UConn v. Temple Broadcast Rant | The Boneyard

UConn v. Temple Broadcast Rant

psconn

psconn

Proud Connecticut WBB Fan
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,337
Reaction Score
14,829
I need a brief rant:

I just watched the replay and between ESPN's technical difficulties and endless non-game related blather from Tiffany Greene and (heaven help me) Sue Bird, I think this was among the worst game broadcasts I can remember. That is a shame because there was a lot of good stuff happening on the court for both teams despite the score. There was the sub-plot of the bench being hammered by Geno very publicly - what would their response be? He said he might only play 5 or 6.... What would his rotation look like against buddy Tonya? Azura on defense... Sue would be great at breaking down the problems that Geno was seeing (using highlight film) and then pointing out in this game if Azura was doing anything differently. I'm sure there were similar sub-plots on the Temple side that could have given depth and context to the action.

Call me old fashioned, but these things work best when there's a play-by-play person and a color person with clear roles. In the era of High Definition, large screen TV, the play-by-play does not need to call every pass and movement BUT should describe and clarify what is happening. Very often it is not clear what a ref has called and we get no help from such "announcers" because they are not focused on the game. Fictitious example of what I want to hear - "Bent and Walker on the weave out front, looking to exploit the mismatch inside... a whistle on the play... that was Smith bumping Walker on the screen and that is now 4 fouls on Sally Smith. Walker to the line shooting 78% this season...". Color person: "This is an ongoing problem for Smith, she has fouled out three times already this season and the Owls need her on the court to control the tempo, one of Coach Cardoza's points of emphasis today. If this were a closer game, it would put Cardoza in a tough spot." etc., etc.

Two people whiling the game away verbally box-checking a bunch of bullet-list blather makes my skin crawl. Save it for time outs and half time. I don't like to turn the sound off completely, and the radio broadcast is not syched to the TV images so those aren't great options. ESPN should be embarrassed by this, but I suspect their focus is more on financial numbers than broadcast quality right now.

Rant over.
 
Last edited:
I feel your pain, and unfortunately the decline of ESPN is not likely to abate any time soon. I thought the technical issues were indefensible, but where I will differ is that I still enjoyed the broadcast team and Sue's analysis. Of course I'm quite biased. Sue Bird could receipt the dictionary, and I'd still be hopelessly a devoted fan and in love. :p
 
I actually think part of the problem is the presence of a color analyst. I think (in every case I remember) when a game has a single announcer, they tend to focus only on what is happening on the court and all the diverted side chatter goes away. I've always enjoyed those broadcasts more. Of course, USA based announcing seems to think broadcasting teams somehow enhance viewing pleasure.
 
Bird's excellence as "color analyst" was on full display Jan 21 imo. In Q3 she said "Discipline [at UConn] is knowing what you're good at and doing it to the best of your ability every single time." At the 7:10 mark of Q3 Bird said, [my paraphrase] "Basketball is not so much about 'how to.' Pretty much everyone knows 'how to.' It's 'when to.'" And seconds later, she pointed out how Gabby made her 10th assist of the game. "She saw Collier posted up...she waited, and when it was right, she dropped it in there."

Bird also shares intimacies. To Greene [paraphrasing], "I'm 37 years old, but when I walk into UConn's practice gym I'm still nervous about Dailey's criticisms or what she'll say if I dribble the ball off my foot or make a bad pass." It's what I enjoy about her "color." No one can dazzle the crowd every second in a two-hour broadcast but Bird is superior.
 
I also enjoy (sarcasm here) how on the ESPN games they show their promos for upcoming events, usually MCBB or the NBA (Not Basketball Anymore), and the announcers go off raving about a player or players during the next three minutes of the game being televised thus forgetting the on court action.
 
.-.
My biggest issue with it was they almost never said what the call was, whom the foul was on, etc. I had no idea that Napheesa had three fouls until they mentioned it in the third quarter. Then there was the play right after they mentioned it, when the Temple player was driving baseline on Pheesa and the ref blew the whistle. Never a word; I presume it was an out-of-bounds call, but sussed that out from what happened subsequently, not based on anything that was said. There were several foul calls that could have been on three different players, but we never found out who committed any of them.

I don't expect (nor do I want) a radio broadcast, but it's nice to know things like foul calls.
 
