|
Post by hellafella on May 7, 2004 16:11:24 GMT -5
Heather Cox and Chris Marlowe have always been horrible. They should have signed Mike Dodd on, I thought he did a good job in the MPSF final.
After that, it is slim pickens for vball announcers.
|
|
|
Post by vballguy2001 on May 7, 2004 17:37:54 GMT -5
Volleyball can only improve if the rulemakers allowed only backrow attacks and eliminated the rotation rules. Right now, it's just serve, pass, set, and spike for the kill! Yeah, the subtlety of blocking schemes and the like can be enjoyed, but only for so long. are you serious? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ? I hope this isn't a joke. if they did that I would never watch a game again, let a lone play.
|
|
|
Post by roy on May 7, 2004 19:42:26 GMT -5
From a previous thread which Roger is about to delete. This is regarding BarcelonaBob's idea that Cox shouldn't dumb down the explaination:
I like that idea. I understand why Cox is always so simplistic. True, the typical person would start watching and have no idea what is going on. Sometimes, you need to keep things a little on the simpler side so they can understand what seems very basic (and even dumb) to us.
But why not throw out something really complex in every now and again. I did catch a bit when Penn State ran an "X" play against Long Beach and she explained that pretty well. Show how complex this game is and the importance of each fundamental skill by the players. By showing that this game is much more complicated than people think it is may help to give it a boost.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on May 7, 2004 19:51:12 GMT -5
From a previous thread which Roger is about to delete. This is regarding BarcelonaBob's idea that Cox shouldn't dumb down the explaination: I like that idea. I understand why Cox is always so simplistic. True, the typical person would start watching and have no idea what is going on. Sometimes, you need to keep things a little on the simpler side so they can understand what seems very basic (and even dumb) to us. But why not throw out something really complex in every now and again. I did catch a bit when Penn State ran an "X" play against Long Beach and she explained that pretty well. Show how complex this game is and the importance of each fundamental skill by the players. By showing that this game is much more complicated than people think it is may help to give it a boost. I think that it is IMPERATIVE that volleyball be "dumbed-down" as is being used in national broadcasts. For the reasons that roy stated, and more. Football is one of the few sports where they can get away with using more technical terms in a national audience, along with baseball and basketball. But, all the other sports, need to explain the rules, as the casual observer is turned off quickly when they don't understand what is going on, and can't understand what the announcers are talking about! Take baseball and myself as an example. I grew up in a non-baseball world. I had no idea about the fundamentals of the sport, and when I watched it on TV (MLB) to try to learn, I was blown away by the complexity of their acronyms and numbers (with nary an explanation of what they mean). Simply put, I stopped watching until I found a friend in later college that took the time to explain it to me. The announcers NEED to be 'that' friend for the common volleyball observer. They need to take a few minutes and recap plays explaining the strategy even (maybe in a small window). Even explain the rules better (3 hits, explain what a double-contact is). As the audience and rating grow, these could be raised in complexity, but let's face it. We know the sport and can critique the announcers, true, but the average sleepless channel changer at 1 am in New York who might be catching the semifinal isn't going to have a clue.
