When it comes to play by play announcing there are two issues to consider..who’s your audience and more importantly, how seriously do you want to be considered?…The worst label an announcer can get tagged with is being known as a “homer”, someone who never criticizes the home team, someone who doesn’t “tell it like it is”, to quote the legendary Howard Cosell…It’s not always easy considering your paycheck may come from that very team you are holding accountable but being objective is always the goal…
Play by play on television and radio differ greatly, especially when it comes to being honest about what’s going on…One might think that a radio call of an event might sometimes be tempered by the very fact listeners cannot see what’s going on but at a recent Sports Journalism Seminar at Boston University’s series, Nick Gagalis, who calls the radio games for the Worcester Tornadoes of the Can Am baseball league and the also the American Hockey League’s Providence Bruins disagreed…said Gagalis, “Sometimes it sounds more biting when it’s on the radio because my style is to describe things and go back and show you exactly how it happened…That helps me, someone especially who hasn’t played the game as much, to understand myself why it happened, let alone the viewers…If I was on TV, it would be easier because I would say less and be more careful about what i said…”
Listening to a game and watching a game may be very different experiences but draw the same visceral reaction(s)…why else would Awful Announcing have been born?
Current NBA analyst for ESPN Doris Burke joined Gagalis that night at Boston University and passed along some good advice she got from former Providence College basketball coach and later Big East Commissioner Dave Gavitt….”No one turns the game on to hear the announcer, Gavitt told Burke , just make sure they don’t turn it off because of you…”
It’s a lesson Burke has remembered for more than twenty years now…A good place to start….
17 Comments
Caroline posted on October 25, 2011 at 12:58 pm
I really enjoyed listening to Doris Burke and Nick Gagalis last week. The combination of a young professional and a seasoned vet turned out to be a terrific seminar. I noticed that Doris was intrigued and learning from Nick, which was pretty cool to see.
The advice that Doris gave really hit home for me with the quick lines of “if I don’t know it I promise you I can learn it,” and “No one turns the game on to hear the announcer, just make sure they don’t turn it off because of you.” Doris spoke about how we need to believe in what we are doing and be able to back it up. I learned that I should always say less and make what I say impactfull. I also picked up form the seminar that sometimes it is okay to “let it rest.”
It gave me a little bit of extra confidence when Doris said it did help that she played the game. I know this business is extremely hard to break into but to know that Doris Burke has been told “no” more times then she has been told “yes”, allows me to believe I can do it. It seems to be all about persistence and thick skin.
Nicks point of view was very refreshing listening to a former BU student and his stories of hard work and dedicated to his job. I think he held his own next to Doris and might have even impressed her a bit. His advice and input to the seminar was well noted and enjoyable.
When Doris talked about some of the life decisions that she made she spoke about her family a lot, which has not been brought up yet in past seminars. I am sure many women face this conflict of family vs. career. I think that is a hard decision for women to make when wanting to be successful in a business like this but it looks like Doris balanced it pretty well with her family and her career.
Patrick Hazel posted on October 25, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I have much respect for the play by play people, on both the television and radio side of things. It takes a lot to have the charisma, skills and timing to properly make the fan/listener feel as if they are sitting there in the front row of the game. They are very different, though.
I agree with Nick when he says that radio play by play sounds more “biting.” mainly because of the fact that the listener cannot see the game itself as opposed to a television play by play. I also agree completely with what he said about being so descriptive and wordy while being on the radio compared to being a commentator on a tv play by play. You almost have to be especially descriptive and zippy to be successful when you are giving a play by play over the radio.
When it comes to the question of which is the better experience as a listener/watcher, or which gives you the best detail or info, it would depend on who you ask I guess. I know that I personally cannot listen to a game over the radio and feel as if I am there at the game. Now don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for those who do play by play for the radio. But I feel like I get the most from listening and watching a televised experience.
