"Take that Calgary Puck!" — SN960 and Calgary sports media discussion

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Sandra is great. Very articulate. But too much of a fan of the local team to be a regular I think.

For example: You can dislike Vegas as a regional opponent but she sounded too much like a fan. Complained about how they handle their team when that’s how every other league in North America does things. “I hate how they treated Fleury who gave everything for them” Etc.

As much hate as more balanced people get you can actually have shows with them. You can’t have fans it’s just not good radio.

Umm, that has nothing to do with being a fan, that's an opinion. Which is kind of the point of radio talk shows.

[djsFlames]

She's not allowed to have an emotionally-based opinion guys.

It's indecent radio.

-Oiler fan


Excuse me while I scream-laugh into a pillow.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Her comments about Vegas and Fleury don’t even have anything to do with the Flames
Just an awful take by you where you are assuming what’s behind her opinion.

Did you listen to the segment?

“They didn’t treat him right”

“There is no one more loyal In the game than Fleury”

That’s fan talk. And honestly, that’s old boy hockey club bs.

She’s great and I enjoy her on the radio but she went hard on the old boy this is hockey this is how teams should act and it came across as hating because they have had success. Pat and others have done the same but massaged in a way to not sound like a sour fan.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Umm, that has nothing to do with being a fan, that's an opinion. Which is kind of the point of radio talk shows.

Rhett was unabashedly a fan of multiple teams and was one of the best personalities they had on 960.

As long as you make clear, strong points and have a good voice for radio, I don't think other stuff like that has much bearing on whether someone should be a regular or not. I think Sandra is great.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Did you listen to the segment?

“They didn’t treat him right”

“There is no one more loyal In the game than Fleury”

That’s fan talk. And honestly, that’s old boy hockey club bs.

She’s great and I enjoy her on the radio but she went hard on the old boy this is hockey this is how teams should act and it came across as hating because they have had success. Pat and others have done the same but massaged in a way to not sound like a sour fan.

That's fair, you probably know a thing or two about old boy clubs.

If there was ever any question.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Umm, that has nothing to do with being a fan, that's an opinion. Which is kind of the point of radio talk shows.

Agree to disagree. I listen to 960 basically all day. I let it wash over me while I work. But It’s listenable because the people are great commentators in my mind.

Look, the segments I listened to yesterday I just felt she came across as too fan like. That has nothing to do with her in general though. She’s been fantastic on the radio in spots. Maybe I didn’t like her with Pat on the one day. No big deal. I like Pat a lot and I’m sure she was better today on the show (didn’t listen at all). I can’t listen tomorrow either but if she’s back next week I’ll listen and reserve judgement.

I enjoy everyone on 960 from 6 until 6, except marek. So it might make me a weirdo I dunno.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Yamer

This is all subjective, including my own assessment of how anyone is treated under any nuanced or contextualized conditions. In this instance I've observed a female broadcaster treated differently than her male counterparts within similar circumstances.

I'm not an authority on this and I've never claimed to be one. And I'm not a judge appointed to rule on anything, and I've again never claimed to be one. This is a strange inquisition, considering I'm neither preaching nor creating any kind of standard.

When two things are the same but elicit a distinctive response you generally examine the variables. In this case, it appears to be a penis.

I think for a lot of people they expect that a prerequisite qualification for the job of NHL color commentator is that they be an ex-NHLer so that when they comment on a game they can inject their own experience in the league to interpret between the lines what's going on under the surface and sometimes spin a story from their playing days that would be interesting to NHL fans. If that's where you come from, then having someone like Cassie show up on the airwaves with poor cadence and low level analysis is doubly awful because in addition to those attributes she also can't spin a yarn about the good old days playing in the league. The undertone there can be interpreted as being sexist because by definition if being an ex-NHLer is a prerequisite then no woman could be 'qualified' for the job in their eyes.

Personally for me I don't think they need to be an ex-NHLer, they just have to 'add' to the experience of watching a game in some way or fashion. On that basis that means simply they must be entertaining or engaging. Neither of which Cassie is. For that matter there's also plenty of ex-NHLers who were/are awful too. Charlie Simmer comes to mind, give me Cassie over him any day, but preferably neither.

[EldrickOnIce]

I don't understand the pbp/color commentary thing, when it comes to TV. Hockey isn't like football - a few seconds of action breaking up 40 seconds of talk. I have not watched a hockey game with the sound up in forever.
On radio, obviously it's important.
TV? Intermission chatter is important, not pbp or color.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I don't understand the pbp/color commentary thing, when it comes to TV. Hockey isn't like football - a few seconds of action breaking up 40 seconds of talk. I have not watched a hockey game with the sound up in forever.
On radio, obviously it's important.
TV? Intermission chatter is important, not pbp or color.

I fully agree with you. At the end of the day I watched Flames hockey all the same whether Simmer, Hrudy, Campbell or any other commentator was working. It's not a big thing that impacts the decision to watch hockey or not for people who are already fans.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

TV? Intermission chatter is important, not pbp or color.

The purpose of PBP on a hockey telecast is ancestor-worship. It is noise offered up to appease the spirit of Foster Hewitt.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I don't understand the pbp/color commentary thing, when it comes to TV. Hockey isn't like football - a few seconds of action breaking up 40 seconds of talk. I have not watched a hockey game with the sound up in forever.
On radio, obviously it's important.
TV? Intermission chatter is important, not pbp or color.

Sure, to fans like us that watch tons of hockey. But colour is important for newer fans or casual fans who may not understand the nuances of the game. So I see the role they play.

Really as long as they aren't complete morons and have the necessary speech skills I don't care who it is. 99% of the time the insight they provide is blatantly obvious to me, so as long as it's presented in a listenable way I'm happy.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by memphusk

How is it toxic masculinity if she's ####ty at her job? This is just getting out of control.

That is not it at all. Moderators have frequently have to edit and delete posts because of the disgusting things people will say about women—about Cassie, in particular—when anonymously hammering away on their keyboards.

I personally don't think she is a good colour voice at all. But I also don't waste an entire game with vitriolic posts about it on a message board.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by memphusk

How is it toxic masculinity if she's ####ty at her job? This is just getting out of control.

I spent the last month listening to several color commentators including Millen last HNIC imagining them I. Cassie's voice. Two key realizations...
1) Most colour commentators make a number of stupid comments throughout the game and I don't think Cassies are worse or better...we are just programmed to listen for them with her because of the constant critisism. Cassies strength is definitely in researched opinions as opposed to off the cuff commentary.

2) There are a couple of better ones (Hrudey because of his chemistry with Ball and Lou because of his ability to cite crazy historical memories on a moments notice). We are blessed to have both and it makes us harsher on others. Leah is really good also...

Not commenting on toxic masculinity...don't agree with that statement either...

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by tkflames

I spent the last month listening to several color commentators including Millen last HNIC imagining them I. Cassie's voice. Two key realizations...
1) Most colour commentators make a number of stupid comments throughout the game and I don't think Cassies are worse or better...we are just programmed to listen for them with her because of the constant critisism. Cassies strength is definitely in researched opinions as opposed to off the cuff commentary.

2) There are a couple of better ones (Hrudey because of his chemistry with Ball and Lou because of his ability to cite crazy historical memories on a moments notice). We are blessed to have both and it makes us harsher on others. Leah is really good also...

Not commenting on toxic masculinity...don't agree with that statement either...

Most colour commentators are also not married to Assistant General Managers of NHL teams either.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Most colour commentators are also not married to Assistant General Managers of NHL teams either.

I think this has far less to do with anything than you may be attempting to manufacture.

[transplant99]

Color commentary is meant to fill the air with talk to give the pbp person a rest and to add a perspective to what has just happened.

This is why Hrudey AND Cassie are really poor at the color side of things while both being great as panelists. They both go on incessantly about things that ARE NOT happening while play is going on. They should rarely be heard except between whistles as it is, but for sure at least be relevant to what is occurring on the ice. Its actually infuriating to me when the rambling goes non stop ...sometimes for 10 seconds while play is underway.

With Cassie it has nothing to do with her gender, she is just flat out awful at the job....so is Hrudey.

Yet I enjoy them both greatly when they are in the studio/on zoom while being part of larger conversations and having time to prep for whatever the subject is.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I don't understand the pbp/color commentary thing, when it comes to TV. Hockey isn't like football - a few seconds of action breaking up 40 seconds of talk. I have not watched a hockey game with the sound up in forever.
On radio, obviously it's important.
TV? Intermission chatter is important, not pbp or color.

Totally agree - and I keep chirping to SN that I wish they'd put out a feed with just the arena sounds...I don't generally want to listen to blather, and often enough just have music on during games. But I'd enjoy just hearing the sounds of the game itself....

One of the interesting things about the recent Flames game in SJ was hearing the guys on TNT when they weren't blabbing...one could hear quite a lot of ...uh...."language"... from the ice b/c there were so few fans there.

To me, that would make a great option and I'd actually PAY for it if I had to.

(Anything not to listen to DeBrusk in a Flames-Oilers game.)

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

And what about Jack Michaels, Ron Maclean, Don cherry, Darren dredger? Those all justified or gender based?

The outrage for each of them is actually proportional to their terrible takes.

Cassie is just kinda bland/boring - the outrage is not proportional to that. She gets things wrong on first viewing live or first replay viewing - as do nearly every other colour commentator (often something looks one way through the first 2-3 replay angles until another view paints a different/definitive story) . I don't think she is very good at talking through those scenarios or clarifying the final result.

There are plenty of valid criticisms to make, but being just kinda 'below average' does not warrant the vitriol she gets. As has been said a thousand times, she is just better suited to intermission analysis.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Cassie reminds me a ton of Charlie Simmer and suffers from the same weaknesses that he had in the role

[heep223]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Color commentary is meant to fill the air with talk to give the pbp person a rest and to add a perspective to what has just happened.

This is why Hrudey AND Cassie are really poor at the color side of things while both being great as panelists. They both go on incessantly about things that ARE NOT happening while play is going on. They should rarely be heard except between whistles as it is, but for sure at least be relevant to what is occurring on the ice. Its actually infuriating to me when the rambling goes non stop ...sometimes for 10 seconds while play is underway.

With Cassie it has nothing to do with her gender, she is just flat out awful at the job....so is Hrudey.

Yet I enjoy them both greatly when they are in the studio/on zoom while being part of larger conversations and having time to prep for whatever the subject is.

But Hrudey’s just so lovable! He does babble a bit but I give him a pass because he seems like such a genuinely good person.

Can’t we all just think back to the Charlie Simmer days and sit back in appreciation of what we have now. With all due respect to Simmer as a person, I was in awe of his ability to suck the life out of any and every play. Just awful, awful stuff.

Agreed with the comments on Sandra she was excellent from what I heard. Hope she becomes a mainstay. In regards to the comments that she’s “too much of a fan” that’s utter bs. This is the local best they are supposed to be fans.