North Carolina will win it all!

[YCN]

There's no doubt. It won't even be close.

[ladyhorns1fan]

There's no doubt. It won't even be close.

I believe so too! Ivory Latta for President!

[wwi_flying_ace_17]

I don't know. That Maryland game should be pretty fun to watch with the speed on those teams.

[LadyBuff]

I hope you're right, YCN. Anybody but Tennessee, Duke or UConn and either UConn or Duke is going to the Final Four.

[sybarite]

I'd pick NC, but Duke could win on a given day, as could Maryland. I don't see LSU in there.

[swok34]

I don't know who wins it all....but someone please tell Hatchell that net around her neck is not becoming :D

[ChipperF1]

Carolina looked like a national champ tonight, but they have a rough assignment in Boston against Maryland to start with.

They only way you are going to beat UNC is with a very disciplined, organized half-court game. Tennessee had the game plan to beat this team, but didn't have the discipline and organization to stay with that plan. UNC too easily forced Tennessee back to playing their style.

[MsProudSooner]

You're right. It didn't really go with her outfit!

[AngelSong20]

Is anyone else watching this Duke/UConn matchup? I think this game redefines the word "Elite"...

[ChipperF1]

I like this game so far...It's been a rough game, by two teams not known for grit basketball.

If UConn loses, I wonder how bad Geno Auriemma will rip into Charde Houston?

[OSUCowgirls]

"We might as well go ahead and send Wilnett on to Boston."
--Doris Burke quoting Geno on the play of Wilnett Crockett in the month of March

I don't know why, but it made me laugh. This has been a fun game to watch so far. I kind of want Duke to win, but I know I will get sick of hearing about three ACC teams in the final four. What is the other option? UConn??? I don't know. I am just hoping for an exciting finish!

[swok34]

It's been a great game....certainly a foul fest.

[MsProudSooner]

Shouldn't a girl who is 6'7" tall have more than 11 points?

[swok34]

This is sad for Barbara Turner...she's been such a warrior.

[swok34]

Shouldn't a girl who is 6'7" tall have more than 11 points?

You remember, she was down to two final teams: Duke and OU......I'm so glad we get the kids we are supposed to and don't get the ones we aren't :D

[ChipperF1]

I second that. Barbara Turner has never gotten the props she's earned from a good deal of UConn fans.

Charde Houston is about to get blasted by Geno, again.

Well we have a Final Four... North Carolina, Maryland, Duke, LSU.

Any of these four are worthy champions.

Hand it to the ACC. They had the field covered this year.

On to Boston!

[tx4OU]

Man, this male commentator is so pathetically proESPN it is ridiculously unprofessional. Where is his high pitched voice when Curry pulled down that rebound at the end after UConn missed the wide open shot? Instead he's very subdued and a little shocked.

His comments were also focused on the UConn players and nothing was being said there about Duke. I am not a Dookie nor a Huskie, just a neutral fan that is noticing some horrible sportsmanship from the ESPN Crew.

(Mike Patrick is his name.)

[OSUCowgirls]

Man, this male commentator is so pathetically proESPN it is ridiculously unprofessional. Where is his high pitched voice when Curry pulled down that rebound at the end after UConn missed the wide open shot? Instead he's very subdued and a little shocked.

His comments were also focused on the UConn players and nothing was being said there about Duke. I am not a Dookie nor a Huskie, just a neutral fan that is noticing some horrible sportsmanship from the ESPN Crew.

(Mike Patrick is his name.)

Honestly, I think Mike Patrick is just old and gets confused easily. I am not trying to be mean. I am being honest. I watched him call the 1999 women's championship game (Duke vs. Purdue). He is consistently bad. He confused Michele VanGorp and Ukari Figgs.............seriously! A 6'6" white center with blonde hair and blue eyes for Duke and a 5'9" black guard for Purdue.

Maybe he is just excited and he loses focus, maybe he is just old and slower, or maybe he really just doesn't care that much so he doesn't do all of his homework before the game.

Yes, his high pitched voice really gets on my nerves too! I put him into the same category with Dukie V. Loud and obnoxious with nothing intelligent to say.

[ChipperF1]

"I put him into the same category with Dukie V. Loud and obnoxious with nothing intelligent to say.