Having Doris Burke at the seminar was a great experience. Such an accomplished and respected analyst for the NBA and college, she has set a great example for females with play by play aspirations. I also found it interesting that she is shy when it comes to speaking in the camera.
The quote she gives is especially true; that no one watches for the announcer, just make sure they don’t turn it off because of you. That is very important because I know I personally have changed the channel because of some play by play guys who just were not that interesting or engaging. It takes much practice and preparation, as Burke said in class, in order to be a capable play by play commentator. You have to do your background homework; try to find stories in the locker room from players, coaches, looking up stats that could be bounced off of a play that was just made during the game. Play by play is one of the most genuine and colorful styles of sports journalism, as the speaker tries with their own style to place the listener at the sporting event.
Craig Meyer posted on October 25, 2011 at 2:24 pm
A few weeks ago in class, Prof. Shorr posed the question of “What is sports journalism?” and when we moved past obvious jobs like beat reporter and columnist, we moved into murkier water with things like sports talk radio hosts and play-by-play announcers.
After last Thursday’s seminar, it was more apparent than ever that play-by-play announcers are a crucial component in the wider world of sports journalism. Along with what Caroline and Patrick said, I’ve always had a ton of respect for play-by-play announcers and what they do because, frankly, I know it’s something I couldn’t do (that’s why I chose the print route).
While it is certainly difficult to properly call a game, the difficulty of the craft doesn’t necessarily qualify announcing and commentary as sports journalism. However, play-by-play announcers bring the game to life just as much as a game recap can, if not more. Regardless of whether it is over the radio or on television, play-by-play announcers break down a series of actions and events into a running narrative, giving the viewer or listener a sense of what is going on in the game. A game on TV is simply not the same without someone detailing all the action and providing updates as they come along. Similarly, radio announcers, as Gagalis mentioned, have the additional task of having to go the proverbial extra mile since their followers cannot actually see what is taking place.
It also has to be acknowledged that much of what we derive from sports comes from broadcasters and commentators. Most, if not all, of the sports we catch are on TV or the radio and both of those mediums have had an invaluable hand in helping make sports as popular as they are today. And with so many eyes and minds fixated on these games, it is people like Burke and Gagalis who have to maneuver through all the hoops and obstacles to give people the most critical information and insight.
Simply put, without people to immediately guide a viewer or listener through a game, sports journalism would not be where it is today.
Margot posted on October 25, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Personally, I have no aspirations to ever do play-by-play or color announcing, I don’t think I’m cut out for it, it’s an incredibly challenging job. You have to have the ability to make people see something that they aren’t there for, which can be quite challenging. On top of everything else, you have to do it in a way that flows, that people can follow, and that doesn’t irritate them so much that they have to change the station. To have the right timing, tempo, and everything else you need to do that job is a gift.
I really enjoyed the tandem of Nick and Doris, representing someone who is just getting their feet wet versus a seasoned veteran. As I mentioned in class, I had met Doris previously at the same Celtics game where I had my first professional locker room experience. Even though she was working, she took the time to talk to me and answer as many questions as she could. I got to watch her working a bit as well, and she was a true professional. From the way she carried herself and how she interacted with the athletes, other journalists, and the chaos that surrounds a professional sporting event, it is no wonder that she is working at such a high level of sports.
One thing that both Nick, Doris, and some of our other guests have said over the semester is that they had some luck getting to where they are, that they were in the right place at the right time. This seems hard, because there is zero that we can do about that. We can work hard, be prepared, go the extra mile, but it sounds like there is a certain component of luck that we can’t control. I guess the lesson here is that persistence pays off, from getting told no more than yes to sitting on a bus for 3 hours before your hotel room is ready, and being open to all opportunities and stepping outside your comfort zone can lead to big things.
Tyler posted on October 25, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Professor Shorr asked Nick Gagalis, “Is play-by-play the ultimate goal for broadcasters?” My answer: without question. It’s a challenging, rewarding, and exhilarating way to cover a team, and the more you do it, the better you get.
