Can we talk about the ESPN broadcasting crew?

[Nstig8r 3]

At least we didn't have to listen to a sauced-sounding Brent Musburger calling us ARRBurn and telling us stories about "the old days"...

[looney 794]

The 3:30 CBS game throws a wrench into this, though!

[Mims44 1,890]

What's crazy is those guys were obviously more knowledgeable than the Verne V Verne show. Seems like we either have biased guys or idiots who dunno Auburn players names.

 

EDIT: ... I already feel bad about taking a shot at Verne. Life can't have been easy for a guy born half man half box turtle.

[imaolgatiger 523]

7 minutes ago, Nstig8r said:

At least we didn't have to listen to a sauced-sounding Brent Musburger calling us ARRBurn and telling us stories about "the old days"...

And talking about allluubama often!

[AUsince72 11,084]

It would be nice to think we, as the "consumer", would have some recourse.  Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be.  

If enough AU fans were to write in/e-mail/call/picket, BSPN would respond by having "guest" announcer Eli Gold call the next game with Matt Stinchcomb doing color and Nick Saban joining them on the phone to give his thoughts while Booger works the sideline.

Thank goodness for the AU app & Rod and Stan.

 

[WeagleAU 594]

4 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

It would be nice to think we, as the "consumer", would have some recourse.  Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be.  

If enough AU fans were to write in/e-mail/call/picket, BSPN would respond by having "guest" announcer Eli Gold call the next game with Matt Stinchcomb doing color and Nick Saban joining them on the phone to give his thoughts while Booger works the sideline.

Thank goodness for the AU app & Rod and Stan.

 

Lol...I wouldn't put it past them.  Don't give ESPN any ideas.

[WeagleAU 594]

5 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

It would be nice to think we, as the "consumer", would have some recourse.  Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be.  

If enough AU fans were to write in/e-mail/call/picket, BSPN would respond by having "guest" announcer Eli Gold call the next game with Matt Stinchcomb doing color and Nick Saban joining them on the phone to give his thoughts while Booger works the sideline.

Thank goodness for the AU app & Rod and Stan.

 

I think they already did something like this.  Didn't they have little Nicky saban join them in the ESPN booth to commentate during the Auburn/Fla St natl championship game?

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

43 minutes ago, bryanlooney said:

Bear with me as I think through this out loud.

What if all of the alternate SEC Networks allowed for something like this: Video from the ESPN crew, but synced-up audio from each team's radio crew? Would it cost SECN less if they didn't have to pay a play-by-play, color, and on-field announcer to be there? Would they be able to charge more in ad revenue if they had 2 separate 'channels' for each game, knowing they'd have a focused audience for each one? SiriusXM does something like this for NFL games, I believe (without the video, obviously). I feel like they'd see their subscriber and viewership numbers skyrocket if they worked this out.

How have we not thought of this before? (Or have we and I just missed it?)

Not quite what you suggested, but the cost of so many broadcasters and the logistics of same, has caused networks to start looking at remote broadcast crews. So your idea may not be too far removed from that.

http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/yes-espn-experimenting-studio-announcers-college-basketball-games.html

[AUsince72 11,084]

6 minutes ago, WeagleAU said:

I think they already did something like this.  Didn't they have little Nicky saban join them in the ESPN booth to commentate during the Auburn/Fla St natl championship game?

Absolutely right.

It's not the biggest deal in the world to me any more.  I USED to get REAL mad at them but since 2010, when they all but openly cheered for Auburn's doom during the Cam stuff and I just completely wrote them off.

Add to that the obvious politics they push and the ridiculous talking head shows they peddle and BSPN has become the CNN/TMZ of sports networks.

I watch them only when AU blesses them with their presence and, again hit mute or listen to the AU network.

[CAReeves2010 627]

57 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yep, the comment after they thought LSU scored was a little over the top.  I believe it was "AND THE TIGERS ROAR". 

I ended up having to listen to Rod and Stan's broadcast of the game. I caught the highlights on SC and I thought those were LSU announcers calling that last play.

