My argument here is those who can't do, talk. So making the transition to TV is idiotic. You won't see Jackson, Riley and Co on TNT sitting beside the pie that is now Charles Barkley. Their legacy speaks for itself and they don't need TV to portray what knowledge they possess.
As a coach or a player do you not constantly look for new challenges? Would this not be one that Doc would grasp full steam? [Edited.] What do you think Doc should do?
I don't get this part, and it really makes no sense and has little substance in my opinion.
How is making the transition to tv idiotic? Danny Ainge, John Thompson, Mike Fratello, Hubie Brown, Jeff Van Gundy, PJ Carlesimo, Doug Collins, Steve Kerr, Kevin McHale, Flip Saunders, etc., etc.
They all went from coaching to broadcasting. And several of them went back to coaching, and then back to broadcasting again!
Even Doc Rivers did this between his Orlando and Boston gigs.
Danny Ainge actually left his Phoenix job to spend more time with his family and almost immediately went into broadcasting.
Even our own Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, and Tommy Heinsohn went to broadcasting after playing and coaching.
Broadcasting is one of the cushiest gigs you can get.
Way back in 2002, Charles Barkley signed an extension with TNT that paid him $1.5M a year (
latest data I could find). Basically he goes to work one day a week for 6 months, plus a few special occasions (like the season opener, Christmas, All-Star game, etc.) and maybe 2 or 3 days a week for 2 to 2 1/2 months during the playoffs. Pretty much the same schedule for all those guys, and similar pay too (although I might guess Barkley is on the higher end of the pay scale).
Again, broadcasting is one of the best gigs you can get. Get paid $1 million a year to work maybe 50-75 days a year watching sports for a few hours then talking about it. Even if your retired, it's still nice to have a million dollar income coming in to support you. If anything, not moving to tv is idiotic.