New Yorkers haven’t had to guess what Mike Francesa was thinking for the last five decades. Whether it was Mike & The Mad Dog, Mike’s On, or The Mike Francesa Podcast, he always had a way to tell them.
As one of the innovators of the sports talk format, Francesa has seen a lot of evolution in media. As more states across the country have legalized sports betting, he has seen the industry and the leagues we cover move quickly to adapt to fans’ expectations.
In our conversation for the Meet the Bettors series presented by Point to Point Marketing, we cover a lot of ground in both the gambling and media businesses. The Sports Pope touches on why gambling hasn’t really changed his content, why new bettors have not embraced his beloved horse racing the way they have other sports, and so much more.
Demetri Ravanos: I’ve heard you talk before about the shock you would have had in the 80s and 90s if someone had told you all of the major pro leagues embraced gambling. What if I told you that sportsbooks had launched their own media companies? Would that have shocked you?
Mike Francesa: From a business standpoint, not really. Once it was legal and once the leagues not only got behind it but actually started embracing it, it was a logical progression. I don’t think there’s any question. I still think there’ll be a lot more sorting out to come in the business.
We still probably wind up with two or three very prominent companies. The others will probably get absorbed. You see DraftKings trying to buy a lot of different companies right now, so I think you’ll see a lot of absorption and you’ll probably wind up like most industries with 2 or 3 major players.
DR: I think about your show, and yes, there is a gambling component to it, but BetRivers wants you to do what it is you’ve done well for a long time. That says to me that the company’s motivation is more about content than creating players.
MF: I do a regular show, and, we’ve always incorporated, well, everybody picks games in the NFL. But even on stuff like NBA playoffs or the Knicks or stuff like that, we did a little stuff for most games. But again, it’s me just doing sports.
I mean, look, you watch the game and they advertise odds on the game during the game. They update the odds during the broadcast. It’s become part of it.
I think it’s something they are still learning about. I still think there’ll be issues about control, especially when it comes to the younger kids and the kids in high school. This is all in its infancy, so I think there’s still a pretty good amount of changes coming down the road.
DR: So what about with your audience? You ask them to email you and they want to hear your thoughts on the current games and old WFAN stories as much as anything. How many questions are you getting that are directly about gambling?
MF: Not many. To be honest with you, no, there’s not many at all. But remember, doing a talk show for as long as I did, I learned that a big part of what America’s about is “who’s going to win the game?”. I mean, that’s what America has always been about. “Who do you like in the game?” “Who do you like in the series?” That’s really what sports talk has always been about, opinions. I mean that’s always a part of it.
Now, it doesn’t just come down to a particular game or a particular moment. Remember you’re dealing with individual players and stuff like that where there’s a finite element to the whole thing. But as far as the basis, it’s still who’s going to win, and then why did they or why didn’t they win.
DR: Everyone knows your passion for horse racing. Have you seen that spread? Has horse racing grown in popularity thanks to the spread of legalized gambling?
MF: No, I haven’t. I haven’t seen horse racing grow at all. Horse racing has its own set of problems. I have not seen horse racing change even a little bit.
Most of the sports companies don’t really know much about horse racing or how to handle horse racing, and mutual wagering is completely different. So I think it’s still separate.
I think the people who bet still bet in the same places they’ve always bet. They’ve not moved their horse racing bets to these sites. Maybe someday they will. I’m not sure if that will happen or not, but the guys who are horse racing clientele are very old. A lot of it is older people. It really is. It has not cultivated the youngsters well, except on big events. I mean, if it’s not the Derby, Triple Crown, Breeders Cup, that kind of thing. Other than that, it’s a very different sport and I haven’t seen any growth in it at all.
DR: Is that something that these online books can do anything about, or is it largely going to be up to the stakeholders in horse racing to make those kinds of changes?
MF: With young people, I think it’s probably less likely that they become horse players now considering the fact that they can bet sports. They grow up with sports and they just don’t take the time to learn. Handicapping thoroughbreds or if you’re talking about harness racing, but mostly talking about thoroughbred racing. You have to learn something about the sport. You even have to learn how to read the racing form. You even have to learn how to read past performances.
You can’t wager on horse racing without understanding past performances. So, I mean, you could, but you wouldn’t be very good at it. So, it’s a very unique sport. It’s actually like doing the puzzle. Handicapping a race is like doing a puzzle. That’s really the best way I can equate it. It has the elements of a puzzle that you have to put together.
