BIA Advisory Services has revised its local advertising projections to reflect an 8.1% year-over-year uptick.
The company now forecasts that $184.5 billion will be spent on local advertising in 2026. Previously, the number was projected as $181.7 billion. However, stronger-than-expected growth in mobile, video, streaming, and political advertising has led to the increased forecast.
When political advertising is excluded, the company’s forecast is at $176.1 billion. That’s an increase from its previous projection of $172.7 billion.
“Our updated forecast reflects continued momentum in social and connected and over-the-top television, which are capturing a growing share of local advertising budgets,” said BIA Advisory Services Vice President of Forecasting and Data Analysis Senan Mele. “At the same time, traditional media such as broadcast television, cable and radio remain essential, providing the scale, credibility, and local connection that advertisers rely on to drive awareness and demand.”
Political advertising is projected to reach $8.4 billion, according to BIA Advisory Services. That will be split across broadcast television, linear cable, CTV/OTT, radio, and direct mail.
The company’s Managing Director, Rick Ducey, says the forecasted increase comes from higher-than-expected spending by the average American.
“The local advertising marketplace continues to reflect a K-shaped consumer economy,” said Ducey. “Stronger spending from higher-income households is supporting discretionary categories like travel, leisure, and automotive, while value-oriented spending is shaping demand in retail, restaurants, and essential services.”
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
The fallout from photos involving Dianna Russini and Mike Vrabel continues to generate discussion across sports media. Now, the conversation is shifting toward credibility and long-term perception. During a recent segment on The Craig Carton Show, Craig Carton offered a blunt assessment of how the situation could impact Russini’s career and others in the industry.
While both Russini and Vrabel have strongly denied any wrongdoing, Carton argued the public reaction may already be set. Carton suggested the biggest issue is how future reporting from Russini could be received.
“The next time Dianna Russini reports a story, I know what I’m thinking,” Carton said. “I know what you’re thinking. I know what everybody’s thinking. Wonder how she got that story.”
Russini, a senior NFL insider for The Athletic, has built her reputation on breaking news and cultivating sources. However, Carton believes the optics of the situation could create lingering doubt among audiences, regardless of her track record. He went further, saying the impact extends beyond one individual.
“She’s done herself great damage,” Carton said. “She’s done a lot of damage to other women in broadcasting, no fault of their own.”
Carton added that the perception may follow Russini indefinitely.
“I think sadly, for the rest of her life, I think now that becomes a kind of tattoo that’s on her,” he said .”Even if she’s very good at what she does. By all accounts, she is.”
The comments reflect a broader concern about how women in sports media are judged. Carton argued that situations involving optics can reinforce skepticism that female reporters already face, even if unfairly.
Meanwhile, Vrabel, who leads the New England Patriots, dismissed the photos as “completely innocent.” Russini also pushed back, stating the images lacked context and were taken during a group outing. Steven Ginsberg of The Athletic also publicly supported Russini, calling her a premier journalist.
Still, Carton questioned the decision to deny any deeper implication.
“I would prefer you just come out and go, look, I’m estranged from my husband, Mike’s estranged from his wife,” Carton said. “We’re consenting adults, and if I want to do this, that’s nobody’s business. Because here’s the problem. When you deny it, there’s more to come,” Carton said. “You don’t think there’s more to come?”
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Michigan’s national championship win over UConn Huskies men’s basketball delivered a strong audience for TNT Sports, continuing the upward trend for men’s college basketball on television.
Monday night’s title game averaged 18.3 million viewers across TNT, TBS and truTV. That figure ranks as the most-watched NCAA men’s championship game since 2019, when Virginia Cavaliers men’s basketball defeated Texas Tech Red Raiders men’s basketball in a game that drew 19.6 million viewers.
The audience also represents a modest increase from last year’s championship matchup between Florida Gators men’s basketball and Houston Cougars men’s basketball. That game aired on CBS and averaged slightly fewer viewers.
For TNT Sports, the performance sets a new benchmark. The 18.3 million average surpasses the company’s previous high of 17.8 million viewers for its first men’s title game broadcast in 2016, when Villanova Wildcats men’s basketball edged North Carolina Tar Heels men’s basketball on a buzzer-beater.
Viewership peaked late in Monday night’s contest. The broadcast reached 20.4 million viewers between 11:00 and 11:15 p.m. ET as Michigan closed out the victory.
The strong title game audience capped an impressive tournament run across multiple platforms. The 2026 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, which aired across CBS, TBS, TNT and truTV, finished up 7% compared to 2025. It now ranks as the second most-watched tournament since 1994.
CBS Sports and TNT Sports deliver the most-watched NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship Game in 7 Years
🏆 Michigan’s victory averaged 18.3 million viewers
— March Madness Men’s Basketball TV (@MM_MBB_TV) April 8, 2026
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
President Donald Trump is never shy when taking on his critics. That was evident when he shared a post on Truth Social telling Fox News executives they needed to remove Jessica Tarlov from the network.
“For Fox executives only, take Jessica Tarlov off the air,” wrote Trump. “She is, from her voice, to her lies, and everything else about her, one of the worst ‘personalities’ on television, a real loser! People cannot stand watching her. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
It does not appear as if Fox News officials addressed the statement from Trump.
Which got me wondering: how would news/talk radio program directors handle if Donald Trump called out one of their hosts in a similar fashion?
I spoke with three different news/talk radio program directors around the country to ask that very question. They were granted anonymity to speak more freely on the topic.
A program director in a Midwestern market initially answered sarcastically.
“I’ve had consultants tell me to fire people. I’ve had ratings books tell me to fire people. My own mother has even told me to fire people,” they said, with a laugh. “And now I’ve got the leader of the free world weighing in? Terrific.”
They continued by noting that it would likely do wonders for their station if the President did take such an interest in a specific host.
“It’d add a spike to our streaming numbers, I’m sure of it,” they said.
When prodded for a more realistic answer, they said they’d have a conversation with the host.
“I’d tell him, ‘Don’t let this get to you. Continue to be yourself. I’ve got your back.’ Sometimes, that’s all that needs to be said. Trust is an important condition of any relationship. If your host doesn’t feel like you trust them, they’re not going to produce their best work. That’s the goal, right? To do your best work? That’s all I’d say.”
Another program director in the Pacific Time Zone said they’d worry about blowback from listeners.
“If we’re on the radar of the President, it means we’re doing something right, usually,” the PD shared. “But I wouldn’t want to be on the bad side. When you’ve built a brand as a conservative talk station, having the person all conservatives look to, saying negative things about your hosts, isn’t good.”
Obviously, the hypothetical situation between President Donald Trump and a local news/talk radio host has plenty of variables. But the Pacific Time Zone PD said they would be unlikely to sever ties with a host if the President said he wanted them off the air.
“This isn’t really something a local PD would have to worry about,” they said. “It’s something a syndicator would have to think about. But really, unless one of our hosts did something unethical or said something that was just way out of line, I wouldn’t feel much pressure to fire them if they just said things that the President disagreed with.”
Finally, we spoke with a news/talk radio leader in the southeast who said they’d welcome the opportunity to have Donald Trump criticize one of their hosts to the point that he’d call for their firing.
“I would die to have audio of him calling out one of my hosts,” they said with a chuckle. “I’d be so disappointed if he did it in a Truth Social post. Could you imagine what you could do with (audio)?”
They added that creating such a reaction from Trump would be what they’ve instructed their hosts to do.
“We talk all the time about creating impact. Make listeners feel something. Whether they love you or hate you, the only bad emotion you can create is apathy. People will listen to a host they love. They’ll also listen to someone they hate. But they’ll turn away when they’re indifferent. So, if one of our guys elicited a response that was so strong that the President wants them fired? They’re doing exactly what we’re asking for them. And that’s what I’d tell my boss, too.”
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
In sports, success is the pinnacle of how legacy is established. There are many steps organizations take to achieve even the smallest victories. However, few franchises develop into dynasties where a team becomes an influential case study. Those franchises are the subject of a new podcast recently launched featuring J.A. Adande and Chuck Todd.
The podcast is called Dynastic, a longform historical series that explores how franchises build toward championships and how those championships shape legacy. Each episode examines how a team impacted its sport and the broader cultural significance of that success. The concept was developed by Todd and his business partner Steve Hull, who pitched the idea to Adande to gauge his interest.
“I just kind of trusted that it [Dynastic] would work,” said Adande. “I didn’t know Chuck [Todd] prior to this. Obviously, I knew who Chuck was, but I didn’t have a personal relationship with him… It’s great working with someone as professional and accomplished as Chuck Todd.”
Adande is no stranger to the sports media space. For nearly 25 years, he served in multiple roles at ESPN and as a columnist at the Los Angeles Times, in addition to positions with The Washington Post and the Chicago Sun-Times. Adande is also a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, earning the Curt Gowdy Print Media Award in 2024.
Why Dynastic Works
However, Dynastic marks his return to podcasting after several years away. He said that previous podcast opportunities often found him, but he was drawn to Dynastic because of its flexible schedule.
