I hate Sportsnet.

[djsFlames]

All SNET is good for is kissing McDavid's pimply ass.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I just think it’s telling they only pick one of the Alberta teams. Considering both are essentially the same market (all of Alberta and sask) can the viewership really be that different? Or is it profitable to only run one op?

I would say yes, and they're trying to operate at as low of a cost as possible due to over exerting themselves over the national deal. They'll rightfully focus on the market that supports one of the teams moreso, along with having the most marquee player in the league right now.

I feel right now they are doing Flames games as low budget as possible. The camera's Sportsnet uses for home games are absolute ####, and change colour hues every few seconds. The lighting is off, and honestly looks like they're are using HD cameras that were the first ones used back around 2004.

TSN taking over, should at least bring in better broadcast camera quality.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I would say yes, and they're trying to operate at as low of a cost as possible due to over exerting themselves over the national deal. They'll rightfully focus on the market that supports one of the team moreso, along with having the most marquee player in the league right now.

I feel right now they are doing Flames games as low budget as possible. The camera's Sportsnet uses for home games are absolute ####, and change colour hues every few seconds. The lightning is off, and honestly looks like they're are using HD cameras that were the first ones used back around 2004.

TSN taking over, should at least bring in better broadcast camera quality.

Unless you watch online. Almost got a headache watching the gold medal game stream today on TSN

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by Joborule

What's demeaning about it?

Personally, I find it easy and prefer to refer to her by Cassie since it sounds better than Campbell-Pascall.

It's no different than many referring to Gaudreau as Johnny only. Is that demeaning?

Well said. Ron MacLean also addresses some of his colleagues on air by first name.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Tsawwassen

Well said. Ron MacLean also addresses some of his colleagues on air by first name.

Well, all the broadcasters do. Myself, I type whatever’s easier for names.

I don’t hate Cassie Campbell. I don’t think she’s great, but certainly not the worst. I like a lot, but more for his rapport with Ball than for insight - he has some but by now I think we’ve heard most of his thoughts on the game. I don’t think he does his background research on the players like some colour guys do. With Campbell, I don’t think her comments are very deep, that's all. I think she’d be well suited for a US broadcast where they seem to aim at the lowest informed viewer.

I’d like to see how a guy like Stajan would do in the booth. A recent retiree who knows the modern game better, actually has played against many of the players, etc.

[Aegypticus]

I think a major issue I have with Cassie is that it seems like she fits her commentary to her pre-game notes rather than crafting her story of the game based on what’s actually happening. Like, for example, if her research says that player X is red hot right now after starting slow, she seems to want to shoehorn in a lot of commentary about how great of a game player X is having, even if player X is doing absolutely nothing. It leads to a lot of dissonance, I think, when viewers are reacting only to what they’re seeing in real-time. Makes her seem like she’s completely out to lunch sometimes.

She’s far from the only commentator to make this mistake, of course. There’s a lot of pressure on commentators to be experts, so a lot of them lean heavily on research, which seems to make them inadvertently create their narrative of the game before the opening face-off even happens.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

I think a major issue I have with Cassie is that it seems like she fits her commentary to her pre-game notes rather than crafting her story of the game based on what’s actually happening. Like, for example, if her research says that player X is red hot right now after starting slow, she seems to want to shoehorn in a lot of commentary about how great of a game player X is having, even if player X is doing absolutely nothing. It leads to a lot of dissonance, I think, when viewers are reacting only to what they’re seeing in real-time. Makes her seem like she’s completely out to lunch sometimes.

She’s far from the only commentator to make this mistake, of course. There’s a lot of pressure on commentators to be experts, so a lot of them lean heavily on research, which seems to make them inadvertently create their narrative of the game before the opening face-off even happens.

Yes, this is very common with rookie commentators. It's very difficult to react to and commentate on real happenings in a game, as you have to be a natural on air communicator to casually see something and speak to it professionally.

So unfortunately what you often get is commentators getting storylines in your head before the game and then trying to find examples of it so they can speak to their rehearsed stats, stories and anecdotes.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yes, this is very common with rookie commentators. It's very difficult to react to and commentate on real happenings in a game, as you have to be a natural on air communicator to casually see something and speak to it professionally.

So unfortunately what you often get is commentators getting storylines in your head before the game and then trying to find examples of it so they can speak to their rehearsed stats, stories and anecdotes.