My big gripe with TV announcers (particularly in evidence yesterday) is that there are two things that (IMHO) they should ALWAYS call immediately:

  1. Who entered the game and who left?
  2. Who was the #$%&&! foul called on, and how many fouls does that player now have???
It was so bad yesterday that when I heard Rebecca say at halftime that one of the UConn starters already had three fouls, I had no idea who that was. I had to go to the ESPN live box score to find out that it was Napheesa. When a foul was whistled, these two (like most TV announcers) said that there was a foul on the play (which was obvious) but not who picked up the foul (which I really want to know). I guess if someone got 4, they might finally tell us.

TV viewers, unlike people in the live audience, are totally dependent on the announcers for this information, since there is no visible scoreboard for us TV viewers to look at.

Beyond that, I think one has to have a certain tolerance for off-topic conversation when the game is a blowout. I know that we diehard UConn fans want to know everything about every play even when UConn is winning by 40, but nobody else cares about the details at that point. That obviously includes these announcers. I don't doubt that yesterday's announcers would have focused on the game if it were going down to the wire, but that obviously wasn't the case for basically the entire second half.
 
We all love Sue, but their banter so often had nothing to do with the game's goings on. MADDENING! Might be the worst broadcast ever; even considering the Carloyn Peck days.....;(;(;(
 
A humongous screen TV might be the answer I am being forced to. ESPN is not alone in increasingly failing to mention things like player substitution and who was tagged with the foul. Not to mention they all are wearing the damn UConn bun now!! (relax, I love the bun) PLUS, and this is big for me, DTV has come up with a next generation user interface which makes the text look like the bottom line on an eye chart on a human sized monitor. Ridiculous. Anyone else wrestling with that one? I have to get up walk close to the TV select something and retreat.
 
Yeah, I was surprised yesterday by the poor quality of the broadcasters. Did the third person who was supposed to do the play-by-play call in sick? I found myself trying to listen to the PA announcer to find out what was happening but couldn't because of all the blather. It sure makes you wish it was an SNY game. (At one point I turned up the volume while I walked into the kitchen to make a cup of coffee and there wasn't s single comment that related to game action even though eight points were scored and there was foul called.

Two points, though.

First, in fairness to ESPN, they were spread a little thin this weekend for announcers and this pairing might be an experiment that "looked good on paper."

Second, UConn fans are spoiled. I'm retired and watch a lot of WCBB games thanks to having all the sports networks, a Roku, and a DVR. Try watching some of the non-top 25 games on a busy night and you'll be ready to give the SNY the top ESPN crews that usually do the key UConn games a broadcaster of the year award. (I'm not sure which is worse, no information or wrong information!) Also, some of the camera placements and fewer cameras on the lower tierl games make you feel like you're watching the game from the top row in a giant arena. I've got a 55" screen but I'd need at least double that just to read the numbers on the unis as they go by.

But let's temper that. Twenty years ago you could barely watch a WCBB game or two a week. Now, between the ESPN channels, SECN, ACCNE, Longhorn Network, Big10 Network, Pac 12 Network, CBSN, Fox Sports networks, and the ESPN 3 stream you can watch more than 100!
 
Didn't we just have a complaint from threaders not too long ago about announcers that said next to nothing? Man, like refs none of these guys can win from losing.
 
.-.
psconn said:
I need a brief rant:

I just watched the reply and between ESPN's technical difficulties and endless non-game related blather from Tiffany Greene and (heaven help me) Sue Bird, I think this was among the worst game broadcasts I can remember. That is a shame because there was a lot of good stuff happening on the court for both teams despite the score. There was the sub-plot of the bench being hammered by Geno very publicly - what would their response be? He said he might only play 5 or 6.... What would his rotation look like against buddy Tonya? Azura on defense... Sue would be great at breaking down the problems that Geno was seeing (using highlight film) and then pointing out in this game if Azura was doing anything differently. I'm sure there were similar sub-plots on the Temple side that could have given depth and context to the action.