Preparation is probably the most important part of broadcasting, but when you cover a team consistently, player tendencies, stats and trends become second nature. There’s nothing like following a team through the ups and downs of a season, and providing the live narrative every step of the way. Play-by-play is one of the toughest gigs to land for a reason: everyone wants to be that voice behind the mic. Even Doris Burke, with all her accomplishments, still has the dream of doing color for the Knicks (I know it’s not play-by-play, but you get the idea). So how do you break in? Here’s a thought:
I’ve produced plenty of Gagalis’ BU hockey broadcasts and teamed up with him for a few basketball calls. He’s very good, but to be honest I know at least three broadcasters who are more qualified for the Providence Bruins gig (I’m looking at you, Dave Lombardi). But as we’ve come to learn this semester, talent is only part of the equation. After he graduated, Nick broadcasted for free, took on extra responsibilities, got a grocery store job, and took an internship that might not have led to the job he has now. But it did. Was he lucky? Absolutely. But as Samuel Goldwyn said, “the harder I work, the luckier I get,” and that certainly applies to every field.
I won’t waste much time on debating whether or not announcing is sports journalism. Broadcasting brings the game to the masses in the most direct and immediate form. If Edward R. Murrow’s narration of a London firebombing during World War II doesn’t qualify as journalism, then I’m transferring to culinary school. In that sense, shows like Sportscenter qualify even less as sports journalism because they just repeats what you could have heard live during the game from the announcer. In short, play-by-play is journalism (at it’s finest, in my opinion).
Catie posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:54 pm
I agree with Craig that play-by-play is both an important and challenging component in the sports journalism spectrum. You must know the sport you are covering inside and out in order to keep up with the pace of the game. There isn’t time for slip-ups or delays in play-by-play, you have to be able to call it right then and there and it has to be accurate. This aspect of play-by-play makes it more challenging than a lot of other components in sports journalism.
In my opinion, radio play-by-play is a harder job. They have same goal as any print writer does, they have to create a vivid image for a listener who is unable to see the game himself or herself. This job is much harder than describing a play to an audience that can see it themselves.
However, it is easier to criticize a team or to stray away from objectivity when doing radio play-by-play because you are not making eye contact with any of your listeners and your listeners generally are not watching the game. This rings true when comparing radio play-by-play with sideline play-by-play and when comparing print journalism with broadcast journalism. It’s always easier to speak the truth when you are not in direct contact with your listener.
The question that is always most interesting to me during these seminars is whether the job is easier or harder being a retired athlete. I used to get annoyed when football players or basketball players would retire and land a job with ESPN immediately after with absolutely no experience, but after having Tedy and Doris come visit, my opinion has changed.
I think that athletes can do the play-by-play jobs much better than anyone else. If I wanted to listen to a football game on the radio and I had the option of listening to a retired professional or a college player versus someone who played a couple years in high school, I would 100% choose the former. It’s nearly impossible to know everything there is about a sport without playing it. Whether it’s the different plays or the positions, someone who has been there and experienced it has a leg up because they have a different view.
I do not think this rings true for every position in sports journalism at all. Does it matter if a broadcaster or print journalist played the sport? It helps, but someone who hasn’t can be just as good, or better. But, for play-by-play I 100% think that previous athletes should be hired before those who haven’t played.
Rick Sobey posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:12 am
Even though I have a background in print journalism and don’t see myself as a play-by-play broadcaster in the future, I was still able to take away some very valuable points from last week’s seminar with Doris Burke and Nick Gagalis. Yes, writing a news article is drastically different from being in the broadcast booth (a writer gets a much longer time to analyze a play or game compared to a broadcaster who has to analyze it on the spot in front of a live audience). However, I learned last Thursday how the two professions are similar and face the same difficulties. Most importantly, I learned how to deal with these issues that both broadcasters and writers face on a day-to-day basis.
