Jump to content

I am probably way to old school but


Recommended Posts

I still just can't stand the broadcast especially the studio shows for CBS during the tournament.  I just don't like having the NBA guys do most of the show because they have not followed the sport all year.  I just don't know why they feel like this helps sell their product because they might lose viewership over it.  Also I know they want the younger fans to watch but the show they put on pre game I just don't like as well.  The players introduction where they show the clips of the players and all the graphics on the floor with the lights turned out does nothing for me.  Just do the national anthem and then do the players introduction.  Lastly I also hate what they have done to One Shining Moment because I have always stayed up to watch it because to me that is official end of the season.  It use to be great but how they do it now is just not as good,

I have always loved the tournament and to me how they use to do everything was perfect and never understand why people think they need to fix something that doesn't need fixing.

Edited by IU Scott
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Feathery said:

I actually like watching Chuck, Kenny, and company. I find them to be humorous and entertaining. People watch TV to be entertained, which is why those guys are there  

Ive never watched one shinning moment as I turn the game off as soon as it’s over. 

To me the game is the entertainment and those guys does not enhance my entertainment one bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

To me the game is the entertainment and those guys does not enhance my entertainment one bit

Who would you rather have? You also said that the tourney was so much better.. well what has changed to make it worse? 

I can tell you, I was born in 1990.. the tourney gets better every year to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

To me the game is the entertainment and those guys does not enhance my entertainment one bit

Games are entertaining. So why not have some laughs and a good time during pregame? I’ve watched other teams message boards talking about what team Barkley picks etc.. So people are watching and talking about them. Can’t get better than that from a CBS standpoint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, btownqb said:

Who would you rather have? You also said that the tourney was so much better.. well what has changed to make it worse? 

I can tell you, I was born in 1990.. the tourney gets better every year to me. 

I just am talking about CBS production and not the tournament itself that is not as good.  I want college basketball analysts doing college basketball.  Give me Nantz and Kellogg doing the games.  Give me Gumbel and Davis and maybe another guy for the studio show who does college basketball all year.  I just don't like all the glitz that they try to do with the clips they show when the game is coming on as well as the player introduction.  For one shining moment it use to be the song with the highlight clips.  Now you can barely here the song because they play the announcers clip with the highlight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Feathery said:

Games are entertaining. So why not have some laughs and a good time during pregame? I’ve watched other teams message boards talking about what team Barkley picks etc.. So people are watching and talking about them. Can’t get better than that from a CBS standpoint. 

At least during the first couple of rounds where there are game son the whole time I di not have to watch the halftime or post game shows but the latter rounds I just cant stand watching them.  to me they are to fake because you know they are just saying what they have written in front of them.  I want analyst that knows the college game and  can tell that they know what they are talking about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I just am talking about CBS production and not the tournament itself that is not as good.  I want college basketball analysts doing college basketball.  Give me Nantz and Kellogg doing the games.  Give me Gumbel and Davis and maybe another guy for the studio show who does college basketball all year.  I just don't like all the glitz that they try to do with the clips they show when the game is coming on as well as the player introduction.  For one shining moment it use to be the song with the highlight clips.  Now you can barely here the song because they play the announcers clip with the highlight.

I find Smith and Barkley awesome. I prefer them over anyone, so we disagree there. Why can't they be college guys as well? It's obvious Barkley is average on the subject and Smith is absolutely above average and Kellogg is an expert. Grant Hill was really good this whole tourney, so was Reggie and Weber has gotten better. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are the first one I have heard that thinks that Smith does a good job because I was reading somewhere that was totally ripping Smith and Barley.  I guess we will just agree to disagree on this subject.  I can't stand listening to Webber and Reggie when they do pro games let along the college game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I am sort of in the middle here.

Every generation thinks their ways, what they watched/appreciated, how things were done, is better. Things change, the audience changes (we get older), and so on, and I'm good with that. 

I really like Barkley (and Kenny etc.) -- for NBA games. They're fun to watch, entertaining (for me), and they know the game.