Call me old fashioned, but these things work best when there's a play-by-play person and a color person with clear roles. In the era of High Definition, large screen TV, the play-by-play does not need to call every pass and movement BUT should describe and clarify what is happening. Very often it is not clear what a ref has called and we get no help from such "announcers" because they are not focused on the game. Fictitious example of what I want to hear - "Bent and Walker on the weave out front, looking to exploit the mismatch inside... a whistle on the play... that was Smith bumping Walker on the screen and that is now 4 fouls on Sally Smith. Walker to the line shooting 78% this season...". Color person: "This is an ongoing problem for Smith, she has fouled out three times already this season and the Owls need her on the court to control the tempo, one of Coach Cardoza's points of emphasis today. If this were a closer game, it would put Cardoza in a tough spot." etc., etc.

Two people whiling the game away verbally box-checking a bunch of bullet-list blather makes my skin crawl. Save it for time outs and half time. I don't like to turn the sound off completely, and the radio broadcast is not syched to the TV images so those aren't great options. ESPN should be embarrassed by this, but I suspect their focus is more on financial numbers than broadcast quality right now.

Rant over.
Expand ...

Hey OLDFASHioned--(you said to call you that).

More than a few on the By have complained about the non game chit chat--with some asking--why have anyone speaking at all---just put in a commercial here and there --and allow us to VIEW the game uninhibited by non game chit chat.
I liked this : "Bent and Walker on the weave out front, looking to exploit the mismatch inside... a whistle on the play... that was Smith bumping Walker on the screen and that is now 4 fouls on Sally Smith. Walker to the line shooting 78% this season...". Color person: "This is an ongoing problem for Smith, she has fouled out three times already this season and the Owls need her on the court to control the tempo, one of Coach Cardoza's points of emphasis today. If this were a closer game, it would put Cardoza in a tough spot." etc., etc.
 
JordyG said:
Didn't we just have a complaint from threaders not too long ago about announcers that said next to nothing? Man, like refs none of these guys can win from losing.
Expand ...
And some can't lose for winning!! His is a near constant complaint.
 
We have been complaining about this forever. As UConn fans we like to follow the
game pretty closely even when it's a 50 point blowout.

But I suspect ESPN is concerned about trying to keep a larger audience during such
games and perhaps figures that chit chat might be more effective to that end than
calling the game.

The UConn/Texas game was a compelling game that could hold a wider audience,
and I think the broadcast team did a pretty good job calling the game with that one.
 
It was not very professionally done. I think they should be sent to school and take a formal training class. I also don’t agree, as someone on this board suggested, that Bird has a good voice for broadcasting. I think her voice lacks authority, and the way how they conducted the broadcast, content wise, made the whole thing very much a child’s play.
 
See, I think it is pretty delusional to think that chatter will keep someone tuned in when the game is a blowout. To me, it is like saying to your audience "Yeah, the game isn't worth watching, so we are going to do something else too!"
I don't blame Sue so much - or any "color" person. The problem, to me, is that they have stopped pairing that person with a play-by-play person. That person would briefly interrupt a story to say "Third foul on Collier!" etc. If they really cant bring themselves to actually do that, I wish they would run a scroll at the bottom that did it in writing. Even when the picture is clear, it is not always easy to tell who the foul is on or what the call was.
I also wish they would use their analyst more to point out offensive and defensive strategies.

This issue doesn't seem to be just with ESPN. I found CBS did the same. SNY isn't as bad, as Frede tends to jump in but Meghan suffers from too much familiarity with this audience (we've hear a lot of this before!).
 
hussybulldog said:
It was not very professionally done. I think they should be sent to school and take a formal training class. I also don’t agree, as someone on this board suggested, that Bird has a good voice for broadcasting. I think her voice lacks authority, and the way how they conducted the broadcast, content wise, made the whole thing very much a child’s play.
Expand ...
I agree with you about Bird's voice been good for broadcasting.
 
.-.
I’m the exact opposite I don’t watch basketball to hear the commentators lol, maybe it’s just me but more often then not they all pretty much annoy me doesn’t matter who it is. So I either try to tune them out, or I’ll watch basketball games rather it’s uconn or someone else with music on.
 
It took Rebecca a while before she got the coaching she needed to be an effective color analyst. Anyone remember how she used to yell into the microphone? :eek:

Let's consider Sue a freshman at the sportscasting thing and give her a while to get up to speed.
 
As I said in the OP, I think Sue would be great at providing the analysis of what the offenses and defenses were trying to do... what's going good and what's going bad. My gosh, she's arguably the best point guard in the history of WBB. As Nan points out, she is brand new at this and needs time and guidance. She clearly has been given no, or poor, guidance.
 
