Is ESPN Trying Too Hard? | The Boneyard

Is ESPN Trying Too Hard?

M

MD#12Fan

Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,280
Reaction Score
3,979
Being educated fans, I feel like we're trying to watch this tournament despite the "din" of ESPN. Din defined as a loud, unpleasant, prolonged noise.
We love WCBB because of the quality of play, the quality of the players, and the coaches. We don't need a "carnival barker" in the background.
  • Charlie Creme- reseeding
  • Creating rivalries
  • Announcers babbling while the game is going on. Who committed the foul?, who's ball is it?, what happened to the shot clock?
This morning I woke up to some inane article about the best player with each number. Holdsclaw over Moore, #23. What in the world is that about? First of all, it is ridiculous, and the timing could not be worse, with Moore on a two-year sabbatical, trying to make the world a better place for all of us.
Thank goodness for 8 great matchups coming up this weekend. Maybe ESPN will let us watch in peace.
 
I don't have a problem with Creme's writing, just don't call it reseeding. Seeds were chosen a week and a half ago and can't be redone, so it's a dumb concept. It's fine to write articles about what tourney teams have shown us or not shown us as they progress through their brackets. The rivalries present marketing (a.k.a. hype) opportunities. You want people to watch, well this is just something you have to put up with to garner more interest. The announcers are annoying. I think many of us want purist type broadcasts, but that hasn't been the way of the world for years, and they assume that as long as we can visually follow the game, we don't need announcers to actually call the game too, so they can use the audio of the broadcast to promote whatever.
 
As I said on an earlier thread, I'll gladly accept any mention of WBB by anyone on any platform. But especially on ESPN, since it is the most-viewed sports-related channel and (probably) the most viewed sports-related website.

Sure, knowledgeable, devoted fans of WBB don't need it, but anything that will attract the casual fan works for me.
 
Any publicity is good publicity. But ESPN acts like a PR agent for WBB. They did a segment on Texas A&M games this morning, praising the Aggies for two tough wins. But they refused to mention the controversies regarding inept officiating. Twitter has lit up over those missed calls, but ESPN decided to report a feel good story while missing the headline.
 
Last edited:
For some reason, ESPN/ABC has decided to schedule UCONN/ IOWA for 1PM on Saturday (10AM PST) instead of primetime. The Caitlin/ Paige matchup is the talk of women's college basketball, but the primetime game is Texas A&M vs. Arizona. Scheduling like this causes a ratings disaster & shows a disregard for showcasing the women's game.
 
jaydee602 said:
For some reason, ESPN/ABC has decided to schedule UCONN/ IOWA for 1PM on Saturday (10AM PST) instead of primetime. The Caitlin/ Paige matchup is the talk of women's college basketball, but the primetime game is Texas A&M vs. Arizona. Scheduling like this causes a ratings disaster & shows a disregard for showcasing the women's game.
Expand ...
On a Saturday, I bet that’s the best time slot that doesn’t have to compete with the men’s S16.
 
.-.
Maybe ESPN should try less. They should not have any analysts or journalists cover WBB, and they should stop broadcasting any games. So the games can be behind a pay-wall/subscription, so only devoted die hard fans have to watch it.
 
ucbart said:
On a Saturday, I bet that’s the best time slot that doesn’t have to compete with the men’s S16.
Expand ...
Yup. Saturday night isn't exactly a strong time slot for anything. Good call putting our game on first on a Saturday and on a national network like ABC that reaches almost every home in the country while ESPN2 does not. Plus the late games are tough on the team, so this is a win-win.
 
I love WBB for all of the things you said. But the first two rounds of this tournament were generally ugly. I've never seen so many missed layups, lack of offense, and lack of coaching. I'm glad we are at the sweet 16, hopefully the quality of the games get better.

I don't necessarily enjoy the commentators babbling, but sometimes it's better than the product on the floor. "That's so-and-so's 6th missed layup in the first 3 minutes of this quarter." I cringe at what casual fans think when they were watching those first round games.
 
ABC has significantly larger footprint than ESPN. ABC is in approximately 114.8 million households while ESPN is in roughly 87 million. The UConn name is more universally known than any of the other names and makes most sense to have them play before a larger audience.
 
I'm totally fine with any coverage of WCBB. Puff pieces, in-detail analysis, etc. The men get this kind of treatment all the time, there is always content available comparing players through generations. I was SO EXCITED to see a mention of Jackie Stiles on ESPN.
 
.-.
Reypl21 said:
I love WBB for all of the things you said. But the first two rounds of this tournament were generally ugly. I've never seen so many missed layups, lack of offense, and lack of coaching. I'm glad we are at the sweet 16, hopefully the quality of the games get better.

I don't necessarily enjoy the commentators babbling, but sometimes it's better than the product on the floor. "That's so-and-so's 6th missed layup in the first 3 minutes of this quarter." I cringe at what casual fans think when they were watching those first round games.
Expand ...
I can't remember what team it was in the men's tournament, but there was one player that MISSED three consecutive slam dunks and you want to talk about missing a lay up.
 
