Talk:Pardon the Interruption

Where it airs

This show also airs twice daily on NASN in the UK and possibly in other NASN carrying countries. The program is delayed by 1 day (less than 24 hours)

Intro music

The intro music is not Cut Your Hair.

Are you sure? Most of the sources on the web say that it is, although I'm having trouble finding anything authoritative. It certainly sounds like it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Push in Over/Under

Why is it considered such a cop-out when "pushing" in Over/Under. I say it's more gutsy!!! Rather than saying someone will hit more (over) or less (under) than 50 home runs, Wilbon may say "push!" which means he thinks said player will hit exactly 50 home runs.

If anything, it's the fault of the producers (or whoever makes up the numbers) for using whole numbers. If they're so upset about the push, why even make it an option? Why not set the over/under at 49.5 home runs? - Nubby 04:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Names

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for an encyclopedia entry to use the last names of the hosts, instead of referring to them by their first name?

Yes, that's how WP articles are supposed to be written. see here. Have at it, or I'll do it eventually. --W.marsh 04:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. - Nubby 05:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wilbon voices mailbox?

Any source on this? Interesting if true

I heard him do it live one show in 2004. He said "It's Mailtime!" in that booming voice similar sounding to the mailbox.

Phrases Section

How about a section on the Pardon the Interruption article describing the many phrases or references they repeat on the show: "Strugg-a-ling", "That's it! That's the list!", The Trampoline Bear, "We play to win the game" to name a few.

Doctor Game

Anyone remember the game where two people would be joined at the head and Tony and Mike had to choose which person to save? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.26 (talk • contribs)

It's been added to the article (not by me). - Nubby 05:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC

Howard Stern?

How is Wilbon having never listened to Howard Stern important or interesting at all? George Washington, Michelangelo, Jesus of Nazareth: none of these men heard Howard Stern's celestial radio broadcasts. And now they would have to pay for that privilege. This should really be taken out. It smacks of those losers that call other shows and drop his name.Swatson1978 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Debut

When did PTI debut? Some sources say Sep. 22 [1], some say Oct 22 [2]. Since the 9/22 date is given on the ESPN website, I think that's more likely. --W.marsh 05:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it was October b/c I remember Tony talking about 9/11 in a preview for the show, and that wouldve been only 11 days later had it been sept.22

Also, upon further investigation, 9/22/01 was a Saturday, 10/22/01 was a Monday. I the october makes much more sense, given that, and the fact that mentions of 9/22 date all seem to be based on the above ESPN article, which must just be wrong. I'm changing the date in this article back to 10/22. --W.marsh 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

i would go with the 'reliable source' rather than putting what you think 'makes sense',even if the reliable source is wrong,we could put the link that says the 9/22 date. ill try to find out....

Running gags

Boy, that section took off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.23 (talk • contribs)

Presented by...

Why does PTI always seem to juggle their sponsorship between "Red Stripe Beer" and "Guinness Draught"? After many months of being presented by Guinness it is now being presented by Red Stripe, who sponsored it for part of last year. Redsoxnation62 03:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

He who has the gold, makes the rules. And gets the sponsorship. JAF1970 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Guinness and Red Stripe are both sold by the same company in the US, so it's a marketing thing. Guinness in the winter and Red Stripe in the summer maybe? aliendave

You are correct. They are sold by the same parent company. Gamedude507 02:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this sponsorship information even in the article? Is this the start of product placements in Wikipedia? Encyclopedias tend to document things in the past, not future events (not a crystal ball, etc...). While they may be a sponsor today, will they be a sponsor tomorrow - and who is going to fix the information when it gets outdated? Is there some long term contract that can document the relationship?

An article on early American radio shows might mention that a radio show was sponsored by a cigaarette company, but that's long in the past and of limited commercial value mentioning it today. This is a camel I don't think you want to get his nose in the Wikipedia tent. (no, that was not a reference to Camel Cigarettes).StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

PTI appearances

Oops. I was going to move the Mr. 3000 reference elsewhere, thinking that there was an "appearances by PTI", but the Wilbon and Kornheiser appearances are as themsleves, not as PTI. I wonder-- where else has PTI appeared, aside from Mr. 3000? JAF1970 17:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Trampoline bear

Oh, and fixed the link for the trampoline bear video -- and added an image. Priceless. :p JAF1970 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Time

Isn't time in the United States denoted by AM & PM not a.m. & p.m.? I am curious, and since it was just changed, we should probably have the proper format here. Someone let me know and change it if necessary. Since this is a U.S. show, the article should follow U.S. format.

