HomeBrew1901 said:
It reminds me of the Sox fans who complained about Fallon & Barrymore on the field after the 2004 WS victory. I mean, really?
Can We Talk About Chris Collinsworth For A Moment
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
It reminds me of the Sox fans who complained about Fallon & Barrymore on the field after the 2004 WS victory. I mean, really?
It's probably fun to play the "we've become like Yankees fans" card. That card gets played often enough. But I think the point is nonsense in this context (and is usually a big stretch as the level of entitlement and arrogance in that fan base is unmatched).
This is, of course, the media forum.
It was noteworthy that Cris Collisworth -- an analyst who I think most people here and elsewhere think very highly of -- chose to delve into fucking DeflateGate while the Patriots were driving for the go ahead TD. I mean please, the timing could not have been worse. And as Bill Simmons pointed out, the whole "look me in the eye" angle was childish. What is Cris after all? A jedi with secret powers who knows when someone is fibbing?
The bottom line for me is that a member of the analyst team I previously enjoyed the most chose horrendous judgment in jumping into a silly, hysterical, arguably agenda driven story with less than four minutes left in the game. Pointing that out, and wondering if that shows bias (or just rank stupidity) is a legitimate conversation point in this forum.
And speaking for myself, it takes no effort to co-process here. My level of appreciation, joy, over the top happiness and continued buzzingness is 100% unaffected by the fact that I think Cris Collinsworth sucked ass at the end of the telecast. Talking about the latter has zero affect on the former. The Yippee Party continues unabated even while I note and wonder about how such an otherwise strong analyst could shit the bed to that extent.
This is, of course, the media forum.
It was noteworthy that Cris Collisworth -- an analyst who I think most people here and elsewhere think very highly of -- chose to delve into fucking DeflateGate while the Patriots were driving for the go ahead TD. I mean please, the timing could not have been worse. And as Bill Simmons pointed out, the whole "look me in the eye" angle was childish. What is Cris after all? A jedi with secret powers who knows when someone is fibbing?
The bottom line for me is that a member of the analyst team I previously enjoyed the most chose horrendous judgment in jumping into a silly, hysterical, arguably agenda driven story with less than four minutes left in the game. Pointing that out, and wondering if that shows bias (or just rank stupidity) is a legitimate conversation point in this forum.
And speaking for myself, it takes no effort to co-process here. My level of appreciation, joy, over the top happiness and continued buzzingness is 100% unaffected by the fact that I think Cris Collinsworth sucked ass at the end of the telecast. Talking about the latter has zero affect on the former. The Yippee Party continues unabated even while I note and wonder about how such an otherwise strong analyst could shit the bed to that extent.
Excellent post, except the whole spirit of it is violated by the bolded. The first issue was not that they "recorded something," it was that the cameraman doing the recording should have been standing somewhere else. As far as the second issue goes, we still have zero evidence whatsoever that anything out of the ordinary happened in that game.Drocca said:
I realize you've written them this way in an attempt to trivialize the issues and point out the ridiculous nature of the attempt by some to control the narrative in an unfavorable way, but the way it's worded... well, it feeds the narrative in an unfavorable way.
It's more accurate to say "What did the Patriots do? Didn't move their cameraman when they were told to." Because that's what actually happened. You'll notice I don't mention anything about under-inflated balls, again because in that case there's zero evidence that anything out of the ordinary happened.
The fight broke out after the encroachment penalty on Seattle (ball to 6 yard line), and one kneel-down by Brady (ball to 5 yard line), so the ball moved from the 5 yard line to the 20. If it had been a penalty on New England, and none on Seattle for some inexplicable reason, the ball would have been moved to the NE 2.5 or so.Papelbon's Poutine said:
I'm sure this has already been said, but I'll reiterate it, since this really struck me when re-watching the game tonight. When he brought up the Deflategate stuff, the game was heading in a bad direction for the Pats. The Pats were down 10 and had just given up a sack on Brady. At that point, they were looking to fill a little and launched into Ballghazi. It lasted a brief amount of time, then they went back to the game. I really don't have an issue with how that was handled. I'd add that they brought it up in the context of "Brady was distracted this week," so I think they were actually coming up with an excuse for Brady's performance rather than trying to tear down the Pats.