I agree, that the 2 announcers were "not good." Bird talked too fast, and too softly.

But, some of the blame should be on the technicians also. Throughout the game, I could hear and understand what some of the people in the crowd were saying, but not what Sue Bird was saying.
I am not one who wants to pretend that I am at the game, and surrounded by the mouthy "know-it-alls " in the stands. ADJUST THE MICROPHONES ACCORDINGLY!
 
.-.
Charles T said:
Bird's excellence as "color analyst" was on full display Jan 21 imo. In Q3 she said "Discipline [at UConn] is knowing what you're good at and doing it to the best of your ability every single time." At the 7:10 mark of Q3 Bird said, [my paraphrase] "Basketball is not so much about 'how to.' Pretty much everyone knows 'how to.' It's 'when to.'" And seconds later, she pointed out how Gabby made her 10th assist of the game. "She saw Collier posted up...she waited, and when it was right, she dropped it in there."

Bird also shares intimacies. To Greene [paraphrasing], "I'm 37 years old, but when I walk into UConn's practice gym I'm still nervous about Dailey's criticisms or what she'll say if I dribble the ball off my foot or make a bad pass." It's what I enjoy about her "color." No one can dazzle the crowd every second in a two-hour broadcast but Bird is superior.
Expand ...

As I said in the OP, Sue can do some really good analysis of what's going on on the court for either team. The examples you give are great, and only serve to emphasize how the overall style of the broadcast wasted a really good resource in Sue.
 
Bigboote said:
My biggest issue with it was they almost never said what the call was, whom the foul was on, etc. I had no idea that Napheesa had three fouls until they mentioned it in the third quarter. Then there was the play right after they mentioned it, when the Temple player was driving baseline on Pheesa and the ref blew the whistle. Never a word; I presume it was an out-of-bounds call, but sussed that out from what happened subsequently, not based on anything that was said. There were several foul calls that could have been on three different players, but we never found out who committed any of them.

I don't expect (nor do I want) a radio broadcast, but it's nice to know things like foul calls.
Expand ...
Amen to all of this. These announcers and so many others apparently are told to chat, and in the process, they forget there's a game going on.
 
While I typically side with broadcasters when I think criticisms are unfair, in this case I agree with almost all of the criticisms. Greene and Bird were just awful, and I hope they grow and improve from each subsequent experience on the air. Even on TV, ignoring the game you are supposed to be covering is just absurd.

The audio engineering was a mess. Bird was mumbling beneath level of the crowd mike, which made her often unintelligible. It could be that after the usual pre-game “level check,” Sue accidently moved the mike, which throws everything off. This happens constantly; you only need move the mike element about a inch or so to drop the audio level greatly. Headset mikes have a very short pickup pattern for good reasons. This property means though, that you monitor its position and “ride the gain,” adjusting levels as needed. In case you wondered, most TV broadcasts use automatic level control (ALC), but not on individual mikes lines. This means that typically a too-strong voice gets adjusted down, but a voice “in the soup” (Sue) doesn’t get brought up. Every setup varies, though.

Baseball is a sport where being a storyteller is not only allowed, but required. Basketball just isn’t built for extra-topical jabbering. It is hard enough to do a good job without that. With it, you drive audiences up the wall.
 
"....and now (gushing) Skylar Diggins has almost 10,000 followers on twitter..." -Doris Burke. It's not like we haven't seen this before.
 
psconn said:
As I said in the OP, I think Sue would be great at providing the analysis of what the offenses and defenses were trying to do... what's going good and what's going bad. My gosh, she's arguably the best point guard in the history of WBB. As Nan points out, she is brand new at this and needs time and guidance. She clearly has been given no, or poor, guidance.
Expand ...
Experience is not going to change the sound of her voice. Saying that, I hope she succeeds at being an analyst.
 
You are sooooo right. I just watched the highlights of the UCONN and Temple game. For the highlights Greene and Bird's chatter is like white Gaussian noise. It is like you are at the game and some where seated around you are two people who are conversing about several topics but the game is never one of the topics. These are highlights and neither one of them is addressing them.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,397
Messages
4,570,699
Members
10,475
Latest member
dd356


Top Bottom