Usually when people rip my employer and way they cover womens basketball, I don't mind and I often agree.

I take some exception here.

Coach Vitale may be overmodulated, and yeah, he likes Duke, but to say the man has nothing intelligent to say flies in the face of over 20 years of facts.

Having worked with him, I can tell you the man knows the game, knows the players and can sell it well.
Womens basketball could use a personality like Vitale. Say what you want about him, when the man walks on a campus to do a game, fans take notice.

I also take some exception to the criticism of Trey Wingo as the studio host. He's prepared well for it and he's done his job very well during this tournament. He really works well with Kara Lawson and Stacy Dales-Schuman, and both of them have been exemplary during the tournament run.

Be sure to tune in for the Womens Final Four. It will be very interesting. :)

[sybarite]

I thought Burke did a better job.

[OSUCowgirls]

Oh yea, I have watched ESPN Classic and heard the Dukie V. of years past. I have nothing bad to say about the way he previously covered the games. Somewhere between then and now he changed his technique to become the overmodulated man that he is today. That is a real shame.

If the guy does in fact know the game and players, he should try informing the public instead of distracting from the game with his antics.

I am sure that if the fans that don't like him had worked with him and gotten to know the real person behind the act, then they might like him too. I am sure he is a wonderful person away from basketball. They would probably like him even more if they were from the ACC or the Big East also.

I wish he would return to his former style. I would love to be able to take him seriously. I would also love to give my mute button a break.

I am looking forward to the Women's Final Four. I am sure it will be very exciting. :)

[YemenBear]

Womens basketball could use a personality like Vitale. Say what you want about him, when the man walks on a campus to do a game, fans take notice.

Please don't let NCAA basketball, either men or women, ever again be subject to another Dick Vitale. Perhaps he's knowledgeable and attracts attention, but I find him to be a pompous windbag who takes focus away from the game while he drones on and on and on.

[Marquette Fan]

One thing I will say for Vitale is he is very supportive of women's basketball unlike Billy Packer who annoys for many reasons chief among them being his criticism of women's basketball. And I know that has nothing to do with either's commentating skills but it often comes to my mind when I'm listening to Packer.

[Moooooo]

I'm gonna go with Duke to win it all for the following reasons:

1) They won't have to go through 2 fellow ACC teams to do so, but UNC and Maryland might

2) I think Duke has much more depth than LSU, especially in the frontcourt where they have Bass, Bales, and Black (that's 15 fouls vs 5 for Sylvia Fowles)

3) Currie can guard Augustus

4) Tennessee was just killing UNC with offensive rebounds and second chance points; I think Maryland and Duke can do the same thing, but it will take much more than that to beat UNC

5) No surprises among these ACC teams; they know each other well. I just have a feeling that Duke, who last its last 3 combined matchups against UNC and MD, will finallly put it together; their "tight" game was last night, and they will be loose in Boston

[ladyhorns1fan]

Man, this male commentator is so pathetically proESPN it is ridiculously unprofessional. Where is his high pitched voice when Curry pulled down that rebound at the end after UConn missed the wide open shot? Instead he's very subdued and a little shocked.

His comments were also focused on the UConn players and nothing was being said there about Duke. I am not a Dookie nor a Huskie, just a neutral fan that is noticing some horrible sportsmanship from the ESPN Crew.

(Mike Patrick is his name.)

TOTALLY AGREED!! Every time UConn has played during this tournament, he has had relatively NOTHING to say about fabulous plays by the opposing team and he GUSHES on and on and on about UConn. Yuck. I wish ESPN and UConn could have surgery to separate them.

[CrimsonHelmet]

"...the man knows the game, knows the players and can sell it well...."

Pardon me, Chipper, but this is precisely what's wrong with ESPN.

We, as viewers, don't need anyone to "sell it" to us. This is where ESPN has lost its bearings. It's common knowledge that when you apply for a talent job at ESPN, they don't want to see your work experience; they want to know what your "schtick" is. No schtick, no job.

I'm old-school broadcasting (10 years back in the 70s). I worked with people like Larry Burnett (ESPN, Prime, LA Lakers). A pbp man (woman) has a specific job, as does the color.

