really want you to be there with a grateful and open heart doing something more to give back to those who aren’t able to experience that. Sometimes, you see very generous attitudes. But I have the best seat in the house, and I see the athlete who won’t give an autograph or the athlete who spends his money excessively on some of the craziest things and doesn’t realize how hard it is to make that money for most people. I wouldn’t miss that.

Q. Jim, you wrote, “I realized that the key to an effective delivery is to be conversational.” One characteristic that strikes me about your style is the respect you have for your work, for history or tradition, and for your colleagues and the athletes you are covering. That seems lacking now to some extent in the media.
Nantz: I appreciate all those words, but I think it’s really a reflection of my father. That was his comportment. That’s the way he treated people, the way that I look at the world, the map that I saw as a young person. I think in the media—and there is so much media out there—everybody feels like they have to have an opinion or an answer about things, even when they don’t. Look at these anniversary shows or top 10 shows that everybody runs. Take, say, Tiger’s 1997 Masters win. In that documentary are sound bytes from people in the media that I didn’t even know were at the Masters that year. But they got in an interview setting and a producer rattled off a series of questions.

Q. It gets back to what you were saying about bluffing an answer.
Nantz: The worst thing in the world you can do in the media, in some people’s minds, is to say, “I just don’t know,” or “I wasn’t there,” or “I’m not the right guy to ask about that.” We don’t all have the answers, but everybody today looks like they have to be the ultimate expert on all things. It’s just not possible. I get asked to do some of these shows—the 50 greatest athletes or whatever—but that has spawned a whole new genre of these kind of documentary sound byte one-hour specials. I don’t do them anymore.

Q. Why?
Nantz: First, I just don’t feel like I have the breadth to be an expert on all things. And, second, if I am an expert on one of those subjects, I don’t want to be in the middle of a documentary that has a bunch of people who aren’t really experts on it and are bluffing their answers. You can’t have an answer to everything. Take sports-talk radio. People have got conditioned to where they have to have an opinion. You’re not going to be an interesting enough guest if you don’t come in and at least fake an answer. I’m not going to do that.

Q. You said that “Always By My Side” was “tantamount to writing my father’s eulogy in advance.” You wrote, “[Dad] loved his work—and he loved coming home to his family even more.” That sums up a happy and fulfilling life, doesn’t it?
Nantz: It really does. It’s something I really long for in my life because my life is on the road, by and large. In those halcyon days of your youth, you think back to the days when your dad walks into the house and you run to the door. Dinner is served at the table. It’s quiet. No distraction. You don’t know it at the time, but that’s a pretty sweet part of life right there, you know. There were just traditional, old-fashioned values that my father really represented. Did you read the hardcover or the paperback?

Q. The hardcover.
Nantz: Well, I wish you saw the paperback. My dad died seven weeks after the [hardcover] book came out. So I added a chapter for the paperback, about going through that. And that was the hardest part to write—how my father’s life ended. So, when I wrote that it was like writing my father’s eulogy while he was still alive, my father was oblivious to the fact that his boy was writing a book. And with Eli Spielman, my co-author, that whole Alzheimer’s angle hit really close to his family, too. We worked on this every day, including holidays, even if it was just for an hour. We wanted every story, every segue, to be spot on. We wanted a story that brought laughter and poignancy.

Q. Did you sense your father’s presence while you were writing the book?
Nantz: He was totally with me. We would write these chapters and then revise them. I wanted the book to flow naturally and not be just a collection of anecdotal stories. I wanted to be able to go naturally from one place right into the next. When we would finally knock off a chapter and it felt like it was whole and it was good enough, I would email it to my sister down in Houston. She would print it out and take it over to my dad’s bedside – he didn’t recognize anyone—and she would read those chapters over and over again. It was a very sweet thing to do. It was almost like she was just hoping somehow, some way, that this was resonating somewhere in my father’s mind.

Q. “Hello, friends” is your signature line. That is a tribute to him, isn’t it?
Nantz: It is. I openly thought there was a way that I needed to encode in my broadcast a way to say hello to my father or say something that was a tribute to him. At a golf tournament years ago, it just came out of the opening montage tease…. The last thing my dad could ever remember was his name. I’d say to him, “Hey, dad, What’s going on? What’s your name?” He’d say, “I’m Jim Nantz.” He’d always be able to say his name. Of course, eventually that went away. But shortly before that time, when I first said, “Hello, friends,” I said, “Hey, dad. I’m going to mention you this weekend. When I say ‘Jim Nantz’ on the air, I’m speaking to you. My name is your name.” I always felt that that was a way of reaching my father at the time. His nurses always had the updated on-air schedule, so I had the comfort of knowing that my broadcast at the very least was always playing in his room. 

