Sports Radio- The Host vs. The Guest

Had a debate with a friend today. When it comes to sports radio, do you listen more for the host or for the guests?

Me, I am all about the guests. With all due respect to the various hosts, none keep my attention long enough if they are solo. If Mccown isn’t talking to someone I am interested in, then I am not going to listen. Similarly, Bill Hayes could be talking to Brian Burke and it would be worth listening to simply because the guest is good and it’s something I am interested in hearing. My friend on the other hand believes the audience is more balanced, that a show has to have more of an ebb and flow to it.

For me it’s simple. A bad host with a good guest is listenable. A great host with a bad host isn’t.

I am alone? Where do you sit?


About the Author
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 1, 2009 11:08 pm

A great guest helps make a good host more often than the reverse

Mike S
Mike S
September 2, 2009 12:29 am

They are both important, but I would have to give the edge to guests……………..when a good guest is on (ie: Shulman) I will always listen, even if the host is uninteresting (ie: Faulds and/or Kelley)…………..but when an uninteresting guest is on (ie: the majority of athletes) I am less likely to listen, even if the host is good (ie: McCown)

September 2, 2009 8:08 am

I listen to McCown on podcast. I used to listen to the whole show every night when it was only the 6pm hour. With two hours I’m a bit more choosy, and having heard McCown’s stock arguments numerous times, I do tend to skip guests that I don’t find interesting. While the Phoenix thing (eg.) is very interesting, it is starting to wear me down.

September 2, 2009 1:10 pm

@TSM: re “His talk about his wife, his kids or anything else isn’t worthy of my time”

What was that you mentioned the other day about a certain bedwetter? πŸ˜‰

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x