The proliferation of cable TV and the internet has virtually wiped out the great unwashed. The average viewer today is much more educated and informed about sports than 30 years ago. We don't need to be "sold", just as we don't need to hear Scott's "Boo-yaa" on SportsCenter. We only need the pbp guy to describe the action and the color man to fill in aspects of the game we cannot see for ourselves.

Guess what? We don't watch SportsCenter because of the talent. We don't watch sporting events on ESPN because of the talent.

Memo to all ESPN execs, producers and talent:

YOU ARE NOT THE SHOW!!!!!!


I know you will respond with surveys and ratings sheets which you will contend prove me wrong. But such statistics are skewed to a degree since TV sports is not an open market. You have a "captive audience" to a certain extent. By that, I mean a certain percentage of viewers will watch your coverage regardless since they are inherently drawn to a matchup or have favorite teams they follow. Others are just sports junkies and would watch ESPN even if they carried 10 year old bowling tournaments. Oops, I forgot, you DO carry 10 year old bowling tournaments. Sorry....

How quickly they forget. It gets no better than Bud Wilkinson spending three minutes before the Ohio State-Michigan game showing you each teams' offense, defense and star players and how each will attack the other. Then having Wilkinson come back on at halftime and diagram exactly what adjustments each team will make in the second half, and then watching it materialize before your eyes. Yeah, Wilkinson may have been dry, but he gave the viewers precisely what they needed without trying to "sell it" to them. He never tried to "be the show".

ESPN needs to get over itself. It is "Network" personified.

[Bball Girl]

I sort agree that sometimes the color folks try to be the show. SWMNBN comes to find...who can NEVER shut up and while I respect Vitale's knowledge of the game and his enthusiasm, I HATE listening to him. At some point, I start tuning both he and SW... out they're not telling me about the game, they're shoving their voice into my year. Or I end up yelling at the tv "SHUT UP and TELL ME WHO THAT FOUL WAS ON!

As much as I dislike Fran when he coachesd UNM and sent Knight off into his bleeping spasm of an interview, he did such a good job of talking about the game and how the kids were playing it instead of the "let's see how many words I can put into 60 seconds" and still tell us nothing about the game going on the court style of others (meant to be a run on sentance!).

I noticed during the men's tournament (to a certain point) that the men's commentators do not seem to share the same need to tell us what the player had for breakfast, what her dog's name is, what her favorite color is, etc., etc. as some of the women's commentators do. Yes, I want to hear the stories. But I also want to hear about the game on the court. Sometimes it seems like the commentators for the women's games think we can't possibly be interested in the game and the players as athletes so they have to fill up space with a lot of noise to hold our interest. It just results in me turning down the sound.

[sybarite]

I really hate watching a game in which the commentators are talking about something that happened ten years ago and not telling me who just made that shot or who the foul was on.

[Dale8R]

I think that this is it in a nutshell. We are asking that the announcers tell the game, while they are intent on sell the game.

Are we just in the minority in wanting this? Maybe the majority of viewers DO like that approach. I don't know. In that case, I guess we'll just have to put up with it.

I rarely watch the ESPN or FOX sports shows, but when I do, I notice how over the top they are, which in turn keeps me from going back for more, but the fact is, THIS MUST BE THE APPROACH THAT WORKS or they wouldn't be doing it. It's just like sex talk every few seconds in situation comedy. It is what sells, not the good writing that used to be the hallmark of a hit show.

I like some of the "minor" market FOX people for lack of a better term. They don't try to fill every semi-dead air moment with tales of games from the olden days or multiple shots of so-and-so's Mom from Alberta or wherever watching her daughter play for the first time in six years.

[ChipperF1]

Crimson Helmet, it was very interesting to read your comments. I’ve given your post an honest run and I don’t agree with much of what you say because there are some issues that you don’t take into account.

Quite frankly, your view is as outdated as Gene Rayburn’s wardrobe.

We, as viewers, don't need anyone to "sell it" to us. This is where ESPN has lost its bearings. The proliferation of cable TV and the internet has virtually wiped out the great unwashed..... The average viewer today is much more educated and informed about sports than 30 years ago.

