What's new
By:

2021-2022 hot takes thread

TheGoldStandard said:
Holly Rowe will be more and more annoying as the season goes on.
Click to expand...
Lukewarm take… holly rowe will only annoy guys who prefer there be no women in sports, but if they are there they need to be “easy on the eyes”.
 
fishonjazz said:
I don't think Rudy's plus minus is effected when he is on the bench.
Click to expand...
If you go out the game and you have a 10 point lead and your backup loses the lead, you're more likely to swing the momentum back than if the backup gains you 10 points and you go back in up 20 and you're coasting more.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Lukewarm take… holly rowe will only annoy guys who prefer there be no women in sports, but if they are there they need to be “easy on the eyes”.
Click to expand...
Or maybe I've never found her to be talented, and don't like more and more time on the sidelines taking away from seeing the court. We'll see how others feel as the season goes on, but I always found her analysis on ESPN to be annoying. Does anyone else like sideline reporting? At least Kristen got very little reporting time other than post-game. Sideline reporting is annoying. Don't care if it is Kristen, Holly or some dude. The more you go to the sideline, the more disruptive and annoying it is.

I'm happy to have women in sports. No problem with women referees (other than Violet Palmer, because she was a horrible referee), coaches, etc. Off-hand, Rachel Nichols does a good job, and Doris Burke has a good voice for announcing, just doesn't do enough research on small market teams, but that is often the case for national broadcasters.

My understanding is they are going to use her more and more for sideline takes, which I always find annoying anyway. She's probably better than Steve Brown or Alema, but that isn't saying much.

I tend to rate people for their ability. Frankly, I'm not sure why the producers in every league tend to give women announcers more "face time" vs just hearing their voices. I just want to watch the game.

That said Holly Rowe has always annoyed me. Bonnie Bernstein always seemed to have done much better analysis and she is much more articulate, yet Rowe seemed to get more games.

I will say, that deep, male voices are easier on the ears for a full broadcast. Marv Albert is a great example. If you watch most news programs or sports broadcasts, the females also tend to have lower voices, and that is for a reason. Holly's voice is annoying...
 
FAILED STATE said:
Guys, KK was either suuuuuper mediocre or just plain bad. Rowe is an upgrade. There’s no doubt about it.
Click to expand...
More sideline reporting=more annoying broadcast. That has always been my viewpoint.

I completely agree she has much more knowledge than KK, but KK got very little screen time.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Maybe you should get a therapist and unpack this...
Click to expand...
Haha. There is an insult as a variation of the old saying that you have a voice for radio that says you have a face for radio. There is truth to the talented broadcast voice, and deeper voices are generally lauded for radio and sports broadcast.

If someone won't acknowledge that, and instead think I need therapy, perhaps they are projecting...
 
FAILED STATE said:
Guys, KK was either suuuuuper mediocre or just plain bad. Rowe is an upgrade. There’s no doubt about it.
Click to expand...
She was cute and seemed like she had a fun personality... she didn't know squat about basketball. She asked some weird questions too. Not weird but like the questions where they say "talk about basketball..."
 
I personally don't care too much about the quality of analysis, don't think it's needed for a good broadcast. What I do like about Holly is that she is anti cringe and just does a good job without being awkward which is a good offset for Boler and Thurl cheesiness. I don't mind the cheesiness, it's not the worst, but it was too much with KK sometimes.
 
TheGoldStandard said:
Or maybe I've never found her to be talented, and don't like more and more time on the sidelines taking away from seeing the court. We'll see how others feel as the season goes on, but I always found her analysis on ESPN to be annoying. Does anyone else like sideline reporting? At least Kristen got very little reporting time other than post-game. Sideline reporting is annoying. Don't care if it is Kristen, Holly or some dude. The more you go to the sideline, the more disruptive and annoying it is.

I'm happy to have women in sports. No problem with women referees (other than Violet Palmer, because she was a horrible referee), coaches, etc. Off-hand, Rachel Nichols does a good job, and Doris Burke has a good voice for announcing, just doesn't do enough research on small market teams, but that is often the case for national broadcasters.

My understanding is they are going to use her more and more for sideline takes, which I always find annoying anyway. She's probably better than Steve Brown or Alema, but that isn't saying much.

I tend to rate people for their ability. Frankly, I'm not sure why the producers in every league tend to give women announcers more "face time" vs just hearing their voices. I just want to watch the game.

That said Holly Rowe has always annoyed me. Bonnie Bernstein always seemed to have done much better analysis and she is much more articulate, yet Rowe seemed to get more games.

I will say, that deep, male voices are easier on the ears for a full broadcast. Marv Albert is a great example. If you watch most news programs or sports broadcasts, the females also tend to have lower voices, and that is for a reason. Holly's voice is annoying...
Click to expand...
I don't know her or remember her work... I just think she likely has had to work harder than most to get where she is and is likely quite good at her job... so if you think her job is annoying that is one thing... if you think she is annoying that is another. I think she is likely the best sideline person we've ever had (which isn't saying much).

Doris does a lot of research... especially for a national broadcaster. I like her well enough but sometimes people go overboard with the praise for her. I also here some call her annoying or grumble when she comes on the TV... I will take her over Reggie Miller, Chris Webber, Mark Jackson, and Hubie/Marv (they just too old) any night. I like Van Gundy (even though he gets a little whiny), Eagle, Breen, etc.
 
KqWIN said:
I personally don't care too much about the quality of analysis, don't think it's needed for a good broadcast. What I do like about Holly is that she is anti cringe and just does a good job without being awkward which is a good offset for Boler and Thurl cheesiness. I don't mind the cheesiness, it's not the worst, but it was too much with KK sometimes.
Click to expand...
I think sideline reporting is best done by people that know their **** and notice nuanced stuff that they can ask questions about. I think KK is better in the 10 minute pre-game specials... she asked questions like "what were you thinking when you dunked that Rudy" "how does it feel to get this win" it was kinda Steve Brown-ish but less awkward (that guy was something).
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I think sideline reporting is best done by people that know their **** and notice nuanced stuff that they can ask questions about. I think KK is better in the 10 minute pre-game specials... she asked questions like "what were you thinking when you dunked that Rudy" "how does it feel to get this win" it was kinda Steve Brown-ish but less awkward (that guy was something).
Click to expand...

I thought I erased Steve Brown from my memory....that guy was terrible lol.

I can't think of anything good that has come out of a nuanced question during or immediately after a game. I don't actually mind the "how does it feel" questions because that's all the players can really answer in the moment. I think the biggest problem with KK is that she's kind of a dork and while that's endearing in a way there's too much dorkiness on that broadcast already. Don't think she had to be the one to go but the cheesiness level was too much.

I actually loved this interview the other night. Lamar is a great interview, but the questions weren't anything nuanced. Just done in a way to get the emotion out of the player after a hard fought game. Sometimes professionalism > wackiness.

 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I don't know her or remember her work... I just think she likely has had to work harder than most to get where she is and is likely quite good at her job... so if you think her job is annoying that is one thing... if you think she is annoying that is another. I think she is likely the best sideline person we've ever had (which isn't saying much).

Doris does a lot of research... especially for a national broadcaster. I like her well enough but sometimes people go overboard with the praise for her. I also here some call her annoying or grumble when she comes on the TV... I will take her over Reggie Miller, Chris Webber, Mark Jackson, and Hubie/Marv (they just too old) any night. I like Van Gundy (even though he gets a little whiny), Eagle, Breen, etc.
Click to expand...
I also like Van Gundy. Burke has a great tv voice, so I don't mind listening to her. My only concern with her is while she clearly does research (or likely has someone cribbing for her), for the small market teams, she misses a lot. But that is national media generally. Webber, Miller and Jackson are just plain awful. Generally NBA players that go into broadcasting aren't great. Harp did a decent job, but I don't think he liked Boler. Boler also has a great broadcasting voice, although I think he calls it in sometimes, and his signatures sayings are annoying as can be.

I have no doubt she is better than KK, but she was also annoying. I think all sideline reporters are annoying. That is is better than KK only makes it worse if the idea is we get more off court time. I can't think of one sideline reporter I like.

There are many college football fans that couldn't stand Holly. I know many of those wanted Erin Andrews due to the hot factor, but most/many were just generally annoyed by her.

During the game, I don't want to see the faces of any of the broadcast team. Really, I don't want to hear them. I mostly watch the other teams feeds, as I get more insight anyway...
 
Here’s what a good broadcast needs:

- Show the game. Don’t miss an inbound steal or a quick play because you’re planning to the bench, or the crowd, or interviewing someone. Don’t make me miss watching free throws because of a promo.

- Show me the highlights really quick at the dead ball. Don’t have a big highlight happen then make us watch everyone stand around at the next dead ball.

- Show me the highlights of all questionable calls so I can get more angry about being screwed.

- Be able to tell me what’s going on (with calls and such) that I can’t observe on the floor when something confusing is happening — Boler is bad at this and gives the wrong call… there’s no special insight there.

- Say something stupid every now and again so I can laugh at the fact that this is televised. Boler can be good for this.

- You’re welcome to tell me whatever tidbits you think are important. I don’t care.

This is all that’s needed for a good broadcast. Except for ****** camera angles. Don’t give me any ****** camera angles. Give me the standard angle all game except on dead balls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top