PDA

View Full Version : Why don't other sports do TV PBP from the studio?


CrewToon
22 Apr 2003, 06:53 AM
For some reason, I had this fantasy that FSW would do MLS and other domestic matches from the site. But in general, it seems soccer PBP is done by a number of networks worldwide from the studio.

Why can't it be done for other sports? Baseball would seem to be the hardest one but basketball, football and hockey wouldn't seem to be that difficult.

CSC-CrewFan
22 Apr 2003, 07:17 AM
Other sports do PBP from the studio. Most Formula 1 races shown in North America are done from studios in North America. Speed ans TSN coverage are all from studios for F1.

neilgrossman
22 Apr 2003, 10:06 AM
American Football would be very tough to do. They show a lot of close-ups, so the announcers often have to describe what happened off camera. Also, the sideline reports actually do something in football: they check on the numerous injuries each game.

Jasonma
22 Apr 2003, 11:42 AM
Also OLN's cycling coverage, except for the Tour de France, is done from the studio here in the U.S.. The Tour de France coverage is done from a studio with a view of the finish line each day, so everything but the final sprint is called from the studio.

Sandon Mibut
22 Apr 2003, 02:36 PM
Most networks want to avoid the fiasco of what happened Saturday in FSW's showing of United-Fire. That doesn't happen if you're on site.

dmets
22 Apr 2003, 03:04 PM
Yep - On TV you can't "SEE" the game - only what the cameras catch. Everyone knows the game (including soccer) is much different live in person.

In studio they are voices, noise. In person - they are giving you flavor you can't get otherwise... Dwight Burgess does a great job of capturing that flavor - much like old time baseball announcers did...

Dustin

Daniel from Montréal
22 Apr 2003, 03:25 PM
RDS, Québec's main sports network, does most of its (poor) coverage from the studio, except for its bigger properties like Habs or Sens hockey.

Warren Van Orden
22 Apr 2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by neilgrossman
American Football would be very tough to do. They show a lot of close-ups, so the announcers often have to describe what happened off camera. Also, the sideline reports actually do something in football: they check on the numerous injuries each game.
Spanish SAP from the studio is better than English for ABC Monday Night "Football".

Anybody on espn2 Champion's League is in the studio, was Jack Edwards better at the stadium? Not....

CrewToon
22 Apr 2003, 09:34 PM
I understand studio PBP with F1 or the Tour de blah....


...but what about the team sports?

neilgrossman
24 Apr 2003, 11:23 AM
Do announcers watching in the studio get feeds from all the cameras or just the feed that the viewer sees?

Aaron Stollar
24 Apr 2003, 02:25 PM
The answer is: because it's hard and in many cases it's obvious to the viewer that they aren't at the venue...
- anyone who saw yesterday's Real/Man Utd game will know what I was talking about when JP Dellacamera (a great broadcaster) didn't know or wasn't sure if Ronaldo's shot had gone in for the first goal (it had) he did a great job then "low-keying" that goal-call but it was obvious that he was as unsure whether that had gone in or hit the sidenetting just as all of us viewers were. That's not JP's fault, it's just a fact of life when you are doing a match from a studio.

phishy
24 Apr 2003, 02:37 PM
JP Dellacamera a great broadcaster?? this guy wears me out almost as much as anyone... and on that goal, i thought it was bloody obvious that ronaldo's goal had gone in, and due to the lack of crowd excitement, JP doesnt ave a clue as to weather or not it went in.. that was embarrasing stuff.. brutal.. he's a tosser! and that tommy smyth is television anthrax as well....

P

Toffeeman16
24 Apr 2003, 02:53 PM
here's the deal....

The WC announce positions are awful. I think Jack had an end zone position and was squeezed into a two by four booth. I think soccer is probably the easiest game to announce from the flow and the pace of the action, and lends itself to the in studio call. Howver, you still lose the perspective of 3d, and can easily misjudge what goes on. The annouce team only sees the product as you see it on the air. They could not possibly focus on more than 2 monitors at a time.

You could do baskets in studio but baseball would be tough on ball flight and psotioning and football would be net to impossible with motion and shifting and subs running in and out and conditions unseen byt he human eye. Hockey zooms too fast to catch up with the action.

I would rather my announcer be in the stadium at all costs.

R

BhoysFC1995
24 Apr 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Sandon Mibut
Most networks want to avoid the fiasco of what happened Saturday in FSW's showing of United-Fire. That doesn't happen if you're on site.

what happened?

BhoysFC1995
24 Apr 2003, 03:56 PM
nevermind, found my answer here
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=45064

AndyMead
24 Apr 2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Sandon Mibut
Most networks want to avoid the fiasco of what happened Saturday in FSW's showing of United-Fire. That doesn't happen if you're on site.

Except that they had Christian Miles on-site, and supposedly - on mic. You would also think that someone in the back room would've kept a TV tuned to the FSC feed...

As far as studio stuff. I did get a big laugh during the USA/Italy game last year when the shot briefly showed the Italian broadcasters, and - I can't recall who said what - but Jack and Ty actually had some pretty good quips about how they were taking care of themselves.

AndyMead
24 Apr 2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Toffeeman16
I would rather my announcer be in the stadium at all costs.


Then you, sir, get to write the check that covers those costs!

HalaMadrid
24 Apr 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by BhoysFC1995
what happened? http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/a_mighty_wind/_group_photos/fred_willard10.jpg