Geno and Justine on What's Coming

[RockyMTblue2]

http://media.sny.tv/sny/mp4/2018/03/15/1888173283/1521157656000/asset_1200K.mp4

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Another short video from SNY; http://media.sny.tv/sny/mp4/2018/03/15/1887671183/1521083686125/asset_1200K.mp4

 

[JustinesGuy]

Justine is really the best. She has really honed her craft, dug into this 100% and has performed so well for us on the sidelines, and on Tv to give us the best information on everything UCONN.

 

[Centerstream]

Justine is really the best. She has really honed her craft, dug into this 100% and has performed so well for us on the sidelines, and on Tv to give us the best information on everything UCONN.

Yup, she does ok for a ND grad...

 

[bags27]

I guess I'm just a fuddy-duddy, but on these and similar videos: 1. she asks scripted questions; 2. the videos could well be edited so that the questions seem spontaneous but she could be doing a number of takes and/or have an ear piece in her off camera ear with the director whispering questions.

I have to be honest. I just don't ever sense she's really on the game when she asks spontaneous questions (read and react!) during the game. I really, really hate the obvious segregation in TV sports between the insightful announcers and the obligatory young (usually attractive) woman adding occasional sideline comments (Suzy Kolber being the obvious exception). I have to believe that there are a zillion really talented and committed aspiring sports announcers who don't have to hone their craft, but could offer real insight and ask tough questions. Of all places, in women's college sports we should be rewarding those who demonstrate the greatest competency, not just because they are visually appealing.

Fuddy-duddy over and out,

 

[Centerstream]

I guess I'm just a fuddy-duddy, but on these and similar videos: 1. she asks scripted questions; 2. the videos could well be edited so that the questions seem spontaneous but she could be doing a number of takes and/or have an ear piece in her off camera ear with the director whispering questions.

I have to be honest. I just don't ever sense she's really on the game when she asks spontaneous questions (read and react!) during the game. I really, really hate the obvious segregation in TV sports between the insightful announcers and the obligatory young (usually attractive) woman adding occasional sideline comments (Suzy Kolber being the obvious exception). I have to believe that there are a zillion really talented and committed aspiring sports announcers who don't have to hone their craft, but could offer real insight and ask tough questions. Of all places, in women's college sports we should be rewarding those who demonstrate the greatest competency, not just because they are visually appealing.

Fuddy-duddy over and out,

I would guess that no sideline reporter asks a spontaneous game related action question due to the ear plug thingy each one wears, listening to their producer and/or other people in the truck.

 

[JustinesGuy]

Yup, she does ok for a ND grad...

Yes, Isn't that high praise though? She has come a long way from being miss trusted, to tolerated, to liked.. I say that is surely an accomplishment.

 

[bags27]

I would guess that no sideline reporter asks a spontaneous game related action question due to the ear plug thingy each one wears, listening to their producer and/or other people in the truck.

may well be right, but at least the 2nd question the report asks might be based on the response to the first question and show a modicum of understanding and insight. maybe....

 

[JustinesGuy]

I guess I'm just a fuddy-duddy, but on these and similar videos: 1. she asks scripted questions; 2. the videos could well be edited so that the questions seem spontaneous but she could be doing a number of takes and/or have an ear piece in her off camera ear with the director whispering questions.

I have to be honest. I just don't ever sense she's really on the game when she asks spontaneous questions (read and react!) during the game. I really, really hate the obvious segregation in TV sports between the insightful announcers and the obligatory young (usually attractive) woman adding occasional sideline comments (Suzy Kolber being the obvious exception). I have to believe that there are a zillion really talented and committed aspiring sports announcers who don't have to hone their craft, but could offer real insight and ask tough questions. Of all places, in women's college sports we should be rewarding those who demonstrate the greatest competency, not just because they are visually appealing.

Fuddy-duddy over and out,

Ill never forgot her asking Chong the question at the end of one of her Sr year games" I heard you almost transferred...... Can you talk to us about that... And this was after she played a real nice game and was expecting a question like : Wow how do you feel about your performance today.. That was a great bomb Justine threw haha..

 

[Woof 101]

Justine is really the best. She has really honed her craft, dug into this 100% and has performed so well for us on the sidelines, and on Tv to give us the best information on everything UCONN.

Are you mom or dad? Boyfriend or husband? If not your obsession with Justine is getting to the point of creepy.

I guess I'm just a fuddy-duddy, but on these and similar videos: 1. she asks scripted questions; 2. the videos could well be edited so that the questions seem spontaneous but she could be doing a number of takes and/or have an ear piece in her off camera ear with the director whispering questions.