Q. In your book you wrote about a TV special you produced in 2007, “Jim Nantz Remembers Augusta: The 1960 Masters,” which was a colorization of Arnold Palmer’s Masters’ victory. The show also helped bring about a reconciliation between Palmer and Ken Venturi…
Nantz: Thank you for bringing that up. I don’t often get asked about that, but it was a really important thing for me.

Q. About that, you wrote, “Good people with good stories—my dad would have loved it. To him, that was what sports, and sportsmanship, were all about. My dad would not have hesitated to trade them all in for this one night in Los Angeles…. In his eyes, this would have been his son’s greatest accomplishment in a year unlike any other.” Was that your “One Shining Moment?”
Nantz: In that year, I think, my father would have loved the fact that I was part of a process that brought these two distinguished gentlemen together after so many years where maybe there had been conflict, particularly for Kenny, who had a hard time letting go of the 1958 Masters. And my point was, my father would have been very proud that I got to call all those events in that year. But he would have been particularly proud of the fact that I played the role of peacemaker. That was my father. He really had no enemies that I could ever imagine or knew of. My father was taken advantage of by people, I believe, as I look back on his life because he was easy prey. He trusted people, and that cost him what little money he had to invest. Still, you never heard him complain about it. When he would see that there was an argument or a disagreement with others, he would try to intercede and try to help bring people together. He was a uniter, a believer.

Q. Nothing wrong with that.
Nantz: You know, that’s not a bad thing. It’s a good thing. One time I asked John Wooden how he managed to win all those championships when there was so much turmoil on college campuses at the time. “How did you lead?” is basically what I asked him.

Q. What did he say?
Nantz: He told me that it’s better to trust and be disappointed some of the time than to never trust and therefore be disappointed all the time. In other words, if you’re going to live your life looking through a prism of doubt or cynicism or negativity, you’re never going to be happy. You’re not going to allow the best to come out. You’re not going to be able to absorb the best of an individual. But when you do trust, you’re going to get the best of everything. Sure, there will be a letdown from time to time, but at least you’re approaching it from an angle of openness. I think of that line many times from coach Wooden. I’ve attached it to the way my father lived his life. That’s the perfect summation of the way my father looked at the world.

Q. It’s a positive outlook,
Nantz: Yes. I’ve been around some negative people. We all have. And it’s never pleasant. It’s not rewarding. It’s not fulfilling. But the people who are the real achievers are those who have that positive spirit. Those who trust and know they’re going to be disappointed some of the time, they allow you to reach greater heights. They don’t restrict it.

Q. Let’s talk about the Nantz National Alzheimer Center. What is your role with it, and what do you hope to accomplish?
Nantz: What I’m trying to do is raise money and awareness for Alzheimer’s and all dementing illnesses and, really, the field of neurology that brings so many people into the equation. And let them know that down in the neurological institute at Methodist Hospital in Houston, where we have now the Nantz National Alzheimer Center, we’re aggressively and ambitiously trying to take on all of these diseases and illnesses and find a way to treat, prevent, and ultimately cure all of the above. I want to do all that I can both from my individual giving, which I’m making a lifetime commitment to do, and also in an ambassadorial role as someone who’s out front and is able to use the platform that I have.

Q. And with people living longer, Alzheimer’s disease is an illness that is affecting more and more families.
Nantz: The numbers that are being projected just a few years down the road are staggering. The other thing is, it’s been a hot-button item this year with the helmet-to-helmet collisions in the NFL, head traumas and how they may lead to later-life dementing illness. The early research is showing that there is definitely a tie between head traumas in young people and later-life dementing illness.

Q. Your father had a severe head injury as a young man.
Nantz: My dad played football at Guilford College. He was kicked in the side of the head—this was in the leather helmet era—while trying to block a punt and busted his eardrum. That injury was something he talked about incessantly. He had no hearing in that ear from that injury. He had ringing in his head for 40-plus years. He had drainage issues and several surgeries that were never able to quite fix the problem that he always attributed to that football injury. He lived a good part of his life with strong effects from that one head trauma.

Q. What happened?
Nantz: Here was this strong, physically fit, strapping, life-of-the-part 66-year-old man who looked like he was 50. And one day, all of a sudden, he was attending a golf tournament. Out of the blue, he has a mini stroke, which leads to another and another shortly after that, all in the span of maybe three or four months. And life as he knew it was never the same again. What happened? Where did that come from? Could it possibly have been because of a concussion that was not diagnosed when he was a college student?  You can’t tell me it wasn’t related, that it didn’t cause the onset of his Alzheimer’s. It’s not just for people in their 80s and 90s.