Mr. 3000

There's already a reference to the film. Deleted the extraneous entry. JAF1970 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

TV infobox

i can't get this formating to work: edit: ugh i can't believe that was it

Pardon the Interruption
Starring	Tony Kornheiser Michael Wilbon Tony Reali
Country of origin	United States
Production
Producer	Matt Kelliher
Running time	~24 minutes (without commercials)
Original release
Network	ESPN
Release	September 22, 2001 – present
Related
The Sports Reporters

Tony's PTI Sign

While no one but he will know why he has the sign cover his face at the end of each episode, the reason he whisper's PTI is to coincide with the end frames of every episode which flash the PTI logo and a whisper from a voice saying "PTI". Tony is likely imitating this. --Chicobo329 17:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Guests sugggestion

Since we're apparently updating the page every day with the episode count, why not keep track of guest hosts to? it would at least be useful to know how many times they've hosted and when the last appearance was. I'm unaware of this information being available anywhere else. --W.marsh 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been keeping track of a lot of stuff from PTI, originally to find out which Third Segment game they do the most and also which sport they cover the most. I started in April. I didn't record who the guest host for Kornheiser was on April 5 and May 8, but other than that, since April 4:

Michael Wilbon 74
Tony Kornheiser 57
Dan LeBatard 24
Jason Whitlock 9
Bob Ryan 5
Jay Mariotti 1

Mail Time! 24
Toss-Up! 18
Odds! 17
Role Play! 9
Over/Under! 8
Psychics! 5
Cop Time! 3

Jimpoz 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Goodnight Canada

In addition to that segment not being seen in Canada, this other reason for "Goodnight Canada" from the board at IMDb:

Wilbon said that "they" (Canadians) don't deserve a star of Vince Carter's calibur in a non-competitive place such as Toronto (when talking about Carter being traded to New Jersey.

The show recieved hate mail the next day and ever since Tony has stuck up for "his boys" in Canada.

Jimpoz 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reali middle names during Over/Under

Someone took off the list of all his joke middle names. I think we should keep it in as a running list. Gabefarkas 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.Lincoln187 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons Pardon the Interruption is becoming such a long article. Since it will probably continue for a long time, we should create an article for all the names alone. Better yet, we could leave only the important gags on the main page, with all gags being their own article to reduce this article's size. Bmitchelf 01:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. I've already created a seperate page for the list. JAF1970 17:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Major edit - Running Gags given their own page

Okay, I moved the entire running gag section and gave it its own page. I'm sure you'll agree it relieves the page of a lot of bulk, and preserves the running gag work as well. Everyone wins. ;) JAF1970 22:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. Just realized the Running Gags page is almost as long as the PTI page itself. Yeah, it was getting unwieldly. Check it out here Running gags on Pardon the Interruption. Let me know what you think. JAF1970 22:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I'm glad someone else did it since I didn't want to make such a major move myself. Do you want to possibly move the middle names back into the gags page or leave them as they are before they get too unwieldy themselves? Bmitchelf 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony Reali's Nicknames is fine as its own separate page. JAF1970 05:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Around the Horn got the same treatment. There's now a Running gags on Around the Horn as well. JAF1970 05:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When was the last time they played food chain?

I don't think they've played it in over a year. Anyone know for sure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.62.140.50 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Failed good article nomination

Unfortunately this article failed to meet the good article criteria. The article was quick failed, without a full review, because it contains cleanup tags - in this case, the {{fact}} tag. When this has been corrected, feel free to re-nominate the article. Gasheadsteve 07:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the claim "and the format change is an attempt to increase SportsCenter's audience by tying it with a more popular program." This has long been uncited, and just might not be verifiable. It's probably true, but no one seems to have said that in print. --W.marsh 17:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I added that reference that states PTI has higher ratings than SportsCenter overall, but it cannot be assumed that it is specifically higher than the 6:00 SportsCenter (although it probably is), so I removed the part of the sentence that says it is higher than that specific airing. So I'm going to renominate the article now; I'm surprised it just wasn't put "on hold" to begin with. bmitchelf•T•F 19:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Second failed good article nomination