“I’m more interested in doing [a podcast] now that I’m not doing Around the Horn anymore,” explained Adande. “It’s a better time for me to do a regular podcast, and I like the pacing of Dynastic. It’s still not overly time consuming.”
The content approach is straightforward. Each episode focuses on a single franchise, with new installments recorded twice per month. The teams featured are selected two to three episodes in advance. From there, extensive research follows, ranging from online sources to trips Adande makes to the Chicago Public Library.
This process unfolds alongside Adande’s role as Associate Professor and Director of Sports Journalism at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism. Even in the podcast’s early stages, he has been encouraged by the response.
“I’ve had so many people contact me that don’t necessarily follow what I do professionally, and they all seemed really interested. The overall feedback has been positive,” says Adande. “Dynastic fills a niche to look back and understand. I want to promote a historical understanding.”
One advantage of the format is its evergreen nature. While history continues to evolve, the depth of research and context gives each episode a longer shelf life.
“It’s not like it’s expensive to do what we’re doing, but it’s time consuming,” said Adande. “I think there are people who want a fuller meal than just the fast-food drive thru experience… There’s a value to evergreen content too. A podcast that we pattern ourselves after is The Rewatchables. The genius of that podcast is that it is evergreen… Two to three months later, the episode still holds up.”
Teaching By Example
Adande acknowledged he is still adjusting his writing style for podcasting. As an instructor, he uses his own scripts to show students how he is adapting to a different medium. While he writes less for Dynastic than in past roles, his experience reflects an ongoing evolution in his approach to storytelling.
For the past decade, Adande has taught full time at Northwestern Medill. Over a career spanning more than two decades, he has witnessed significant changes in the sports journalism industry. Despite the decline of some traditional outlets, his students remain optimistic about their future.
“Their perspective hasn’t changed as much, but the industry has. There is still a lot of people who would like to do longform writing, and the avenues to do that just aren’t there the way they were before,” explained Adande.
He said he has always enjoyed teaching, even while balancing roles at the Los Angeles Times and ESPN earlier in his career. Despite industry shifts, he continues to value the academic environment.
“It’s great to be in an environment where everyone is trying to get better. It hasn’t changed as much as the industry has changed. Teaching at school is great. It’s the real world that’s changed not so great,” says Adande. “I still believe in what we do, and still enjoy it especially when someone gets it.”
One of the most rewarding aspects of teaching, he said, is sharing real-world experiences with both graduate and undergraduate students. This year, Adande accompanied a group of graduate students to the Super Bowl in San Francisco. More recently, he joined undergraduate students at the NCAA men’s basketball regionals in Chicago.
He enjoys seeing major events through the eyes of students experiencing them for the first time. While job opportunities may be evolving, he remains optimistic that journalism will continue to adapt.
Journalism Concerns
However, he does have concerns about the future of investigative journalism, particularly as leagues gain ownership stakes in networks that cover them. A recent example is the NFL’s 10% acquisition of ESPN, which included control of NFL Network, NFL Fantasy, and distribution rights for the RedZone channel.
“There has to be concern, but there still will be great reporting. That won’t go away, but will there be great journalism? My working definition of journalism is telling true stories that would otherwise not be told,” says Adande. “If there’s more outlets that aren’t allowed to talk about these things, and they’re the biggest outlets. Yes, that’s concerning.”
Adande believes strong journalism will endure, even if the business model continues to shift.
“It used to be that all the best journalists work at the best places and be paid the most because they’ve earned it. Now, not even all the best can afford to be paid by these same institutions,” explains Adande. “Is there going to be funding to do the deep investigative stories? That I’m worried about. However, just because the great entities aren’t investing in great journalism doesn’t mean great journalism won’t be around any more.”
Adande may be best known for his regular appearances on ESPN’s Around the Horn, which ended in May 2025 after more than 4,900 episodes. He made nearly 1,300 appearances on the program, beginning in November 2002.
He said he is not surprised ESPN has yet to name a permanent replacement for Around the Horn as the lead-in to Pardon The Interruption. In fact, he views the show’s conclusion as part of a broader shift.
“This wasn’t about ending Around the Horn. It was about ending studio shows in general,” said Adande. “The daytime programming was just something to fill the airtime in-between games. Now in the streaming world, you don’t fill airtime. So, there won’t be this need for studio shows and that’s why you haven’t seen a replacement. Because it wasn’t about replacing Around the Horn. It was about phasing out those type of shows.”
