NCAA title UMD 3, Michigan 2 OT

[Jim Hyla]

I know that most of you don't like him, but I thought he was reasonably insightful, did know the teams, their strengths and weaknesses, and some subtleties such as Rust's value to UM. He broke down the PPs of UMD and UND and how UM was trying to change their PK to fit the new team. I admit he gets to be too much of himself, but I prefer that to endless discussion about the players prep schools.

[css228]

If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

[RichH]

If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

I disagree.  If I'm focused on it, all I really need to enjoy a televised game is the same scoreboard information available to on-site fans. Don't need announcers at all.  I admit, I've never experienced that, but I feel confident that I could follow everything given a competent director & cameramen,

[Dafatone]

If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating.  Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives.  To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

[Rosey]

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

When I'm watching football, I nearly always turn the sound off and put on some music. To each his own.

[KeithK]

If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating.  Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives.  To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

I remember watching that game. It was awesome. No silly chatter and lots of field noise.

Sometimes the TV analysts do add something to my understanding of the action.  But more often than not it's just chatter to fill the airtime. A guy telling me that so-and-so made a great play (which I just watched) is meaningless.

[css228]

If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating.  Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives.  To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

I remember watching that game. It was awesome. No silly chatter and lots of field noise.

Sometimes the TV analysts do add something to my understanding of the action.  But more often than not it's just chatter to fill the airtime. A guy telling me that so-and-so made a great play (which I just watched) is meaningless.

Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating.  Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives.  To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

I remember watching that game. It was awesome. No silly chatter and lots of field noise.

Sometimes the TV analysts do add something to my understanding of the action.  But more often than not it's just chatter to fill the airtime. A guy telling me that so-and-so made a great play (which I just watched) is meaningless.

Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

All right!  A Gene Hart sighting.  "Good night and good hockey!"

I remember the football game without commentators.  It was an Oct. 1980 game between (I believe) the Jets and Miami.  It was novel in that it was one of the first times they had the refs miked up, so you could hear them make the call.  Between that, and the graphics, what more did you need?

I blame Roone Arledge.

[Jim Hyla]

If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating.  Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives.  To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

I remember watching that game. It was awesome. No silly chatter and lots of field noise.

Sometimes the TV analysts do add something to my understanding of the action.  But more often than not it's just chatter to fill the airtime. A guy telling me that so-and-so made a great play (which I just watched) is meaningless.

Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

All right!  A Gene Hart sighting.  "Good night and good hockey!"

I remember the football game without commentators.  It was an Oct. 1980 game between (I believe) the Jets and Miami.  It was novel in that it was one of the first times they had the refs miked up, so you could hear them make the call.  Between that, and the graphics, what more did you need?

I blame Roone Arledge.

For me watching football, I like commentators so I can keep up with the game and not watch it intensely. I'm usually doing something else at the time, same with baseball.

[amerks127]

If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating.  Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives.  To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

I remember watching that game. It was awesome. No silly chatter and lots of field noise.

Sometimes the TV analysts do add something to my understanding of the action.  But more often than not it's just chatter to fill the airtime. A guy telling me that so-and-so made a great play (which I just watched) is meaningless.

Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

All right!  A Gene Hart sighting.  "Good night and good hockey!"

I remember the football game without commentators.  It was an Oct. 1980 game between (I believe) the Jets and Miami.  It was novel in that it was one of the first times they had the refs miked up, so you could hear them make the call.  Between that, and the graphics, what more did you need?

I blame Roone Arledge.

For me watching football, I like commentators so I can keep up with the game and not watch it intensely. I'm usually doing something else at the time, same with baseball.

If only Doc Emrick could commentate every single hockey game.

[KeithK]

Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

Sure. But IMO the great commentators really shine on radio where they concisely paint the picture of what's happening. On TV the great ones compliment the video smoothly but it's not the same and they're not strictly necessary.

[css228]

Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

Sure. But IMO the great commentators really shine on radio where they concisely paint the picture of what's happening. On TV the great ones compliment the video smoothly but it's not the same and they're not strictly necessary.

Let's just put it this way. Baseball has never been the same for me without Kalas calling the game (in fact today is the 2nd anniversary of his final call, RIP Harry the K) and I'm sure plenty of others on this forum have their own example of a commentator who made the game special for them.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

Sure. But IMO the great commentators really shine on radio where they concisely paint the picture of what's happening. On TV the great ones compliment the video smoothly but it's not the same and they're not strictly necessary.

Let's just put it this way. Baseball has never been the same for me without Kalas calling the game (in fact today is the 2nd anniversary of his final call, RIP Harry the K) and I'm sure plenty of others on this forum have their own example of a commentator who made the game special for them.

I grew up listening to Harry and Whitey.  For me, no other announcers will ever compare.

[Chris '03]

On TV the great ones compliment the video smoothly....

Now that's painting a picture :-P