Welcome to the 39th Media Mailbag for The Athletic. Thanks for sending in your questions via the website and app. There were more than 125 questions, so this is Part 1 of a two-parter.

(Note: Questions have been edited for clarity and length.)

Is it unfair to viewers that Tom Brady has so many limits placed on him by the league — no production meetings, no pregame interviews, no practices, no criticism of refs, etc.? As the lead analyst he seems severely limited, which may be part of the reason he is so lacking — at least in my opinion. Why didn’t Fox pull the contract or why didn’t he put his ownership ambitions on hold so he could give fully to his $375 million gig? — Larry S.

We’ve had a half-season of Brady, including several games since the league approved his ownership stake in the (Las Vegas) Raiders. How much discernible improvement have you noted in his booth performance? (I remain unimpressed.) Is his inability to take part in production meetings noticeably impacting his work or the overall quality of the (Kevin) Burkhardt/Brady booth? — Barry S.

I wrote a piece last month that argued that the restrictions are unsustainable for the long haul and predicted Brady will depart the booth long before the end of his contract. It’s not just the conflict of interest. There have long been conflicts of interest in sports media jobs, including college football analysts still employed by schools. That’s just modern reality. But predetermined restrictions on what you can say leave no workaround. It’s subconsciously self-censoring things because of the ownership situation. That’s a mess for everyone and especially viewers. As far as performance: I think Brady has improved significantly since the beginning of the year, but he’s not a transcendent analyst. Maybe that’s too much to ask in Year 1. He’s also had some terrible games to call, to be fair.

SBJ’s Ben Fischer has done a great job on the topic of Brady’s broadcast restrictions and reported last week that the restriction rules for Brady may be expanding following his Oct. 20 interview with Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes that aired during Fox NFL Sunday. It is absurd to think that NFL owners would have an issue with a softball interview, but, per Fischer, some owners could find an issue with Brady receiving information as a Raiders partner and thus want to “limit Brady’s interaction with players to live or recorded interviews for broadcast only, to ensure the content of their conversations is known publicly, and prohibiting private one-on-one interactions before or after the broadcast component.” Fox has been fine with all of this, by the way. They (and I understand this part) like being in the Tom Brady business. But I’ll keep saying it: This isn’t sustainable long-term.

Why do networks do in-game interviews? They are filled with meaningless platitudes about staying focused and playing tougher. The coaches and players correctly can’t wait to run back to the huddle. The questions are so leading that the interviewee usually just repeats their substance as the answer. It reminds me of the nonsense Mean Gene Okerlund used to do with Hulk Hogan. I mute them. Can we make it stop? — Thomas S.

First, I’d argue Okerlund’s interviews were genius and entertaining. The best stick man in the history of wrestling. But networks do this because ultimately more access is better than less access. They want to take you inside the game. That’s worth it — and I tend to agree — for one good answer even if the other 99 are banal.

How much difference do commentators make to ratings or revenue? Except for peak Bill Walton paired with Dave Pasch or Jason Benetti, I don’t think I’ve ever chosen a national broadcast for the commentators. — Jack M.

Sports broadcasters do not increase viewership (maybe Howard Cosell did in his prime given the love/hate-watching). The reason you hire quality broadcasters such as Benetti is that you want your product to come off as professional and entertaining. That produces a quality product that keeps people interested and coming back and advertisers (or subscribers) investing money in your product.

How is the schedule set for the final week of the NFL season? Currently, all games are listed as 1 p.m. ET start, but do certain networks have priority in choosing the matchups and windows the games are played? — Harvey C.

Two games are played on a Saturday, and then start times and networks get selected after Week 17. As a general rule, the most-anticipated game will go to NBC in the prime-time window. The 4:25 p.m. window often sees CBS and Fox each getting a prominent game, or a game with that has a proven viewership team. Last year, the Buffalo Bills and Miami Dolphins met on NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” for a game that determined the AFC East title. That’s the ideal you want — the last game of the regular season having meaning.

Can women’s college basketball continue its viewership momentum in the post-Caitlin Clark era? — Corinne R.

The long-term answer is yes. The sport is on an upward trajectory, it produces new stars annually (e.g. USC’s JuJu Watkins and Notre Dame’s Hannah Hidalgo), and the programming windows keep getting better. But the numbers in the Women’s NCAA Tournament will unquestionably be down this year because Clark was a once-in-a-generation viewership unicorn. It’s simply not realistic to expect the NCAA women’s championship game to duplicate last year’s 18.9 million viewership number for South Carolina’s win over Iowa. But it’s a great sport that will only go up in viewing audience long-term.