He pointed to ESPN placing another episode of SportsCenter in the former time slot as evidence of that trend.
“The big names that can draw big audience and eat up a lot of time. The Stephen A. Smith’s and Pat McAfee’s. Those will continue, for now. But I don’t think you’ll see anyone replacing them when it’s time for them to move on,” said Adande. “ESPN doesn’t want to invest and develop anymore.”
Adande has long believed Around the Horn was ahead of its time. He referenced host Tony Reali describing the show as “Zoom before Zoom.” Even now, he still hears calls for a similar format on platforms like YouTube.
However, he said replicating the production quality of Around the Horn in today’s environment would be difficult.
“One of the great crises in America is the acceptance of lesser caliber products,” explains Adande. “The thought today is it’s easy and everyone can do it now, but the audience standards aren’t that high. But if you try to aim higher, maybe you can have something that lasts. I don’t see anything that you’re seeing now are going to last 22 years like Around the Horn did. I’m really proud to be on a show that lasted over two decades. I’m not sure how many things will have that kind of staying power.”
Now, with Dynastic, Adande is doing what he has always done best—slowing the game down and adding context where others rush past it. In an era driven by immediacy and volume, his latest project is a reminder that depth still matters, that history still teaches, and that the stories worth telling are often the ones that take time to fully understand.
If the industry continues to shift toward speed, Dynastic stands as a deliberate counter—proof that there is still an audience for substance and still a place for storytellers committed to getting it right.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
When you enter the world of media, you are automatically under a microscope. Whether you know it or not, everything you say, do, write, and experience is being watched. When the photos of Dianna Russini of The Athletic and Mike Vrabel, head coach of the New England Patriots, surfaced, I wondered if they both understood the responsibility that comes with being a public figure.
Being a public figure doesn’t mean you can’t have a personal life. Of course you can. Judging from her Instagram profile, Russini is a world traveler, a mom, a wife, and a hard-working NFL insider who enjoys the beat she’s been assigned. The same applies to Vrabel. The demands of being an NFL head coach are something most of us will never understand. It requires a constant balance between work and home life that few people can sustain long-term.
However, both are public figures, and one covers the other professionally. The photos are what they are, and the responses from Russini, Vrabel, and The Athletic are what they are as well. Still, this moment should spark a larger debate about where the line of professionalism exists for those in media. That is especially true in an age when everyone is always being watched.
Taking the photos at face value, along with the setting in which they were taken, what additional context does the public need?
“The photos don’t represent the group of six people who were hanging out during the day,” Russini said. She’s right. The photos only showed two people—Vrabel and Russini.
“These photos show a completely innocent interaction, and any suggestion otherwise is laughable,” Vrabel said. “This doesn’t deserve any further response.”
Regardless of the conclusions you draw from the interaction or the imagery of shared moments—whether hand in hand or poolside—one thing is clear: Russini, especially, lost sight of the optics tied to her role as a journalist. She covers the league, including Vrabel.
The journalism is strong. However, Russini’s latest actions are not.
To The Athletic’s credit, the company released a statement supporting Russini, calling her a “premier journalist” and saying it is “proud” to have her on its team. That response is not surprising. Companies almost always stand by their talent publicly at first, especially when that talent consistently delivers results.
Russini has built a reputation as a well-sourced insider, and in today’s NFL media landscape, that kind of access is currency. But that’s exactly where the conversation needs to shift. Because access is currency, and perception is everything.
When those two collide, perception usually wins.
The issue isn’t whether Vrabel and Russini did anything inappropriate on a personal level. That’s not for the public to decide, nor is it the central point. The issue is that once those images become public, the audience begins connecting dots—fair or not—and those connections can impact credibility.
That’s the part of this business that younger talent, and even some established voices, often underestimate or choose to ignore. You don’t control how people interpret what they see. You only control what you put out there.
When you work in media, especially covering a league like the NFL where information is tightly guarded, relationships matter. Scoops are built on trust. Even the appearance of being too close to a source can raise legitimate questions.
That doesn’t mean Russini’s reporting is compromised, nor does it mean her past work should be discredited. However, it does mean that a segment of the audience will question it moving forward—and that is the consequence of perception.
Fair or unfair, that’s the reality. This is where media ethics move from theory to real life.
In school, you learn about objectivity, independence, and avoiding conflicts of interest. In practice—especially in sports media—those lines can blur. Reporters travel with teams, speak with players daily, and build relationships with coaches, executives, and agents. That’s part of the job.
However, there is a difference between professional access and visible personal familiarity. Visibility is the key. If no one sees it, it doesn’t shape perception. The moment it becomes public, it becomes part of your professional identity—whether you like it or not.
That’s the trade-off.
If you want to be an insider, break news, and operate within those circles, you must be even more aware of how those relationships appear from the outside. Even if you think no one is watching, why put yourself in situations where you could allow speculation?
The audience doesn’t see nuance or context. They see a moment, freeze it, and draw conclusions. In today’s digital world, those conclusions spread instantly. Social media doesn’t wait for context. It doesn’t care about full stories. It reacts to visuals, headlines, and moments. Once something is public, it takes on a life of its own.
That’s why this situation matters beyond just Russini and Vrabel. It applies to every young reporter trying to climb the ladder, every on-air personality building credibility, and every insider working to maintain access.
This is a reminder that personal decisions don’t exist in a vacuum. They become part of your brand—and when you work in media, your brand is everything.
You can be the most connected reporter in the world, but if the audience begins to question whether you are too close to the people you cover, that connection becomes a liability instead of an asset.
That’s the tightrope.
You need relationships to do the job well, but you also need enough distance to maintain credibility. Lean too far in either direction, and something gives. In this case, what gives is perception.
Perception doesn’t come with a reset button.
WHAT WERE MIKE VRABEL AND DIANNA RUSSINI DOING ON A PRIVATE ROOFTOP!?
"NFL insider Dianna Russini allegedly having an affair with Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel! Where would Russini have gotten the information that New England wanting to trade for A.J. Brown!?" – Craig Carton… pic.twitter.com/vMr7CtANz4
— The Craig Carton Show (@CraigCartonShow) April 8, 2026
Russini will likely continue to break stories. She will remain well-connected. The Athletic will continue to support her. However, this moment will follow her—at least in the minds of some fans—because it introduced doubt where none existed before. That’s the cost. Not cancellation, or career-ending damage. Something more subtle and, in many ways, more lasting: skepticism.
Skepticism is harder to shake than criticism. Once people start questioning how you obtained information instead of simply consuming it, the dynamic changes.
That’s why this isn’t about judgment. It’s about awareness. If you work in any form of media, especially when covering people you interact with regularly, you must think one step ahead. Consider not only what you’re doing, but how it looks. Think beyond the moment and focus on the aftermath.
Because the audience is always watching. That’s what you signed up for. And once they see something, they don’t unsee it.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
It’s early April, and that means sports fans are on a path—one that leads to the NFL Draft beginning April 23.
For fans, players, and the media, the draft is really just the end of a long journey, so why not take a look at a program that reflects that idea: NFL Network’s Path to the Draft.
If variety is truly the spice of life, then Path to the Draft is an entire rack with extra paprika. The show, in its various incarnations, features many NFL Network personalities, along with interviews, stats, analysis, rumors, and insider viewpoints.
Potential player positions and pick prognostications seem to change weekly as we approach the draft in Pittsburgh. But while each of the three rivers remain frigid, the pre-draft chatter is white-hot.
I caught Path to the Draft this week with hosts Rhett Lewis and Cynthia Frelund, and I really liked this combination. With their shared enthusiasm and effervescence, Lewis and Frelund could easily be morning show hosts, yet both are football to the core.
With his square jaw and deep voice, Lewis looks the part of a Hollywood leading man, and he fills that role on NFL Network. Across a number of shows and alongside various analysts, he comes across as comfortable, articulate, and welcoming.
With Fernando Mendoza in the building today, a good chance to catch up on who he is as a player and person with the Raiders NFL Draft Pod 👇👇 https://t.co/WG8QkNITh6
Meanwhile, Frelund has become an unlikely trailblazer in sports media. As NFL Network’s resident analytics expert, she focuses on trends, tendencies, and statistics, but she brings more than just numbers. She has developed into a talented on-air personality who stays in her lane while also veering left or right when warranted.
Path to the Draft began with quick video flashes of some of the top players, paired with broadcast sound from this past season’s games. Like the show itself, the open had depth. It wasn’t just about expected top pick Fernando Mendoza and other quarterbacks; it also featured other offensive players and defensive prospects.
Lewis opened the conversation with a look at the New York Giants, who hold the fifth overall pick in the 2026 draft. An informative graphic showed what several draft experts think the Giants will do with that pick. Among the possibilities were linebacker Sonny Styles from Ohio State, his teammates wideout Carnell Tate and safety Caleb Downs, as well as Notre Dame running back Jeremiyah Love.
A timely graphic also displayed an X post from ESPN’s Adam Schefter stating that Giants All-Pro defensive tackle Dexter Lawrence has requested a trade, which could influence the team’s decision.
