[News] Jim Hughson: Canucks Homer?

[calgaryred]

I thought he was pretty bad up until it was 3-1 Flames, before that he was always announcing when the Sedin line was coming on, even got to the point he was giving names to their playing, " The Sedin Cycle!" It was pretty bad, after Calgary made it 3-1 he never seemed to get excited anymore and called it pretty much with his announcing voice not really showing a bias.

[sworkhard]

Outside of game one, I've found Jim Hughson's call enjoyable. A bit biased in terms of content to the Canucks, but the panel makes up for it I think. We could do a lot worse, IMO.

[sa226]

The way he has called the game, to me has been fine. The "excitement" has gone both ways.

Its hard to tell, but I think where any homerism stands out is the narratives that he and Simpson develop as each game goes. They are almost always Canuck centric.

Last night specifically, with the Flames leading for most of the game. The narrative wan't about how well the Flames were playing or what they were doing right, it was what the Canucks had to do to get back into the game. What the Sedins were doing, what the coach had to do and so on. Its kind of seemed like they were disappointed that the Canucks couldn't generate much. IS that due to homerism or wanting to see more drama and excitment? Who knows but It got kind of ridiculous.

The nice thing is the panel's narrative has been a bit more Flames centric.

I've got to say too, aside from maybe Strombo that main panel is the best thing about Sportsnet right now. I don't know if Kypreos has just matured as an analyst, but he is becoming one of the better ones. Add to that probably the best Hockey journalist in Friedman and Kelly Hrudey and they have a set up that I look forward to watching.

[Red Menace]

I think he is a good play by play man in general, but it is true that he cannot hide his excitement/disappointment when then things go the Cancuks way/or against them.

It doesn't really bother me that much, I find it more amusing than anything else.

[CliffFletcher]

The broadcasts have been pro-Flames in the sense that all the broadcasters and analysts are fawning over Ferland and Bennett, with no corresponding praise for any Canucks players. That direction is probably coming from the producers, who have earmarked it as the story they want the broadcasts to tell (Flames rookies continue to amaze!).

However, in their game-calling it's clear that Hughson and Simpson are sympathetic to the Canucks. Simpson questions most of the penalties against Canucks, and points out penalties that should have been called against the Flames. Hughson can't hide the disappointment in his voice when things go the Flames' way. The bias isn't over-the-top or obnoxious, but it's there.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The broadcasts have been pro-Flames in the sense that all the broadcasters and analysts are fawning over Ferland and Bennett, with no corresponding praise for any Canucks players. That direction is probably coming from the producers, who have earmarked it as the story they want the broadcasts to tell (Flames rookies continue to amaze!).

However, in their game-calling it's clear that Hughson and Simpson are sympathetic to the Canucks. Simpson questions most of the penalties against Canucks, and points out penalties that should have been called against the Flames. Hughson can't hide the disappointment in his voice when things go the Flames' way. The bias isn't over-the-top or obnoxious, but it's there.

This sums up my views on this nicely. I think for the produced segments, there are narratives set out for both Flames and Canucks and it is fine. However, it is the live, in-game announcing that the bias shows. Nothing to get too excited about, but it does take away from the viewing experience. Would be much happier with Cuthbert and a number of other guys. GFG

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The broadcasts have been pro-Flames in the sense that all the broadcasters and analysts are fawning over Ferland and Bennett, with no corresponding praise for any Canucks players. That direction is probably coming from the producers, who have earmarked it as the story they want the broadcasts to tell (Flames rookies continue to amaze!).

However, in their game-calling it's clear that Hughson and Simpson are sympathetic to the Canucks. Simpson questions most of the penalties against Canucks, and points out penalties that should have been called against the Flames. Hughson can't hide the disappointment in his voice when things go the Flames' way. The bias isn't over-the-top or obnoxious, but it's there.

I agree. The panel has been loving the Flames while the announcing started off enthusiastic about the Canucks and now sound rather deflated at where the series stands. If heaven forbid the Canucks come around, then I expect the announcers will become more engaged again.

Not to say they are overtly Flame hating. I don't think they are, but they have a bias that is hard to hide. I stand by my assessment that they are good broadcasters technically, but just homers.

I do hope that if the Flames advance, that they move them to a different series. If the Canucks advance, they would be perfect to keep calling the Canucks though.

[edslunch]

They focus too much on a small number of storylines and repeat over and over......Lack and his dad, Ferland and Ferland's mom, 18 yr old Sam Bennett..... The Sedins and their ice time.....Not bad stories but there should be so many others

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by edslunch

They focus too much on a small number of storylines and repeat over and over......Lack and his dad, Ferland and Ferland's mom, 18 yr old Sam Bennett..... The Sedins and their ice time.....Not bad stories but there should be so many others

I think storylines that are repeated in general annoy the hell out of people. I know someone mentioned that its hard to dig up and gather info on the spot, but I honestly don't really expect to hear 2-3 second sound bites of it. Maybe in between whistles from time to time. Isn't that 2-3 second gap meant for colour commentary?

Personally for me, I always loved the criticism of PBP / colour commentary like what Doug Barkley used to do on 66CFR. Wish there was more of that an less filler sound bites.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

They both got caught up in talking about how and what Van needed to do to get back in the game, and very little about what Calgary was doing right to negate anything Van tried.

This sums it up. Everything is from the perspective of the Canucks, even the camera is on their bench a lot more. Though the outright homerism was turned down from earlier games, they must have gotten a memo.

Though - the panel definitely focused more on the Flames to make up for it. Was just loving Kypreos ripping on Bieksa (not holding back at all), and Hrudey saying that Ferland could be like Lucic but a better skater. Awesome. Hrudey and Friedman are the best in the business and Kypreos has really grown on me. I just wish it was Ron instead of Strombo, though Strombo is doing a pretty decent job.

[I_H8_Crawford]

I know a guy who works in the broadcast trucks for Flames games - he said last night was terrible, as the director is a Canucks fan, and all he got to listen to the entire time (when they were off air) was Jimmy Canuck and the director complaining to each other about how bad the Canucks were playing.

[Hanna Sniper]

I really don't have issues with a lot of the comments here, in regards to Sedin's ice time, lacks dad or any other filler that the PBP adds to the topic... a lot of that conversation is dictated by what they are showing on the TV and thus the PBP needs to comment on it

Mything of his bias resolves around the idea if you just listen to his call of the game and not watch it

After a minute or two of ice time, how aware are you of who was one the ice for the canucks and flames... when the play changed possessions and moved zones were you able to know by listening to his call. I'm really talking the dead nothing plays that never make the highlight reels that fill up 80% of the game

He's a great commentator but it tells a much more detailed story of whos on the ice in regards to the canucks and how they are involved with it

As a fan that up till the playoffs you get to see regional coverage you get use to coverage being heavily biased to your own interest, once national coverage starts it's a drastic change to jump right into it 100% the opposite direction. If the flames were playing an american team and this was the coverage of an american network I think everyone would be jumping how great his call is because the bias would be implied

He's not evil nor is this a knock on him, he's very professional and I have no doubt he's even heard criticism during this series and fine tuned his call even more... because he is a professional

If the Flames were to move on and he was to call that series as well, I have now doubt the bias slight would lay favorably towards a flames call... and as the series went on he would fine tune that as well

But the bias is there and to say it isn't then I would recommend you listening with your ears without a visual image of what he is describing then recount the Flames players involved in the play, watch the video and see how well informed your were

[Street Pharmacist]

It's there very occasionally (much, much, much, much less than pointed out in here), it's minor, it's completely absurd to get upset about.

To quote Bieksa "It's irrelevant". Hughson in no way influences the game. He describes what I'm seeing with my own eyes. They discuss and show whatever the production crew come up with beforehand for storylines. Sports are essentially reality TV + Soap opera. They need storylines to get viewers emotionally invested in players and teams. Therefore, you have Eddie Lack's dad? Use it. Ferland's story? Use it. Sam Bennett is impressive at a very young age? Emphasize it. Needing to praise both teams equally is dumb and childish.

It's no coincidence that posters here email CBC about "unprofessionalism" after game 2, and Canucks fans have after games 1, 3 and 4. You're upset your team lost and pour that energy into being angry at the messenger who spent time discussing how good the winner is.

Not sure why is worth so much energy to be upset about.

[Steveyoto]

I thought he was really bad in Game #1.
Game #2 were were dominated so bad that I had no problem with the Canuck bias.
Game #3 I thought he was actually in favor of the flames.
Game #4 He was fairly neutral till mid way through the second, at which point the flames were playing alot of shutdown defense.

It only really bugs me when it is a really close game a la game #1, that was annoying as hell.

[Hack&Lube]

I like Hughson calling the games and don't mind the homerism. It's like eating delicious tears every time the Flames win.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Very curious to see how Rogers deploys the talent for round 2. Gotta think if MTL goes thru, that Hughson goes East.

So we're probably looking at Romanuk or Randorf, or Bob Cole?

I don't see them giving it to Ball although that would be unreal. Those above four have been national guys all season long.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Very curious to see how Rogers deploys the talent for round 2. Gotta think if MTL goes thru, that Hughson goes East.

So we're probably looking at Romanuk or Randorf, or Bob Cole?

I don't see them giving it to Ball although that would be unreal. Those above four have been national guys all season long.

I agree that Houghson goes east next series as he likely has a clause in his contract to call Canucks series over others but now they are out he will likely call the eastern Canadian team as the ratings will be considerably higher given the late starts of the Flames vs Ducks series.

[liamenator]

Bob Cole would be an absolutely dream! Oh baby.

[GoJetsGo]

Why is there a question mark in this thread title?

[Puppet Guy]

take THAT, Ben Eager Jim Hughson!