With stars like Notre Dame’s Hannah Hidalgo and USC’s JuJu Watkins, women’s college basketball is in a strong place post-Caitlin Clark. (Jayne Kamin-Oncea / Getty Images)

Seems like this year brought more MLB broadcaster complaints than any since Joe Buck left. Even Bob Costas took some hits, which was hard for me to believe. Did you perceive homerism from Joe Davis (calling lots of Los Angeles Dodgers games for FS1 and Fox, or Costas calling the New York Yankees series with longtime New Yorker Ron Darling? Is there any chance we will ever see Fox or other networks add local TV voices during the World Series again? — No Name

I heard no bias from Davis. I am sure he would like the Dodgers to do well, but national broadcasters take great pains to call games in a neutral tone. Forget about the ethics or anything else — it would simply be dumb business to favor one team outright. I don’t think we will ever see local broadcasters added to call championship games because the networks will always want their broadcasters to have the assignment.

Is there a reason ESPN doesn’t use Joe Buck and Troy Aikman all that much in anything except “Monday Night Football” (and Aikman does an occasional hit on “Pardon the Interruption”). It just seems like a wasted resource. I mean, Buck didn’t even come on to talk about the World Series, and he’s called a few. It just seems odd to me that two of their very expensive employees really just do one thing. — Mark H.

It’s all contractual. Those kind of hits are built into contracts (e.g. a certain number of appearances on ESPN airwaves), and Aikman and Buck had massive leverage with ESPN when they signed. At this point of their careers, they don’t need to do hits on ESPN shows unless they really want to.

AEW has a nice, safe new contract that Warner Bros. Discovery appears to be happy with. But they just got beat pretty bad by WWE developmental on their own night. How low of a rating is too low for WBD? — Benjamin A.

WBD’s approach at this point is to load up with as many second-tier sports rights as they can get, a list that includes Mountain West football, the French Open, the new Unrivaled 3×3 women’s basketball league and its acquisition from ESPN of Big 12 football and basketball games. AEW fits into that bucket. Second-tier rights are good. It’s not Tier I like the NFL or NBA, but it builds inventory. I don’t think WBD is going to be concerned even if the linear numbers continue to tank. (I will say, AEW really needs a restart of some kind with storylines.) This is all part of the larger play for cable carriers to keep WBD programming.

Where is an online go-to source that we can look at to see who these play-by-play and analyst commentators are on each game on TV or streaming? I accidentally stumbled onto a college basketball game and I had no idea who the play-by-play and analyst was. I think this would be a great service for all sports fans. — Wayne B.

It’s a good question. For the NFL: The gold standard here is 506 Sports, which has coverage maps of every NFL game and all the broadcasters. One tip I have is most major places with sports rights have a website dedicated to their PR efforts, such as this one for ESPN. You’ll always find weekly press releases here that provide who is doing the games.

Don’t hold your breath for Australian rules football on the big U.S. networks anytime soon. (Daniel Pockett / Getty Images)

Why do the Fox networks not make a greater effort to grow the U.S. market for Australian football? I think it’s an amazing sport, but FS1/FS2 never show AFL or AFLW reruns despite having hours to fill (Canadian Premier League soccer anyone?). — Rowan B.

It’s very hard for sports that are fully based away from the U.S. to break through on big U.S. outlets. You often need a global footprint (e.g. Formula One, Premier League) for places to offer decent program windows. Even though it’s very fun to watch, I can’t see Aussie rules football getting big traction for a U.S. network.

With the Rogers Communications deal being the sole national TV rights holder in Canada and expiring after the 2025-26 season, what do you see the next deal being? Is Rogers’ deal with Amazon Prime to cover Monday night games in Canada a glimpse into the future? — Morgan B.

I think Amazon is going to be a major player in the next NHL deal in Canada, and I have no doubt the league wants that to happen. They would not have invested significant resources in Monday night hockey unless they wanted to go bigger post-2026.

Will we ever see women’s volleyball get any kind of traction as a TV sport, or is the fall sports calendar too cluttered? In the past month, I’ve seen Purdue sell out 15,000-seat Mackey Arena twice for home games, once on NBC, so there has to be a market. I’ve also seen D1 matches played in what appeared to be half-full high school gyms. — Dan. K.

Depends on what your definition of traction is, but women’s volleyball interest is soaring when it comes to broadcast outlets. The Big Ten Network has made it a staple of its coverage, and last year we saw the Fox broadcast network air both Minnesota-Wisconsin and Ohio State-Michigan during an NFL week. The AP recently wrote a story that girls’ volleyball has never been so popular in the U.S. It’s arrow up for the sport.

I noticed that Fox has removed the out-of-town ticker from all of their NFL broadcasts and it does make for a cleaner viewing experience. I appreciate getting updates from the studio when someone scores in another game, but I can also follow scores of any other games on my devices whenever I want. Do you have any insights on how/why Fox made their decision? — Marc L.

I sent your question to Fox Sports PR for some insight. Said a spokesperson: “Good eye by the reader. And that reader also answered his own question. It’s for a cleaner look and makes the game feel bigger. It’ll stay this way for the foreseeable future.”

(Top photo of Tom Brady: Patrick McDermott / Getty Images)