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

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Yeah… … I'm sure. Her analysis is meh… as well. Not bad, but also not great.

She also has the cadence and tone of a nasally valley girl trying to sound intelligently cool.

I tried to be polite before, but she is completely terrible.

With her & Wills I’ll listen to the oppositions radio feed.

I get the Loubardias comparison but she sounds like Pete with his whine set to 11.

I like Mikkelson so far, but what I really take umbrage with is your valley girl accent comment. She has a HARDCORE townie accent, and I agree it is distracting at times. I suppose that’s probably part of what is required to fit into the player culture, though, so I don’t really fault her for it. Maybe it’ll go away over time.

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

... Try listening to what they say.

...I have to do this all day, everyday at home....can I not have a break during a hockey broadcast?

[Strange Brew]

Somewhat unrelated but Gregg Olsen is very highly regarded as an NFL color guy and I find his voice very nasally. Maybe that shows how good he is because IMO he does not have a good broadcasting voice.

I don’t have much of an opinion on Mikkelson yet. Her analysis does feel a little force but she is so new to this what can you expect.

I was done with Loubardias. Like the guy and during the game his comments were fine. But I couldn’t stand his between game spots. When you can 100% predict what some is going to say there is no point listening anymore.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Somewhat unrelated but Gregg Olsen is very highly regarded as an NFL color guy and I find his voice very nasally. Maybe that shows how good he is because IMO he does not have a good broadcasting voice.

There is a general push in broadcasting towards more natural sounding voices. Within game commentary typically the play by play will have a more traditional "radio voice" and be a trained broadcasters, and the color analyst, will be a former player/coach, etc, and they intentionally want them to sound more like a "regular person".

Tony Romo is another a good example. Breaks almost every rule in terms of his sound, but he delivers fantastic insights.

[Caboose]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think she's fantastic. My bar for an analyst is to tell me something I don't know. She does this very well. She offers actual insights.

I second this. My impression was that her timing and cadence need work, and that will be learned with time, but her analysis was fantastic in my books.

Two specific examples that stuck out to me: she noted a neutral zone adjustment the Flames made to how the Avs were playing and how it was affecting breakouts. It wasn't a vague "oh, they made an adjustment," it was a detailed explanation that I don't think I've ever heard from another colour commentator. I learned something new and it was very refreshing.

The other one was when Makar took a slapshot in the arm, she said "they'll put Voltaren on that to numb it, then compress it with k-tape to keep swelling down and he'll be right back out there" which is just an interesting little tidbit that I'd never know or think about normally!

It really highlights how much other analysts rely on cliches and vague explanations that don't actually offer much. I hope Meghan gets a fair shot because I think in a couple years, she could be top notch!

[Textcritic]

Maybe Mikkelson doesn't have a great radio voice—I don't know. I don't much care either, because her analyses and insights are interesting and useful. In my opinion she has single-handedly made the game broadcasts listenable. I do not like Derek Wills for basically the same reasons: he is cliche, predictable and uninteresting. Mikkelson has been a breath of fresh air.

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

[PepsiFree]

If Scott Ferrall can have a 20+ year career in radio I’m sure Mikkelson will manage just fine.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Maybe Mikkelson doesn't have a great radio voice—I don't know. I don't much care either, because her analyses and insights are interesting and useful. In my opinion she has single-handedly made the game broadcasts listenable. I do not like Derek Wills for basically the same reasons: he is cliche, predictable and uninteresting. Mikkelson has been a breath of fresh air.

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

I find people being critical of voices to be hilariously unacceptable.

Like any of us give a !@#$ about what voice anyone else finds annoying. It is a stupid, massively irrelevant personal opinion - and people going out and publicly judging someone else's voice? Stupid ass schoolyard critique.

The thing that matters is what they bring to a broadcast content-wise. Do they provide any actual analysis to the moment to moment gameplay? There are plenty of generically voiced folks out there holding these jobs that could be replaced by towel if you were to judge them on the value added to the broadcast. I've found that Canadian broadcasters have slid into this rut of on-air inside jokes and just banking on their history with the game and their on-air 'personality' while adding next to no actual analysis. Hell of a thing that US based broadcasts do a better job of adding to the sport than the hockey night in canada broadcast and panel crew does - with the exception of Kevin Bieksa and Jennifer Botterill, who add actual analysis and value to the panel.

[PuckSlap]

Analytically speaking, you are less likely to continue to watch a YouTube video if the audio quality is bad, or the content creator has an annoying voice. Even if the content quality is high. Radio is all audio. If people don't like it, it will show in the ratings.