This article is quick failed for good article status because it has an NPOV tag. Additionally, I feel it needs more inline citations where disputable facts are presented before it would be passed as a GA. There are a few references listed but they are poorly connectd to statements in the article. Timpcrk87 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning WXTR by name

As far as I know, WXTR is a special simulcast separate from ESPN Radio that carries the whole show. Considering that WXTR is based in DC (as are both Kornheiser and Wilbon) I believe it is worth mentioning by name. That, and I do not believe there are any other stations that have such a full simulcast. Yet someone here keeps removing WXTR and replacing it with the phrase "with few exceptions" as if there are others out there, and as far as I know, there are none. JMyrleFuller (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Then put it somewhere else, like other versions. There's no reason to be so specific in the introduction. -- bmitchelf•T•F 20:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I moved most of the broadcast details into its own section. (You're right-- that much detail is not necessary in the introduction and I think that as it was, there was TMI for an intro.) JMyrleFuller (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nig Finish

How do you guys feel about keeping this for future viewing?

Why do you guys think this is not a notable anecdote. It happened, it's not made up, it's a good stepping stone to talk about censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbvr6 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's important? It was a typo - that's it. Why would it be important? The earliest edits implied that there was a racial element to this, I assume that this was in reference to "nig" being the first three letters of the word "nigger." So what? Making that connection is not only a huge stretch, it's original research. Has the show acknowledged the mistake? Has the New York Times written a damning exposé on it? I suspect that neither of these have happened, because it was only a typo. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 18:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, faithless. I agree with everything you said. Also, since I didn't watch that show, only podcast-listened to it, did they fix it by the time the big finsh actually came on during SportsCenter? I don't see any screengrabs of it still being misspelled then. -- bmitchelf•T•F 19:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it did play through, it came on after the last commercial break, and stays on throughout, it's DVR’d. I don’t see why it's not something that should be removed. It's over the web, and people use WIKI as a source of up to date info. People will probably want to verify through wiki that it's legit. I perhaps understanding it to an "anecdotes" or "trivia" part of the page, but removing it all together, doesn't seemed justified because certain people don’t find it important. Whether it is or isn’t, it's still a fact.Sbvr6 (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it has to actually be noticed and noted by somebody important or have some reaction to it, otherwise, it's just a spelling error. I don't see what's so important about that. -- bmitchelf•T•F 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you done a search for it? It's all over the web. And who is "important" We are reacting to it. How does "Leroy Jenkins" have a wiki article, who important thought it was notable? I understand this is just a typo, but it’s still fact of what happened on the show.Sbvr6 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

People are actually getting offended by this? Mshake3 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because it happened doesn't mean it's important. Sbvr6, to reply to several things you said above: (1) trivia sections are discouraged, and should not be included in articles, (2) Wikipedia is not a newspaper - if people come here looking for the latest news, they're in the wrong place, (3) Leeroy Jenkins is notable because he has received attention from the media, and is widely-known enough to have been a question on Jeopardy! and to have been spoofed in a Toyota ad, and (4) as for who is important, please have a look at WP:RS, specifically "...third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Has it been mentioned by any such sources? Washington Post, New York Times, NPR, BBC? No one is saying it didn't happen, but it was a typo which has led to absolutely no controversy. It's unimportant. faithless (^speak) 05:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

By "all over the internet," do you mean this one site? That's all that comes up when I search for it on Yahoo, besides this page, of course. -- bmitchelf•T•F 05:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Faithless:

The problem here is the subjectivity involved in deeming something or someone "important" or "not important".

I agree with your first 2 points, but neither would lead me to remove this anecdote completely. The addition in question does not have to exist in a trivia section (that was only a suggestion) and was never claimed to be "news" (at least not in the sense that wikipedia is trying to avoid).

As far as your 3rd and 4th points go, I must respectfully disagree with your logic.

Leeroy Jenkins, for example, is notable today, but that is largely due to the visibility given to it/him by sites like wikipedia. The Leeroy Jenkins page was created in 2005, long before Jeopardy or Toyota were referencing it.

