Yancy Street Gang wrote: If Mike and the Mad Dog think this is an important issue, then I'm sure it is. Well, to them it is; pretty much making a case for Greg's (FaFiF) argument about their disconnect with the audience. MadDog in particular, who grew up as a true child of the sports/TV age, sees things through that prism almost exclusively and is endlessly facinated by the machinations of radio/TV braodcasts; - Who's doing what game? - Why is the #1 team assigned to Jets v Colts instead of ...? - He always knows which announcers have the lead during which innings of the broadcasts, etc. In short, this is big stuff to insiders like them (MD in particular) but not particularly to fans. The impact is almost certainly minimal: is anyone really going to tune in (or out) based on 2 innings of drop-in work by GC that wouldn't have anyway? I remember seeing Katie Couric on a talk show years ago probably not long after she took over the 'Today Show' and was becoming a nationally known name. She was talking about getting an interview with the storymaker-du-jour and how excited she was about beating Barbara Walters to the punch with it ... and you could tell how much it meant to her but, at the same time I'm realizing that virtually no one else cares in the slightest who "scored" the first interview with whoever it was in their 15 minutes of fame. But to her it was (perhaps understandably) everything. It's all in the perspective. Gary & Murph, in my mind, always suffered from a gap in inter-generational chemistry but I'm not sure if there was more to it than that even though it seems to be an accepted "fact" in some circles.