I read an article by Terry Bradshaw once that explained why commentators say the such obvious and innane things. Because that is what the majority of the audience wants and understands. He said that at the beginning of his commentator career that he spouted off all his knowledge and was very technical. He said the producers and other commentators finally taught him to tone it down to simple level.
Typical marketing is done at a 7th grade level. I would suppose the same theory is holding true here. I don’t like it as an avid football fan who wants more X’s and O’s, but Joe Blow down the street (according to the network’s research) likes stupid information.
Actually, mudpupper I am Joe Blow on the street. I’ve taken to watching football on Sundays and Mondays and I’ve learned to enjoy the game much more than when I was young, but my wife knows more about how the hell it works than I do.
I don’t want so much useless crap that even I can already see. I want to know the stategy of the game.
Until a few weeks ago during a neat halftime spot where they showed a team going over their opponents’ play style and player abilities and how they intend to defeat them, I had no idea so much thought and work and strategy went into it.
I would like to see more of that - during the game - so I can learn the game tactics and strategies without having to take bloody classes.
MNF (and most other pro football broadcasts) do try not to overwhelm the fans with the technical stuff. If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts get a book or watch Edge NFL Matchup on ESPN. Broadcasters do not want to alienate new fans by talking over their heads. For sports where I’m a novice (hockey comes to mind) I like the simplistic broadcasts.
Talking simplisticly is even worse in minor sports. In volleyball, which would love to have a tenth of the fan base football has, the commentators fall over themselves dumbing down the game.
Threadkiller is exactly right. If you want analysis, you’ve got to tune into Edge NFL Matchup. It’s one of my favorite shows on tv right now.
I understand that analysts are instructed to dumb down their coverage, and it’s annoying, but I’ve gotten used to it. Of course, the dumbing down of analysts is also responsible for Brent Musberger, which is just unforgivable.
But (with the exception of “Beelzebub” Musberger) I can usually tune the analysts out. The real problem I have is that the tv coverage is fixated on zoom shots. We can see the expression on player’s faces, but we can’t even see what the linebackers are doing on a run play, or if the receivers are getting off the line of scrimmage – let alone what routes they are running and what the defensive coverage is. If you watch NFL Matchup, you’ll see what I mean because they do a better job of showing the entire field. So when you combine 1) analysts who are instructed to dumb down their coverage with 2) tv coverage that makes it impossible to see the plays develop, it’s nearly impossible to figure out what’s actually going on in the game.
This past Sunday’s Vikings-Saints game was a pleasant exception. FOX showed ample shots of entire platoons in single frames, and gave Jurkovic lots of latitude in explaining IN DETAIL what was happening. Jurkovic revealed many blown assignments, great backside blocks, etc.
“You have to march down the field and put points on the board”
“If you’re down, you can’t try to make it all up on one play.”
“You can’t go to the well once too often.”
“Don’t take points off the board.”
“Be a north-south runner.”
And honorable mention goes to describing a quarterback who can throw the ball sixty yards “in the air.” As opposed to what? Rolling it along the sidelines??
coughchoke You’re actually defending John Madden’s sorry description of a meteor shower?!
He basically drew a big SHOWER HEAD and babbled incomprehensibly while drawing these ridiculous streaks, as though the paths of the meteors were the routes taken by Running Backs. Then, when the other commentator talked about being in an airplane during the meteor shower, Madden claimed that he’d be able to look out of the plane’s window and see the meteors below him!
That man might (might!) know football, but his description of a meteor shower was just laughable. It should have been on the Bad Astronomer’s website.
Madden was wonderful years ago, but he’s senile now.
He still shows flashes of brilliance, such as analyzing the defense in an instant.
Most commentators suck. A lot of them suck up to the officials. I don’t remember who it is, but one color guy REALLY pisses me off. He says the officials have to rule one way, just HAVE to (when there is a replay), then official rules the other way, and the commentator says yah that’s right.
That’s why I like the ESPN guys. They disagree with the officials, they disagree with the coachs, HELL, they disagree with each other :D. It’s very lively.
Not to defend inane sports announcers (I prefer mine ane), but “in the air,” I think, is to distinguish from throwing a three-yard screen pass and having the receiver run down the field for a “60 yard” completion.
I should have mentioned when I started this thread that the Madden-era Raiders were a wonderful team and Madden was a great coach.
It wasn’t until last year’s Summerall/Madden combo that I started getting annoyed. Last years Super Bowl nearly gave me a stroke.
At one point in that game they showed a graphic detailing the results of the Rams first four possessions which were IIRC Punt, Interception returned for touchdown, Punt, Fumble. (I have it on tape somewhere but that’s close enough.)
Madden spent an entire play reading the onscreen graphic out loud: “Okay, that first posession resulted in a punt. Then they had that interception that was returned for a touchdown. Then the third possession was another punt. Then the last time out, they fumbled.”
Summerall, who had been trying to get a word in edgewise and tell the audience what was actually happening on the field, finally broke in to call the play and Madden rode right over him with his expert analysis: “You see, I think the key to this whole thing is the New England defense…”
I’m sure I’m not the only person in America who shouted at his T.V., “Well, DUH!!”
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I’m sure that J.M. is a very nice person, he certainly seems to be. I also think it’s cool that he refuses to fly, he’s a role model for me in that respect. And I do hope that he doesn’t mind a little ribbing about his broadcast technique.
You’re thinking of Tim Green, who teams with play-by-play man Kenny Albert on most Saints broadcasts.
This was the first time I’ve Jurkovic call a Saints game, and I was impressed. I hope the FOX brass don’t reign him in and make him dumb down his approach.
I don’t mind the stupidity of commentary, because I don’t really expect them to do anything but tell me what’s obviously happening before my eyes. It’s a way of getting the same information through two sensory systems… I think it’s sort of comforting, like watching a movie with a nice soundtrack. But I can imagine it would be kind of obnoxious if you want actual analysis of what’s happeneing on the field.
My big problems with Madden are 1) the Folksiness stuff is a little irritating, and b) his voice is REALLY irritating.
I know Madden’s knowledge is great, but like many have said, he doesn’t share it anymore. Can’t recall it or too lazy?
I like people like Tim McCarver who know their sport in so much detail that they make you see it in new ways.
I think at this point, Madden just starts talking in a general matter after a play is finished while he stares at the replay screen that he sees before the audience sees it, then he quickly narrows his generality down to what is specifically going on so as to seem like he knows what he’s talking about.
He could even do that without seeing a quick replay, because you can often catch him editing his generalities down to specificities while rambling during the broadcast replay.
Nonetheless, he’s still ‘Mr. Football’ for my generation.
I only turn the game audio on to get injury updates.