Agree that while there have been some
Close and exciting games the quality of
Play has not been great
Re the coaching. Let’s just say that based on talent Louisville and A&M should have had a much easier time.and Tennessee should have at least been competitive
Should make UConn fans incredibly
Appreciative GA and the other coaches
 
Reypl21 said:
I love WBB for all of the things you said. But the first two rounds of this tournament were generally ugly. I've never seen so many missed layups, lack of offense, and lack of coaching. I'm glad we are at the sweet 16, hopefully the quality of the games get better.

I don't necessarily enjoy the commentators babbling, but sometimes it's better than the product on the floor. "That's so-and-so's 6th missed layup in the first 3 minutes of this quarter." I cringe at what casual fans think when they were watching those first round games.
Expand ...
Me thinks you exaggerate. There are alway clunkers in some games on both the men’s and women’s side. There are also some mismatches because parity works from the top down and the Women’s game is still evolving. But there were some pretty close and exciting games just to get into the Sweet Sixteen. That is an improvement in the quality of the product.

that product deserves quality officiating and commentating. Since commentating was mentioned in the original post on this topic, I’ll stick with that: It sucks the purple weenie. There continues to be stretches of time where the play by play announcer is engaged in irrelevant banter about places to eat in San Antonio while points are scored, rebounds and steals are being made and substitutes are going in and out. And, it just doesn’t only happen when the game is already decided. It can happen whenever one of them decides to start the gibberish going. A play by play person has only one job. Call the freakin game!!!
 
hoopsfan22 said:
I don't have a problem with Creme's writing, just don't call it reseeding. Seeds were chosen a week and a half ago and can't be redone, so it's a dumb concept. It's fine to write articles about what tourney teams have shown us or not shown us as they progress through their brackets. The rivalries present marketing (a.k.a. hype) opportunities. You want people to watch, well this is just something you have to put up with to garner more interest. The announcers are annoying. I think many of us want purist type broadcasts, but that hasn't been the way of the world for years, and they assume that as long as we can visually follow the game, we don't need announcers to actually call the game too, so they can use the audio of the broadcast to promote whatever.
Expand ...
hoopsfan22 said:
they can use the audio of the broadcast to promote whatever.
Expand ...
And we can use the MUTE button to silence whatever they're promoting . . .
BTW we have 2 threads today, one complaining that ESPN is doing too little to promote the women's game and this one saying it's trying too hard. Hello.
1616701683039.png
 
huskyd said:
And we can use the MUTE button to silence whatever they're promoting . . .
BTW we have 2 threads today, one complaining that ESPN is doing too little to promote the women's game and this one saying it's trying too hard. Hello.
View attachment 66286
Expand ...
It's a thread, which requires the posters input, which you gave none. Everybody understands the mute button. We're talking about presenting the WCBB product. I made some points about my disappointment in the presentation. I'm waiting with bated breath to actually hear what you have to say on the subject. I know: how about the emoji with the head bouncing off the wall. That's always good for a knee-slapping laugh.
 
Reypl21 said:
... commentators babbling, but sometimes it's better than the product on the floor.
Expand ...
I STRONGLY disagree. The babbling is NEVER better than the product on the floor. The message of the babbling is - the product is horrible so please listen to us talk. A guaranteed way to NOT attract fans.
 
.-.
Reypl21 said:
I love WBB for all of the things you said. But the first two rounds of this tournament were generally ugly. I've never seen so many missed layups, lack of offense, and lack of coaching. I'm glad we are at the sweet 16, hopefully the quality of the games get better.

I don't necessarily enjoy the commentators babbling, but sometimes it's better than the product on the floor. "That's so-and-so's 6th missed layup in the first 3 minutes of this quarter." I cringe at what casual fans think when they were watching those first round games.
Expand ...
Agreed! The Arizona-BYU game was basically unwatchable. It was literally painful to watch them clank shot after shot (though there were quite a few air balls as well)! Arizona had one stretch where they went more than five minutes without scoring! It is so sad to watch teams dribble their way through a game as though they never heard of an assist. As I said in another post, it truly opens your eyes to the incredible level of play here at UConn. I think sometimes we forget just how special and incredible the quality of play we have enjoyed for these past 30 years really is!
 
MD#12Fan said:
  • Announcers babbling while the game is going on. Who committed the foul?, who's ball is it?, what happened to the shot clock?
Expand ...
I watched almost all of the first-round and second-round games. The babbling you refer to was ever-present but kudos to Tamika Catchings. Catchings did a wonderful job, commenting when warranted but not opining or going off on tangents. She has become my favorite commentator.
 
MSGRET said:
I can't remember what team it was in the men's tournament, but there was one player that MISSED three consecutive slam dunks and you want to talk about missing a lay up.
Expand ...
I was just about to make the same comment. For all of the crap the women's game gets, go watch some men's games. Sure they are faster and can dunk, but lots of those games are pretty ugly too.
 
jaydee602 said:
For some reason, ESPN/ABC has decided to schedule UCONN/ IOWA for 1PM on Saturday (10AM PST) instead of primetime. The Caitlin/ Paige matchup is the talk of women's college basketball, but the primetime game is Texas A&M vs. Arizona. Scheduling like this causes a ratings disaster & shows a disregard for showcasing the women's game.
Expand ...