I have to be honest. I just don't ever sense she's really on the game when she asks spontaneous questions (read and react!) during the game. I really, really hate the obvious segregation in TV sports between the insightful announcers and the obligatory young (usually attractive) woman adding occasional sideline comments (Suzy Kolber being the obvious exception). I have to believe that there are a zillion really talented and committed aspiring sports announcers who don't have to hone their craft, but could offer real insight and ask tough questions. Of all places, in women's college sports we should be rewarding those who demonstrate the greatest competency, not just because they are visually appealing.

Fuddy-duddy over and out,

Thank you....

 

[Zanzman]

Sideline reporters are overrated and annoying especially when it’s done ingame

 

[JB123]

I guess I'm just a fuddy-duddy, but on these and similar videos: 1. she asks scripted questions; 2. the videos could well be edited so that the questions seem spontaneous but she could be doing a number of takes and/or have an ear piece in her off camera ear with the director whispering questions.

I have to be honest. I just don't ever sense she's really on the game when she asks spontaneous questions (read and react!) during the game. I really, really hate the obvious segregation in TV sports between the insightful announcers and the obligatory young (usually attractive) woman adding occasional sideline comments (Suzy Kolber being the obvious exception). I have to believe that there are a zillion really talented and committed aspiring sports announcers who don't have to hone their craft, but could offer real insight and ask tough questions. Of all places, in women's college sports we should be rewarding those who demonstrate the greatest competency, not just because they are visually appealing.

Fuddy-duddy over and out,

I respectfully, but very firmly, disagree with you regarding Ms. Ward. Most interviewers -- however they look, and whether they're interviewing athletes, politicians, or anyone else -- simply don't listen to the interviewee's answers, which makes it impossible for them to ask meaningful follow-up questions. Instead, they stick to their script no matter what. And even worse, the script itself is often poorly thought-out.

In fact, I've gotten so used to that problem over the decades in many different contexts that it's a shock when someone is actually good at conducting interviews. Happily, that shock occurred when I started watching Justine Ward interview Geno. Unlike the vast majority of interviewers, including but not limited to sideline reporters, she asks fantastic questions -- precisely the ones that a smart and knowledgeable observer would want to hear the answers to -- and she also listens to the answers and exercises good judgment about when to follow up and when to let something go.

Doing this in hurried environments like a 1-minute halftime interview is really difficult, and I actually think she does it better than any other sideline reporter I've ever seen. Her scripted interviews are also excellent. For example, she starts this one with just what I'd want to know: What kind of opponent concerns Geno the most? Unfortunately, in this particular interview, Geno gave guarded answers and didn't reveal too much even though he's usually so open. Maybe he wants to be a little more careful than usual at this moment in time. But all that shows is that sometimes even good questions can't elicit exciting answers.

 

[JustinesGuy]

I respectfully, but very firmly, disagree with you regarding Ms. Ward. Most interviewers -- however they look, and whether they're interviewing athletes, politicians, or anyone else -- simply don't listen to the interviewee's answers, which makes it impossible for them to ask meaningful follow-up questions. Instead, they stick to their script no matter what. And even worse, the script itself is often poorly thought-out.

In fact, I've gotten so used to that problem over the decades in many different contexts that it's a shock when someone is actually good at conducting interviews. Happily, that shock occurred when I started watching Justine Ward interview Geno. Unlike the vast majority of interviewers, including but not limited to sideline reporters, she asks fantastic questions -- precisely the ones that a smart and knowledgeable observer would want to hear the answers to -- and she also listens to the answers and exercises good judgment about when to follow up and when to let something go.

Doing this in hurried environments like a 1-minute halftime interview is really difficult, and I actually think she does it better than any other sideline reporter I've ever seen. Her scripted interviews are also excellent. For example, she starts this one with just what I'd want to know: What kind of opponent concerns Geno the most? Unfortunately, in this particular interview, Geno gave guarded answers and didn't reveal too much even though he's usually so open. Maybe he wants to be a little more careful than usual at this moment in time. But all that shows is that sometimes even good questions can't elicit exciting answers.

She doesn't talk over him or jump in with what she thinks unless specifically asked by Geno. It's the GA show, she gets that.
It's a great show.

I was hoping to hear more commentary on his trust or lack of trust with the bench since that was a major theme this year.
They should do one last show when the tournament is over.

 

[JB123]

She doesn't talk over him or jump in with what she thinks unless specifically asked by Geno. It's the GA show, she gets that.
It's a great show.

Great point. I agree 100%.