Actually, we have to sell even harder and more creatively because of yje very reality you speak of. That “Average Viewer”? He or she doesn’t exist the same way that you knew in the 1970s. He or she has more interests and more choices than ever before. He or she views sports differently than ever before. Some of these viewers have a favorite team or player, others don’t. More are fantasy league players, and most are the casual/general sports viewers. They can name maybe their favorite team and a star player, but they couldn’t begin to name every team in the league and place them in their right divisions. They watch sports, but they also watch a more diverse lineup of things and have a more diverse lineup of interests.

The majority of viewers fall into that casual/general category. They are the biggest piece of the potential audience and for the ratings success we are looking for, we have to get portion of this audience in addition to the die-hard fans across all of our networks and platforms.

I know you will respond with surveys and ratings sheets which you will contend prove me wrong. But such statistics are skewed to a degree since TV sports is not an open market. You have a "captive audience" to a certain extent. By that, I mean a certain percentage of viewers will watch your coverage regardless since they are inherently drawn to a matchup or have favorite teams they follow.
We don't need to be "sold", just as we don't need to hear Scott's "Boo-yaa" on SportsCenter.


That may have been true circa 1976, but in 2006? There's no such thing as a "captive audience" anymore in any extent, because even that captive audience is aware of a greater variety of options.

You are looking at this from a strictly sports point of view, your belief in sports as "not an open market" confirms that. I can’t afford to see it that way, and the organization that cuts my checks can’t. Whenever I work on a project or a show, I’m not only competing against sports shows. I’m competing against entertainment as a whole. We have to go against the competing sports networks, AND I’m going up against competing product from across the spectrum. I’m going head-to-head with Law and Order, Desparate Housewives, Survivors, American Idol, all the cable faire from A&E to SciFi. I have to compete against Beyonce, Coldplay, the Xbox, and the movie theatre.
And it all starts with that little device most TV viewers have. The remote control.
We have to hit a wider range of audience targets with special wants and needs and at the same time strike the balance between all parts of that audience to get the biggest success we and our advertisers are looking for.
The technology has changed the landscape. Oh yes, its made the job helpful in many ways, but its also added to the challenge we face in other ways. We are dealing with a public that has more real-time access to information than anytime in human history. They can get us on the internet. They can get us over the cellphone. They can podcast us. They can see us on a plane. They can TiVo us (and we have measurements for that now), and they can see us in 16X9 aspect ratio that’s larger-than-life (High Definition is really redefining a good deal of what we do.). All this builds a competitive environment were the die-hard audience is demanding more, the casual/general audience is demanding more and our advertisers demand more.

When you look at those parameters, we have to sell more than ever, because there’s a lot more in the marketplace.

“Guess what? We don't watch SportsCenter because of the talent.”
The problem is the Billy Clyde Puckett ideal you speak of in regards to how we do things (“All I really want is the announcer to give me the clock and the score and otherwise, shut up!”), doesn’t jibe with the realities of the current marketplace. We have to be even more entertaining as we are informative and that mantra goes into everything we do as a network.
When the SportsCenter anchors do those corny catchphrases from time-to-time, viewers don’t forget them, and it keeps them coming back. In addition to good highlights and analysis.
You are right in that the talent isn’t the show by him or herself, but they are an important component of the program as a host of any news-type program is. If the hosts are weak, it doesn’t matter how creative the highlights are or telling the analysis is. If the people with the clicker don’t like the people on the desk or in the booth? They’ll watch somebody else, and the leagues will look at the dismal numbers and they’ll sell their package to somebody else.
If the analysis and features aren’t strong, the same effect happens, no matter how good the basic highlights are. And speaking of those highlights, we have a team of producers and production assistants who build and polish those things every day, every week, every game, every year.
Once the games end, producers and talent ARE THE SHOW. We have to turn all those happenings in the game, and in the world of sports, into highlights and analysis that give good information and are entertaining to watch. If we don't do it at 11pm Eastern, people are are going to turn us off and watch one of the other 1,000 channels they get, and that doesn't do much good for our ratings.

You mention the good ol’ days and Bud Wilkinson, yet every analysis show we do does the same thing he did, the difference is the dryness factor as been taken away. Check out Ron Jaworski or Jay Bilas breaking down a matchup sometime when he’s not only telling you what’s happening and why, he’s taking the fan into the film room and showing you how it all happens and the decisions that make it happen. That again, is part of the sell we have to put in to win those viewers in a number of demographics.