Regarding your fourth point, if you're looking for a "...third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", look no further: ESPN. The reliable sources article you linked discusses just that, reliable sources. No mention of which sources are considered "important" is made.

The bottom line here is that it's a judgment call and in my opinion, your extensive activity on wikipedia has lead you to believe it is your judgment call. You can throw policies at SBVR6 all day, but unless they are logical and definitive with regards to this specific situation, you will do little to convince anyone that removing this information from the page is the right thing to do.~GSG123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsg123 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ESPN is not a 3rd party source, they are the 1st party. And wikipedia policy is put in place for these reasons. I'd say that if it happens again, then maybe it can bbe added. But one time it was just a typo. And if was the letter V I bet that this would not be noticed. Sbvr6 has been trying to imply a racial element to this where it really doesn't exist. MDfoo (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, I did initially put it as a racially related post, because the person who first pointed it out to me said that he was slightly offended by it, if it was indeed intentional. I doubt it was, that’s why the racial part was taking out, to make it more of just a tidbit. Also there is a YouTube link out too now,[3]. Where we stand now is that we have policing of Wiki, which, of course, is encouraged. But when it's the same three of four persons trying to remove what several other people added, doesn’t seem in line with the grand scheme of wiki.Sbvr6 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not notable. Get over it and try doing something productive for the encyclopedia. Dlong (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DLong, I don’t understand who you are to make that type of judgment? I don't think a lot of things are notable, including your opinion, but I don’t go around changing the "world" to suit my views.Sbvr6 (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to get ridiculous - no, not starting, it's been ridiculous for a while. It is on you to convince people that this should be included and you even noted in your most recent edit summary that there is "no reason why it should be included." It is a stupid piece of irrelevant trivia and doesn't even warrant a mention, let alone an entire subsection. faithless (^speak) 12:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is so typical of what wikipedia has become: a few community elites who team up on anyone who doesn't want to adhere to their point of view. It's sad, and defeats the purpose of this site... I just want to say that I do agree with this being in the article and I urge others to voice their opinion as well, not just the wiki admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsg123 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I just think this is such a trivial piece of information that nobody cares about because it was not mentioned anywhere except for that one site I linked to earlier and on this page, and I can't believe we're still wasting our time on this. -- bmitchelf•T•F 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We're wasting time on it, because both parties involved feel the exigency to add/remove. When did wiki pride itself in being a secondary source of information? Once it appears somewhere, and marinates, then we'll add it? I've gotten blocked from the PTI post, but I support gsg's sentiment. The bigger issue also lies in the fact that there are people who feel a need to squash any type of idea that doesn't go with the grain. They try to intimidate, threaten, and in the end, block users, usually by overstepping the same boundaries they've set for everyone else.

Sbvr6 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple things on the section, from someone who thinks it shouldn't really be here. One, this needs to be placed in a more appropiate section, such as "Controversy". Second, only one image is necessary to get the point across. Third, use the {{-}} code as opposed to a bunch of <br>s. Fourth, the racial element should be the focal point, because that's the only reason anyone is talking about it. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a typo. Mshake3 (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for two pictures and the line breaks should be removed. I suppose controversy is the best fit (as far as I can tell from this discussion :) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.133.85.66 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source noting it as a controversy? Dlong (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people on Wikipedia are outraged, but otherwise, nope. Mshake3 (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've made my point. Dlong (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well what is considered reputable sources, also, what does the source need to say? As far as who gets to call it controversial. I agree with what MShake said, about perhaps streamlining the post, I just wish we could get more outside thoughts, than the same few people, including me, that have been debating this.Sbvr6 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had actually bothered to read the Wikipedia policies, you would know what constitutes a reliable source (WP:RS). Then again, I suppose if you had actually bothered to read the Wikipedia policies, you wouldn't be arguing to add this clearly non-notable information, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. I am disappointed, however. Basically, unless you can find some sort of newspaper or reliable website (NOT blogs) which details the enormous outrage all across the world over this typo, it does not belong. And since there is no outrage, and since a search for "nig finish" on google only gives 325 results, with the results coming from such wonderful sites as "ballsiest", ebaumsworld, and withleather.com, you aren't going to have much luck. My suggestion to you is that you find some way in which to provide wikipedia with real contributions or, if you aren't interested in helping the project, to just leave. In either case, you should drop the subject. This is a non-notable event caused by a typo that has not had any ramifications. No one is outraged and no reliable source. You are just wasting everyone's time. Dlong (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dlong... I don't mean to belittle the existing guidelines, but if you want to go by the book you should make sure to mention wikipedia's overarching recommendation to "ignore all the rules". Guidelines are flexible and subjective; if people want to add this to the page it should be given proper consideration, not thrown out based on one's understanding of "the rules". At the very least I think you'll admit we have a mixed bag of opinions on this and that it's not an open and close case. Gsg123 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsg123 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dlong, please note wikipedia's policy on personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

