If you're a Ravens fan, you know by now that Brian Billick told his side of the story Monday after being fired nearly two months ago and that he discussed his dismissal in true Billick fashion. He was articulate, politic and generally said as little as possible while sounding darn good saying it.
He gave two radio interviews, and, essentially, his message was that he still hasn't received a specific reason for why he was fired but that owner Steve Bisciotti had a right to make the move and Billick respects that. He also talked about future plans: There's a book planned, he's looking into radio and TV work, and in 2009, he'd like to coach again if the right opportunity comes up. He's hardly strapped for cash. Reportedly, the Ravens still owe him at least $15 million.
What I found interesting was how Billick went public. It was on radio after declining interview requests by The Sun. His reason was that he didn't get a fair shake from the newspaper. Here's the quote: "[The Sun] took a very clear-cut approach - which is their right, and I understand that - that we're going to make that uncomfortable for him, and my picture was on the front of that sports page just about every day. That was what they chose to pursue, and that's their right. Why I would interact with them now, I don't know why I would do that."
And it's Billick's right to talk with whomever he chooses - but his reason doesn't ring true or is at least off-base. If his picture was on the front page of the Sports section frequently, it's because the Ravens just happen to be the most important story in the region. Or better put, they attract the most audience attention. There's no political story line, no social issue, no financial development that can even compete, certainly not consistently, with the Ravens. That's why we have parades when the football team wins a Super Bowl and not when important pieces of legislation are passed. That's why Billick was making $5 million a year. If that says something unfortunate about us collectively as a society, well, to use a favorite Billick-ism, it is what it is.
And as far as whether Billick got a fair shake in The Sun, he is well aware of how journalism works - more than any sports coach I've ever been around. He has a degree in communications from Brigham Young; he has endowed a communications scholarship at BYU; he worked in public relations; he has written two books.
He knows the difference between columnists and beat writers and understands their different roles. And if the former coach doesn't think he got a square deal from the people who wrote news stories about him, well, I just don't believe he thinks that.
He knows he did.
Just as an example, take a look at Jamison Hensley's article about Billick yesterday. Hensley, The Sun's Ravens beat writer, points out as he frequently did that Billick remains the franchise's all-time winningest coach, that the guy brought a Super Bowl to this town and, through Billick's words, reminds readers that the team went 13-3 just two seasons ago. And, yes, Hensley pointed out the fistful of reasons why Billick might have been fired (but that no one, not even Billick, knows for sure).
So, does Billick have a beef with columnists at The Sun who weren't in his corner and either implied or were explicit that he should be fired? OK, maybe he does. So let him do what Bisciotti failed to do and be specific. Call them out on what he thought were misguided points of view.
But I don't believe that Billick's choice of going the radio route rather than being interviewed by the newspaper had anything to do with his stated reason. I didn't have many long discussions with the coach when he was here, but one we did have was about media in general, and the NFL Network in particular. I was mightily impressed with Billick's grasp of the issues and their import.
My take is that eventually the NFL, through NFL.com, team Web sites and its TV and radio networks, will control access to, package and distribute its content to its best financial advantage. Obviously, that process is well underway. The net result is the usual media outlets the public has been used to getting its information from for decades will be marginalized.
Billick, an astute student of media, gets it.
Yesterday was his way of doing exactly that with his message, controlling it. Not for financial advantage, but to distribute his message in as unfiltered a fashion as possible. In that way, he avoided the questions from the news outlet that best understands the Ravens' situation, or at least expends considerable resources trying to understand it and keeping the public informed. Does that mean the folks who did have an opportunity to speak with Billick didn't ask all the appropriate questions? Not at all. They're pros, too.
But Billick understands the medium does indeed help shape the message - particularly in the hands of a master like himself. And that he can do that artfully might be to his credit. What's less admirable is using the paper's coverage as an excuse for that strategy.
bill.ordine@baltsun.com