Prime time would have meant ESPN
1PM means a national channel
The good folks at Disney decided to go for major network.
 
I agree the play by play announcer should stay on task at least until the game is well out of reach but still get in the important things like who fouled, personnel changes etc. The color commentator is doing their job. It should fill the voids not take over. These people are told what to do by their bosses depending on who is playing. They aren't concerned about us. We will watch anyway. They are trying to offer information that might create more fans and keep eyes on the TV. We should be happy they are trying to do that. I'm just hoping that Lobo's shot after a great segment on sports center didn't ruffle the feathers so much they go back to ignoring the women. As best as I remember he said something nice to he about her coverage and she responded with "And thank you for finally giving the women the coverage they deserve". I know that quote is a bit off but the jist was there.
 
Sorry one more observation - you can complain about ESPN but at least they were willing to spend a half billion dollars to broadcast the women's tournament and at half time give us coverage of the womens game and the game in progress instead of going to a studio group that never even mentions a woman like another network did during the season!
 
.-.
This year you have to be cognizant that the broadcasters aren’t in the arena. They sometimes don’t necessarily know who a foul was on either until it shows up on their stats feed. They can’t see referee hands or the scoreboard or listen to the PA announcer.
 
My problem with ESPN is they sometimes act as if they are God's gift to the sporting world, and the only opinion that counts. Have they enhanced the lives of sports fans everywhere? Yes, but in particular with women's basketball recruiting and Charlie Creme's brackets they are given far more significance than their ability deserves.

When a top recruit signs somewhere, most of the media says she was ranked whatever ESPN says, and completely ignores the other rating services. In my opinion Prospect Nation, Blue Star, and ASGR are not just a little better, but far better than ESPN, but because of the ESPN brand and reach their rating is almost always the one quoted as if it was the most accurate, which is sad.

If you compare ratings and one seems way out of line, more often than not it is ESPN that is late to change a rating on a rising talent. They make no attempt to at least ballpark ratings for the best foreign players (a fault of the others as well) and they carry inaccurate information on their listings for long periods before correcting it. Carolyn Ducharme was 5-10 for example for at least a year on their site.

As for Charlie and his brackets, it seems like he and ESPN think the NCAA should just bow to his greatness and accept his brackets as the truth the light and the way. Once again they have succeeded in being the most quoted source on this subject. People everywhere are saying this team is in or out based on one man's opinion, which is no better than most of the posters on the Boneyard. Personally I disagree with Charlie and his brackets not some of the time but most of the time. Do I think the AP Poll, Coaches Poll, and quantitative ratings like Massey and Her Hoops Stats are all better sources than Charlie for creating the tournament brackets? Absolutely!

ESPN does many things well. With their brand and marketing reach, anyone they try to promote as an authority in a fringe sport for them (like women's basketball) will be considered an expert whether the quality of their work deserves it or not. At least in those two categories IMO the quality of the work does not justify the significance they are given because of their market dominance.
 
MD#12Fan said:
Announcers babbling while the game is going on. Who committed the foul?, who's ball is it?, what happened to the shot clock?
Expand ...
I always find that a tacit statement that the announcers don’t believe that the game is interesting.
 
Gurleyman said:
This year you have to be cognizant that the broadcasters aren’t in the arena. They sometimes don’t necessarily know who a foul was on either until it shows up on their stats feed. They can’t see referee hands or the scoreboard or listen to the PA announcer.
Expand ...
Very true! Which is why they should focus more on the game & not be talking on top of each other with rambling stories.
 
MD#12Fan said:
Being educated fans, I feel like we're trying to watch this tournament despite the "din" of ESPN. Din defined as a loud, unpleasant, prolonged noise.
We love WCBB because of the quality of play, the quality of the players, and the coaches. We don't need a "carnival barker" in the background.
  • Charlie Creme- reseeding
  • Creating rivalries
  • Announcers babbling while the game is going on. Who committed the foul?, who's ball is it?, what happened to the shot clock?
This morning I woke up to some inane article about the best player with each number. Holdsclaw over Moore, #23. What in the world is that about? First of all, it is ridiculous, and the timing could not be worse, with Moore on a two-year sabbatical, trying to make the world a better place for all of us.
Thank goodness for 8 great matchups coming up this weekend. Maybe ESPN will let us watch in peace.
Expand ...
Did you ever see Holdsclaw play? She is the one that first got me interested in WCBB.I had never seen a woman play the game like her.If you put a bag over her head you couldn't tell if she was a girl or a guy.Since then there have been many that play like that..her stats are as good or better than Maya's and she did win 3 NCAA's.As far as Maya being away that has nothing to do with the article on uniform numbers..there opinion on who ranked where..wasn't a knock on Maya or any of the other players mentioned..maybe they should have contacted every player named to make sure the timing was right because their name was mentioned
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,508
Messages
4,579,417
Members
10,489
Latest member
Djw06001


Top Bottom