CBS Announcers

[Carnac]

Didn't McNutt call the Seton Hall game on FoxSports the other night? She is horrible, as is the other clown who was working with her. Agree above, just call the game, and stop the nonsense chatter about everything but the game!

Not a fan of McNutt. The more I listen to other broadcast teams from the networks call a game, the more I appreciate Culmo and Bestwick. IMHO, the best network broadcast team to do a UConn game this year was Lisa Byington and Sarah Kustok. They did the DePaul game for Fox on Jan 31. I thought these ladies did an excellent job. Here's the replay to refresh your memory. Compare this to that which was forced upon us Friday.

 

[cwaduke]

Getting paid by the word.

 

[Cecil9]

Watching the game screaming at the TV. Talk about this game!!! Call this game!!!! This network is lousy like Fox when it comes to NCAAWBKB announcers. SNY looks better and better every game. "Hoyas trying to keep that #1 ranking." Sigh.

That's right---irritating to see a big play and have the announcers not even notice while talking about something else. I had to mute them or be distracted from the game.

 

[mbr33ct]

How this season has progressed...from "how can I watch this game" to announcers are too chatty. Should be a good thing you're watching the game.

 

[visitingcock]

All TV announcers are bad. All of sports. The old guys who were raised by working radio were great because they had to describe what was going on. Now, they talk all kinds of meaningless stuff

 

[Biff]

I think that this is NOT true and I think that is where the issue resides.

All sports coverage has "evolved" from game description to extensive prepared back stories with a emphasis on entertainment. Some more than others. For example the in game commentary on Hockey games seems to me (with my limited viewing) to focus on covering the fast evolving live action rather well. But look (listen) to football games and men's basketball. Multi-person teams of people are common. Pre-game halftime and post game feature large groups of hucksters all lined up with scripted back stories.

The in-game team also has scripted back stories that compliment the story lines set up in the pre-game. It is pre-decided who and what they will focus on and they find a way to insert those prepared story lines during the game whether the action supports that narrative or not. Along those lines the announcers are given scripts of material that support the network in general (info and promotion on other sports or events covered by that network)

Rightly or wrongly, the people who run the productions believe this is the way to maximize viewership and thus maximize advertising $$$$

I believe that women's basketball takes this trend to the next level and these same people believe that the fan base (as it is) is a less devoted or less serious sports fan. With that belief they feel that to hold the attention of the less serious fan they need to provide a stream of various stories of human interest or controversy to gain and hold the viewer's interest. Similar to today's news presentations, the line between informative relating of facts and entertainment has blurred and it seems to me it not going back.

 

[Biff]

I actually have not been able to watch the last several games live so I have had no chance to set up a synched radio audio. So, I have turned the sound off. Seems to be not as good as getting decent good play by play but way better than constant babble for me.

 

[Bama fan]

I actually have not been able to watch the last several games live so I have had no chance to set up a synched radio audio. So, I have turned the sound off. Seems to be not as good as getting decent good play by play but way better than constant babble for me.

I cannot recall which Boneyard guru suggested muting the sound and having live stats on your laptop. I followed this advice and was thus aware of fouls, time outs, and substitutions. A little hard to watch both the stats and the game at first, but soon it became seamless. I suggest you try it when the next group of announcers fails your ear test. And thanks to the previous complainer who solved this problem for us. Go Huskies!

 

[BBallF]

I said it before and I will say it again- the non-stop talk about everything except the game is sexist and constitutes implicit gender discrimination by these announcers because they either think or are told that they have to make the game more entertaining or better by adding to it with their yapping. It's as though they have decided or are afraid the sport isn't good enough stand alone for the TV audience so they have to try to augment it. I think if enough people write or e-mail these channels and characterize it like I am doing here they will correct it overnight.

 

[mbr33ct]

I cannot recall which Boneyard guru suggested muting the sound and having live stats on your laptop. I followed this advice and was thus aware of fouls, time outs, and substitutions. A little hard to watch both the stats and the game at first, but soon it became seamless. I suggest you try it when the next group of announcers fails your ear test. And thanks to the previous complainer who solved this problem for us. Go Huskies!

Speaking for myself, the live game is first and foremost, I couldn't care less what the announcers have to say...or don't say. Over the course of the game the number of fouls always surface. As far as substitutions, believe me you'll know when a new player gets subbed out and subbed in. Unless you're a first time UConn watcher and don't know the players.

 

[BBallF]

I think that this is NOT true and I think that is where the issue resides.

All sports coverage has "evolved" from game description to extensive prepared back stories with a emphasis on entertainment. Some more than others. For example the in game commentary on Hockey games seems to me (with my limited viewing) to focus on covering the fast evolving live action rather well. But look (listen) to football games and men's basketball. Multi-person teams of people are common. Pre-game halftime and post game feature large groups of hucksters all lined up with scripted back stories.

The in-game team also has scripted back stories that compliment the story lines set up in the pre-game. It is pre-decided who and what they will focus on and they find a way to insert those prepared story lines during the game whether the action supports that narrative or not. Along those lines the announcers are given scripts of material that support the network in general (info and promotion on other sports or events covered by that network)

Rightly or wrongly, the people who run the productions believe this is the way to maximize viewership and thus maximize advertising $$$$

I believe that women's basketball takes this trend to the next level and these same people believe that the fan base (as it is) is a less devoted or less serious sports fan. With that belief they feel that to hold the attention of the less serious fan they need to provide a stream of various stories of human interest or controversy to gain and hold the viewer's interest. Similar to today's news presentations, the line between informative relating of facts and entertainment has blurred and it seems to me it not going back.