[Textcritic]

^
Agreed, but I just cannot get over Kevin Bieksa's insufferable smugness. That's mostly a "me" thing, but I can't stand that guy.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

^
Agreed, but I just cannot get over Kevin Bieksa's insufferable smugness. That's mostly a "me" thing, but I can't stand that guy.

I can totally see that. It does bother me a bit too but I look past it because I do find him humorous and he does provide some good insights too.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

Analytically speaking, you are less likely to continue to watch a YouTube video if the audio quality is bad, or the content creator has an annoying voice. Even if the content quality is high. Radio is all audio. If people don't like it, it will show in the ratings.

Yes. I remain sceptical that Mega Mikkelson has such a grating, distracting voice quality that it is going to turn most listeners off. I suspect that most listeners are just fine with her colour.

[TheIronMaiden]

Mikkelson will be on TV before too long. She is too good for radio.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

There is a general push in broadcasting towards more natural sounding voices.

Okay, thanks for sharing this! I was wondering why I was hearing the 'CBC News Voice" less and less

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes. I remain sceptical that Mega Mikkelson has such a grating, distracting voice quality that it is going to turn most listeners off. I suspect that most listeners are just fine with her colour.

My hockey watching (and playing) buddies all really like her work. Not one has mentioned her voice, which I find unremarkable either way.

I heard the same comments about Cassie Campbell's voice, and that woman who was doing PBP in the US. I mean do all women in the broadcast booth supposedly have grating voices?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

There is a general push in broadcasting towards more natural sounding voices. Within game commentary typically the play by play will have a more traditional "radio voice" and be a trained broadcasters, and the color analyst, will be a former player/coach, etc, and they intentionally want them to sound more like a "regular person".

Tony Romo is another a good example. Breaks almost every rule in terms of his sound, but he delivers fantastic insights.

How much is a push in broadcasting, and how much is it that formal training of broadcasters as a career has completely cratered? It isn’t just sports broadcasting where standards have changed. Listen to CBC radio; half the new broadcasters on the air today wouldn’t have been allowed near a microphone 20 or 30 years ago.

In the early 90s, when I was in journalism school, broadcasting students learned very quickly who had a potential career path on-air and who was destined for production. The elocution classes (or whatever they were called) could improve someone’s delivery, but only marginally. They were mainly a sorting mechanism.

But that’s when journalism programs were popular and led to a decent middle-class career. Now that the profession has cratered, and enrolment in broadcasting fallen off a cliff as a consequence, I don’t imagine employers can be choosy about the vocal qualities of on-air talent the way they used to.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

^
Agreed, but I just cannot get over Kevin Bieksa's insufferable smugness. That's mostly a "me" thing, but I can't stand that guy.

Don't you don't find him to be much better now vs when he started?

I often felt like he was trying way too hard to be funny, clever, etc when he first appeared on TV. It was a total cringe fest whenever he opened his mouth.

The dynamic on the panel now is superb IMO. Especially the jabs between the different panel members.

I honestly wouldn't change any of them and it's been a long time since I felt that way.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Don't you don't find him to be much better now vs when he started?

I often felt like he was trying way too hard to be funny, clever, etc when he first appeared on TV. It was a total cringe fest whenever he opened his mouth.

The dynamic on the panel now is superb IMO. Especially the jabs between the different panel members.

I honestly wouldn't change any of them and it's been a long time since I felt that way.

The trouble with TV panels is that they have a fixed amount of time to make a point, each are allocated a few minutes, so they have to get in their "bit" in that segment. It leads to forced topics and comments. Frankly though, this is why Cassie is better on panels than colour - her colour she tried to do the same thing - make a point she'd prepared whether it was actually reflected in the game or not.

[Table 5]

Mikkelson is fine. Technically insightful, if a bit dry. A considerable step up from Cassie, but similarly lacking a bit on the "color" aspect in terms of making the broadcast more entertaining. Hopefully the personality will come out more at some point.

Wills I still can't stand. Not a fan of his voice, but that's the least of the issues for me. The guy is perpetually behind on goal calls, calls away goals like a homer (ie tries to downplay them), and overall just does a poor job of making you picture the action.

All in all, a far cry from the Maher and Rogers (or Barkley) years, or Ball/Hrudey.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Don't you don't find him to be much better now vs when he started?

Nope. I can't get over the smugness, and it's one of those things that I don't see how he would change. Smug people are smug.


Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk