You know, I saw a guy host Sportscenter that seemed to know soccer. I'm trying to remember his name. Max Bretos maybe?
I like Arlo White's calling style. He can be a bit wordy at times, but I don't mind, because his commentary is usually intelligent and always very observant to detail. I've felt for a while now that the greatest sin of American soccer broadcasting has been to whitewash a lot of midfield play with color commentary that is generic at best and vapid at worst. I think that White does a better job of highlighting the subtler points of the game that a new or casual fan might not see.
Best call of the weekend went to ESPN though: "New country, same currency ... goals" Freaking awesome line. ----------------------------------------- Meh, that number does look a bit dire for the DAL/NYRB match. I'll reserve making a call though, until we see numbers for some Prime Time/Night matches. Unfortunately the NBCSports schedule is front loaded with afternoon match starts.
In soccer you should, occasionally. Especially on TV. You can see things on TV, right? I mean, it's a visual medium. And the game of soccer on television has to be allowed to breathe occasionally. I'm pretty sure you've never seen - or done - the job description. But feel free to opine about it. Experience with a topic has never been a requirement here.
ESPN broadcast was better than NBC visually. ESPN had cameras on the 20 yard line and the goal line, camera angle much higher. NBC one lousy camera from left to right(shame on them). Arlo is a excellent commentator, very smart, knows MLS well, but he just can't be by himself. I enjoyed watching Seattle's games, but I couldn't take him alone in the booth.
I'm not complaining. I was trying to explain why he's probably talking "too much" and point out that NBC isn't going to get anywhere by preaching to the choir. I'll give you a pass though.
I was surprised by how much ESPN had stepped up their game, but in retrospect, I shouldn't have been. As has been stated elsewhere, ESPN and NBC are in competition now. Not just for MLS, but in competition -- period. For the first time in a long time, ESPN is facing a broadcast/cable sports broadcasting combo that has the resources to challenge it for the top spot. After the 2014 season, both NBC's and ESPN's contracts with MLS will be up for renewal. If MLS believes it to be in their best business interests, we could conceivably see one of these networks granted an exclusive contract, similar to the deal NBC has with the NHL. Considering how the league is growing, and projecting where it could be in three years, both networks are campaigning now to get the inside track for those negotiations. And the number one way you do that is by improving the quality of your product. ------RM
Agreed. I'd also say that both the ESPN broadcast and the NBC Sports broadcast were of vastly superior quality in comparison to foxsoccer's midweek champions league broadcast. Those broadcasts would lead you to believe that those games were being played in front of no one as their mics barely pick up the crowd. That's my biggest knock on foxsoccer. That and their terrible camera angles. Plus, as much as I love him in studio, Sullivan is terrible in the booth as a constantly tries to remind us that he speaks spanish by rolling his Rs in his monotone voice. There's more dead air during his broadcasts than on the Rush Limbaugh show right now. Anyway, I thought the ESPN broadcast was actually pretty damn good. Obviously an environment like Portland helps (the Timbers Army was absolutely fantastic), however, the visual and sound quality were awesome and I like the combo of Twellman and Healy and the pregame and hafltime shows were solid. I still can't friggin stand Lalas (the Matt Millen of soccer), but Keller was better than I expected. The NBC Sports broadcasts were a little rough around the edges, but I like the pre and post game interviews..... though they should've let Shea catch his breadth before interviewing him and it would've been nice to see the first broadcast in a bit better environment than Dallas. However, all in all what I watched this week was a quantum leap forward versus even 2 or 3 years ago and I think the league has a shot at getting a semi-legitimate overall contract in 2014. Encouraging to say the least.
I basically came to say this. They definitely ramped up the quality of their technical analysis. I have to give Twellman credit for being way better than I expected. And who the heck was that sideline reporter? She gave a heckuva detailed (and obviously knowledgeable about the game) report on Spencer changing tactics mid-game.
It seems to be a theme where people put arguments in my mouth because they just don't understand what I mean. My complaint is the people who think the announcer should just stop talking for minutes at a time. Not that Arlo should learn to take a 45-minutes-worth deep breath right before game time. Just not talking is laziness. Again, if you want to just watch the game without somebody talking, hit mute. If you want an audio and visual experience (which TV provides), enjoy.
Ok, so A) Versus changed its name to NBC Sports and picked up MLS. That is not competition. 82,000 viewers on a Sunday afternoon for the first game of the year does not challenge whatever ESPN was running at the same time. B) NBC Sports took FSC's games, not ESPN's. So, what inside track are they fighting over? NBC Sports already has almost twice as many games as ESPN. What are they fighting over again? Neither network is showing games at the same time. They're both promoting the same league, but ESPN is also promoting a bunch of other sports/etc. NBC Sports has cycling, NHL, and PBR. Why is ESPN scared again?
Can anybody give an actual example of how ESPN's quality vastly improved over last year? Or are these just things you guys are noticing because of your preconceived notion that ESPN simply MUST improve quality to hang with NBC Sports? I just want a real example. Not "Wow, Taylor Twellman didn't sound dumb all of a sudden."