As Professor Shorr mentioned in this week’s blog post, it is never good when the broadcaster is biased for the hometown team. However, it can be quite tough to be down the middle when you are getting paid by that same team. Burke mentioned how the New York Liberty General Manager told her, “remember who pays you.” That can be a difficult situation, and it also happens with writers. For example, if there is a regular advertiser for a newspaper and you write a story that releases some negative information about the company, then that company will probably threaten to remove its ad from the newspaper.
It can obviously be very tough to decide what to do when you have a story that jeopardizes your future relationship with an advertiser. However, at the end of the day, it comes down to the truth and neutrality. This goes for both writers and broadcasters (both on the radio and TV). What is journalism without objectivity? That happens in other countries where there is propaganda from the government, but it is not the proper journalistic method here. Money from advertisers is obviously important, but what’s the point of a news outlet if the information they are spitting out is biased?
Another point that I took away from the seminar was how broadcasters can say 1,000 positive comments about a team but that one negative comment could haunt them for a while. The same goes for print journalism, as one negative sentence will distract the reader from the rest of the article. It’s just not fair, but it’s the way society is; people will always focus on the negative. So how do you defend yourself when people are grilling your one negative point? It’s all about backing up the comment with statistics and facts, showing the reader or viewer how it’s not a personal opinion, but it’s the truth. It’s another tough area for print and broadcast journalists, and it was great to hear about it from journalists in a different field than me.
josh posted on October 26, 2011 at 10:51 am
I believe that play-by-play and color commentary is a very difficult job. However, I was extremely surprised by Doris’ overall body language and room presence. She said herself that she is not great at public speaking, but this actually gave me confidence that I could do these jobs because she is a great color commentator but has the complete opposite personality in a group. Nick on the other hand had a strong room presence and you could see that different personalities can thrive in the play-by-play world.
For the most part all this seminar did was reinforce most of the ideas that have already been touched upon in previous seminars. Maybe this will happen for the rest of the discussions because we have already hit all the major points and elements involved with sports media jobs, but I certainly hope that’s not the case.
Elements that were talked about that we already knew, relationships (Doris talked about chemistry among reporting teams), having an opinion but being able to back it up, sticking out the early difficult years, having thick skin and working hard. I will add one caveat to the thick skin topic, and that is having a positive attitude helps here. Nick hit on this when he told his “You Suck” story. He was young and new at the job and could have completely let it destroy his confidence. Instead he took it as “somebody is actually listening to me call the games” and used it as motivation.
Catie, I strongly disagree with your assumption that having played a sport will automatically make you a better commentator. Is it an advantage, sure, but it is not a game changer. I think that hard work can overcome that in no time. I’m not entirely sure if I’m right here, but I believe that Nick talked about this when he talked about covering hockey. I don’t believe he ever played, but the more he watched and called games the more he picked it up and began to get a feel for the game. This is where the “less is more” idea comes into play. People who do not understand the game as well are more likely to say less, but have something more meaningful to say when they speak. Plus, someone who hasn’t played will be hungrier to learn more about the ins and outs of the game and someone who has been there and done that may already feel they know everything there is to know.
David posted on October 26, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Growing up in Boston, my allegiances were to the Boston sports teams, the Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins and Patriots. I have been listening to games from all four sports both on the radio and on television ever since I can remember. This weeks seminar got me to thinking about the many play-by-play announcers I have listened to over the years, the idea of being a “homer” and the most popular quote of the seminar:
“No one turns the game on to hear the announcer, Gavitt told Burke , just make sure they don’t turn it off because of you…”
After thinking about these three specific thoughts, one name came to mind… Tommy Heinsohn. Heinsohn does the play-by-play for the Celtics. A former Celtic himself, he understands and knows the game better than most people, which coincides with the anecdote that Doris Burke had about replacing Clyde Frazier when making her point that experience in the sport does help as an analyst.
While experience may help, it does not guarantee a good play-by-play analyst. I cant tell you how many Celtics games I have turned off because of Heinsohn’s screaming and moaning about calls that were made.
A RedsArmy.com website lists several of the quotes spanning his years as a commentator. Out of the Heinsohn’s top ten quotes 4 of them are about the referees making bad calls. The quotes include: (http://www.redsarmy.com/home/2010/02/top-10-tommy-heinsohn-quotes.html)
“Terrible call! Ohhh I gotta see this one again! Okay… He was moving.”
“He was in da circle!”
“He’s a young referee… and I HOPE HE DOESN’T GET MUCH OLDER.”
(these four are listed together because they all came in one tirade in a 2007 Celtics game against the Suns)
“They’re gonna call it a hard foul. They’re gonna call it a hard foul!”
“This is getting ridiculous!”
“He walked!”
“Kenny Mauer better go home to his wife…because nobody here loves him.”
Heinsohn is an example of both a “Homer” and an analyst who thinks people tune in for him. I always look forward to when the Celtics are on ABC or ESPN so I just don’t have to listen to him.
If you want to see how truly annoying Heinsohn can be visit (http://www.redsarmy.com/home/2010/02/top-10-tommy-heinsohn-quotes.html) to see one of his tirades.
David Lombardi posted on October 26, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Well, since I have a lot of play-by-play experience, this was the seminar that I was really looking forward to, and it didn’t disappoint.
I’ll try to bring some of the knowledge from my own experience calling games of different sports and apply it to some of things that Nick and Doris had to say.
First and foremost, the transition from radio to TV play-by-play is an extremely tricky one. While the radio announcer must paint an entire picture to a virtually “blind” listener, a TV announcer must be conscious of the fact that his listeners can also see the game at the same time. Therefore, the adage “less is more” certainly applies to TV play-by-play, as an announcer who can’t adequately constrain himself will be obnoxious and become the reason that viewers “change the channel” – something that Doris warned against.
Nick was dead-on with analysis about the difference in speed between various sports. Baseball has the most down time, and therefore requires a colloquial, time-filling approach. Basketball, with virtually no down time, gives the announcer a chance only to describe the action. Football is my favorite, because it is a happy medium between the two: during a play, the game develops as quickly as basketball, but in between plays, there is ample time for baseball-style editorialization.
While our two guests were excellent, I thought they could have devoted more time speaking of the importance of chemistry between play-by-play and color broadcasters. That, in my opinion, is one of the biggest challenges AND rewards of the profession. When I called play-by-play for Stanford football from 2007-2009, I had the same color announcer all three years. We developed a tremendous bond not only because we traveled and experienced all of the team’s highs and lows together, but also because of the rhythm and congruence that we developed on air.
The interaction reminded me a lot of an actual athletic team: we began each season slightly rusty, but as the year progressed, we “gelled” in our broadcast of the game to a point of near-perfection: I would always describe the formation, play, and result of that play, and my analyst would immediately fit his colorful take into his 30-second window before the next one lined up. When that happy balance was achieved, it was the most rewarding feeling in the world, because it was such a difficult and nuanced point to reach – much, much harder than it may seem.
Play-by-play is awesome, but it’s also inflexible. I was barely recovering from the swine flu in 2009 when I had to fly up to Washington State – Pullman, WA, i.e. the middle of nowhere – to call Stanford’s season opener. Due to radio station budget constraints, I had to make a couple cross country trips to call three and a half hour games by myself, which was certainly a challenge – but a fun one that I readily accepted.
The difficulties of this job are part of what makes it great, though. It’s fun to travel on a team charter flight. Calling games makes you invested in them; you can feel similar energy that the athletes feel, while traveling along the same itinerary that the athletes travel. I feel that play-by-play announcers – as opposed to beat writers and reporters – are accepted into the whole team culture, as well. We would spend nights before road games in the hotel bar, hanging out with coaches. You really become part of the operation.
wouldn’t trade those memories for anything, and that’s why play-by-play is my long term dream job.
Lee posted on October 26, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Live game commentary is a different animal than studio analysis or talk radio. The preparation involved, as well as the intimate knowledge of the mechanics of TV/radio that is required to be successful levels the playing field between former athletes and regular broadcasters.
