The Numbers Behind Pam Oliver's Demotion

Is it sexist to say that Pam Oliver is attractive? Like, How The Hell Are You 53-Years-Old Attractive?

I never know where to draw the line on that sort of thing. That's also how I feel about introducing a professional female with "the lovely and talented." You know. Please welcome the lovely and talented Amber Jones! Sure, it's a compliment on its face, but it…it feels sexist. Are the other males in the room not lovely, each in his own way? Maybe we're in the wrong piece to be unpacking this, but I feel that warrants mentioning.

That said, I personally find Pam Oliver to be quite talented. The former Florida A&M sprinter has spent the last 19 years delivering interviews from NFL sidelines, and in doing so, delivering a level of prestige to what many observers of sports broadcasting consider a cupcake job. Regardless of one's feelings on the importance of the role, the 53-year-old Oliver has excelled, mastering the art of bringing attention to herself by not bringing attention to herself. She's the opposite of a self-promoter, yet she and her brand are plain as day to those that follow the league.

Having some experience with interviewing professional athletes, I can say that anyone doing that job (and making it look as easy as Oliver does) is earning their money. It's arguable, in fact, that Oliver's level of skill might have contributed to her ouster from FOX's No.1 broadcast team.

Oliver wasn't ready to leave that post. "I felt I was not done," Oliver told Sports Illustrated this week. "I still felt I had more to offer with sideline reporting. I think that took them by surprise a little bit." And while FOX was receptive to her future plans, reaching an agreement on a multi-year deal, they were resolute on promoting Erin Andrews.

To quote Michael Bluth, FOX certainly has a type of sideline reporter in mind. Andrews, 17 years Oliver's junior, will take Oliver's role on the network's No. 1 broadcast team for NFL games. Andrews deserves credit for turning lemons into lemonade, having gained a national profile from a 2008 stalking incident and going on to compete in ABC's Dancing with the Stars and eventually moving from ESPN to FOX, where she has performed multiple roles.

Also joining FO's sideline ranks is Holly Sonders, who turned heads in the golf world with her Golf Channel co-hosting gigs and her May 2013 appearance in Golf Digest. Sonders is typically on camera in short, tight clothing, including her might-as-well-be-trademarked short golf skirts.

"Some people would comment, 'You're objectifying her," Sonders told Golf Digest. "[But] I dress the way I dress because style is very important to me. I love being a girl. You can want to kick people's asses in every sport, but you can still be feminine and still be sexy." Sonders will be bolstering the network's coverage of the US Open next June, but she'll be put to work this fall, according to GolfWeek.

The ascension of Andrews and the arrival of Sonders present a paradox for our hero: Does Pam Oliver make sideline reporting look easy or is it just really that easy? FOX seems to be betting on the latter, with Sonders having no real experience and Andrews's having recently come under fire from Oliver herself.

Oliver and Andrews covered opposite sidelines during last season's NFC Championship, a game which gave the Seattle Seahawks a Super Bowl berth and a nationally televised soapbox for one of its best players. That Richard Sherman rant, with Andrews holding the microphone, would catapult the defensive back into a household name and Madden NFL 15 cover boy. But not everyone thought Andrews managed that moment well.

"I was listening in my ear and I'm thinking, 'Oh boy, he's controlling the interview,'" Oliver told the New York Daily News in January. "I always felt that when you get a player immediately after a game, you factor in that they are really emotional. I'm not saying she did anything wrong, but in a situation like that you (should) quickly turn the interview into let's get back to your team winning the game."

Let's stop right there.

Andrews's interview with Sherman was the best piece of post-game television that any of us could ever have hoped to witness. That said, calling it an interview might be generous; Andrews didn't interrogate him any more than Gene Okerlund did with the Ultimate Warrior circa 1989. "I'm the best corner in the game! When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that's the result you gonna get!" As Sherman cuts his promo, he stares directly into the camera. Andrews stares off, neither at her camera nor her subject, content to yield the floor. Before she asks a follow-up question, she throws back to the booth.

That passivity might be the crux of Oliver's criticism, one that is surely valid, but ask yourself, Who would you rather see in control of that interview? Wouldn't you, as a TV executive, do everything in your power to dodge that cascade of soundbites that these sideline interviews have churned out over the last 19 years? Wouldn't you attempt to recreate that situation from the NFC title game every time, even if that meant sending out your talent to be trampled by the latest angry defender du jour?

Sideline reporting, in the Twitter age especially, could benefit from such a jolt. Most of us can already guess that, yeah, Coach is kinda pissed about those three turnovers in the first half. And the act of directing traffic for the winning quarterback to hit his three talking points (credit the losers, talk up your receivers, look forward to the next game) could use a revival of its own. Are Andrews and Sonders the answer to that? I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Oliver, who will work with the No. 2 team this fall, will finish the season with 20 years of experience on NFL sidelines. She already has the credibility to do whatever kind of show the executive pigs in television would be willing to let her try. Her run in such a brutal industry is already a solid legacy to leave, but Oliver and the sideline might be better off away from each other. When Oliver is ready (and able) to take that next step, we'll be waiting.