Agree 100% with you. Use educated knowledgeable announcers and the audience will adjust. But my recommendation was simply a way to maybe make it work. But I am with you would prefer to hear someone who knew WTF they were talking about regardless of the accent.
Sure, Sullivan is "better" than Wynalda and Harkes. And malaria is better than AIDS and ebola. Still doesn't mean I want it.
Although I think, as I already posted, having Gus do football is ridiculous, I can't blame him for this announcement of the score, which irritated me as well. He's not making that choice. Some producer is telling him what to say. I blame Fox, but I also knew what I was risking because I chose to watch FS1 first and then the Barca-Atletico game on FS+. FS+ will always be the safest bet because Sky announcers rarely spoil scores (although they do sometimes) and FS+ doesn't have a ticker spoiling scores. In this case, I was a neutral for both games and felt like the United-Bayern game might be more interesting. Now tonight, when I have something invested, I am watching Real-Dortmund first half first (again, no ticker and less chance of spoiled scores), then first half of PSG-Chelsea, then second half of Real-Dortmund, and finally PSG-Chelsea second half. I am a fan of Dortmund and PSG but I would prefer to watch PSG-Chelsea and then the other game but can't trust that the former will be spoiler free. It is what it is.
The only game where any announcer mentioned the score was by Gus Johnson an American announcer. My question is why?
Because it is a LIVE SPORTS and the broadcaster treats it as such. The games are not broadcast in a vacuum.
I understand that. Then answer this. Why did the three international broadcasts not mention the score of the other game then?
Tickers are bad enough, although there is a split opinion on them. HOWEVER, The red "breaking news" ticker employed by FS1 (for a no hitter in the SIXTH inning and a broken up no hitter) has got to be the worst use for a multitude of reasons. Chiefly that it was more distracting than usual. Since all live sports are actually "breaking" news, why don't the sports channels go full FNC/MSNBC with flashing bells and whistles and have studio commentators break in at every pause in play so they can shout back and forth while the game is going on? Thx, Jay!
Great! Taping the CL highlights only to see a news conference for 27 minutes. Then taped the EPL review show only to see that it is 30 minute late. Do networks take these highlight shows seriously?
BTW on ESPN Deportes they kept on showing the score of the Valencia Europa League match. The Colombian color commentator Ricardo Mayorga also mentioned the score. So it is not just Gus doing the spoling. Nor is it exclusive to North American broadcasters.
No offense to those who watch taped sports without knowing its outcome, but I'm sure if you complained to all the media who "spoil" live scores, they'd probably laugh at you and tell you to get a life.
Except for the fact that he does a few college football games. Would he want to fly back and forth on a regular basis?
Also the fact that it is a monumentally stupid idea. I watched Manure on Tuesday and thought Gus had improved greatly since the last time he did soccer and then the Chelsea game started and he looked like just as big of a clown as he always has been. He just isn't suited for the game and i don't think they can force it.
No they don't we spent twenty pages of the EPL NBC thread going over this they don't really care whether the highlight show airs or not they know that you will most likely do what you did and stream it or grab the highlights you wanted off of their websites. Unless i miss my guess the review show was delayed because of a hockey overtime and you would also be complaining if they truncated it so they got no way to win with you so they please the majority and their corporate overlords who want to see the end of the hockey game and as many commercials as possible.
i would just rep this if i could but i know sports anchors from living near espn campus for a while and can tell you they would.
I was happy the ticker told me about the possible no hitter but I think it interrupted whatever else was on the ticker for the "breaking news" too often. The first hit of the game was a home run and I think the ticker should have said the score rather than just saying that the no hitter was broken up.
Too bad those networks don't care. Maybe UEFA should stagger the start times so there isn't any overlap.
you didn't know that people will stay up till 1am to watch and go to games that they already aren't watching and going to. UEFA operates for the European markets the kickoff times are staying where they are because that is their primetime. Certain Americans are going to be inconvenienced is simply not a factor that they can put a lot of weight into in their decision making. As for the precious "spoilers" people want to watch sports and consider the implications of all the games. Most people will not watch a replay and spoilers dont ruin highlights.
Television is adapting (some more slowly than others...) to a "two screen" world where people use a tablet, phone, or PC in addition to a TV to either watch a second match or discuss the action as it happens. TV replays aren't going to be around much longer, especially when that slot could be used for something more profitable (NBC's hunting shows make money), they're already being pushed to internet services like Watch ESPN and Live Extra. If you look at sports ratings in the grand scheme of things they often aren't very good. Repeats of stuff like Step By Step often beat LIVE sports events, let alone a replay. The appeal of sports to broadcasters is that they're among the last "DVR proof" programming there is.
Since NBC's hunting shows make money. Why not just show hunting shows then? Think of the money they are leaving on the table.
7pm CET is 6pm GMT. That's really pushing it for weekday UK audiences. Also for competitive purposes it makes sense to have matches in the latter matchdays of the group stage take place at the same time...
For the same reason ESPN shows live soccer and cricket: they want to broaden their appeal. Live events get eyeballs on the screen and give you opportunities to advertise your other offerings, replays of a midtable match from 4 days ago don't. Most people just look up the result and go on about their day.
This is his hobby horse. He wants to live in a world where there was a broad demand for WestBrom/Reading airing three times a week on a TV channel that he pretends didn't cost him anything. And that Fox was brimming with cash from all the revenue they made from FSC. He constantly whines about the lack of EPL replays and refuses to switch to Directtv so that he could record all five of the extra time games with a genie and not have to worry about any spoilage.