She's not exactly a rookie though, she's been doing it on and off since 2006 (I actually remember that game - Cole was pretty condescending IIRC). With SNET since 2013, plus every Olympics since 2010.

[jayswin]

Yeah, she's definitely not a rookie so my statement is a bit of an indictment.

[VilleN]

Cassie just isn't very good IMO. Very monotone, boring with often obvious insights or ones that don't make sense. She doesn't come off sounding at all natural or comfortable which in turn makes listening to her a bit of a labour. I don't really feel she's cut out for it... some people have that type of voice - an easy, natural way of speaking; she doesn't.

[MolsonInBothHands]

I am not in broadcasting, so this is just as assumption, but aren't the colour commentators subject to whatever the director wants them to discuss. Somebody is cueing up replays or taking camera shots to go along with what that person is about to talk about, so my question is, who makes that call?

And for the record, whoever was with Ball for lasts night's game in Minnesota was brutal and Cassie and Kelly (both by first name) are upgrades on that steaming crap. You could hear the awkward silence from Ball after he makes his OT prediction.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

I am not in broadcasting, so this is just as assumption, but aren't the colour commentators subject to whatever the director wants them to discuss. Somebody is cueing up replays or taking camera shots to go along with what that person is about to talk about, so my question is, who makes that call?

And for the record, whoever was with Ball for lasts night's game in Minnesota was brutal and Cassie and Kelly (both by first name) are upgrades on that steaming crap. You could hear the awkward silence from Ball after he makes his OT prediction.

Jason York. Agreed - rather annoying.

And someone talked about Charlie Simmer earlier. Couldn't stand him...he just kept talking about guys "moving their feet".

[skeena1]

Originally Posted by Joborule

TSN taking over, should at least bring in better broadcast camera quality.

Unlikely to happen given they both own half of Dome Productions which supplies the gear.

[Press Level]

I wonder how disappointed some people will be when the Flames announce a new 10 year agreement with Sportsnet this summer?

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Press Level

I wonder how disappointed some people will be when the Flames announce a new 10 year agreement with Sportsnet this summer?

If they broadcast all 82(+) games. who cares.

[rohara66]

As long as we dont have to go back to crappy Flames PPV's I don't care.



Show me every game in my cable package and I'm in.

[Vinny01]

Either every game will be on SN or most games will be on TSN with the national games on SN. Either way I don’t see a scenario where 82 games are not televised.

SN might want to cut the Flames loose and TSN would jump to add more games to broadcast even though just Regionally.

[Robbob]

Coming from the days where all 82 weren't broadcast I don't care who has the rights. Having the option to watch all the games in HD (hey it isn't SD) is something I appreciate because I know how it used to be. Probably why it really doesn't matter to me who calls the game or who does colour. Hell, I would gladly listen Rob Kerr and Simmer if it meant I was able to watch Flames hockey.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

I am not in broadcasting, so this is just as assumption, but aren't the colour commentators subject to whatever the director wants them to discuss. Somebody is cueing up replays or taking camera shots to go along with what that person is about to talk about, so my question is, who makes that call?
.

It's a partnership but a lot of it is game driven at the direction of the commentators. They will call down and ask the crew to put together a package, or find a replay.
But the rest of the team will also make suggestions
"Hey we've got a great replay of that last save from a different angle, do you want that coming back from break"?

The director is there to coordinate and orchestrate everything.
There are some elements that are commitments that the director calls for - sponsor reads, contests, promos, etc.

But it's ultimately they job of the commentators to tell the story of the game, and ask for the supporting video to allow them to do that most effectively.

I should add that during play indeed the director will call for each camera shot and angles. In between play and coming in and out of breaks is where the commentators will ask for certain things to support their story line

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yes, this is very common with rookie commentators. It's very difficult to react to and commentate on real happenings in a game, as you have to be a natural on air communicator to casually see something and speak to it professionally.

So unfortunately what you often get is commentators getting storylines in your head before the game and then trying to find examples of it so they can speak to their rehearsed stats, stories and anecdotes.

One thing like about Rick and Kelly, is that that have a very natural rapport. They joke around, and it feels like two friends calling a game where everyone is comfortable and loose. That rapport provides additional entertainment, which is important especially when the product on the ice is lacking.

If Cassie has that natural rapport with anyone, I haven't see it. Broadcasts with her involved just always feel more wooden. She provides factually-correct commentary, but entertainment and personality wise, she is exactly on par with Charlie Simmer.