[besson3c]

I admit that I don't really watch other sports, so I'm only assuming that this is the same there as well, but lately I've been thinking that the whole concept of having a bunch of generally older people give the play-by-play is a very outdated concept that is pretty long in the tooth in the age of having large HD TVs and the internet. I find the play-by-play in baseball on TV in particular *very* annoying, I can't think of any TV broadcasters I don't find annoying. Am I the only one?

For one, I find it totally unnecessary to have them tell us what we can see plainly for ourselves, I find it unnecessary that they feel compelled to fill up every awkward silence with pointless chatter, I find the plastic formality idiotic, and the epic sort of presentation and use of graphics and other visuals unintelligent. I suppose I'm not their demographic, but on the other hand, if it is true that baseball is losing ratings to younger people perhaps it is time to rethink this whole formula?

I listen to a baseball podcast where people call in and ask stuff and debate stuff, and while some of the callers are not very impressive, the whole interaction between a baseball guru and fans is very cool. The stuff they talk about is the same sort of stuff that is talked about in forums yet never on air: what certain stats mean, trade possibilities, how contracts are structured, sports psychology, etc. This seems to be what younger fans want to talk about, yet this is not what they do during the broadcasts.

Why not make these events far more interactive, making use of the internet, and allow fans to dictate the discussion rather than allowing a couple of older guys yammer on about how some pitcher reminds them of somebody in the 1970s? Why not make the games more of a town hall thing, sort of like some friends and smart baseball dudes sitting around and talking about the game rather than just calling balls and strikes and remarking about how that foul ball went into the stands about 6 rows back?

Again, I don't know if this is quite the same in other sports, but I have often found NFL games to be pretty plastic, and the half time stuff pretty dumb. Maybe these other sports are more in touch with their fans and this is what they want, but is there a sense of interaction and connection with the fans?

When you think about it, this formula was designed when there wasn't 2348230948 ways to watch the game and people had tiny little TV sets pre HD. Is it time to come up with a better formula to replace the current one?

[numbers25]

You're right in most of the point, but lets say that the media allows internet users to discuss about the game online and that discussion is available for all the people that watches that.
What the media will be afraid is that they will not be able to control or in other words censor what the people is talking about.
I think there's still a sport where the traditional model is the good one and that's soccer, i'm a soccer fan and the idea of removing the people narrating the event is just not an option

[besson3c]

I'm not necessarily suggesting that we remove the narration or expertise altogether, but just that these commentators become accessible with their fans so that the kind of things they talk about are the kind of things the fans care about or want to learn about. The fans should be dictating what the conversations are, is what I think...

[ghporter]

Way too much time is dedicated to talking heads with bad ties and clunky headsets in any sports broadcast. Does anyone remember "listening to a game on the radio?" I used to listen to baseball on the radio, and between Ernie Harwell and my imagination, I got the whole game experience. On TV, baseball can be boring, but with a good commentator, you don't need all the "5 camera coverage" and "re-re-replay" stuff; you get it the first time from the commentator who's narrating the game.

What irks me more though, is that now it seems that it's the "former athlete" commentators who take control of the game. It may just be an impression, but it sure seems that football games are slower with more interruptions because of the commentators, not the flow of the game.

I have to disagree with numbers25 about narration of soccer. While stationed in Central America (with a sadly deficient mastery of Spanish), I watched and enjoyed many soccer matches on TV. I will point out very strongly that it was painfully obvious that advertisers grabbed every second of airtime they could (a commercial during a penalty kick setup??!!!??!), but following the game was easy for me. Maybe if I'd been following a particular team rather than the default local national team, I'd have wanted to know which player it was in the middle of the scrum that actually made a particular kick, but enjoying the game wasn't a problem.

[SpaceMonkey]

Joe Buck and Tim McCarver are the worst. The Mets' three-headed monster of Gary Cohen, Ron Darling, and Keith Hernandez is the best.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why not make the games more of a town hall thing, sort of like some friends and smart baseball dudes sitting around and talking about the game rather than just calling balls and strikes and remarking about how that foul ball went into the stands about 6 rows back?

Because some people want to watch a game, not listen to a podcast that happens to coincide with a game. The answer is just to have less talking during games, not more.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I admit that I don't really watch other sports, so I'm only assuming that this is the same there as well, but lately I've been thinking that the whole concept of having a bunch of generally older people give the play-by-play is a very outdated concept that is pretty long in the tooth in the age of having large HD TVs and the internet. I find the play-by-play in baseball on TV in particular *very* annoying, I can't think of any TV broadcasters I don't find annoying. Am I the only one?

I'm not keen on most conventional sports, but I hate soccer. And the reason why I hate it isn't so much for the game itself, but the endless chatter of the moronic monkeys commentating on it. And the after-game interviews. And the general mind-numbing stupidity which accompanies it all.

Remedy: Play the game. STFU. Then show us some boobies.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Joe Buck and Tim McCarver are the worst. The Mets' three-headed monster of Gary Cohen, Ron Darling, and Keith Hernandez is the best.

Tim McCarver is an outdated concept!

I may be a bit biased, but Gary, Keith, and Ron are the best announcing team I've heard in quite a while. (The only announcing team that might beat them is Vin Scully working alone.) I cancelled cable last year, and they're really the only thing I've missed.

(I would gladly pay SNY $200/yr to stream Mets Games over the Internet, but for some reason, they don't want to take my money. MLB.tv won't work for me, because since I have SNY available to me on cable, they black out Mets games.)

One of the reasons why they're such a good team is that they are definitely not homers. Last year, the Mets were positively putrid, and the broadcasting team pulled no punches. Gary also lets Ron and Keith recollect stories about their careers (and 1986, which is all Mets fans have to cling to now), without letting it become a distraction.

(I think Ron Darling may have been broadcasting the ALCS for TBS this year....)

[SpaceMonkey]

Yeah, I think I heard about Darling doing TBS. I don't have cable, though. I'm "lucky" enough to be out of market for MLB.tv to be worthwhile. Did you see the home game late in the season this year where the Mets fell out of reach early (can't remember the opponent, maybe someone stupid like Arizona) and Keith actually left the booth? It was fantastic. He ended up reporting in from random parts of the stadium and operated one of the cameras for a while.

[besson3c]

Well, shutting up a *lot* more may indeed be at least a start to fixing the commentators. Silence is okay with me, baseball is slow enough that every pause doesn't have to be filled up with inane babble.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, shutting up a *lot* more may indeed be at least a start to fixing the commentators. Silence is okay with me, baseball is slow enough that every pause doesn't have to be filled up with inane babble.

Mute key?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Mute key?

Yeah, but if I have to hit mute and go out of my way to hear other baseball commentary perhaps something is not as good it ought to be?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, shutting up a *lot* more may indeed be at least a start to fixing the commentators. Silence is okay with me, baseball is slow enough that every pause doesn't have to be filled up with inane babble.

The answer is obvious. We already have multiple audio stream (english/spanish). Why not play-by-play or stadium?

[besson3c]

play-by-play or stadium? What do you mean?

[The Final Dakar]

Jesus, how is that hard to decipher?

Audio stream

[besson3c]

Audio stream of the radio broadcast? Audio stream of a separate internet broadcast? Again, why not just make the TV presence better? For starters, audio streams seem to lag behind the live broadcast by a few seconds, which can be jarring when watching it along with the TV broadcast.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm done here.

[SpaceMonkey]

I think he means selecting between an audio stream of the radio/TV broadcast and an audio stream of the ambient stadium sounds.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, but if I have to hit mute and go out of my way to hear other baseball commentary perhaps something is not as good it ought to be?

Why do you need to hear any commentary at all? Aren't you actually watching the thing and can see with your own eyes what's happening? Mute the telly and stick some music on the hi-fi. Job done.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think he means selecting between an audio stream of the radio/TV broadcast and an audio stream of the ambient stadium sounds.

That would be cool if it weren't for audio latency.

I can cope with the current system, you guys don't have to suggest ways for me to deal with things, I'm just posing the argument that the current situation can be made much better, and that it ought to be.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why do you need to hear any commentary at all? Aren't you actually watching the thing and can see with your own eyes what's happening? Mute the telly and stick some music on the hi-fi. Job done.

Heh... British People. "Hi-fi"s...

It's okay, we accept you here, it's what's inside that counts.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Heh... British People. "Hi-fi"s...

Why, what the bleedin' nora do you colonial monkeys call 'em?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That would be cool if it weren't for audio latency.

[Doofy]

<singing>Sisko! Sisko!... Because Picard's a bit French and Janeway's a girl!</singing>

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why, what the bleedin' nora do you colonial monkeys call 'em?

Terrasonics...

[SpaceMonkey]

Phonographs.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That would be cool if it weren't for audio latency.

We're talking about the same broadcast outfit offering two simultaneous streams: one with play-by-play commentary, one just with ambient sounds. There shouldn't be any latency issues.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

We're talking about the same broadcast outfit offering two simultaneous streams: one with play-by-play commentary, one just with ambient sounds. There shouldn't be any latency issues.

Ahhh.... When he said streams I was thinking of internet-based streams. Do some channels currently have this option of multiple streams for watching stuff? I've never played around with a TV/channel that supported something like this.

[Sourbook]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

We're talking about the same broadcast outfit offering two simultaneous streams: one with play-by-play commentary, one just with ambient sounds. There shouldn't be any latency issues.

Dammit, I would love that. Most of the game isn't so spellbinding that I have to pay attention to every little thing. My mind could be elsewhere (reading etc.) and be called back to attention by the crack of the bat or roar of the crowd. I have no desire to listen to Tim McCarver blabber on about the evolution of shin guards.

At key moments, I can hit the commentary button and be filled in on any pertinent information.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahhh.... When he said streams I was thinking of internet-based streams. Do some channels currently have this option of multiple streams for watching stuff? I've never played around with a TV/channel that supported something like this.

Second audio program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia