Broadcasting Team Review - Now's Your Chance for Input

HermanG said:

That guy also rubs me the wrong way. He has the ability to turn from water carrier to leading expert to a hyperbolic / doom-and-gloom fanboy within a single sentence.

He also likely throws a car dealer ad into that same sentence.

Click to expand...

Speaking factually rather than snidely, Locke's primary responsibility is that of salesman.
He's been fired before and knows it's his only winning strategy to survive in the SEG

LogGrad98 said:

One question...

Boy-zee

Or

Boy-see



And there is only one correct answer.

Click to expand...

I say Boy-zee, but I'm not from around here. I'm actually moving to AZ in a few weeks, so the Jazz will be back on the menu, lol.

Anyone who votes “disagree” every time Holly’s name comes up gets a cookie from me.

Tremendous Upside said:

When you have a Big 3, one of them always needs to sacrifice and tone down their game.

On the Jazz announcing team, Holly is like a Miami Chris Bosh who keeps taking heat check 3's.

Click to expand...

Holly might be a decent play by play person but doing color in this setting does not work at all. And KK was better at interviews.

default said:

The current group is not great. Holly doesn't add anything. Boler is starting to know a little basketball after only really knowing football, but it is still painful at times. Thurl is basketball-wise, but so boring to listen too. The team is fun to watch, but the broadcasters are boring and lack any real emotion other than Holly rambling on about stupid stuff that is rarely related. Thurl is super nice, but listening to him talk is a cure for insomnia.

Click to expand...

Thurl was lots better on the pre-game and half time show. Not sure why they broke everything up other than new owners need to make a mark. The old broadcast teams were much better. I am fine with Boler being Boler and Harp was lots more honest about what he was seeing than Thurl.

gomretat said:

Thurl was lots better on the pre-game and half time show. Not sure why they broke everything up other than new owners need to make a mark. The old broadcast teams were much better. I am fine with Boler being Boler and Harp was lots more honest about what he was seeing than Thurl.

Click to expand...

I really want to like Holly and Thurl in these roles. They seem really easy to like as people. Met Thurl at a game a few years ago. He could not have been more kind or gracious….. but as a broadcast team, this just is not working.

If I owned a team I would try to have 3 different broadcast duos that I would give equal rotation to.

After years of watching LP the best thing is variety. I dont mind Boler/Thurl because I watch a lot of road broadcast, not because I hink they are better, just so I dont have to hear the same thing every game.

I dont think any broadcast crew is so good they wouldnt get stale after repeat listens.

I gave Mike high marks for his insights.
I think Craig Bolerjack actually has a good demeanor and voice for sports broadcasting, but he's a bit of a generalist. He's actually making fewer mistakes this year than in years past.
Holly tries to add color. Sometimes it works. Oftentimes it doesn't.
Thurl is an easygoing color commentator who complements Bolerjack, whereas sometimes Holly seems to be competing with the people she hosts with.

Ferguson_Mellochill said:

I gave Mike high marks for his insights.
I think Craig Bolerjack actually has a good demeanor and voice for sports broadcasting, but he's a bit of a generalist. He's actually making fewer mistakes this year than in years past.
Holly tries to add color. Sometimes it works. Oftentimes it doesn't.
Thurl is an easygoing color commentator who complements Bolerjack, whereas sometimes Holly seems to be competing with the people she hosts with.

Click to expand...

Agreed on all points, though I gave Holly a lot of neutrals because I find her to be annoying - and I feel a female voice on the broadcast points more to the importance of hitting DEI metrics than inclusion of a must have perspective.
She's a third wheel where the norm is two person teams and I'd pare her before Thurl.

Holly’s addition to the broadcast is pretty brutal. The way she tries to interject as much info as possible like a sideline report just does work….and I don’t think she’s great when she’s matching Boler and Thurl’s corniness. I think better producing could make it work better…but overall it just doesn’t work and I think she’s much better when she reports from a neutral perspective. This is a personal thing, but she’s also a big complainer about fouls and I can’t stand that on any broadcast.

Thurl is not particularly bad in any way….his commentary is just corny and sleepy. I don’t think he adds to the excitement of the game very much, but I suppose that is not the main job of the the color commentator. I don’t really look for “expert opinion” so I think it’s fine he’s more reserved in that sense. I liked Harpring more. He seemed more interested in the game.

Boler has some things that are annoying, mainly that he cant see the hats happening on the court. But that doesn’t bother me as much as others. He has some great calls and moments which add to the experience. Wish he was less corny, but at least he shows some passion for the game.

Generally, I think most broadcasts are bad so I’m not necessarily sure I’d say the Jazz broadcast is particularly bad. It seems as though the NBA has standardized the way they present games. If I was in charge, I’d focus more on the spectacle and competition of the game and try to get rid of the homerism/podcasting.

I think Boler and thurl are great

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Saint Cy of JFC said:

If I owned a team I would try to have 3 different broadcast duos that I would give equal rotation to.

After years of watching LP the best thing is variety. I dont mind Boler/Thurl because I watch a lot of road broadcast, not because I hink they are better, just so I dont have to hear the same thing every game.

I dont think any broadcast crew is so good they wouldnt get stale after repeat listens.

Click to expand...

Hot Rod.


'nuff said.

I feel like Holly would be better if she had more charismatic people to banter with. A 3 person broadcast has to rely on banter. Thurl and Boler are robotic

I appreciate your love for the underdogs, Cy.

But Holly is awful. She makes me want to mute the TV. She regularly says basketball nonsense that isn’t remotely true and misinforms the casual audience. She didn’t know Flo Rida. She’s try-hard and attention-seeking which makes her uncomfortable, which then makes me uncomfortable.

I don’t want to be uncomfortable, Cy, I want to watch my basketball in peace to the dulcet sounds of Boler calling a turnover a foul with remarkable confidence.

Remember those trash threads that Hotnickkkkkk used to start way back in the day? Holly Rowe is like the living incarnation of those threads. Wrong. Pointless. Annoying. Omnipresent.

I strongly dislike having her in a public facing role in the Utah Jazz organization.

I'm old-fashioned so I really wish they'd just have one single commentator instead of this inane chatting you get with colour commentators. I get that it's supposed to approximate me watching a game with friends, but if any of my friends were as annoying as Boler, I wouldn't invite them to watch the game to begin with.

I guess my issue is with the whole concept of commentators. It's kinda weird that something that originated on radio was just carried over to TV with no change to its core features. I get that early TV was black and white and crap and you could barely make out the players, but is there a need to still do play-by-play as if we can't see what's happening on the floor? Especially when you're Boler and evidently you can't really see what's happening on the floor and are randomly guessing and hoping you're right.

None of the commentators around the league have any appreciation of silence or how sometimes less is more. Home team just took their first lead in the game with 3 minutes to go after a 17-4 run and the away coach has called a timeout? What we all really wanna hear is the commentator yelling like he's getting a particularly enjoyable prostate exam, apparently. The crowd is on their feet and going nuts. Let me hear that. I'm at home wishing I was at the game. You can pause for 10 seconds to let me soak all the electricity in. Then you can talk and discuss what happened and how it happened.

Someone mentioned they wished Boler was more excitable. No thank you, he's plenty excitable as it is. There aren't 15 plays in a game that make me jump off my seat. Heck, many times, there aren't any. Let's not add to the already existing inflation of threes and dunks by treating every three like it's a back breaker and every dunk like it's a dunk-of-the-season candidate. I hate listening to Mike Breen on ESPN. Dude is like a walking, talking "black dudes reacting" GIF.



When everything is exciting, nothing is exciting.

I don't know if I'd go as far as saying that I would get rid of the commentators and have only the arena sounds, but I wish they'd at least go back to having only one person doing the broadcast. That alone would cut down on pointless banter and the amount of things the commentators say since they'd have no one to talk to and waste time with.

It felt a little good to tell them, with examples, about how little Bolerjack knows about basketball.

An educated audience is an engaged audience.

NAOS_pt2 said:

It felt a little good to tell them, with examples, about how little Bolerjack knows about basketball.

An educated audience is an engaged audience.

Click to expand...

Thanks for doing your part.