Q. It affects people younger than that.
Nantz: This is a lot more prevalent than people think. I think the illness has been underchampioned—if that’s such a word. It’s definitely underfunded by the government. And if it means that someday I’ve got to figure out a way to climb the steps to the U.S. Capitol to beg for more government research dollars, I’m going to do it. I’m going to do whatever it takes. I’m ready to take on this challenge.

Q. The Nantz Center is not named for you, is it?
Nantz: That is named after my dad and is a tribute to my mother and sister. They represent the millions of people who have suddenly had to step into the thankless role as caregivers that does not ever get the attention or appreciation of how lives are affected by one individual with Alzheimer’s. There’s not one victim here. There’s never just one, because there’s always the caregiver part of it, too. It’s very sad. I am heartened by the fact that we have a great team in place in Houston.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

I've Got Another List...

I’ve got a second list
Of things that won’t be missed:
“American Idol” contestants and judges,
Against all of whom I carry grudges,
And whose dubious talents I can easily resist.

A capella groups and falsettos,
Barbershop quartets and drum solos
As well as National Anthem balladeers
Leave me close to tears,
The lot of whose efforts I’d foreclose.

And if it were in my power, I’d insist
That the following would be hissed:
Lite-FM, Muzak, and Gangsta rap,
Hip-hop, head-banging, heavy metal crap,
Disco, Do-wop, Kenny G, and the Twist.

Harmonicas and accordions are painful to hear,
On St. Paddy’s Day, it’s the bagpipes I fear,
And at the World Cup, the vuvuzelas nonstop,
On New Year’s Eve, the din before the drop,
(Julianne Moore’s Boston accent—origin unclear.)

Inebriated fans claiming they’re No. 1,
Officious types who legislate fun,
Panderers and Pharisees,
Self-important and -righteous—please!
The thought of them leaves me undone.

Soul patches, muttonchops, and goatees,
Van dykes, comb-overs, and toupees.
That doesn’t quite rhyme, I realize,
But the general idea, you can surmise,
Is that all represent bad hair days.

The comfortably stupid who “have no clue,”
Of further knowledge they’ve no need to accrue.
They know enough, and need learn no more,
Their curiosity closeted behind a closed door,
Their open-mindedness they’ve bid adieu.

Monday, February 28, 2011

I've Got A Little List...

With apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan...

I’ve got a little list
Of things that won’t be missed.
Take three Davids: Schwimmer, Lee Roth, and Caruso
Plus the redundant “as well” and “also”
Favored by Michael Kay. All of you, please desist.

The dull who, with language, play fast and loose,
Using clichés and other such abuse:
“Pushing the envelope,” “under the radar,”
“At the end of the day”—please keep them afar,
And anything written by Dr. Seuss.

Of landscapes, silos, granular, and brand,
It’s not a farm or a ranch, understand,
Which these words now describe,
But business gibberish that I ascribe
To clods whose touch turns everything bland.

DNA, eyeballs, and mindsets—it’s not biology,
But a dull and deadening ideology
Of dreary writers who would obfuscate
What is clear and complicate
What is simple through clumsy phraseology.

I hereby resolve never to use “systemic,”
“Going forward,” “between you and I,” and “iconic,”
The redundant “new record,” and both
The misused “disinterested” and “loath”
And the overused “absolutely” and “terrific.”

I can live without hearing any more jargon,
Ad or marketing copy, and footprints of carbon;
Madonna, Whoopi, and Angelina’s next children’s book,
Art from Thomas Kinkade and LeRoy Neiman—you know the look.
And Frank Rich declaiming yet again on Mel Gibson.

Save us from the glib, from the philistines, and
From dilettantes Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand;
From the benighted who think Jim Morrison a poet.
They’re clueless, the lot—they don’t even know it.
From know-it-alls to buttinskies, we’re taking a stand.

To be continued

Friday, February 18, 2011

Interview with Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive

Mike Slive brought over 40 combined years of legal and administrative experience when he succeeded Roy Kramer as commissioner of the Southeastern Conference in 2002. The Utica, N.Y., native, with an undergraduate degree from Dartmouth and law degrees from the University of Virginia and Georgetown, practiced law while serving in the athletic administration at Dartmouth, the Pac-10, and Cornell. He was the first commissioner of both the Great Midwest Conference and Conference USA before becoming the seventh commissioner in the 78-year history of the SEC.
   Slive was the coordinator of the 2006 and 2007 Bowl Championship Series and chairman of the NCAA Division I men's basketball committee in 2008-09. His SEC tenure has been marked by success on the field (the conference has produced the last five national football champions) and off ($209 million in revenue last year alone).