The PFW In Progress guys tackled this and said they didn't notice anything abnormal at all in the press box when that play happened, seemed very surprised by the report of people cheering loudly after the Kearse catch.Dummy Hoy said:
Paul Perillo also said that when Butler picked the ball off he stood up and cheered, which is something he never does at games.
Obviously, you can choose not to believe their account on this, but the story isn't uncontested fact.
rodderick said:
Okay, thanks. I thought it was accepted. I wouldn't have doubted it because of the media's dislike for Belichick's terse and often uncooperative style ("Bill- talk about Andrew Luck"), but I also think that it's far more likely that a few isolated (Seattle?) writers cheered on the Kearse catch and this is just more Patriots paranoia, a percentage of which I do subscribe to.
Edit: Or likely what joe dokes said too.
Dehere said:
Al Michaels is on the record stating the opposite in a recent podcast with Bill Simmons. He denied any pressure from the league and said it was something he wanted to address. He attributed any of the awkwardness during that piece to rushing through it to get as much information out there as possible in a very limited amount of time.
There were at least two press sections. One in the stadium and one in the "basement" with no view of the field. The report of the cheering for Seattle came from someone in the basement area with no field view. I believe the PFW guys were in the stadium press box.rodderick said:
Well if that's what Al says, I'll take his word for it, although he sounded like he was reading copy for a hostage tape.Stevie1der said:
I'd also like to say that I think the theory floated around here that most sports fans (and the general public at large) hate the Pats is because they were once pathetic losers is totally wrong. People hate the Pats because they hate Bill Belichick. Their favorite team has been beaten by him for over 15 years and they think he cheated in the process. It's an emotional animosity that has grown over the years and it has nothing to do with Victor Kiam or the Sullivan family being terrible owners or Pat Harlow being a stiff.
I thought Collinsworth had an off day this year's Super Bowl. His usual great insight after plays seemed to be missing a lot, and slipping into the deflategate stuff was just disappointing. Al Michaels is slipping in general, IMO. After THE INTERCEPTION, all he could come up with was UNREAL! Other times, he seemed to have to feign excitement, kind of yelling. He also did some stammering, where he used to be almost flawless in delivery. I heard him in an interview maybe 3 years ago say that he just couldn't remember things like he used to be able to, and use them in broadcasts. I thought at the time uh oh. Here's a scary thing: I watched about half of NFLN's replay of the Packers-Seahawks conf. championship game, which Joe Buck and Troy Aikman did, and they sounded better than Michaels and Collinsworth did on Super Bowl Sunday.
Totally agreed.joe dokes said:
I will say that Bill does himself no favors on this front. He hangs guys and dumb questions out to dry all the time. There's a lot of sour grapes out there because of it and as we saw after the Chiefs loss, as soon as they sense a chance to crap on him, they take it with both fists.
No doubt. And it gets exacerbated by his belief that *any* scrap of information could be used against his team. I wonder -- if Sherman and Thomas were on the Patriots, would the world have known the exact details of their injuries?ifmanis5 said:
The master was probably Parcells. Reporters didn't know he was shitting on them.They kissed his ass because they were afraid of him. BB just ignores them.
Since this is a thread about an analyst . . . . . Belichick will probably retire at 70 and surprise the world by becoming the broadcast booth's next John Madden.
I wasn't aware of that. That may explain the different accounts, then.rodderick said:
To be precise, Perillo and Hart were "out" in the stadium, so whatever their reactions were, they kind of don't count. Fred Kirsch and Eric Scalavino were in the stadium press box, and Kirsch said he was so shocked he couldn't remember what was said there, so really it was just Scalavino saying he didn't notice any abnormal reaction to either the Kearse catch or the Butler INT.
On the flip side, both Curran and Michael Hurley of CBS Boston reported cheers/groans to those two plays. Don't know which press box they were in. It's likely people's ears are tuned differently to that kind of thing, and frankly we don't have a lot of evidence either way.
Actually, what I've always found hard to believe is Ron Borges' claim that he leapt up and celebrated before he could catch himself when Vinatieri hit that kick in SB 36. I think it's far more likely that he punched the wall in a rage.
As someone who's been in a ton of press boxes, reactions to great/amazing plays are not at all uncommon. It's not evidence of "hate," just a natural reaction that any spectator would have.
Hurley was in the basement press room, as he detailed in his "gee whiz" blog post, in which he came across like Flounder gushing "isn't this great?" in Animal House.
Hurley was in the basement press room, as he detailed in his "gee whiz" blog post, in which he came across like Flounder gushing "isn't this great?" in Animal House.
that super bowl was num 1 or 2 all time with SB XXV
and it was obvious collinsworth wanted seattle to win everyone wanted seattle to win but R harrison Seattle has a lot of very cool fans first-class fans but outside of R Wilson the rest of that team is a-holes
and it was obvious collinsworth wanted seattle to win everyone wanted seattle to win but R harrison Seattle has a lot of very cool fans first-class fans but outside of R Wilson the rest of that team is a-holes
I am genuinely interested in your view here since you may have more than usual information.Carmen Fanzone said:
In the first para of the quote you imply that TV ratings affect what's said on NFL game broadcasts. In the second you say that marketing has nothing to do with the storylines of the broadcasts.
We can consider separately pre/post game, what in-game analysts like Michaels say, and what profile or feature clips are shown during the broadcast. I assume you'd say that pre/post game talent is highly cued in to the storylines that drive ratings. And my guess is that the league or the network does have someone taking a long view somewhere that influences some broadcast content, like deciding to promote guys that are marketable like Wilson and in the past Tebow. My question is how much analysts and the network broadcast team think about (a) ratings and (b) longer term storyline strategy.
Wow. That's a ton of conflating.
Studio shows and game broadcasts are different things. As you note, pre and post game shows are all about story telling, and can be informed by past ratings research. But way back in this thread, there was a contention that NBC purposely "promoted" Wilson and downplayed Brady, which I'd dispute. I'd also argue against the idea that, during the biggest game of the year, any network is compromising their broadcast in the interest of investing somehow in a future payoff by building a young players star power. There's too much money on the line right now to worry about what may or may not happen years from now.
Bigger picture, even if your point about "promoting" Wilson was correct, how does one make the jump to that being evidence that the media "hates" the Patriots.
No one -- NO ONE -- is telling Collinsworth or any other analyst to say good things about Wilson and/or bad things about Brady. Not the network. Not the league. Its absurd. Who profits from a secret campaign to "diss" Tom Brady?
If a network discusses Manziel's struggles or the GM texting issue during a Browns game next year, should we assume they hate the Browns? If a game analyst mentions Carrol's call next year, will it be because they suddenly hate the Seahawks? Yet many here say discussion of Ballghazi means those media members hate the Patriots. And, incredibly, somehow media discussion of Carrol's call is now ALSO evidence of hatred for the Patriots.
Studio shows and game broadcasts are different things. As you note, pre and post game shows are all about story telling, and can be informed by past ratings research. But way back in this thread, there was a contention that NBC purposely "promoted" Wilson and downplayed Brady, which I'd dispute. I'd also argue against the idea that, during the biggest game of the year, any network is compromising their broadcast in the interest of investing somehow in a future payoff by building a young players star power. There's too much money on the line right now to worry about what may or may not happen years from now.
Bigger picture, even if your point about "promoting" Wilson was correct, how does one make the jump to that being evidence that the media "hates" the Patriots.
No one -- NO ONE -- is telling Collinsworth or any other analyst to say good things about Wilson and/or bad things about Brady. Not the network. Not the league. Its absurd. Who profits from a secret campaign to "diss" Tom Brady?
If a network discusses Manziel's struggles or the GM texting issue during a Browns game next year, should we assume they hate the Browns? If a game analyst mentions Carrol's call next year, will it be because they suddenly hate the Seahawks? Yet many here say discussion of Ballghazi means those media members hate the Patriots. And, incredibly, somehow media discussion of Carrol's call is now ALSO evidence of hatred for the Patriots.
I'm kind of done with the "media hates the Patriots" question- both sides have said what they have to say and I'm not sure further discussion is going to convince anyone. So let's leave that aside.
I was hoping to learn a little more about game broadcasts and how analysts and networks shape what gets put on air. As you note, they certainly care about ratings, and Ballghazi was certainly driving up ratings when mentioned on air. So do you think Collinsworth and Michaels are aware of that, and do they feel any direct or indirect pressure to bring it up? (I suppose direct pressure is someone telling them "here's a set of topics and the associated instant ratings from the last week". And indirect can come in many forms, though I suppose those guys know if ratings drop too far the network may want to explore other options. ). And do the producers know, and are they evaluated based on the ratings their broadcasts get?
I was hoping to learn a little more about game broadcasts and how analysts and networks shape what gets put on air. As you note, they certainly care about ratings, and Ballghazi was certainly driving up ratings when mentioned on air. So do you think Collinsworth and Michaels are aware of that, and do they feel any direct or indirect pressure to bring it up? (I suppose direct pressure is someone telling them "here's a set of topics and the associated instant ratings from the last week". And indirect can come in many forms, though I suppose those guys know if ratings drop too far the network may want to explore other options. ). And do the producers know, and are they evaluated based on the ratings their broadcasts get?
crystalline said:
What you are describing as potentially "ratings-driven commentary" to me is more like an acknowledgement of the obvious -- "EVERYBODY and their cousin is talking about deflated balls. We'd look like idiots if we ignored it during the game." And any Patriots fan who thinks that *any* talk of it during the game is un-called for is being ridiculous. But that's separate from Collinsworth's incredible clumsiness in doing so during the SB. If Adrian Peterson or Ray Rice had been playing in the SB, Collinsworth would have talked about it, perhaps just as awkwardly, and Vikings and Colts fans would be whining about how he hates their teams.
I dont think Collinsworth hates the Patriots -- or if he does, his broadcasts are not evidence of it. Most of the time, reasonably intelligent ex-players (a category I think he fits into) have a tremendous appreciation for greatness in the game they played. Cris Collinswoth knows damn well that what Brady makes look easy is, in fact, really fucking hard. His game analysis was going with the flow. For awhile there the Patriots were getting steamrolled. I think he was more or less stunned into virtual incoherence by Butler's INT, kind of like everyone else was.
I can't answer better than Joe did.
I will repeat my earlier point about game announcers, since it seems I need to. NO ONE is pressuring or suggesting that game announcers slant their commentary to favor a team or player. Not the league, not the programming or production departments at the network, least of all the marketing people. No matter how many ways you ask the question, the answer is the same.
Game ratings are primarily affected by the matchup of teams and the score of the game. Shitty teams and blowouts kill ratings. Even then, I bet you recall a game analyst or two who has said something like "we don't want everybody changing the channel, LOL, but this game us out of reach."
Game announcers can be fired over audience reactions - I'm looking at you Dennis Miller - but that's far more focus group related research than it is game content related ratings.
I will repeat my earlier point about game announcers, since it seems I need to. NO ONE is pressuring or suggesting that game announcers slant their commentary to favor a team or player. Not the league, not the programming or production departments at the network, least of all the marketing people. No matter how many ways you ask the question, the answer is the same.
Game ratings are primarily affected by the matchup of teams and the score of the game. Shitty teams and blowouts kill ratings. Even then, I bet you recall a game analyst or two who has said something like "we don't want everybody changing the channel, LOL, but this game us out of reach."
Game announcers can be fired over audience reactions - I'm looking at you Dennis Miller - but that's far more focus group related research than it is game content related ratings.
Collinsworth is the king of saying that something happened, then repeating it over and over again as the repeated replays show him to be wrong.
Other than that, I think he's pretty decent.
Other than that, I think he's pretty decent.
Collinsworth was fairly annoying last night, but this was a great piece on him.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nfl-nbc-sunday-night-football-cris-collinsworth-al-michaels-roger-goodell/
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nfl-nbc-sunday-night-football-cris-collinsworth-al-michaels-roger-goodell/
To paraphrase Churchill, Collinsworth is the worst color commentator in professional sports, except for all the others.
He also was on the verge of joining the Where is Roger chant before they cut to commercial.rembrat said:
Read through this thread for the first time since, hell, there's still five hours until game time. Some interesting discussion. What struck me most, though, was that this got no love:
Buffalo Head said:
