| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63763
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/20/22 3:56 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| I’m surprised SC hasn’t made a pointed effort to get Boston a cheap two points to extend that consecutive double double streak they can’t stop talking about.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63763
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/22 3:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| It lives for us to hear about it again.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7826
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/22 4:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| lynxmania wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Miami WON the ACC tournament? They are literally spastic on offense - dribbling, shooting, passing. This is weird. |
NC State won the ACC Tournament |
But SC didn't win theirs! And I don't think they will win the whole enchilada this time either. Not shooting like this.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3316
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/22 4:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Didn't watch, but checked the ESPN app, and the box score is giving me "I just took out enough to win" vibes.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/22 4:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm not often switching back and forth from men's to women's games like I have been the past few days, and I tend to watch a lot more women's than men's games during the season, but what I've been struck by the past few days is how horribly pathetic most of the women's announcers are, ESPECIALLY compared to those on the men's games. Here we have what are presumably the cream of the crop in the tournament games and the difference is stark.
Turn on CBS right now and watch the men's game and get some real analysis and commentary without cheerleading and hype and off topic babbling, and then compare to the crap we got for two hours from Peck and friends.
It's really sad. And unfortunately I think it affects the overall credibility of the women's game. The women's announcing too often just sounds amateurish.
BTW, Candace Parker is OUTSTANDING on the men's studio show. Too often these days it seems there are women placed in roles on men's games where they simply aren't very good and reinforce the stereotype that they're just there for political correctness reasons. But Parker fits perfectly. She's prepared, she has good thoughts and commentary, she's well spoken. When there are more women like her in these roles it won't keep looking so artificial and forced.
Why am I not surprised that Parker is a total pro at this. She's generally a total pro at everything she does.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/22 4:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
watch the men's game and get some real analysis and commentary without cheerleading and hype and off topic babbling, and then compare to the crap we got for two hours from Peck and friends.
It's really sad. And unfortunately I think it affects the overall credibility of the women's game. The women's announcing too often just sounds amateurish.
|
The few moonlighting men coaches the women's tourney has used for a occasional games as color commentator have consistently stuck to insightful basketball analysis—specifically, Harry Perretta, Mike Thibeau and Dan Hughes. |
|
Iluvacc
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 4167
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/22 7:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
I'm not often switching back and forth from men's to women's games like I have been the past few days, and I tend to watch a lot more women's than men's games during the season, but what I've been struck by the past few days is how horribly pathetic most of the women's announcers are, ESPECIALLY compared to those on the men's games. Here we have what are presumably the cream of the crop in the tournament games and the difference is stark.
Turn on CBS right now and watch the men's game and get some real analysis and commentary without cheerleading and hype and off topic babbling, and then compare to the crap we got for two hours from Peck and friends.
It's really sad. And unfortunately I think it affects the overall credibility of the women's game. The women's announcing too often just sounds amateurish.
BTW, Candace Parker is OUTSTANDING on the men's studio show. Too often these days it seems there are women placed in roles on men's games where they simply aren't very good and reinforce the stereotype that they're just there for political correctness reasons. But Parker fits perfectly. She's prepared, she has good thoughts and commentary, she's well spoken. When there are more women like her in these roles it won't keep looking so artificial and forced.
Why am I not surprised that Parker is a total pro at this. She's generally a total pro at everything she does. |
Yes she is!
My biggest pet peeve with the women's announcers is too much color commentating and not enough play by play analysis.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3316
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/22 9:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Iluvacc wrote: |
| My biggest pet peeve with the women's announcers is too much color commentating and not enough play by play analysis. |
Hard disagree. Play-by-play is almost entirely useless, in a televised game. I don't need somebody to describe the play, as it's happening. I can see it happening, with my own eyes. What EYE need is somebody who can explain what I'm looking at, in terms of the "game within a game": why the player would do whatever it was they just did, or why the coach decided to run that offense/defense, why what a player just did will or won't translate to the next level. Stuff like that. Play-by-play, by comparison, is almost entirely redundant.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7826
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/22 9:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| Iluvacc wrote: |
| My biggest pet peeve with the women's announcers is too much color commentating and not enough play by play analysis. |
Hard disagree. Play-by-play is almost entirely useless, in a televised game. I don't need somebody to describe the play, as it's happening. I can see it happening, with my own eyes. What EYE need is somebody who can explain what I'm looking at, in terms of the "game within a game": why the player would do whatever it was they just did, or why the coach decided to run that offense/defense, why what a player just did will or won't translate to the next level. Stuff like that. Play-by-play, by comparison, is almost entirely redundant. |
I’d be happy if they’d do that and stick to the players in the game at hand instead of babbling about one or two supposed “super players” that everyone except fans of their teams are sick of hearing about.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3316
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/22 10:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
I’d be happy if they’d do that and stick to the players in the game at hand instead of babbling about one or two supposed “super players” that everyone except fans of their teams are sick of hearing about. |
I think that you may be grossly underestimating the number of casuals who don't watch a ton of women's college basketball, but rather check in and out very infrequently, if at all, and haven't heard this incessant "babbling" you speak of.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/20/22 11:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| Iluvacc wrote: |
| My biggest pet peeve with the women's announcers is too much color commentating and not enough play by play analysis. |
Hard disagree. Play-by-play is almost entirely useless, in a televised game. I don't need somebody to describe the play, as it's happening. I can see it happening, with my own eyes. What EYE need is somebody who can explain what I'm looking at, in terms of the "game within a game": why the player would do whatever it was they just did, or why the coach decided to run that offense/defense, why what a player just did will or won't translate to the next level. Stuff like that. Play-by-play, by comparison, is almost entirely redundant. |
My blind partner would disagree. And it's not even exactly play by play that he would like, but at least some acknowledgement of what is happening in the game. Actually a good play by play person does both what you're asking for and what he'd like. THe duos we get in women's bball often do neither one...and therein lies the problem. They babble on about totally irrelevant stuff or stuff that happened yesterday or how nice someone is, etc... I'm thinking about the old Minnesota Lynx guy who did a fabulous job of both calling the game and at the same time adding relevant data.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/22 1:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| Iluvacc wrote: |
| My biggest pet peeve with the women's announcers is too much color commentating and not enough play by play analysis. |
Hard disagree. Play-by-play is almost entirely useless, in a televised game. I don't need somebody to describe the play, as it's happening. I can see it happening, with my own eyes. |
Disagree strongly with Silky's point of view on the role of a play-by-play announcer.
For almost 70 years, I've watched a lot of basketball on TV and now computer. On all levels: high school, college, pro, and international. Many of these teams are new or little known to me. Hence, I don't know by eye the majority of players I watch on all these variegated teams. Therefore, I want the play-by-play announcer to tell me who has the ball, who passed it, who shot it, who rebounded it, who just subbed in and out, who has how many fouls, and other player-specific info.
If all a fan does is watch the same team, or small number of teams, over and over again, I suppose that fan gets to know everyone by eye. But even then, not all eyes are equally acute when you get old, especially if you watch on an aged and blurry CRT TV or a tiny phone screen. |
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3316
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/22 2:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| My blind partner would disagree. |
This is splitting hairs, IMO, but fine, I'll clarify: a play-by-play announcer on television is almost entirely redundant, because you can see what's happening, as they're announcing it. If you can't see what's happening, then a play-by-play announcer is obviously useful, but if you can't see what's happening, you might as well be listening on the radio. My opinion of the value of play-by-play on radio is very, very different to my opinion of its value on a visual medium.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3316
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/22 2:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| ... If all a fan does is watch the same team, or small number of teams, over and over again, I suppose that fan gets to know everyone by eye. But even then, not all eyes are equally acute when you get old, especially if you watch on an aged and blurry CRT TV or a tiny phone screen. |
With respect, and at the risk of coming across as classist, they make decent TVs too affordable these days for me to have much empathy for somebody still trying to rock with a CRT.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Iluvacc
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 4167
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/22 2:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| Iluvacc wrote: |
| My biggest pet peeve with the women's announcers is too much color commentating and not enough play by play analysis. |
Hard disagree. Play-by-play is almost entirely useless, in a televised game. I don't need somebody to describe the play, as it's happening. I can see it happening, with my own eyes. What EYE need is somebody who can explain what I'm looking at, in terms of the "game within a game": why the player would do whatever it was they just did, or why the coach decided to run that offense/defense, why what a player just did will or won't translate to the next level. Stuff like that. Play-by-play, by comparison, is almost entirely redundant. |
I would include that with play by play since it’s accompanies the action that is taking place on the floor as opposed to the wild tangents and anecdotes the announcers usually embark upon.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/22 3:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Quite a few women's teams don't have radio coverage. We actually do look for that when it's available although it's almost never in sync with the tv. Otherwise I try to add some play by play, but even though I watch a lot of women's teams, I still don't know all the players on all the teams. And there are usually several girls on each team that look alike from tv distance, so my play by play is pretty limited.
As I said before, they can actually do play by play and still fill in with a lot of good commentary. It's not either/or. It happens a lot on the men's side. BUt is relatively rare for us on the women's side. One of those inequality things that isn't recognized...yet.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/22 4:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| ... If all a fan does is watch the same team, or small number of teams, over and over again, I suppose that fan gets to know everyone by eye. But even then, not all eyes are equally acute when you get old, especially if you watch on an aged and blurry CRT TV or a tiny phone screen. |
With respect, and at the risk of coming across as classist, they make decent TVs too affordable these days for me to have much empathy for somebody still trying to rock with a CRT. |
Plenty of old people on small fixed incomes can't afford new TV's.
But you've skipped over and haven't addressed my primary point, which relates to viewers of any age on any device who watch lots of unfamiliar teams with lots of players whom they don't know by sight.
Besides, what's the purpose of a play-by-play announcer if not to call the details of every play? What most WBB games have is two irrelevantly gabbing talking heads, most of whom who don't have the ability or interest to technically analyze the game at all.
