Bomani Jones, PTI, and the Perils of Thinking You Know Everything

Bomani Jones is right about most things. But he’s not right about everything.

During this year’s national title game, Bomani made a pretty ridiculous claims – that Urban Meyer had taken Ohio State to new heights after Jim Tressel. I didn’t understand or agree. Tressel won as many national titles, went to more title games, and developed just as many pros. Ohio St went to 8 BCS games in 9 years under Tressel and was a Top 5 program for a decade after he cleaned up the John Cooper mess. What new heights was he talking about?

As a follower of Bomani, I usually just scroll past opinions I don’t agree with. However, this one ended with a weird sentence. “There's no way to deny that.”

Really? You can’t deny that Jim Tressel did more for Ohio State than Urban Meyer? I’m not a fan of Tressel, or Ohio State, but that’s seems like a very reasonable and easy position to take.

So, I told Bomani that. He disagreed with me. That’s fine.

Then he blocked me. And that felt odd.

Whether or not you agree with Bomani is beside the point – the point is that of course you can deny his point. It’s literally just an opinion! So why did this ESPN star take time away from the National Championship to argue with some random guy on Twitter?

Tressel went to 8 BCS games in 9 years and played in 3 title games. Easy to deny that.

— Sean O'Leary (@stholeary) January 12, 2021

It’s a symptom of what’s wrong with sports “analysis” from years crystallized down to its purest form. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is, you must defend it to the bitter end. And loudly.

Look, I know I’m not exactly covering new ground here, but it’s become more prevalent as we witnessed the impact of this same type of “analysis” from cable news shows over the past four years. Now I don’t think Bomani being wrong about Jim Tressel will lead to five deaths during an insurrection. It does, however, contribute to the downfall of our social discourse where everything is you vs me and we must always argue about it.

The entire episode with Bomani got me thinking further about the only analysis show I watch on a daily basis, Pardon the Interruption, as I have since it debuted about 20 years ago. The reasons that Tony & Mike are still the kings of the format – and why no one has come close to dethroning them – are the antithesis of what the new crop like Bomani think sports “analysis” is all about.

1 – Mike & Tony Admit They Don’t Know Everything

There are some sports that Mike Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser are clear experts in, like Wilbon and the NBA, and Tony and MLB. Those are the sports they watch more than others. Of course, they give opinions on sports outside of their main focus, but they do so while admitting it’s outside of their main focus.

Look at Bomani’s example. He talked about something he didn’t know everything about (college football in the 2000s) and then told everyone they couldn’t deny his opinion. That’s a bad look.

Compare that to Tony, who outwardly admits that he follows college football less than Wilbon. As they spent the fall discussing the sport and the impacts of COVID, Tony would repeatedly say, “I know you know more about this Mike….”

2 – Mike & Tony Admit When They’re Wrong

Similar to cable news, the mantra of today’s new generation of sports “analysts” is that they can never admit they were wrong. Again, take Bomani’s example. He didn’t need to admit he was wrong in his opinion – but he did need to admit he was wrong that you “can’t” deny he was wrong. Instead of doing that, he blocked me.

Comparatively, Mike and Tony constantly admit when they are wrong. Going back to the college football, Tony admitted he was wrong both about Ohio State and the fact college football would finish his season. I was wrong about that last one too. He admitted he was wrong twice in one show! Does he know that’s not allowed?

3 – Mike & Tony Don’t Take Contrarian Positions for Fun

I really like ESPN’s Get Up before my workday starts because it’s usually void of debate and arguments. Sure, they happen. Still, it’s a more traditional recap of the previous day’s sports and a preview of upcoming games. Yes, they disagree and sometimes loudly, but that’s not the foundation of the show. Heck, most times the show is fun because everyone agrees on a certain point – i.e., the Eagles tanking in Week 17 was a disgrace.

If you leave ESPN on after Get Up, you get First Take and the show that forces debate. It’s painful to see Stephen A Smith or Max Kellerman loudly and defiantly defend a position that you know they don’t believe in. That’s the show though. You got to argue for the sake of arguing. That’s the entirety of FS1’s atrocious daytime lineup.

On PTI, it’s nothing but authenticity. In fact, some of my favorite segments on PTI are when they both agree immediately on something and spend the next 90-120 seconds talking about how they agree on it. That’s how people talk in the real world! Sometimes I agree with my Dad on how bad theJets are. Sometimes I disagree with my Dad when he badmouths Taylor Heinicke.

Why Don’t They Emulate the Leader?

As I thought about Bomani petulantly blocking me and why I like PTI so much, I started to become very confused. Why is no one emulating PTI?

Every TV sports show out there is doing “debate” ostensibly based upon the PTI format, but they lack all of the components that actually made the show so compelling and so iconic.

Maybe on the downsides of my 30s, I’m just too old to get what ESPN and FS1 are trying to do. The ratings, though, paint a difference picture. Sports fans want more PTI, and less sports arguing.   

Follow me on Twitter