|
Post by volleydude444 on Oct 27, 2014 13:40:00 GMT -5
My peeve is that I wish they would not talk so much. I am annoyed at the simplistic things that so many discuss that teaches little about the game and shows almost no insight into the actualities. I wish that rather than staring at the players seated while the coach talks during timeouts that they would show a screen of stats to date including the names of the players and their numbers. Telling me that Polmiller(SPELING?) does not help since I do not get a clear picture of her and if my memory fails then I do not have a number. The other wish would be that for every server her name is shown and of course that would include her number so that some continuity can be established. With so many matches ;now on the tube continuing to show names and numbers is far better for the tv watcher than scanning the crowd or the redundancy of the most recent Nebraska match in which they repeatedly showed how long it has been since their opponent that night had beaten Nebraska. Now that is a statistic for the ages and so vital to understanding what is happening NOW> Having player info is a great idea, it just depends on the broadcast and how much prep time the production team has. Building player info graphics does take time so it could be a logistics thing....they want to do out but don't have the prep time to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Sept 25, 2022 21:44:07 GMT -5
I was watching a stream today, and the announcer said that "the ball went between her right and left arm" when she could have just said that it went between her arms.
Come on now. She only has two. We already know exactly which two you are talking about. Thanks for specifying though.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Sept 25, 2022 22:10:19 GMT -5
I was watching a stream today, and the announcer said that "the ball went between her right and left arm" when she could have just said that it went between her arms. Come on now. She only has two. We already know exactly which two you are talking about. Thanks for specifying though. This is an astounding necro thread effort. It feels like there’s room for a current commentator thread. I don’t know what the title or original post should be, but I know there shoukdn’t be a need to dive 8 years back to make this post, either. That’s not a criticism of you, Brutus Buckeye. I admire you finding this thread. I also can appreciate your comment. It just feels like there’s a better potential home for it than this thread, and if there isn’t, there should be one. The comments about Emily Ehman alone on the Minnesota-Wisconsin thread could masked for an active current thread, and that’s just one commentator (I want to add I’m Team Ehman).
|
|
|
Post by hebrooks87 on Sept 26, 2022 9:23:12 GMT -5
I agree. I've said this 1000 times to anybody who will listen: the way to grow television audience for a sport is not to "dumb it down" but to educate the audience. There are far more adults who play volleyball on a regular basis than who play tackle football, but when you watch a football game the broadcasters speak on a much higher level than a volleyball match. There are millions of female football fans who have never put on a helmet a day in their lives, but they understand that when Peyton Manning goes up to the line and shouts a whole bunch of stuff that he's changing the play- or maybe just pretending to. They can understand that "blitzing" means rushing a whole bunch of guys at the QB to try to get the sack, but at a higher risk of giving up a big play. All my friends who are Eagles fans somehow manage to understand the complex notion that their new coach prefers lots of short, quick pass plays rather than trying to throw the ball deep down the field. Football also does a really good job of setting up matchups: "Richard Sherman has been running his mouth about shutting down this receiver all week. It's 3rd and long let's see if they go at him." What football broadcasts don't try to do is explain or lecture about the boring complexities of the game. The rules on pre-snap motion, the number of guys who have to be set, and when they have to be set, etc, are really complicated. When there's a penalty, they generally just say something short and/or just go to the refs call. They don't bother trying to explain illegal motion calls or why we need illegal motion, unless it comes at a crucial moment, then they dive into it like it's a Supreme Court case and ham it up for increased drama. .... What they need more of is matchups and comparisons. Humans can learn almost anything really quickly if it's phrased in terms of comparisons: "Team X runs their middles on a lot of Slides behind the setter [show clip of a Slide attack] while Team Y runs a lot of quick attack in front of the setter [show clip]. The Slide is easier to block against, but doesn't rely on the height of the hitter as much, and you can run it on passes from off the net. The Quick is harder to block and defend, but the timing needs to be precise and the passes need to be more accurate." "Team X has Big Banger Outside matched up against Little Setter. Let's see if they're able to take advantage of the smaller blocker." "Team X hits a lot of aggressive jump serves. They're harder to pass, but harder to keep in the court. Team Y doesn't serve as hard, but they keep them in, and trust their block and defense to win them points. Let's see which strategy is better." You do see some of that, but it seems like they are afraid to get into anything resembling basic strategy. People aren't stupid, and a feeling of some complexity is actually good because it makes the game seem more important. Rather than trying to relate it to a gym class sport for "everybody" (and thus, nobody), they should be doing everything possible to show how these teams are playing at a level so far beyond what you played at the backyard BBQ that you, the viewer, should just sit back and watch in amazement. For me, the best comparison is actually how lacrosse is covered on ESPN. There's nothing about how many long sticks a team is allowed to have on the field at one time. They assume I'm interested in watching the game and will learn the subtleties as it goes along. I've watched enough Australian Rules Football, hurling, and Gaelic football to appreciate and understand >90% of what's going on. I don't always get why some kinds of contacts are specifically illegal and others aren't, but it doesn't get in the way. For match-ups, even something as simple as "this is the rotation where Team A has scored the most points in the match" would be nice. I keep track of the score when the first server goes back the 2nd or 3rd time (Team A led 10-8 after we'd gone through all the rotations once).