But they don't know the college game, they haven't followed it, and other than banter, they really add very little and are often distracting (to me) when covering college games. There are lots of guys out there who are entertaining who actually know and appreciate the college game. I'd rather see Barkley et al covering the NBA, and guys who know the college game covering it.

But change is often good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

So I am sort of in the middle here.

Every generation thinks their ways, what they watched/appreciated, how things were done, is better. Things change, the audience changes (we get older), and so on, and I'm good with that. 

I really like Barkley (and Kenny etc.) -- for NBA games. They're fun to watch, entertaining (for me), and they know the game.

But they don't know the college game, they haven't followed it, and other than banter, they really add very little and are often distracting (to me) when covering college games. There are lots of guys out there who are entertaining who actually know and appreciate the college game. I'd rather see Barkley et al covering the NBA, and guys who know the college game covering it.

But change is often good.

4-5 years ago I would have agreed with you about Charles.. but he's paid way more attention to the college game. As has Smith. Plus.. they aren't Seth Davis who is just absolutely awful and didn't even play or Doug Gottlieb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You kind of get to the point where the question changes from "who do you not like" to "who do you want"?

Seems the consensus doesn't like Barkley, Smith, Seth Davis, Gottleib, Dakich, Bilas, Miller, Webber, Vitale, etc. So who do you want? But the 'who do you want' needs to be realistic. The networks want knowledgeable people, but they also want personalities. They have to be able to draw viewers in, not just be knowledgeable. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BGleas said:

You kind of get to the point where the question changes from "who do you not like" to "who do you want"?

Seems the consensus doesn't like Barkley, Smith, Seth Davis, Gottleib, Dakich, Bilas, Miller, Webber, Vitale, etc. So who do you want? But the 'who do you want' needs to be realistic. The networks want knowledgeable people, but they also want personalities. They have to be able to draw viewers in, not just be knowledgeable. 

I would want to see former D-1 coaches or former players who cover lots of college games rather than NBA guys that don't follow college games regularly, but all of a sudden in March pretend they know this year's college teams better than most others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, addictedtoIU said:

I would want to see former D-1 coaches or former players who cover lots of college games rather than NBA guys that don't follow college games regularly, but all of a sudden in March pretend they know this year's college teams better than most others. 

I get that, but I constantly hear people complain about Dakich, Bilas, Gottleib, Jay Williams, Vitale, Seth Greenberg, etc. It has to be someone that people know and has a personality, while also being knowledgeable. Those guys are personalities, but have also either coached and/or played the college game at a high level. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, milehiiu said:

Too bad Tom Crean took the Georgia gig, in terms of TV analysts .... I thought he did a solid job.  And reading reviews on various fan boards,  I was not alone.

I agree with that.........I also wish they would have gotten Robbie Hummel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I get that, but I constantly hear people complain about Dakich, Bilas, Gottleib, Jay Williams, Vitale, Seth Greenberg, etc. It has to be someone that people know and has a personality, while also being knowledgeable. Those guys are personalities, but have also either coached and/or played the college game at a high level. 

I see your point. There are tons of former coaches and players, but TV stations want to hire someone 'marketable'. In your example, Dakich, Bilas, Gottleib, and Vitale are certainly those who I think try to create certain edgy or controversial persona to market themselves (or simply they're arrogant and have strong sense of entitlement). But I'm not sure about Williams and Greenburg though. I didn't think they were particularly good but also didn't think they were terrible. I felt that Jay Williams could be a good one, but I thought Greenburg lacked 'charisma'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple thoughts here. First and foremost, Scott, do you even like changing your underwear? I mean goodness gracious man. 

Secondly, does anyone have any proof that these guys don't follow college basketball. I mean, they're all basketball guys and college guys do go on to the NBA. The logical, intelligent assumption is that they follow college ball and can speak to it better than most unless someone has evidence to the contrary. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Couple thoughts here. First and foremost, Scott, do you even like changing your underwear? I mean goodness gracious man. 

Secondly, does anyone have any proof that these guys don't follow college basketball. I mean, they're all basketball guys and college guys do go on to the NBA. The logical, intelligent assumption is that they follow college ball and can speak to it better than most unless someone has evidence to the contrary. 

THANK YOU 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...