I agree with most of this but not as to the reason for the application of this new trend as you describe it to women's basketball. I don't think that the incessant yapping and talk nonsense has to do with the networks' analysis of the fan base in women's basketball. I think it has to do with what they think the nature of the product is- not up to men's standards and not entertaining enough in its own right. Either way, it is sexist if the games, which they are, are treated differently from the men's games by the announcers. As I said before, #1 against #2 recently was not enough to stop the droning. Would that occur in #1 against #2 in the men's game? No, there would be serious commentary related to the game itself or there would be a hue and a cry.

 

[j66kicker]

I think that this is NOT true and I think that is where the issue resides.

All sports coverage has "evolved" from game description to extensive prepared back stories with a emphasis on entertainment. Some more than others. For example the in game commentary on Hockey games seems to me (with my limited viewing) to focus on covering the fast evolving live action rather well. But look (listen) to football games and men's basketball. Multi-person teams of people are common. Pre-game halftime and post game feature large groups of hucksters all lined up with scripted back stories.

The in-game team also has scripted back stories that compliment the story lines set up in the pre-game. It is pre-decided who and what they will focus on and they find a way to insert those prepared story lines during the game whether the action supports that narrative or not. Along those lines the announcers are given scripts of material that support the network in general (info and promotion on other sports or events covered by that network)

Rightly or wrongly, the people who run the productions believe this is the way to maximize viewership and thus maximize advertising $$$$

I believe that women's basketball takes this trend to the next level and these same people believe that the fan base (as it is) is a less devoted or less serious sports fan. With that belief they feel that to hold the attention of the less serious fan they need to provide a stream of various stories of human interest or controversy to gain and hold the viewer's interest. Similar to today's news presentations, the line between informative relating of facts and entertainment has blurred and it seems to me it not going back.

Agree, mostly. But I think they are trying to appeal to the more casual WBB fan, even the almost “accidental” fan who decided to watch for the first time. The back stories are like USA-style Olympic or Tour de France coverage - educating the audience who hasn’t watched the sport before, or at least not for 4 years.

I doubt they are concerned with the complaints of hard core WBB fans. They know we’ll watch regardless, and if we don’t like it we’ll watch anyway.

 

[dragon]

IMHO, the best network broadcast team to do a UConn game this year was Lisa Byington and Sarah Kustok.

I just can't stand Sarah Kustok on any broadcast. She does the NBA Nets games and thinks she is getting paid by the word.

 

[Waquoit]

I just can't stand Sarah Kustok on any broadcast. She does the NBA Nets games and thinks she is getting paid by the word.

That's how I felt about "the great" Doris Burke. By the end of her WCBB time she just wouldn't shut up besides being the worst at saying "score the basketball".

 

[robnelli]

And the irritatingly redundant “dribble drive”. You can’t drive to the basket without the ball and you can’t do that without dribbling. Such chutzpah from these people!

 

[Cecil9]

I think that this is NOT true and I think that is where the issue resides.

All sports coverage has "evolved" from game description to extensive prepared back stories with a emphasis on entertainment. Some more than others. For example the in game commentary on Hockey games seems to me (with my limited viewing) to focus on covering the fast evolving live action rather well. But look (listen) to football games and men's basketball. Multi-person teams of people are common. Pre-game halftime and post game feature large groups of hucksters all lined up with scripted back stories.

The in-game team also has scripted back stories that compliment the story lines set up in the pre-game. It is pre-decided who and what they will focus on and they find a way to insert those prepared story lines during the game whether the action supports that narrative or not. Along those lines the announcers are given scripts of material that support the network in general (info and promotion on other sports or events covered by that network)

Rightly or wrongly, the people who run the productions believe this is the way to maximize viewership and thus maximize advertising $$$$

I believe that women's basketball takes this trend to the next level and these same people believe that the fan base (as it is) is a less devoted or less serious sports fan. With that belief they feel that to hold the attention of the less serious fan they need to provide a stream of various stories of human interest or controversy to gain and hold the viewer's interest. Similar to today's news presentations, the line between informative relating of facts and entertainment has blurred and it seems to me it not going back.

Nice analysis; however, I would like to see a study as to whether the viewer is more interested in being entertained by the game or the commentary. I'm betting on the former, and also betting that complaints of game-interference by announcers will eventually rein in their distractions from the game itself.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I said it before and I will say it again- the non-stop talk about everything except the game is sexist and constitutes implicit gender discrimination by these announcers because they either think or are told that they have to make the game more entertaining or better by adding to it with their yapping. It's as though they have decided or are afraid the sport isn't good enough stand alone for the TV audience so they have to try to augment it. I think if enough people write or e-mail these channels and characterize it like I am doing here they will correct it overnight.

Watch some men's basketball and NBA. From what I hear, it isn't any better. They write into the paper here in AZ, mostly about Bill Walton, but like you all, they don't seem to like anyone. And the NBA is mostly about entertainment anyhow, at least from what I hear.

Was watching a game today and can't count how many times something happened and - don't know what. While I admit the announcers were not there in person - they were experienced, and babbled endlessly. And yes, I caught pre-planned story lines that were repeated ad-infinitum.