Madden Retires From Broadcasting

Madden Retires From Broadcasting

April 16, 2009

It's not exactly a video game story, but John Madden has announced his retirement from broadcasting televised NFL games.

NBC Sports broke the news this morning. In a statement, Madden explained his reasons for making the move:

It’s time. I’m 73 years old.  My 50th wedding anniversary is this fall. I have two great sons and their families and my five grandchildren are at an age now when they know when I’m home and, more importantly, when I’m not…

 

It’s been such a great ride… the NFL has been my life for more than 40 years, it has been my passion – it still is...  I still love every part of it – the travel, the practices, the game film, the games, seeing old friends and meeting new people… but I know this is the right time.

Inside Bay Area reports that Madden will continue to do a local radio show on KCBS.

It is unknown how - or whether - the legendary coach and broadcaster's retirement will affect the best-selling Madden NFL video game.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: Madden Retires From Broadcasting

I hope it will force EA to change the title at least. Afterall, it won't be arealistic football experience if you have the voice oand name of a retired sports announcer in the game.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Madden Retires From Broadcasting

Personally I think they should keep it, for the name is inseparably intertwined with the history of the series (plus think of brand recognition, won't some please think of the brand recognition).

Re: Madden Retires From Broadcasting

See ya, John. Been fun.

"Tough actin' Tinactin." ROFLCOPTER

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Madden Retires From Broadcasting

Yeah, while we're at it let's change the name of the Corvette, the Big Mac, and Final Fantasy.

 

As much as I dislike John Madden and EA, I don't think it will be changed anytime soon.

Re: Madden Retires From Broadcasting

FInally the blaoted whiny bastard retirres... mabye I can have his job.......  :P

 


Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.


http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com

Re: Madden Retires From Broadcasting

Maybe they'll take a year or 2 off, and focus on releasing new rosters and DLC for existing Madden games.

---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

Re: Madden Retires From Broadcasting

More bad news for EA. Too bad so sad! They will be desperate to keep his name in the title. Having said that, there is no mention whether he is done with commentating in the games. Anyone actually consider the fact he makes so much money off the video game that he can retire from the actual realtime commentary job? Again, this is the last thing EA needs right now.

My sites Buy Netbook Vancouver Traffic Tel Domain

Re: Madden Retires From Broadcasting

He retired because Farve is gone. Duh...

-- Homicide-free gamer since 1989

Re: Madden Retires From Broadcasting

I will play the John Madden "BOOM!" remix in his honor.

John Madden "BOOM!" remix

GameSnooper

Re: Madden Retires From Broadcasting

Well codemasters didnt let a little thing like Colin McRae dying get in the way of their franchise, so I doubt that Maddon retiring will get in the way of EAs franchise.

Re: Madden Retires From Broadcasting

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Login or register to post shouts