Let’s separate two jobs here: There is a play-by-play commentator, and a color analyst. They are not the same job.
For the role of TV color analyst, I am 100% in agreement that this role is best filled, from a credibility standpoint, by a former player of that sport. That is, if that former player knows how to deliver a broadcast.
I’m not going to object to an athlete believing that he or she can do a better job of broadcasting a sport than a person who hasn’t played the game at a high level. Instead, I would ask him or her to try it. I would contend that just like reaching the peak of a particular sport takes years and years of tireless work, so too does reaching that level in broadcasting.
I have been working with a former soccer player on BU soccer broadcasts this year. She was an elite player with a tireless work ethic, and has applied that work ethic to broadcasting. When she started, a listener could tell she knew what she was talking about, but there were extended periods of dead air time, names weren’t consistently memorized, and the broadcast lacked a coherent flow.
She is now a wonderful broadcaster, improving with every game, but she is still figuring out how to communicate all of her knowledge within the context of a broadcast.
I think Josh’s issue with Catie’s comment is less about the idea that former athletes make a more credible analyst, but with the way it was phrased. It almost seemed like any athlete could walk off of the field or court and into the booth, and have a 30-year career as a broadcaster. For anybody who has done the job, that is an insulting presumption that, once again, could be easily put to bed by trying it.
Doris Burke is a perfect example of what I would consider to be an ideal color analyst. She is a former player, yes, but she is articulate, and works every single day to prepare herself. Just because she was a collegiate basketball player doesn’t mean she learns the men’s and women’s NCAA landscape, AND the NBA by osmosis. However, because she works so hard and gets herself prepared so well, she is able to focus on the nuances of basketball within the context of a broadcast, and it benefits both her and her audience that she played the game.
But Doris said it herself…she was offered the play-by-play role during her first men’s basketball broadcast and she flatly refused. She was adamant that the play-by-play job is an acquired skill, and that it would be ridiculous for her to take that role on cold.
Again, I agree that a well prepared athlete makes a better analyst than a well prepared civilian. But I’ll get upset if somebody were to tell me that John Wall would make a better play-by-play commentator than Tyler Murray just because the highlight of Tyler’s basketball career came as a 13-year-old at world sports camp.
(And Tyler’s corner 3 is just as good if not better…)
Lacey posted on October 26, 2011 at 10:42 pm
During my childhood in Buffalo, NY, I distinctly remember listening to two local sports broadcasters: Van Miller and Rick Jeanneret. Miller, the voice of the Buffalo Bills, and Jeanneret, the Buffalo Sabres play-by-play man were both fantastic at their craft in uniquely separate ways.
Miller has been retired for nearly a decade now, but what I recall most about him was the emphatic over eagerness he had for the Bills to perform at a level most fans grew to embrace and look forward to, especially during the Jim Kelly years. He was methodical and rhythmic and allowed himself to get carried away once in a while, which in turn excited the crowds of Western New York fans.
Miller’s style was presumptuous and often times, he frustrated the fans by assuming the result of a play before it happened. His arrogance and prophetic commentary however flustering, was fun and welcoming. He acted sometimes too much like a fan, but he attempted to remain unbiased during his broadcasts.. The criticisms he threw around hardly yielded any threats as they seemed more like constructive statements that could help improve Buffalo’s defense or offense. Really, what Van Miller brought to the play-by-play table was a heroic sense of promise and possibilities that started to fade after the superstar team of the early 90s retired.
A homer? Maybe…but really, a solid and exciting voice that echoed through the radio.
I generalize that football is easier to call play-by-play for than hockey and firmly assert that this is the case without question.