It's pathetic, and completely incongruous with the type of play calling and game analysis one gets with men's basketball, football, hockey, soccer and virtually every other team sport. |
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3316
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/22 9:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| But you've skipped over and haven't addressed my primary point, which relates to viewers of any age on any device who watch lots of unfamiliar teams with lots of players whom they don't know by sight. |
I'm of the personal opinion that basketball moves too fast for that to be worthwhile. Your mileage obviously varies. At any rate, you clearly watch way more basketball than I do; quiet as its kept, I don't like sports that much. I tend to keep to the pros, where everybody on the court is somebody I've heard of, and they're pretty easy to tell apart.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3316
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/22 9:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Iluvacc wrote: |
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| Iluvacc wrote: |
| My biggest pet peeve with the women's announcers is too much color commentating and not enough play by play analysis. |
Hard disagree. Play-by-play is almost entirely useless, in a televised game. I don't need somebody to describe the play, as it's happening. I can see it happening, with my own eyes. What EYE need is somebody who can explain what I'm looking at, in terms of the "game within a game": why the player would do whatever it was they just did, or why the coach decided to run that offense/defense, why what a player just did will or won't translate to the next level. Stuff like that. Play-by-play, by comparison, is almost entirely redundant. |
I would include that with play by play since it’s accompanies the action that is taking place on the floor as opposed to the wild tangents and anecdotes the announcers usually embark upon. |
If a play-by-play announcer is concentrating on doing what you think is so important, they won't have enough bandwidth to concentrate on that, too. That's why there's a color commentator, in the first place.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3316
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/21/22 9:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
Quite a few women's teams don't have radio coverage. We actually do look for that when it's available although it's almost never in sync with the tv. Otherwise I try to add some play by play, but even though I watch a lot of women's teams, I still don't know all the players on all the teams. And there are usually several girls on each team that look alike from tv distance, so my play by play is pretty limited.
As I said before, they can actually do play by play and still fill in with a lot of good commentary. It's not either/or. It happens a lot on the men's side. BUt is relatively rare for us on the women's side. One of those inequality things that isn't recognized...yet. |
How much of that is a function of aspiring broadcasters actively not pursuing careers in women's sports?
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8942
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/22 9:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| ... If all a fan does is watch the same team, or small number of teams, over and over again, I suppose that fan gets to know everyone by eye. But even then, not all eyes are equally acute when you get old, especially if you watch on an aged and blurry CRT TV or a tiny phone screen. |
With respect, and at the risk of coming across as classist, they make decent TVs too affordable these days for me to have much empathy for somebody still trying to rock with a CRT. |
Plenty of old people on small fixed incomes can't afford new TV's.
But you've skipped over and haven't addressed my primary point, which relates to viewers of any age on any device who watch lots of unfamiliar teams with lots of players whom they don't know by sight.
Besides, what's the purpose of a play-by-play announcer if not to call the details of every play? What most WBB games have is two irrelevantly gabbing talking heads, most of whom who don't have the ability or interest to technically analyze the game at all.
It's pathetic, and completely incongruous with the type of play calling and game analysis one gets with men's basketball, football, hockey, soccer and virtually every other team sport. |
This is why the NCAA should mandate that all teams have names on the jerseys in a location that they can be seen. If that's on the lower back because of longer hair, then that's where it needs to be.
You want to grow the game, then make the players known to the casual fan who is just tuning in. Stop the BS "it's about the name on the front of the jersey, not the back." If you as a coach can't get that through to your athlete or you as an athlete can't get that through your head, neither of you has any business being where you are.
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7826
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/22 9:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I agree with the name on the lower back of the jerseys. It really helps when watching teams I'm not familiar with.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/22 4:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| Iluvacc wrote: |
| My biggest pet peeve with the women's announcers is too much color commentating and not enough play by play analysis. |
Hard disagree. Play-by-play is almost entirely useless, in a televised game. I don't need somebody to describe the play, as it's happening. I can see it happening, with my own eyes. What EYE need is somebody who can explain what I'm looking at, in terms of the "game within a game": why the player would do whatever it was they just did, or why the coach decided to run that offense/defense, why what a player just did will or won't translate to the next level. Stuff like that. Play-by-play, by comparison, is almost entirely redundant. |
That is just completely wrong.
Just go listen to any game done by Jim Nantz with Bill Raftery and you'll know exactly how play-by-play and commentary should be done and should co-exist.
And then listen to any game with Carolyn Peck and learn everything about how it should NOT be done.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/22 7:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Just go listen to any game done by Jim Nantz with Bill Raftery and you'll know exactly how play-by-play and commentary should be done and should co-exist.
And then listen to any game with Carolyn Peck and learn everything about how it should NOT be done. |
So true. And so sad. Once in awhile there is a duo that I really appreciate, but it's just SO rare.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3316
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/22/22 7:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Just go listen to any game done by Jim Nantz with Bill Raftery and you'll know exactly how play-by-play and commentary should be done and should co-exist.
And then listen to any game with Carolyn Peck and learn everything about how it should NOT be done. |
Meh. Peck's awfulness doesn't make Nantz and Rafferty good, even by comparison. They're all pretty bad, in my opinion. They're just different kinds of bad.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
|
|