Q. The SEC has produced the last five national football champions. What is the secret to the league’s success?
Slive:  Great athletes, great coaches, and a tradition in this part of the country of passion and loyalty. The whole culture here supports college football and college athletics. It’s something that’s very important here and means a lot to a whole lot of people.

Q. But the league has always had great athletes and coaches. Why the pronounced success, especially recently, in football over other sports?
Slive: In some ways, up until the BCS, there really wasn’t a way of measuring the national championship. And the focus has become so pronounced in regard to the BCS and the national championship. In the early years, when good team went to different bowls, we didn’t have the so-called No. 1 vs. No. 2 game. So, I think part of it is that there is now a forum for the national championship in a way that didn’t exist two decades ago.

Q. What does a championship mean to the SEC?
Slive: I think a lot of people try to measure it in economic value. But much of our television and Internet web site are in place. I think at this point it creates a great deal of pride and satisfaction the whole region can enjoy. The other thing, which is one of the most significant and unusual results, is that we’ve had four different teams win the national championship in the last five years. What that means is that there is tremendous depth and quality to the league as a whole. Five in a row is a record that may never be broken, but the fact is, it was done by four different teams in five years. We have won seven of the 13 BCS national championship games -- and we won all seven that we’ve played in. I think the measure is intangible rather than tangible.

Q. And the players know that if they can win the SEC, they have a good chance to compete for the national championship.
Slive: That’s a good point. Our championship game is an event that has grown into an event that stands on its own two feet, regardless of who’s playing. It’s a natural outgrowth of our culture. People kid me, talking about the plus-one. In some ways [the SEC] championship game is the plus-one game for the national championship.

Q. At the time when you became commissioner, the SEC was bringing in a reported $27.7 million in revenue. This year, the SEC brought in $209 million, including $27.2 million for the BCS alone. What has been responsible for the large increase in revenue?
Slive: When we were ready to redo our [television] contracts, we looked very hard at a channel, and I think that was a factor. The fact that SEC football and basketball have become national in scope… I think in the earlier years, everyone knew who we were and that we played well. But I think over the years, the interest in our league has grown nationally, and that has been reflected in our ability to develop a very significant television contract and very significant bowl agreements, all of which have benefited out league in many ways, including financially.

Q. How is that $27.2 allocated?
Slive: In essence, we share equally. We are one of the older leagues. We’re 78 years old. The league was formed long before television existed and so sharing was a natural outgrowth of these relationships. In effect, we share our television revenue equally. We do provide some small additional money for appearances, but effectively we share equally, which is one of the great strengths of the league.

Q. Does that money all go to the athletic programs?
Slive: Most of it goes to athletics. Last year, our athletic departments were able to contribute back about $30 million to the universities’ general fund, either for scholarships or for whatever purposes the universities wanted to use it as a result of our television agreement. We have nearly 5,000 student athletes, men and women. In fact, each of our institutions is required to have two more women’s sports than men’s sports. Most of that revenue is used to support the broad-based Olympic programs that we want to have -- the facilities, coaches, and student athletes. But we are very proud of the fact that our institutions worked out arrangements whereby $30 million went back to the universities’ general side.

Q. The two-to-one women’s sports, is that an SEC guideline?
Slive: Yes, and that was put into place long before I got here in order to, you know, create an impetus for the development of women’s sports, particularly when Title IX came into play.

Q. Should college athletes be paid?
Slive: No. I do understand the challenges that are out there, but what we’re talking about really is whether football players and basketball players should be paid. The question then arises, “Why shouldn’t all student athletes be paid?” And it goes back to the mission. If we’re going to do that, then I think we ought to just reconstruct what we are -- and then we’re no longer part of higher education. We’re maybe a second-rate professional league compared to the others. Our presidents are never going to do that. I think you’d see it go away before we paid players.

Q. A University of Connecticut booster wants the $3 million he contributed to the university returned to him because he was not consulted about the hiring of a new football coach. What do you make of that?
Slive: I was very proud of how [UConn athletic director] Jeff Hathaway handled that. I guess maybe I would suggest that [the booster] ought to buy himself an NFL team.

Q. What storylines in college athletics are you following most closely?
Slive: We just went through an expansion discussion that was significant and certainly caught the attention of you and your friends in the media and the public. It’s sort of quieted down now, but that issue is always there. We’re always looking at the postseason in football. We’re looking very closely now at the question of agents. The major parties have come together and initiated some discussions to deal with that issue. The new technology, the new media, the new age create new challenges for all of us, both in the media and outside the media, and I think we’re all trying to make sure we know how to deal with those issues that come up and how best to work within that new technology. 