|
|
OC24
Freshman
Posts: 94
|
Post by OC24 on May 7, 2004 20:00:22 GMT -5
I think that it is IMPERATIVE that volleyball be "dumbed-down" as is being used in national broadcasts. For the reasons that roy stated, and more. ... But, all the other sports, need to explain the rules, as the casual observer is turned off quickly when they don't understand what is going on, and can't understand what the announcers are talking about! ... The announcers NEED to be 'that' friend for the common volleyball observer. They need to take a few minutes and recap plays explaining the strategy even (maybe in a small window). Even explain the rules better (3 hits, explain what a double-contact is). As the audience and rating grow, these could be raised in complexity, but let's face it. We know the sport and can critique the announcers, true, but the average sleepless channel changer at 1 am in New York who might be catching the semifinal isn't going to have a clue. It is for exactly these reasons that Cox & Marlowe stop wasting time talking about vacationing or how their days went and that B.S. and focus on explaining the sport and what's going on, especially with the replays... People who haven't watched much volleyball likely will not have a clue what happened on half the plays and the announcers are so into themselves that they don't explain it either.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on May 7, 2004 20:09:23 GMT -5
It is for exactly these reasons that Cox & Marlowe stop wasting time talking about vacationing or how their days went and that B.S. and focus on explaining the sport and what's going on, especially with the replays... People who haven't watched much volleyball likely will not have a clue what happened on half the plays and the announcers are so into themselves that they don't explain it either. I didn't see the game on TV (just briefly start of game 1) so don't really know much about what was said or how much time spent on it. However, I think that it is important for the broadcasters to spend a little bit of time relating personal stories about themselves, or to the game to build a clientele with the audience. It could easily be overdone, however, and I've seen a lot of times when it has been done that the announcers spend more time talking about nothing related to the sport...but mostly, I've noticed this in blowouts or yawners. If you've made a point, reiiterated it a couple of times with examples... and the outcome is given, then you are probably not going to have much else to say about the game, and drudging the same factors over and over will also annoy an audience. If they had the equipment and versatility to do it, then the blowout or yawner games would be GREAT times to take some time away from the game and focus on the fundamentals (screen-in-screen examples of perfect bump-set-spike examples for starters with the pen and a good description about form and maybe a comment on how high they jumped). Hard to explain for me... let me know and I'll try to detail it out. Yes, too much jabbering is bad, but a little, I think, is necesary to develop your personality over the air.
|
|
|
Post by BarcelonaBob on May 7, 2004 20:15:07 GMT -5
Actually the KFVE combo of Leahy and McLachlin is good, because Leahy doesn't have a clue about volleyball other than what he's pick up over the years, while McLachlin is a Punahou/Outrigger volleyball legend.
So...Leahy always reacts exactly how a casual fan would to a play on court as the play-by-play guy, and McLachlin will chip in with insight where appropriate. I also like McLachlin for his ability to not say anything when it's not needed, as much as for the deeper perspectives he brings to the action when he does say something.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on May 7, 2004 20:28:47 GMT -5
Actually the KFVE combo of Leahy and McLachlin is good, because Leahy doesn't have a clue about volleyball other than what he's pick up over the years, while McLachlin is a Punahou/Outrigger volleyball legend. So...Leahy always reacts exactly how a casual fan would to a play on court as the play-by-play guy, and McLachlin will chip in with insight where appropriate. I also like McLachlin for his ability to not say anything when it's not needed, as much as for the deeper perspectives he brings to the action when he does say something. BarcelonaBob, when you make comments like this, without insulting anyone, I find myself enjoying your insight. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by vierra on May 7, 2004 20:35:52 GMT -5
I like quikset's dark side.
|
|
|
Post by BarcelonaBob on May 7, 2004 21:20:04 GMT -5
Jim Leahy was my sister's history teacher at James Campbell High School in lovely Ewa Beach.....WAAAY back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by vierra on May 7, 2004 21:23:43 GMT -5
Wow. Is Campbell the school with all those white military brats? Or is that Radford?
|
|
|
Post by BarcelonaBob on May 7, 2004 21:24:45 GMT -5
Wow. Is Campbell the school with all those white military brats? Or is that Radford? Yes...and yes.
|
|
|
Post by vierra on May 7, 2004 21:27:20 GMT -5
Cool. Are you before or after Bette Midler?
|
|
|
Post by BarcelonaBob on May 7, 2004 21:30:05 GMT -5
Cool. Are you before or after Bette Midler? I didn't go to Radford, but quikset did.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 8, 2004 0:27:30 GMT -5
Wow. Is Campbell the school with all those white military brats? Or is that Radford? Campbell no longer has military brats (since the closing of Barbers Point NAS). The white military brats go to (besides Radford) Leilehua, Mililani, and Kalaheo. I'm I the only person that appreciates Marlowe?
|
|