You seen to be a little unclear on the concept of "competition". ESPN and NBC are competing for more than ratings and viewers. They are competing to look the best in the eyes of the various sports leagues, so that when the time comes, they have a better chance of winning broadcast rights. After all, the single biggest reason NBCSN landed MLS is because of how they treated the NHL. If I'm remembering right, FSC actually offerred more money than NBC for the MLS TV rights. But MLS chose NBC, because of the promise of greater exposure and better production. MLS knew NBC was the right choice because of what they did for the NHL. NBC outcompeted FSC. The better deal in 2014. What, you think it's written in stone that there will be two networks in the next contract? There used to be three, you know. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Why do you insist that competition between television networks begins and ends with head-to-head programming? Do you honestly think the various singing competitions aren't competing with each other for publicity and ratings? They aren't running at the same time, after all. ------RM
This is just a trivial example. I'm sure others will come up with something better and I honestly should be asleep right now. What provides the first impression for any sports broadcast? The opening graphics. And ESPN had been using the same opening graphic sequence for at least three years, maybe four or more. The ball shown in the opening sequence last year was one MLS hadn't used since 2009. That's pretty much the definition of half-assing it. "This sport isn't worth the expense of updating the graphics." This year? What do you know, new graphics. Like I said, trivial example. But one that struck me. ------RM
You talk about competition and then mention that NBC Sports beat out FSC. Ok. I agree that those two networks would've been competing. ESPN is on another level. If the MLS were actually at the level where it was NBC that ESPN was competing with and not NBC Sports (like some of you keep typing either out of laziness or wild ambition) then this would certainly be an interesting topic. However, both networks are currently holding as many games as they feel like holding without stepping on each others toes. And, I've already mentioned this, ESPN changes their graphics every couple of years or so. All of them. They recently changed their intro to Sportscenter even though there's not even remotely a legitimate competitor against them with that segment.
Ummm they are a legitimate contender. This is like when Google bought out Android when the iPhone was selling like hot cakes. Sure, the first G1 didn't not fairly compete with the iPhone, but over a course of years, Android has become legitimate competition. NBC is not in this for the short run. They are thinking of terms of decades. If they can impress, maybe they'll get a chunk of NFL, MLB, NBA. If not those Big 3 sports, maybe they can start with some big college football or college basketball deals. As they build momentum and legitimacy, they could become a true contender in 30 years. That's the goal. And if you were running ESPN, you'd be a fool to ignore a threat from a rival heavy weight. Just like Google is a tech heavy weight, NBC is a broadcasting heavyweight. And both are determined to get a slice of the pie.
I think if NBC can sneak in some MLS commercials during the Olympics (the entire country will be watching with their eyeballs glued to the TV) then I think MLS might get a slight boost.
This is not like that. Once again, it's not NBC that's running MLS games (save for 3) it's NBC Sports. ESPN dwarfs NBC Sports despite the wild popularity of professional cycling. And if I were running ESPN, I'd run it exactly how it's being run. I would constantly attempt to improve upon our current product, and some lower tier cable network buying MLS games would definitely not be a wake up call. Just for reference, everybody's favorite channel to hate on (FSC) recently changed their graphics and attempted to make their product better too. Are they also attempting to get the inside track for MLS games for a 30 year plan to overtake ESPN? Or are they just a company who is always trying to get better because that's how business works?
Nothing he said there was wrong. NBC Sports Net is not aimed at a niche in the way Fox Soccer Channel is. They are aimed at a wider market share, one more similar to, and one that at some point can only come at the expense of, ESPN. This should have been fairly obvious, seeing as the level of effort NBC is currently putting into promotion and production value for the channel is unsustainable if they didn't expect significant market share increase over time. You seem to be confusing the starting line for the finish line. NBC Sports Net has tiny ratings now because it's brand new, because it does not yet have any premier sports TV packages (they're all basically on long-term deals). It is still out to use those packages that it does have to grow the channel awareness, carry rate, subscriber fee, advertising, etc, and catch bigger fish down the line. In terms of reputation, NBC wants it 'out there' that they do a better job covering the sports they cover than the other channels who cover it, this is part of the brand awareness they're trying to create. ESPN doesn't want it to be that easy for them, not if they can take some relatively simple and cost-conscious steps to prevent it.
Yet the MLS graphics remained outdated until this year. That same cheesy opening sequence and outdated ball graphic had been used for (as confirmed by other posters in the thread) at least 4 years. Oh, and here's the logo for when that graphical insertion began in 2007: So actually you're looking at a minimum of 5 years it was used. During that time, you're right other sports and programming were upgraded graphically and aesthetically. Not MLS though. Hell, it was painfully obvious in 2010 when the WC interface/presentation was light years ahead of the dilapidated MLS offering. But yes, let's ignore that for your point though .... it doesn't really add up for you. Holy hell you're either ignorant, dumb, or both. Quick question (that I've already given you the answer too): Who owns/runs NBCSports ? NBC <--- and Comcast. Now, please ... explain how those two companies in their own right (let alone together) are dwarfed by ESPN. Please, explain that. NBCSports is the Sports Division of the NBC Network. IT IS NBC (with help from the merger with Comcast). Wait, let me guess though ... ESPN Classic isn't ESPN right ? So you'd ignore the conglomerate of two huge companies that could potentially take away your market share and begin to steal properties from you ? Bad ass, I want to get into competing .... eeerrr non competing business with you. Recently, yeah after years of the same old shit. Recently, as in when the league scoffed at the treatment/presentation/coverage they'd given and signed for less money ... and since the time that HD broadcasting came on board .... and since the time that FOX itself began overhauling it's coverage and upped it's stake in the soccer game. Odd isn't it ? All of these things with FOX/ESPN coincide with the merger of NBC/Comcast and the creation of the NBC Sports Group ..... .... odd
I don't disagree with any of this other than the fact that as more people watch and enjoy MLS on NBC Sports, more people will watch and enjoy MLS on ESPN. That's not competition. Now if by the time 2014 rolls around MLS is so big that NBC wants to start running MLS games, well yes that would be competing with ESPN. Or if somehow NBC Sports gets that much bigger because of its NHL and MLS audiences. Unlikely considering the NHL is far bigger than MLS, and NBC Sports has done a great job covering them...and still moved essentially nowhere.