Bio not provided
I liked it a lot... It's not must watch TV, but I think it's the only FS1 show where you could legitimately say right now it's better than the ESPN equivalent.
1 year ago on Fox Football Daily doesn't try to reinvent the wheel
@Joseph Salazar Did you make those ratings up on the spot? The actual ratings were 0.2 compared to 0.6.
1 year ago on Fox Sports Live exceeds expectations with room to grow
Overall I thought it was a bit off, but the product is there. Near the beginning the timing between Dan in particular and the highlights was way off, which led....to....talking...like....this. After they got the timing right though, it felt a lot more natural (they also forced the humor a bit in the beginning) and it personally I think they were much better than the anchors SC uses every night. As for the panel, I actually liked the idea (although I know some will disagree). It's a long show, you're going to need to have some opinion to fill up time rather than 3 hours straight of just highlights, and personally I like the roundtable fan-like format more than ESPN just having an expert talk. With that being said, the chemistry was off (though Charissa Thompson did a good job keeping it flowing) and the analysis was pretty bad at times. Along with Jay and Dan of course, Thompson, McNabb, and Kapler stood out for good reasons. I also thought Roddick was decent, and Salaam and Payton didn't add much of anything.
Recap: Timing and chemistry was bad, but once they get that down it's a great show.
@gregbeaulieu I've heard the opposite actually. Jay and Dan were very well received as a much better alternative to the SC anchors (which I agree with). The part of the show people seemed to dislike was the panel, because there wasn't much chemistry or insight and it took away from Jay and Dan.
And besides all this, you disliking their style (which is pretty clear) doesn't make them awful. They're awful if they do a bad job, which they didn't.