[AU-24 3,108]

51 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I knew they couldn't get the play off in time but the announcers made it sound like they did...Which caused major heartburn. I saw Gus telling everybody to get back but I thought he was only wanting to review the WRs spot and I knew it was fine so I got major heartburn then.

 When the announcers reviewed the play clock, it was painfully obvious they considered it inconclusive only because they couldn't see the ball even though it was obvious that the ball had not been snapped yet. At that point I was scared the refs were going to think like the announcers.

At least the refs got it right.

Yes, the replay officials got it right after the refs on the field blatantly blew/missed the call!

With one second left on the game clock, you would think the Head Official might want to assure the snap gets off in time. I guess that's asking too much from that crew.

[AU64 10,122]

The delay between TV and computer streaming drives me nuts so I just can't do it...but these guys... It wasn't just about their obvious LSU bias, to me it was the fact of all the negativity toward AU.....the plays, the coaches, and everything the players did...though mostly the coaching as if they were out to assure that this was Gus's last game and not Les's.  

Sure we have our problems and complaints about play calls, etc...but I sure don't need the "play by play" guys rubbing it in our face and second guessing everything that happens.   Sounds like two "analysts" trying to call the game and each trying to be more perceptive than the other.

[tigerbrotha12 2,362]

10 minutes ago, AU-24 said:

Yes, the replay officials got it right after the refs on the field blatantly blew/missed the call!

With one second left on the game clock, you would think the Head Official might want to assure the snap gets off in time. I guess that's asking too much from that crew.

To be fair to that crew, think about it this way: what if LSU HAD gotten the snap off, but the ref had mistakenly made the call on the field that the snap had not gotten off. The last play doesn't happen at all, and then those refs are in big time trouble for truly influencing a game. 

In that scenario, I feel as if I would've done the same thing: let the play run like it had happened if you are not sure if the game clock has expired or not. 

Once the play is over, however, and if LSU scores, I am immediately running out into the middle of the crowd and waving my arms wildly blowing my whistle and saying the previous play is under review. I did think it was odd that this seemed to take the referees a while to figure out they needed to review the clock, but I can give them the benefit of the doubt. Other than the targeting calls, I thought the game was rather well-officiated. 

 

[Auburn06 76]

LSU winning: "AND THE TIGERS ROAR!!!!!!

 

 

Auburn winning: "Auburn appears to be celebrating" "Auburn are the victors"

 

 

[tigerbrotha12 2,362]

The announcers on espn though, I completely agree we're absolutely pitiful at their jobs. Obvious bias coupled with extreme lack of ability to assess an obvious situation. 

How in the world does ANYONE look at that play and say "you can't tell if the ball is being snapped."

How about the fact that the center has just reached over and touched the ball? How about the fact the center's arm has not moved? How about the fact that there are 2-3 LSU players still in motion? How about the fact that no one on the defensive or offensive line has moved towards he other yet, not even the center, the one who is the only one in the world who truly knows when the ball is going to be snapped? How about the fact that the right guard is still not even in his 3 point stance?? You can tell the ball has not been snapped, Mr. Gilmore, because of the camera angle even! On the replay, the angle of the camera shows the nose of the football exactly on the Auburn side of the 15 yard line. The clock hits zero, and the ball does not move for at least another second/ half a second. The nose of the football stays on that side of the 15 yard line until after the clock had hit zero. 

 

Anyone got change for a nickel? I need 3 pennies 

[Auburn06 76]

2:06 "clock at zero" you can see the ball....

 

[BornAU76 398]

10 minutes ago, tigerbrotha12 said:

To be fair to that crew, think about it this way: what if LSU HAD gotten the snap off, but the ref had mistakenly made the call on the field that the snap had not gotten off. The last play doesn't happen at all, and then those refs are in big time trouble for truly influencing a game. 

In that scenario, I feel as if I would've done the same thing: let the play run like it had happened if you are not sure if the game clock has expired or not. 