We don't watch sporting events on ESPN because of the talent.

The talent being on the event can make a huge difference in the perceptions of the event. A textbook example is Dick Vitale. When Dick is on the broadcast team for a game, THE RATINGS GO UP. When Dick Vitale step on the campus, the youngsters flock to him. In turn when he’s on the tube, that is who they are watching. When his face is on the screen, the game is considered a “big” game.
The same can be said for play-by-play people like Ron Franklin and Gary Thorne. When you hear those guys do a game, you stop and watch and a lot of fans do. Again, the numbers have proven it.
Again, the talent isn’t the entire show, but they are the first face and voice you hear in the show, if they aren’t equal to the event there’s a greater probability that you won’t stick around for the event.

ESPN needs to get over itself. It is "Network" personified.

This statement made me laugh. I had visions of Chris Berman, looking completely dishelved in a raincoat saying, “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore”. Boomer turning into Howard Beale? That would be rather entertaining.
It is interesting that you make that comparison. I think you could take any network and say the same thing, be it in the sports , the news realm, or popular entertainment, etc. Paddy Chaefsky was way ahead of the curve back in ’76. Its scary how dead-on he ended up being, because the picture he painted in “Network” is the very picture I work in today, granted it has a few wrinkles he couldn’t forsee but the basic premise was right there.
Given the metaphor that you use here, it strikes me very odd that you discount the massive shifts in media that have taken place since you worked in the business.
Ultimately, the power that drives our decisions is YOU. You vote with that clicker. You vote with your TiVo. You vote with your Ipod. You vote with your web browser. You vote with your car keys when you head down to the local 24-Plex and tape or TiVo the game. Media may be consolidated in the hands of some big conglomerates, but its still highly driven by the consumer, and that where our decisions come from. You can't force Roger Mudd on people who want Walter Cronkite. They know their options and they know the difference.

[35TangoTango]

By and large, what you say makes sense, Chipper, but I think the media is always behind the trends rather than ahead. I understand that we Hoopscoopers are smarter than the average WBB watcher, but it's hard to believe that the average watcher is as dumb or as unknowlegeable as most game commentators think. They are so busy telling us about the sport
that they forget to tell us about the game. I really think we're advanced enough that the commentators can actually comment on what is taking place before their eyes. It's those little things that they miss. Like the reason Candace Parker is not in the game (and it them a while to notice that), is because she picked up her second foul!

I grew up listening to color analysts who would tell me about the game inside the game - what was really going on out there on the floor that they could see and interpret for the rest of us. There's still some of that in the men's basketball crews but I see precious little of it on the women's side. I think the average listener is ready for that! Really!

As for Dick Vitale, he was one of the best at taking you inside the game. I don't know where he went; now there's just this bald guy "doing" Dick Vitale shtick.

[CrimsonHelmet]

Chipper, thanks for your very forthright response, I enjoyed reading each line.

"...Quite frankly, your view is as outdated as Gene Rayburn’s wardrobe...."


:D :D :D Hey, I admitted upfront that I was old-school....LOL......


Obviously, I disagree with most of your assertions, but to refute them would take up valuable board space and I won't bore the readers with my contentions.

"...it strikes me very odd that you discount the massive shifts in media that have taken place since you worked..."

Actually, that precisely the reason I used the "Network" analogy. I don't discount the shifts, I decry them. I deplore them. You yourself conceded the "Network" analogy was apt. Why do you then discount the driving message behind the analogy?

You and your colleagues have sacrificed your souls on the altar of ratings, have sold your dignity for the sake of greed ($$$$). These are the morality issues posed by the movie "Network", and although you agree that you work in a "Network" atmosphere, it seems you gloss over the central theme.

Yes, I understand the landscape of broadcasting has changed. Why do you think I got the hell out??? The handwriting was on the wall. It was plain to see what was on the horizon and I wanted no part of it.

Yes, I'm old school. But FCC regulations stipulated that what we did was a "public service" necessary for the owners to keep their license(s). Yes, our jobs were still tied to ratings, but we considered journalism a noble profession and our sense of "public service" always came before "ratings". My working theory at the time was "build it and they will come". That is, outwork your competition, comport your department with professionalism and the audience will follow.