|
|
|
Post by hebrooks87 on Sept 26, 2022 9:50:21 GMT -5
They do that in Japan on their broadcasts when they host international tournaments. It just stays in the bottom corner- a little rotating 6-courter for both teams. It's pretty cool as it lets you see who's in the frontrow for both teams and who's about to come up to serve. Kind of like showing who's "on-deck" for baseball. Of course, they also have 8-10 cameras, a sideline reporter, and a broadcast audience of 10 million+, so I'm sure the production budget is quite a bit higher. Interesting that Japanese broadcasts already use this. There is rotation and substitution software and apps currently available. Many coaching staffs already use it. I'm not sure if scorers at matches use this software or if it's all still done on paper. I don't know that it would be that costly for the networks to use something similar. I suppose you would have to have at least one production person assigned to the system to keep the graphics accurate during a match. I think it would improve the broadcasts tremendously, and it would probably make the announcing crews much more focus and less dependent on their crutch phrases that get repeated over and over. I just rewatched the UW/UW match, and it was interesting on match point...the announce team didn't say a word after the serve. Total silence, they allowed the action to speak for itself and then they talked after a few seconds of shots of the crowd and team erupting. That's what broadcast crews need to do more of...remain silent at times. You don't have to describe every single contact. E-scoring exists and is used at many places (more likely at DI than DII and more likely at DII than at lower levels). They're probably a little easier to learn than paper scoring, but some kinds of errors are much harder to correct in e-scoring than on paper and, occasionally, really bad things can happen. I was LJ at a match when the e-scoring computer decided to shut down unexpectedly during the 5th set. They had to switch to the paper version that, fortunately, was being kept as a back-up. The DII school with a system I've R2'ed for the most has it set up so that there's a monitor for the R2 and you can request different views. I like the one that shows the rotation as the default. During time outs, they switch it to something that looks like the paper sheet (with perfect penmanship), so that I can check sub counts, etc. quickly.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Sept 26, 2022 11:40:13 GMT -5
I agree. I've said this 1000 times to anybody who will listen: the way to grow television audience for a sport is not to "dumb it down" but to educate the audience. There are far more adults who play volleyball on a regular basis than who play tackle football, but when you watch a football game the broadcasters speak on a much higher level than a volleyball match. There are millions of female football fans who have never put on a helmet a day in their lives, but they understand that when Peyton Manning goes up to the line and shouts a whole bunch of stuff that he's changing the play- or maybe just pretending to. They can understand that "blitzing" means rushing a whole bunch of guys at the QB to try to get the sack, but at a higher risk of giving up a big play. All my friends who are Eagles fans somehow manage to understand the complex notion that their new coach prefers lots of short, quick pass plays rather than trying to throw the ball deep down the field. Football also does a really good job of setting up matchups: "Richard Sherman has been running his mouth about shutting down this receiver all week. It's 3rd and long let's see if they go at him." What football broadcasts don't try to do is explain or lecture about the boring complexities of the game. The rules on pre-snap motion, the number of guys who have to be set, and when they have to be set, etc, are really complicated. When there's a penalty, they generally just say something short and/or just go to the refs call. They don't bother trying to explain illegal motion calls or why we need illegal motion, unless it comes at a crucial moment, then they dive into it like it's a Supreme Court case and ham it up for increased drama. .... What they need more of is matchups and comparisons. Humans can learn almost anything really quickly if it's phrased in terms of comparisons: "Team X runs their middles on a lot of Slides behind the setter [show clip of a Slide attack] while Team Y runs a lot of quick attack in front of the setter [show clip]. The Slide is easier to block against, but doesn't rely on the height of the hitter as much, and you can run it on passes from off the net. The Quick is harder to block and defend, but the timing needs to be precise and the passes need to be more accurate." "Team X has Big Banger Outside matched up against Little Setter. Let's see if they're able to take advantage of the smaller blocker." "Team X hits a lot of aggressive jump serves. They're harder to pass, but harder to keep in the court. Team Y doesn't serve as hard, but they keep them in, and trust their block and defense to win