Once the play is over, however, and if LSU scores, I am immediately running out into the middle of the crowd and waving my arms wildly blowing my whistle and saying the previous play is under review. I did think it was odd that this seemed to take the referees a while to figure out they needed to review the clock, but I can give them the benefit of the doubt. Other than the targeting calls, I thought the game was rather well-officiated. 

 

Gave me a damn heart attack, but you're right!  Let the play go and review afterwards...

[WeagleAU 594]

11 minutes ago, Auburn06 said:

LSU winning: "AND THE TIGERS ROAR!!!!!!

 

 

Auburn winning: "Auburn appears to be celebrating" "Auburn are the victors"

 

 

LOL

[tigerbrotha12 2,362]

 

Here's I mean about using where the ball began at the Auburn side of the 15 using the camera angle. Notice where the nose of the ball is with one second left:

 

Now, here it is the same camera from a few frames later, when the clock reads 0:00. The ball's nose is still on that side of the 15, #83 for LSU is not set, and the Right Tackle for LSU is still moving:

No brainer to me. No brain for Gilmore. 

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

26 minutes ago, Auburn06 said:

LSU winning: "AND THE TIGERS ROAR!!!!!!

 

 

Auburn winning: "Auburn appears to be celebrating" "Auburn are the victors"

 

 

Man, that was even worse and much more blatant than I remember it, and I remembered their call at the end of the game being horrible. These guys sounded the the LSU announcing crew. Pure homerism. It was like they were actively rooting against AU. The one guy even called it "a cataclysmic reversal" and last I looked the meaning of cataclysmic in this context boils down to "something that is terrible and unwelcome."

On edit...

Maybe they were watching another version of this game in a parallel universe? How else to explain their blindness about what was perfectly clear?

[lionheartkc 6,150]

1 hour ago, AU-24 said:

Yes, the replay officials got it right after the refs on the field blatantly blew/missed the call!

With one second left on the game clock, you would think the Head Official might want to assure the snap gets off in time. I guess that's asking too much from that crew.

The refs did the right thing.  They knew there would be replay and it would be MUCH easier to say the play was no good than to blow the whistle only to have replay find that the snap did get off.

Of course that doesn't excuse them missing the receiver not getting set and the pass interference on Fournette.

[boisnumber1 2,821]

Rod Gilmore is an idiot of monumental proportion. No idea how that guy made it to where he is. Everything he says is just stupid. I have never heard him make an accurate statement. Total buffoon. Makes Jesse Palmer look like Einstein.

[WarTiger 3,923]

They may have been more biased in that game than Verne typically is when calling uat games.  It was that bad.  Really unbelievable.    Gilmore is a tool anyway.  He's a terrible color guy even when he's neutral.  He knows next to nothing about the game.

[WeagleAU 594]

Just now, WarTiger said:

They may have been more biased in that game than Verne typically is when calling uat games.  It was that bad.  Really unbelievable.    Gilmore is a tool anyway.  He's a terrible color guy even when he's neutral.  He knows next to nothing about the game.

Yeah, I've always thought Verne and Musberger are pretty bias towards bammer.

Thank goodness for the mute button!

[AU-24 3,108]

1 hour ago, tigerbrotha12 said:

To be fair to that crew, think about it this way: what if LSU HAD gotten the snap off, but the ref had mistakenly made the call on the field that the snap had not gotten off. The last play doesn't happen at all, and then those refs are in big time trouble for truly influencing a game. 

In that scenario, I feel as if I would've done the same thing: let the play run like it had happened if you are not sure if the game clock has expired or not. 

Once the play is over, however, and if LSU scores, I am immediately running out into the middle of the crowd and waving my arms wildly blowing my whistle and saying the previous play is under review. I did think it was odd that this seemed to take the referees a while to figure out they needed to review the clock, but I can give them the benefit of the doubt. Other than the targeting calls, I thought the game was rather well-officiated. 

 

OK,  so you know there was only one second left on the game clock. You know the offense has to be set before the ball is snapped. So you don't look at the clock, and you just let the play go, and then wait for the head coach of the team to ask for the play to be reviewed by the booth?