I maintain faith that such a strategy would still work in today's environment (HEY, cut that out!!! I can hear you laughing all the way from Oklahoma!!). I contend that the elimination of the FCC requirements back in the 1980's made such a strategy too costly. Well, not too costly, but why spend that money on providing a service to our viewers when we can stick it in our pockets????

I was angry after I saw "Network" in the 1970s and I'm even more angry that Paddy's predictions have come to fruition.

We'll agree to disagree, I suppose. But I enjoyed your post immensely. Thanks for the discourse.

[Gator]

I LOVE it - for 2 reasons:

1) Folks disagreeing and talking about WHY they hold their opinion without thinking that a disagreement is a personal slam/attack/statement/whatever? How delightful...

2) ... and I even was tempted to see the complexity of the problem. I'm one of the viewers who HATES to hear a color person go on and on about something at best tangental to the game with the broadcast team never getting around to telling me who fouled and whether that was her 2n't or 3r'd foul! I don't watch men's games but one was on in the other room as I was hoopscooping the other day and I had to stop and go and see it BECAUSE I WAS FASCINATED BY WHAT I WAS HEARING FROM THE COMMENTATORS! They were describing stuff like why the team switched to zone, why player X with this tendency was matched with player Y, etc. As they described, I could see and understand what they were saying. MY GOODNESS - commentary which was related to the game! How extraordinary. I might have to start watched MBB to get a better understanding of strategies, etc. :) Now, if what I heard/saw was not an aberration, can it be true that MBB gets better broadcast teams than do the women? If so, there is hope - after all equality is what it is about - right? :D

[dem]

I think we get excellent, informative commentary when Big 12 games are televised by the very knowledgable Fox Sports crews. It's a big contrast to the "headline" games that are nationally televised, where it seems that other topics take priority during game broadcasts.

[Bball Girl]

Folks disagreeing and talking about WHY they hold their opinion without thinking that a disagreement is a personal slam/attack/statement/whatever? How delightful...


It is nice...! I've really enjoyed reading this thread.

Chipper, I understand the need to sell the sport.

But SW.... is NOT selling me the sport or the game, she's selling herself and her old experience as a Dallas Diamond (or what ever it was) and I don't care.
Myers seems lost in time to me. I respect her knowledge of the game, but it seems like she's not caught up with today's game. Maybe I'm just being harsh.

I'm sold on the sport. My male cousins who don't watch wbb much unless the Lobos are playing (or I pester them) are NOT sold on the sport. But they have commented on the commentators for the games being part of the problem and mention the very things we gripe about. To help sell them on the sport, the commentators need to cut the word count in half, need to talk about the game and need to talk about how this game relates to the sport as a whole!

I agree with Gator. Although there are MBB commentators who also drive me nuts.

I agree with dem...the FS folks are SO much better than Myers and SW....!

On a brighter note: I watched the tape of the UNC/Tenn game last night and Debbie Antonelli did a good job, it was a relief to listen to her.

Back to the original comment....
Whether or not we have parity, we only have 1 team in the Final 4 that's every won a NCAA NC. That's progress.

[wildcatfan]

Not this time.

[YCN]

The original post in this thread was intended to be a little bit tongue-in-cheek. While I've felt for a long time that UNC had the best chance to win the championship, I've never felt it was a lock for them. Tonight they were felled by a team that could match their athleticism, and they picked the wrong night to shoot poorly. Game over.

But congratulations to Maryland! With only ONE junior in their entire rotation, this team is going to be near the top for at least the next two years. The are going to be a load for anybody.

[brolewis]

But congratulations to Maryland! With only ONE junior in their entire rotation, this team is going to be near the top for at least the next two years. The are going to be a load for anybody.Man, one the one hand, I like to see Maryland doing this well, partly to be able to say we lost to the National Champs and partly because I see our own story in Maryland. However, they are soo young that it scares me what they are going to be like for the next few years!

[walkaway]

I have to say this: i miss being able to turn down the sound on TV and have Ryan call the basketball game for me.

Top of the key
too strong
foul line extended
...for thrreeeeeeee...got it!
looking, looking, looking ... too many looking's ... still looking ...