DR: I want to pivot away from gambling and ask you a media question. I wonder what you think watching the NBA media rights play out. The idea that TNT may be losing the NBA and we might be losing Inside the NBA is kind of shocking.
MF: I think that’s probably going to happen. I think it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion. I think it’s going to move. I don’t think there’s any question.
TNT is going to get hurt. They’re going to miss it a lot.
As far as losing, you know, one show? You know those shows come and go. I grew up on The NFL Today when it was by far the biggest show. Nothing even close. It was much bigger than this basketball show even is, much bigger because people actually got their weekly information from that show. Now, that never happens. You’re just going there to be entertained or to get opinions, to hear Charles say something crazy or something like that, you know?
Charles has created a very unique place for himself where he can say anything he wants, which is a very unique place to be in America. I think it will move. Like I said, shows come and go, but they won’t be able to duplicate that show.
DR: Will you watch any of Stephen A. Smith’s documentary about sports talk that’s on ESPN+ right now? You kind of lived the evolution of sports debate. Any interest in watching a documentary about it?
MF: It’s true. I mean, Mike and The Mad Dog changed everything. I don’t think there’s any question about it. Then you have to give Pardon the Interruption credit because they were the next extension of it. They took what Mike and the Mad Dog did and made it a TV show and made it very popular. Then everybody took everything from Pardon the Interruption. It’s a progression, but I think it did start with Mike and The Mad Dog. So, if he’s given us credit for that now, he goes back to that because it’s true. It’s flattering, but it’s true.
I’ve told people, Stephen A. Smith actually came and talked to me after Dog left. I really wasn’t going to hire anybody, but we did talk to a lot of people, and he was one of the first ones we talked to. He was one I actually would consider because I thought he would fit in. Very well, as a matter of fact. So, I’m not surprised by his success with that kind of show.
But hey, that’s what those shows are. It’s about opinions. It’s about takes. It’s about having an opinion and understanding how to present it, have a personality, have a unique opinion, and be able to back your opinion up at least fairly decently in an argument. That’s what all these shows are about now, and that really did start with us. There’s no question about it.
DR: You know, it’s interesting to think about those kinds of shows now that having a take and having an opinion, sort of to combine everything we’ve been talking about, now it’s come around to a lot of these guys having to face the music or I guess their partners give them hell about their losing bets. That’s certainly not something I ever thought I would see in that format of television.
MF: Well, listen, my competition was always my partner. It was Dog against me. That’s what the audience liked. We give each other grief. Now, it’s more pronounced because gambling is so pervasive. It’s so commonplace.
I’m not sure where legalization will take the individual bets. I think it’s a very, very risky proposition to have individual bets on college players. I think that’s a very dangerous thing to do. I don’t think it’s something that will be legal for long. If it even is legal in certain states, I don’t even think it will be legal for long. As far as the everyday player, there’s going to be some ways to control that. It’s only going to be for the star players because let’s be honest, you know, you could manipulate a player who doesn’t play much, as we’ve seen already in a couple of cases. If it’s just about the star players, there’s really no way to manipulate it.
But again, you get accusations. JB Bickerstaff made the point this year and it came up with a Nets coach this year. Hey if you sit a guy a star player three minutes into the game, you decide. “You know what? I’m giving you the rest of the night off,” the people who lost his points bet, or his three-point goal bet for the evening are all ticked off. Well, you know what? That’s just tough luck. That can’t be part of the equation.
DR: It’s interesting to see the way people will send social media messages directly to players or coaches. It is almost like the early days of sports radio callers. Now it’s a different level of “There is no reason I can’t voice my opinion on this.”
MF: Well, when people are going to be wagering on these things, it really impacts them. They have skin in the game now. So now it becomes a very different thing when it’s just about whether your team wins or loses or a personal opinion that’s far different. Now with this, we have people who feel like they should be able to voice their pleasure or displeasure based on the performance of the player on a given night. It’s opened up a whole different Pandora’s box.
But hey, any time you are going to have wagers on outcomes, you’re going to have unhappy people. That’s just part of the deal.
To learn more about Point-To-Point Marketing’s Podcast and Broadcast Audience Development Marketing strategies, contact Tim Bronsil at [emailprotected]or 513-702-5072.