Deserved applause goes to the Path to the Draft production team. A subsequent video montage featured highlights of Jayden Daniels, who, in his rookie season of 2024, led the Washington Commanders to the NFC Championship Game. Because of injury, Daniels was nearly invisible last year, but he is healthy now, and the video reminded viewers of the excitement he brings to the field. Another strong graphic showed the significant statistical drop the Commanders experienced in 2025.
Lewis did a nice job guiding the show’s content. He played to Frelund’s strengths with her numbers and projections while also engaging in solid repartee with analyst Brian Baldinger, who joined remotely.
A former NFL offensive lineman, Baldinger was a rough-and-tumble player who brings that same edge to his analysis. He is old school, in the mold of guys like Paul Maguire, Mike Ditka, and the late Art Donovan—big personalities who filled up the screen both literally and conversationally.
During a discussion of the Eagles and what they should do with the 23rd overall pick, Frelund suggested that Philadelphia could consider drafting a quarterback—not necessarily to replace Jalen Hurts, but to create potential trade value later.
Path to the Draft is not just a group of draftniks nerding out; rather, it blends team and player analysis with sound from decision-makers such as Giants head coach John Harbaugh and Raiders GM John Spytek.
Breaking news is also part of the show. Another X graphic, this one from NFL Network insider Ian Rapoport, reported that Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia was visiting the Carolina Panthers. That development is intriguing, especially considering the strides Carolina QB Bryce Young has made over the past couple of seasons.
#Vanderbilt QB Diego Pavia, the 2025 SEC Offensive Player of the Year, is visiting the #Panthers today, source says.
The 24-year-old helped Vandy to its first win over a top-5 team in program history. pic.twitter.com/9fHT9XmhBZ
Path to the Draft taps into the inherent intrigue that defines the NFL Draft. With rumors, innuendo, and endless possibilities, this is one of the few areas in sports journalism where opinion truly rules. No media personality fully understands how every team evaluates players, but both fans and media enjoy the speculation.
The show embraces that uncertainty and explores nearly every possible scenario. Lewis and Frelund contribute to that energy, and their upbeat approach makes them supremely watchable.
Later in the show, Baldinger and Frelund engaged in a strong back-and-forth about whether the Raiders should start presumed No. 1 overall pick Mendoza or newly acquired veteran quarterback Kirk Cousins in Week 1. After a break, new Titans head coach Robert Saleh praised his running back room, led by Tony Pollard. That discussion transitioned into whether Tennessee should consider drafting Notre Dame’s Love with the fourth overall pick.
While Baldinger acknowledged that Love would benefit any team, he argued that the Titans should resist the temptation and instead address the offensive line early. He understands the importance of trench strength, having spent 11 seasons in the NFL as a guard and center in Dallas, Indianapolis, and Philadelphia.
In an entertaining segment, Lewis, Frelund, and Baldinger offered three-word evaluations of some of the top running backs.
Baldinger described Notre Dame’s Jadarian Price as “fresh, sudden, and violent.” Frelund labeled Nebraska’s Emmett Johnson “hands, explosive, and elusive,” while Lewis used “frame, speed, and next” for Arkansas’ Mike Washington Jr. The 2026 draft is also rich in wide receivers, and Lewis projected six to go in the first round of his mock draft.
Following a lively discussion on that group, Clemson cornerback Avieon Terrell joined the show remotely for an interview. Terrell, a 2025 Third Team AP All-American and the brother of Atlanta Falcons cornerback A.J. Terrell Jr., discussed having an offensive mindset as a defender—always looking to create turnovers and attack the ball.
The show also featured Baldinger’s signature segment, #BaldysBigBoys. In this installment, he highlighted Texas Tech defensive tackle Lee Hunter, jokingly calling him a “human eclipse” because he is so large that he “blocks out the sun.”
In the crowded landscape of pre-draft programming, Path to the Draft stands out for its variety and insight. The show doesn’t just tell viewers about the draft; it shows them through stats, sound, and substance. If the journey to the NFL Draft is a path, then Path to the Draft is clearly the route to follow.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
News/talk radio has a fill-in problem, and it’s not the one most program directors think it is. The common assumption is that a fill-in host’s job is simple — sit in the chair, execute the regular host’s show, keep the audience comfortable, and don’t rock the boat. It sounds reasonable. It’s also wrong.
Here’s the thing: authenticity wins. We say it constantly in this industry, and we mean it. Listeners have an almost supernatural ability to detect when a host isn’t being genuine. They can feel the difference between someone who believes what they’re saying and someone who’s simply executing a format. So why do we turn around and ask fill-in hosts to perform inauthenticity on command?
When a fill-in host mimics the regular host’s style, they’re not serving the audience — they’re shortchanging it. Instead of getting a real voice with real conviction, listeners receive a carbon copy with none of the original’s earned credibility. That’s a bad trade for everyone involved.
The better approach is straightforward: be yourself. Do the show you actually believe in. Bring your perspective, your pacing, your instincts. If that means the show sounds different for a day or a week, that’s not a failure.
Now, here’s where the pushback usually comes in. “But the radio audience expects a certain thing from that timeslot.” Sure, they do. Audience expectation is real, and it shouldn’t be discounted. However, expectation isn’t a ceiling. The idea shouldn’t be that you play dress-up as the usual host. You need to be you. A confident fill-in host who owns their performance will hold an audience far more effectively than a hesitant one trying to walk in someone else’s shoes.
Think about the best fill-in performances you’ve ever heard. They weren’t the ones where the host disappeared into someone else’s identity. They were the shows where a talented broadcaster stepped up, took the mic, and delivered something memorable. That host didn’t apologize for not being the regular voice. They made you forget — briefly — that there was a regular voice.
If listeners push back on the way a fill-in presents a radio show, that reaction doesn’t automatically mean the fill-in got it wrong. It might simply mean there’s a difference of opinion about how the program should sound. And difference of opinion — isn’t that the entire backbone of the news/talk format? We ask our hosts to have viewpoints, defend them, and challenge audiences to think. It seems contradictory to then ask those same hosts to suppress their viewpoints the moment they’re sitting in for someone else.
The format demands genuine voices, not interchangeable ones. Every host who steps behind a microphone — regular or fill-in — carries a responsibility to be the best version of themselves, not the best approximation of someone else. That’s what builds careers. More importantly, that’s what builds audiences.
Program directors and talent coaches should encourage fill-in hosts to approach the opportunity with ownership. Give them the topics, give them the timeslot, and then get out of the way. Trust that a skilled broadcaster will find their footing and that listeners are adaptable. But most of all, trust the format.
Because at the end of the day, news/talk radio doesn’t need more imitators. It needs more voices — distinct, confident, and unapologetically themselves. Fill-in days aren’t a disruption to be managed. They’re an audition for anyone paying attention, and the best way to pass that audition is to show up as exactly who you are.
Do the show you believe in. That’s always the right call.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Sports media has always been built around moments. Final scores, standout plays, and postgame reactions have long shaped how fans consume coverage. But that model is shifting. Audiences now expect more than a recap. They want context before the game, insight during it, and a sense of what might happen next.
This change is being driven by a more engaged and informed audience. Fans are following games across multiple screens, tracking data in real time, and looking for ways to stay involved beyond watching. In this blog, we will look at why prediction markets are gaining ground in sports media coverage and how they are reshaping the way fans engage with sports content.
The Evolution from Reaction to Anticipation in Sports Media
For years, sports coverage followed a predictable pattern. Previews set the stage, games delivered the action, and postgame analysis broke down what had already happened. That structure still exists, but it no longer holds the same level of attention on its own.
Today’s audience is less interested in waiting for a recap. With highlights and updates available instantly, the focus of coverage has shifted toward anticipation. Fans want to see not just what happened, but how a game might unfold and how momentum could shift as it progresses. This has led to a rise in content that focuses on scenarios rather than summaries.
This shift is also tied to how fans consume sports. Many are no longer watching passively. They follow live stats, engage on social platforms, and react in real time. Media outlets have adapted by building coverage that feeds into that behavior, offering projections, live discussions, and forward-looking analysis that keep fans engaged from kickoff to final whistle.
Why Sports Media Is Leaning Into Predictive Framing
Prediction has become a central part of how sports stories are told, largely because of how audiences now consume content. Fans are no longer waiting for postgame analysis. They follow games in real time, track updates across multiple platforms, and look for insight that keeps them engaged throughout the viewing experience. Resources like FanDuel Research provide data and projections that feed this forward-looking approach.
To meet that demand, media coverage has shifted toward analysis that anticipates outcomes. Instead of focusing only on what teams have done, coverage now places equal weight on what they are likely to do next. This approach keeps the conversation active before and during games, giving audiences a reason to stay connected beyond the final score.
