UConn v. Temple Broadcast Rant

[tomcat]

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.

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.

 

[BigBird]

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.

 

[Billybonggg]

"....and now (gushing) Skylar Diggins has almost 10,000 followers on twitter..." -Doris Burke. It's not like we haven't seen this before.

 

[donalddoowop]

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.

Experience is not going to change the sound of her voice. Saying that, I hope she succeeds at being an analyst.

 

[SVCBeercats]

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.

 

[HuskyNan]

Experience is not going to change the sound of her voice. Saying that, I hope she succeeds at being an analyst.

There are vocal/speech coaches that can help her pitch her voice differently and speak more slowly, with more volume. She just needs to work at it.

 

[DaddyChoc]

watch on the BIG screen with the volume down... and read the "Game Thread"?

 

[phil sampieri]

Ooops, sorry I thought I was on a basketball site not a critique on broadcasters. I would venture a guess that if they were to take a poll
about who was good or bad it would be a 50-50, so what's the big deal.

 

[BigBird]

Ooops, sorry I thought I was on a basketball site not a critique on broadcasters. I would venture a guess that if they were to take a poll
about who was good or bad it would be a 50-50, so what's the big deal.

If you don’t like it, don’t read it. If we “took a poll” in America as to who does or doesn’t like sports, we might get a 5o-50 result, so let’s not talk about that either.

 

[ctkaiser]

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.

That lack of announcing a foul, who it's on, etc seems to have become common. If they're not going to announce it at least put up a graphic.

 

[msf22b]

I take a middle view, just saw the replay.

Other then the fact that Sue and Tiff (for the most part) refrained from calling the game (as the process is generally understood); substitutions, who the foul is on , how many...etc.

In other respects, I found Sue's comments: interesting, informative, illuminating.

I expect, she'll scope out the gig