Because most games don't have certain announcers.Certain announcers can greatly enhance the enjoyment of whatever game you're watching... I don't get those who say they like watching with the sound off.
Marty Glickman is a legend!Great recollection! And you may recall that Marty Glickman was the UConn mens basketball radio play by play announcer for a season in the 70s. To this day I have a clear recollection of listening to him call a UConn game from Tulsa, OK (for whatever reason I remember that one).
I know he did UConn football for a couple of seasons.Great recollection! And you may recall that Marty Glickman was the UConn mens basketball radio play by play announcer for a season in the 70s. To this day I have a clear recollection of listening to him call a UConn game from Tulsa, OK (for whatever reason I remember that one).
Why would you begrudge what anyone makes? I say good for them.The announcer cost for guys like Romo, Aikman, Buck, and Brady is outrageous.
Because they don't pay people who produce more than them. There is a finite amount of talent money to go around.Why would you begrudge what anyone makes? I say good for them.
Why would you begrudge what anyone makes? I say good for them.
I completely agree. I don't begrudge anyone their success.
But I do examine the value of things. If it could be proven that announcers increase ratings, then they deserve a share of the revenue they produce. My guess is that announcers of games have very little effect, positive or negative, on the viewership numbers of the games that announce. My theory is that people tune in to see the Patriots or the Cowboy or their favorite team and the announcers do not enter into the decision to watch or not watch the game.
This makes me wonder what is the value proposition that makes Romo worth 18 million dollars a year if he doesn't contribute to ratings. There are certainly less high profile individuals that could analyse the game as well, perhaps better, than Romo at a better price. There has to be something else at play here.
Why would you begrudge what anyone makes? I say good for them.
I don't think that's the point. I'm just not sure that you had to pay them that much? Who are you bidding against? Brady makes $25M more per year than Greg Olson. If they make $25,000,001 more in ad revenue because Brady broadcasts games - it is a good deal.
Nitpicking here, but actually that's inaccurate. Revenue directly attributable to Brady would have to at minimum equal his salary plus whatever the company's expected margins are. So if the company historically budgets for a 6% profit margin, then net revenue would have to equal 1.06% cost of Brady. And actually higher than that as Brady isn't a fixed cost.
Sorry, Bob Sheppard was the Voice of God.John Facenda……..the Voice of God.
He was a newsman he didn't announce games, he did highlights for NFL films.John Facenda……..the Voice of God.
Correct. I watched him do the news on WCAU TV 10 in Philadelphia!He was a newsman he didn't announce games, he did highlights for NFL films.
As for the money talk, I disagree that announcers don't influence a broadcast. It's not that you won't watch the game you love if the announcers are bad, you're more apt to seek out a who cares game if Howard Cosell is on it, or John Madden etc. Some voices are grating and boring, others mellifluous and informative. And there's the Q factor. Won't you be more apt to see a movie if a certain actor is in it, over another? That's the answer.