them points. Let's see which strategy is better." You do see some of that, but it seems like they are afraid to get into anything resembling basic strategy. People aren't stupid, and a feeling of some complexity is actually good because it makes the game seem more important. Rather than trying to relate it to a gym class sport for "everybody" (and thus, nobody), they should be doing everything possible to show how these teams are playing at a level so far beyond what you played at the backyard BBQ that you, the viewer, should just sit back and watch in amazement. For match-ups, even something as simple as "this is the rotation where Team A has scored the most points in the match" would be nice. I keep track of the score when the first server goes back the 2nd or 3rd time (Team A led 10-8 after we'd gone through all the rotations once). Just to be clear, you did respond to a post from 8 years ago. Which makes it interesting that it's just as pertinent now. I will say I don't think the commentary is nearly as dumbed down now. Well, it differs depending on who is on the call, but often I will hear technical terms being thrown around without explanation other than context, which I think is a good thing. The main reason I'm responding is because I have a passion for what you've stated here. It would be the easiest thing in the world to keep track of how many points teams score when a player is at the service line. It isn't the most accurate metric for a variety of reasons, but it would sure make for a compelling narrative. Especially when a team is trying to come from behind. It's ridiculous that volleyball doesn't have the tools to do this. Instead we're relegated to talking heads and various VT posters spouting out asinine aces/errors ratios. Focus on how often a team scores on a particular service rotation. It would make watching a match so much more compelling, particularly for casual fans. The difference in viewing drama would be night and day. It's the easiest fix in the world. I wish I was volleyball czar so I could snap it into existence.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 26, 2022 12:13:58 GMT -5
It would be great if broadcasters had access to rotation-by-rotation statistics (or anything more than the box score) but most people don't have that. I keep track of lineups and serve receive playsets during the match and compare them to my scout. I'm happy to talk about which rotation a receiving team is in and where they've struggled or had success that night, but I'm not doing it off of specific numbers- no time to do that by hand in real time.
One of the things I try and do is when teams are coming out of timeout to talk a little about who is where in the front row, the likely playset the receiving team is going to run, and if there's a matchup they might try and exploit. I don't see many analysts doing that on the matches I watch. I will say Ehman is pretty solid and getting better. I love her energy and she's good at putting the match and the players in a broader national context.
|
|
|
Post by savannahbadger on Sept 27, 2022 7:57:12 GMT -5
I wish we had more commentators that were former players or former coaches, rather than people who were trained to be on TV and just happen to be covering volleyball. Good commentators are needed to grow the sport, as the analysis of what's going on is pretty critical to a good match experience, be it "dumbed down" basics of the rules to a detailed breakdown of what happened in a rally that led to a point. Hopefully the ratings on TV translate to investing more on who is covering matches, rather than pulling some random rookie sportscasters that might just be reading off a teleprompter.
|
|
|
Post by endersgame on Sept 27, 2022 8:17:43 GMT -5
I wish we had more commentators that were former players or former coaches, rather than people who were trained to be on TV and just happen to be covering volleyball. Good commentators are needed to grow the sport, as the analysis of what's going on is pretty critical to a good match experience, be it "dumbed down" basics of the rules to a detailed breakdown of what happened in a rally that led to a point. Hopefully the ratings on TV translate to investing more on who is covering matches, rather than pulling some random rookie sportscasters that might just be reading off a teleprompter. What would be really nice is if the networks actually responded to those that want to commentate on a volunteer basis and let us help. Instead they want their people, who half the time and beyond below subpar, resulting in some of us muting matches to watch them in peace. I'd be willing to bet that there is quite a number of volleyball nerds out here that would happily want to commentate on matches.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 27, 2022 8:33:07 GMT -5
The skill set of a good play-by-play person and a good analyst (color) have at least as many differences as similarities. I've been doing this for 5 years now and I could probably call a solo match at this point with a little practice. However, I'd be terrible trying to lead a two-person broadcast.
