[jonnyss]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

As long as the camera stays wide enough to see most of the ten players and at least 2 referees, then I am good.   They can talk about Tara, COVID protocols or whatever works for them.   My problem is when commentators stop talking about the game and the camera team starts a series of tight shots on only a player or two.    Then it is harder for me to understand the possible incoming subs, whether the stoppage was merely to inbound the ball or because of fouls, etc.    As long as I can see most of the players on floor I will be fine.   Same is true in football, BTW.   I have noticed recently broadcasts will replay the same play 2 or 3 times and often will miss the next snap.   Give me a steady shot with all 22 players, and I'd be happy.

I guess that comes from watching the games in the stands.   If you know the game you don't need the commentators to entertain or the production crew to replay the action multiple times in slow-mo when you followed the play in real time.

TV is about the ratings ultimately.  Most commentators know that if the game is out of hand that they should talk about other things to keep the audience.     Tara's teams often get commentators wandering on tangents because the games aren't very close and there is no real doubt the team will ultimately win.

yes, i would agree that they act as if talking about other things will keep the audience. but imo basketball fans actually like to watch the subs get in the game - certainly, i like seeing if jana can ball.  who wants to listen to debbie antonelli and beth mowins chat? everyone i know would rather websurf to cnn (or fox news if that floats your boat) for a hit of information rather than listen to a pair of espn announcers small talk. and, unfortunately, they don't necessarily keep the camera on the game. too often, the producers switch to a shot of someone famous in the crowd, so neither the camera nor the announcers are on the action.

all that said, yesterday, imo espn did a decent job of using a split screen to show the action in one half and a testimonial in the other half. and i found it moving to hear, for example, steve kerr (not just debbie and beth) talking about tara.

[jonnyss]

not just this game - espn announcers in particular like to talk to each other rather than call the women's bball games. i presume that the producers direct this or, at minimum, tolerate it. imo it's a sort of male chauvinism, a patronizing, "this is about women, so they want to chat; they probably don't even know the rules."

As long as the camera stays wide enough to see most of the ten players and at least 2 referees, then I am good.   They can talk about Tara, COVID protocols or whatever works for them.   My problem is when commentators stop talking about the game and the camera team starts a series of tight shots on only a player or two.    Then it is harder for me to understand the possible incoming subs, whether the stoppage was merely to inbound the ball or because of fouls, etc.    As long as I can see most of the players on floor I will be fine.   Same is true in football, BTW.   I have noticed recently broadcasts will replay the same play 2 or 3 times and often will miss the next snap.   Give me a steady shot with all 22 players, and I'd be happy.

I guess that comes from watching the games in the stands.   If you know the game you don't need the commentators to entertain or the production crew to replay the action multiple times in slow-mo when you followed the play in real time.

TV is about the ratings ultimately.  Most commentators know that if the game is out of hand that they should talk about other things to keep the audience.     Tara's teams often get commentators wandering on tangents because the games aren't very close and there is no real doubt the team will ultimately win.

yes, i would agree that they act as if talking about other things will keep the audience. but imo basketball fans actually like to watch the subs get in the game - certainly, i like seeing if jana can ball.  who wants to listen to debbie antonelli and beth mowins chat? everyone i know would rather websurf to cnn (or fox news if that floats your boat) for a hit of information rather than listen to a pair of espn announcers small talk. and, unfortunately, they don't necessarily keep the camera on the game. too often, the producers switch to a shot of someone famous in the crowd, so neither the camera nor the announcers are on the action.

all that said, yesterday, imo espn did a decent job of using a split screen to show the action in one half and a testimonial in the other half. and i found it moving to hear, for example, steve kerr (not just debbie and beth) talking about tara.