One clear example is football coverage. Discussions now feature win probabilities, projected game scripts, and scenario-based breakdowns. Analysts show how a matchup could shift due to early drives, injuries, or coaching decisions. These insights set the stage before the game and keep the conversation meaningful as it progresses. This shift toward probabilities, likely outcomes, and scenario-based storytelling mirrors how modern audiences follow sports, moving coverage from simply reporting results to guiding expectations.
How Prediction Platforms Are Reshaping Fan Behavior
As coverage has evolved, so has the way fans interact with it. In the past, engagement was largely limited to watching the game and reacting afterward. Now, fans are participating in real time. They often make their own calls on what will happen next, especially through tools like the FanDuel predictions app. This platform lets users engage with live scenarios, track outcomes, and stay connected to the action throughout the game.
Viewers are prompted with questions during broadcasts and digital streams, asked to consider outcomes, and encouraged to think through different scenarios as they unfold. Instead of waiting for analysis, they are part of it.
The appeal lies in involvement. When fans are asked to predict the next drive, the next score, or the outcome of a key play, they become more invested in the moment. It turns a sequence of plays into a series of decisions, each with its own level of anticipation. This shift has been accelerated by platforms that allow fans to actively participate in what might happen next, transforming traditional viewing into an interactive experience.
The Role of Data, Probabilities, and Real-Time Feedback
Prediction-driven coverage relies on a steady stream of real-time data. Metrics that were once limited to analysts, like win probability models, pace indicators, and efficiency stats, are now built into broadcasts and digital platforms. This gives fans a clearer sense of how a game is unfolding beyond the score.
A common example occurs in close football games. When a team faces a fourth-down decision late in the game, broadcasts show how win probability shifts if the team goes for it versus punts. That number often sparks immediate discussion. Analysts reference it and fans react in real time, framing the decision not just as a coaching choice but as a measurable swing in expected outcomes.
These tools do more than inform, they create a feedback loop. Data shapes the narrative, the narrative influences fan expectations, and fan reactions feed back into coverage. A sudden shift in win probability after a turnover or long drive doesn’t just update the numbers; it resets the conversation around momentum, pressure, and likely outcomes.
Why Prediction Markets Extend Beyond Traditional Bettors
While prediction tools are often linked to betting, their appeal extends far beyond that audience. Many fans engage with predictive content for the challenge, insight, or added involvement rather than placing wagers.
Fantasy players, for example, are accustomed to thinking in terms of projections and outcomes. Prediction markets though offer a way to apply that mindset to live games. Casual fans benefit too, as these tools provide a clearer framework for understanding what is happening and what might happen next.
Broader engagement trends support this shift. Data from the American Gaming Association shows continued growth in sports wagering participation across the U.S. Even without betting, fans are becoming comfortable with predictive concepts, making these markets a natural fit for media coverage and adding depth without requiring commitment.
Where Predictive Sports Coverage Is Headed
The rise of prediction markets reflects a broader shift in how sports are covered and consumed. Fans are no longer satisfied with static information. They expect content that evolves with the game and invites them to be part of the experience.
Looking ahead, predictive elements are likely to become a standard feature across sports media. From live broadcasts to digital platforms, the integration of data, interaction, and analysis will continue to shape how stories are told. For media outlets, the opportunity lies in using these tools to deepen engagement while maintaining trust. For fans, it offers a more active way to follow the sports they care about.
iHeartMedia has begun a round of layoffs that includes management and sales departments throughout the company.
If you or someone you know is affected, click here to share your contact information with Barrett Media.
Barrett Media will continue to update this story as new information becomes available.
Affected Employees
iHeartMediaDenver General Manager Brenda Egger has exited the company. In 2021, she was named Region President for the Denver region, overseeing programming, business, and sales for 31 stations in Denver, Colorado Springs, and Fort Collins.
iHeartMedia Metro Division President Nick Gnau has departed. He was elevated to his role in 2023 after previously working as Community Division President.
Florida Region Multicultural Division Vice President of Sales Eddy Elguezabal has departed after just over a year on the job. He previously worked as the President/GM of TelevisaUnivision in Orlando and Tampa.
Jason Wilson, the iHeartMedia Area President for Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri, has also departed. He originally joined the company in November 2024 after spending nearly eight years with Cox Media Group.
Pete Norden, who worked as the Vice President of Sales at iHeartMedia Jacksonville, is also departing. He’s spent nearly 30 years with the organization in Panama City, Tampa/Sarasota, Charleston, and Jacksonville.
iHeartMedia Cleveland Director of Agency Partnerships and Digital Audio Douglas Trostler has exited. He joined the company in July of last year after spending just under four years working as the Director of Sales for the Midwest Region at Libsyn Ads.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