WOW this discussion is long! I say let nig finish stay! It's interesting enough.. I mean, if the page is going to talk about the leg lamp, this should make it too Bsabat (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

comment - No, this shouldn't be included per WP:NOT#NEWS. If people are still writing articles about this typo in a month, bring it back up then. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this whole discussion. I didn't see the "nig finish" incident, but it seems as though everyone agreed that it occured, and some people find it interesting and some people don't. I certainly don't think it should be portrayed as a racist comment, it sounds like an innocent mistake. But if some people find it interesting than who are the rest of you to decide you control what's interesting and what isn't? There's a lot of articles in here I don't have any interest in viewing, I'm not going to delete them. Let "nig finish" stay; it happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.115.249 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how all the people who support inclusion are either IPs, new accounts, or accounts that have not been used in a long time. If I were less lazy, I'd file a checkuser request. Dlong (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dlong, please note wikipedia's policy on personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.115.249 (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to imply something with a statement like that, that involves the user, please comment on the user's (my) talk page.Sbvr6 (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WMVP airing

I felt this warranted inclusion, besides Chicago being the epicenter of Wilbon's America, because they have a different edit of the show than the network version (5GM is included, Big Finish isn't), including a custom sign-off from Wilbon. Lambertman (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NBA

Who's the best at calling the NBA?I say Hubie Brown and Mike Triaco! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.7.142 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NBA

Who's the best at calling the NBA?I say Hubie Brown and Mike Tirico! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.7.142 (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Shout-outs"

I am not the most adept editor; would someone be interested in adding information about the new "shout outs" section that has been appearing where "TV time" used to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.90.106 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Football Officials

Football Officials and the Game Football officials need to be recognized for their part in college and pro games. How many times have we seen a close game decided by an official’s blown or questionable call. They are not supposed to be part of the game, but we can’t kid ourselves any longer, turn a blind eye, or stick our head in the sand about their influence on a game. Blown or questionable calls can carry the same weight as a turnover, a fumble or an interception. How many times have we seen an interception, kickoff or punt return for a touchdown negated by a questionable or blown call. When there are so many officials on the field whose only purpose is to scrutinize each play, realistically there could be a penalty on almost every play. After a great play, the first thing I do is look for a flag or wait to hear the announcer say this is all coming back. Officiating has become more like special teams – they can take 6 points off the scoreboard faster and with less effort than the player took to put the points on the board. They have become a big part of the game. That said, as with the players, the pregame analysis should include this other aspect of the game – the officials – with information on such things as how long they have been officiating, prior experience as to where they have officiated, and how their calls have affected the outcome of a game, because it has gotten to the point that they have almost as much effect on the outcome of the game as who is actually on the team.

Luigi Taborelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi Borelli (talk • contribs) 00:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Michael Wilbon 2010.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Michael Wilbon 2010.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Michael Wilbon 2010.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Segments change

Does anyone know if this recent format of three segments is a permanent change?Racingstripes (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It has to be permanent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:8410 (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Commercial Bumpers no longer happen

The "inserts of Kornheiser and Wilbon's discussion [that] air for 15–20 seconds as bumpers between the commercial breaks of the show" have stopped.

Does anyone know an exact date? It's been at least a year. 07:59 UTC, 7 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.25.132.102 (talk)

Bailing Out on PTI

Just fyi. You're losing a long viewer. Enjoy the analysis and repartee between Tony and Mike, but Mike's ever increasing political discourse and Trump bashing has caused me to tune out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.133.227.16 (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)