Q. You have been outspoken about player agents and protecting college players from them. What needs to be done and who needs to do it?
Slive: Internally we need the change the NCAA rules. I think they’re part of the problem, not part of the solution. What’s happened that I’m very pleased about is that all of the groups that need to be involved in the discussions are involved: the NFL, the NFLPA, the NCAA, the American Football Coaches, the commissioner, and the agents themselves. Everyone who has an in in the game is now talking about how best to put together a series of new rules and sanctions that allow student athletes who have that kind of unique talent to learn more about what their future may hold in a way that doesn’t jeopardize their eligibility.

Q. How would you characterize those discussions?
Slive: The conversations have been good, they’ve been ongoing, and they’re going to continue. As long as we’re working together and all parties are willing to deal with it, I think we’ve got a chance for the very first time to put together a scenario that allows the young people to learn what they need to learn and to put everything else in the sunshine and stop these activities at midnight and in back alleys that hurt everybody. 

Q. What is the biggest challenge facing the SEC and college athletics?
Slive: We’re at a time when we may be at the zenith of our popularity, and there has been a significant revenue development in part of that. I think the question really is how do we maintain the balance that that requires.

Q. Tell me something about the SEC, or about your job, that would surprise fans of college athletics.
Slive: In almost 20 years, nobody’s ever asked me that. Let me think about that one.

Q. Greg Shaheen, Interim Executive Vice President of the NCAA, told me that he would trade his job for the Director of Homeland Security, and Seth Davis of Sports Illustrated and CBS Sports said that Shaheen's current job is probably the tougher one. Would you trade your job with anyone?
Slive: (laughing) I would not trade my job for any other that I can think of. I’m very fortunate. I am doing what I love to do with the people I love to do it with in a place where I love to do it. And, so, I would not trade it for Greg Shaheen’s job or the Homeland Security job. I really mean that.

Q. O.K., you would not change your job, but if you could change one thing about intercollegiate athletics, what would it be?
Slive: I wish we had the ability to influence the education of so many of our student athletes earlier in their lives. We have so much responsibility in providing opportunity and at the same time in providing education in a way that I would wish that the kids could come to us, many of them, better prepared. Because our goal is to use their experience at our institutions to further educate them and supplement the education in the classroom and give them a chance to have a wonderful life. We work hard at it. Sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail. If I could change that, I think that would be the most significant change we could possibly have.
Q. Many of the players do not remain for four years.
Slive: I certainly don’t like the one-and-done rule. I would like our student athletes to stay as long…. at least get close enough to a degree where there’s an incentive to return and get it at the appropriate time.

Q. What would you suggest doing about the one-and-done rule?
Slive: Well, obviously I’d love to have the football rule or even the baseball rule. You know, when the student athlete’s got three years in and has come close enough to a degree, there’s a good chance that he would come back and get his degree, or at least have had three good years of college work and relationships and all that goes with a college education.

Q. Is there a danger of the business of college sports compromising college sports?
Slive: We need to always remember that whatever we do athletically is really part of the mission of higher education. There’s a balance here. One of the most important things that I’ve tried to do is to help maintain that balance between athletics and the revenue that it generates and the goal and the mission of higher education. Maintaining that balance, to me, is the most critical and the most difficult thing that we do.

Q. It must be a delicate balance at times.
Slive: It can be, but it’s something that’s worth working for and something that we work tirelessly at. You asked me earlier to tell you something about my job that would surprise people. Fans may think about us in terms of games and officiating and revenue—and we do all those things—but our goal is to maintain the balance and the value system of education.

Q. What has been the highlight of your tenure as SEC commissioner?
Slive: It started the first day I got here and continues to this day. This is my ninth year. I’ve enjoyed the fact that all of our presidents and chancellors and athletic directors and others have always pulled in the same direction, with all the same goals and dreams and aspirations. We have difficult issues on occasion. I measure progress as two steps forward and one step back. None of us in life are fortunate enough to have an upward slope on a graph that never has a little dip in it. The ability of our people to accept on occasion a step back and then reinforce our goals and our commitment has been the most pleasant thing about my job.

Q. Here’s an easy question: What are you reading?
Slive: I’m reading a book I just love: [Ken] Follett’s “World Without End.” If you remember, he wrote “Pillars of the Earth” years ago. This is the sequel. And I’ve got two other books. I’m about to start Churchill’s “Defiant Years.” It’s about his 10 years following World War II. I’m a big Churchill fan. I’ve also got next to my bed the Mickey Mantle biography, which looks very interesting.