Probably the best PxP guy I've worked with has no clue about volleyball but 1. he's an excellent PxP 2. knows how to let an analyst do their thing and 3. knows what questions to ask in prep and off-air. Everything he knows about the sport is what I've taught him but he's a great pro who does major college football and basketball radio for a day job.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 27, 2022 8:47:18 GMT -5
What would be really nice is if the networks actually responded to those that want to commentate on a volunteer basis and let us help. Instead they want their people, who half the time and beyond below subpar, resulting in some of us muting matches to watch them in peace. I'd be willing to bet that there is quite a number of volleyball nerds out here that would happily want to commentate on matches. If you're talking about PxP on ESPN/ESPN2/SECN/ACCN/BTN broadcasts, those people are professional broadcasters. Many of them on their way up in the business. Adam Amin and Beth Mowins call the NFL, MLB, and NBA! Not PxP but Maria Taylor hosts f#cking Football Night in America. I remember watching her do color for UGA matches! Most of the color talent is under contract on an annual basis and are pros or at least serious semipro broadcasters. My point is that ESPN isn't interested in "volunteers." If you want to try and do a streaming match for your local university, you should send them an email and ask for an audition. That's how I got started!
|
|
|
Post by WI FIB on Sept 27, 2022 8:48:27 GMT -5
I'd love to see a rules analyst help explain what's being challenged, what's being looked at, what a particular rules nuance might be, etc. We get it in basketball and football, and particularly some Final Four time, I think something like that could be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by endersgame on Sept 27, 2022 12:42:24 GMT -5
What would be really nice is if the networks actually responded to those that want to commentate on a volunteer basis and let us help. Instead they want their people, who half the time and beyond below subpar, resulting in some of us muting matches to watch them in peace. I'd be willing to bet that there is quite a number of volleyball nerds out here that would happily want to commentate on matches. If you're talking about PxP on ESPN/ESPN2/SECN/ACCN/BTN broadcasts, those people are professional broadcasters. Many of them on their way up in the business. Adam Amin and Beth Mowins call the NFL, MLB, and NBA! Not PxP but Maria Taylor hosts f#cking Football Night in America. I remember watching her do color for UGA matches! Most of the color talent is under contract on an annual basis and are pros or at least serious semipro broadcasters. My point is that ESPN isn't interested in "volunteers." If you want to try and do a streaming match for your local university, you should send them an email and ask for an audition. That's how I got started! I should have been more specific with my earlier post. I am referring to all the different " + " broadcasts that some of the Power 5 and smaller conferences run. I doubt they have the budget to afford a professional commentator, maybe they do commentating remotely. I'm not sure. There's many people that have volunteered, but from what I have heard, people are finding success by getting an agent to advocate for them. Seems a bit extreme to have to get an agent just to commentate volleyball when those that are interested are often former college coaches that can offer so much insight to the viewer.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 27, 2022 13:14:59 GMT -5
The skill set of a good play-by-play person and a good analyst (color) have at least as many differences as similarities. I've been doing this for 5 years now and I could probably call a solo match at this point with a little practice. However, I'd be terrible trying to lead a two-person broadcast. Probably the best PxP guy I've worked with has no clue about volleyball but 1. he's an excellent PxP 2. knows how to let an analyst do their thing and 3. knows what questions to ask in prep and off-air. Everything he knows about the sport is what I've taught him but he's a great pro who does major college football and basketball radio for a day job. This seems exactly right to me. There is a skillset for PxP - where it isn't critical that they are an expert on the sport. And an expert on the sport could be totally awful at PxP and turn people off. Sounds like what you described is the best situation unless you have someone like Sunderland who is a legit analyst and now good at PxP. Curious - one of the biggest frustrations when listening to a PxP guy is when there is (usually a net) call by the ref and the PxP has no idea what the call was or who it was on. Say you are the analyst - would you want the PxP guy to say, what was the call? Do you - knowing the PxP guy doesn't know, just interject and say what happened quickly? It sounds awful when there is silence for 10 seconds and then the PxP guy will just say; 'evidently there was something and team x is now serving'...
|
|
|
Post by radioactiveman on Sept 27, 2022 13:36:36 GMT -5
At a minimum, if you are going to call a sport, know the terminology and pronunciations for that sport. I'm more forgiving of mispronouncing names since often that will be the only time you encounter a particular name and often only having seen it on paper having never heard it before. But not knowing the terminology of the game itself is inexcusable. I work in the medical field and one of my biggest pet peeves is when people who work in the field mispronounce the terms of that field. Like, this is your field. Learn to say the terms of the field you work in. It's one thing if a patient mispronounces a term. It's another when a nurse who has worked in the field for 10 years does it.
There was a Nebraska match recently where the guy kept saying "attack from the the strong side". This isn't football. There's no strong side DS and weak side DS like a strong side safety or weak side safety. Learn the freaking terminology before putting on the broadcasting headset.
|
|