FOX Sports has a problem on its hands. It appears as if the network doesn’t think it will be an issue moving Greg Olsen from its top booth in favor of Tom Brady. Think again.
The verdict is in. People love Greg Olsen. Near universal praise is heaped on him during the sport’s biggest moments, and I would think that goodwill is something that would be difficult to throw away. I know CBS Sports would probably say “We thought the same thing about Tony Romo”, but it feels different with Olsen. He’s locked in, committed, focused, and articulate. He’s a fantastic analyst, one worthy of the top spot at a network.
Conversely, Tom Brady has approached his role with FOX Sports with the same enthusiasm Ron DeSantis displayed while attempting to learn how to smile. It’s been awkward every time he’s discussed it. He’s adamant he’ll join the booth next year, going as far as to tell Front Office Sports he’ll be paired with Kevin Burkhardt in 2024, and he won’t be part of a three-man booth.
And in my radical solution to the problem facing FOX Sports, he wouldn’t be in a three-man booth. He’d be in every booth.
The network is paying Tom Brady boatloads of cash. It’s an astronomical number that made every media pundit raise their eyebrows when the $37.5 million annual salary was reported.
Is it getting its best bang for its buck by simply pairing him with Burkhardt for one game a week? Obviously, executives at the company feel that way, otherwise they wouldn’t have inked him to such a deal.
But in a day and age where specialized analysts exist, why couldn’t the network turn Tom Brady into one?
It’s the best of both worlds. Olsen, who is nearing “best analyst in the game” status in the eyes of many viewers, retains his top spot in the network’s lead booth alongside Kevin Burkhardt. The longer the duo are paired together, the more venerable they become, the more gravitas their voices command, and FOX Sports comes out a winner.
On the flip side, FOX can use Tom Brady in a Mike Pereira/Dean Blandino role. Build the man a studio at whatever palatial estate he decides he wants it at, and have him drop in on FOX NFL Sunday, the halftime show, and any broadcast crew’s beck and call.
Think about it. Instead of only getting Tom Brady in the 4:25 PM ET window with the Packers vs Lions, imagine watching whatever craptastic 1:00 PM ET game is being shown in your area. Let’s pretend it’s the Falcons and the Panthers. Bryce Young just threw his second interception of the game. Horrible decision. Bad throw. Whatever. We can get the perspective of Mark Schlereth, Jonathan Vilma, or Robert Smith or you can hear Adam Amin/Chris Myers/Kenny Albert say “Let’s go to our Florida studios and get the perspective of Tom Brady, the greatest to ever play the position. Tom, what did you see there from Young and why did he miss that throw?”
And he can do that throughout the day. Giving his perspective on each and every game on FOX that day. It feeds into his ego that you want him to be on every game in your stable, and you want him to have as big of a presence as possible. If fans don’t like it, who cares? He’s on the screen giving his opinion for a couple of minutes, at maximum, in each broadcast. That’s more palatable than for a few hours at a time if he’s not any good at this.
It also allows Greg Olsen to remain in the booth he wants to be in, feeding his ego, and your company reaping the benefits of his excellence in the process.
It’s the same thing rules analysts have become. Some broadcasts employ special team experts like Jay Feely or previously with Steve Tasker. Some even now have doctors on call for injury analysis. Why not use the greatest person to play the most important position in the game to your advantage in the same way?
FOX Sports didn’t strictly sign Tom Brady to be its lead NFL analyst. The idea that the network could use him in promotional opportunities, have him hobnob with sponsors on the golf course, attend galas and fundraisers, and do speaking engagements for advertisers is also included in that package. The network is going to get its money back on Brady no matter how it decides to use him.
But is torpedoing the success it has built with the Burkhardt and Olsen pairing the best use of its newfound talent? In my estimation, no. But I’m not Eric Shanks. I don’t get paid the big bucks to make these decisions. Truth be told, I don’t know how many poor decisions I think FOX Sports has even made over the past decade that would lead me to even question the decision-making.
However, when you have a winner, breaking it up simply to force-feed viewers something they’re not even sure they want feels like a bad idea.
There’s a radical solution here. In traditional internet speculation fashion, there’s simply one question to ask about this idea: Who says no?
Garrett Searight is Barrett Media’s News Editor, which includes writing bi-weekly industry features and a weekly column. He has previously served as Program Director and Afternoon Co-Host on 93.1 The Fan in Lima, OH, and is the radio play-by-play voice of Northern Michigan University hockey. Reach out to him at Garrett@BarrettMedia.com.