As I mentioned, Buffalo is fortunate to have one of the most respected play-by-play men in hockey with the lofty and enthusiastic Rick Jeanneret. He is quick witted and smooth, never missing a beat with his calls. The way he communicates to the fan is incredible; he depicts that game so majestically with such a powerful sentiment that fans cannot help but be caught up in the action of the fast-paced game. Fans often look more towards his calls of the game than the game itself. Jeanneret is at the very least a passionate, intelligent and articulate broadcaster that maintains the integrity to the game of hockey. As a play-by-play person in hockey, you must be capable of calling the game without throwing off the pace, and that is what Jeanneret does.
Giving examples of these two men was a way for me to ease into this: each sport requires it’s own style of play-by-play announcers. Football is a medium paced sport that calls for someone with a thorough knowledge of the game, but also has a personality that encourages people to stay, listen and watch the game.
It’s like the Howard Stern syndrome, as a listener, be them a fan or not, you want to know what they’ll say next. Keep people around and keep them coming back for more. Football needs fun, energetic attitudes to do play-by-play. But they also must have a respectability and understanding of the intricacies involved in football. You can’t just have a comedian around to chime it, Dennis Miller…no one gets it and no one comes back.
Regarding hockey, a play-by-play announcer really must be an excellent speaker. This sport is tough to call due to the fast pace nature, constant turnovers of the puck, difficult foreign names to pronounce (correctly) and the maintaining of a consistent vocal range and tempo. As a hockey PBP man (or woman) they have to talk quickly and continuously as there are rarely any breaks for them to sit back and discuss the game. Hockey is enthralling when there is a good play by play person at the helm, otherwise, the play of the guys on the ice can appear to be boring and challenging to watch for the casual sports fan. The value of a solid, reputable play by play announcer is extremely important in hockey.
From what I have read of the other blog posts, the class’ appreciation of what these speakers said did not fall on deaf ears. Fantastic considering play-by-play and color commentary are prominent parts of the sports journalism field. I truly find the skills one must possess to be either of the two or both as quite remarkable.
These are certainly not career paths for the dull, dim-witted or unmotivated.
Nick posted on October 27, 2011 at 12:02 am
Of all the seminars, this was the one I was looking most forward too. In the broadcast department, the emphasis is on news and broadcasting, but not on announcing. It’s my senior year and this is the first time at BU that I’ve sat in a class where my future career choice – play-by-play – was outright addressed. I was interested to hear what Doris and Nick had to say, but it definitely left me longing for more.
I had the honor of sitting in with Dave O’Brien and Joe Castiglione in the WEEI booth at Fenway this summer and I not only took in every piece of advice the two professionals handed to me, but I noticed every nuance of their pre-game and in-game routine. O’Brien had a bag filled with markers and pens to mark his simple score sheet that sat on top of a tall stack of game notes. Castiglione had a very thick journal filled with his own notes and hand drawn scorecards dating back well beyond this season. I asked O’Brien how long his prep took and he said several hours while Castiglione cracked, “a lifetime.” In this line of work, I wouldn’t deny it.
In the middle of the game, O’Brien gave me a three-part piece of advice that has stuck with me and that I think would serve as a good directive for any would-be broadcaster: don’t rely on cliche, be as descriptive as possible, and most importantly, don’t tell the audience something they already know or can see for themselves.
– He told me it pains him to hear young up and comers who already have their schtick all planned out and use catchphrases instead of being natural. Don’t mimic your favorite guy, and do what you think feels right, and it’ll come across that way.
– Especially in radio, it helps to be minute in your assessments of the action. A person tuning in wants to know that the line drive ricocheted off Pedroia’s glove and took two hops towards the seats along the first baseline before reaching Drew in right, who then just barely missed throwing out Granderson at second. It’s a whole lot more interesting that a liner that goes into right for a double.
– The final point was OB’s big kicker. He made it clear that an audience will rip a broadcaster apart if he tries to coddle them. The audience isn’t stupid, that’s why it’s pointless to describe the images of a televised game moment-by-moment, or to say every single pitch count. TV and radio are two different beasts that require different things from their announcers. One depends on the calls, the other is more conversational.
One of the big things that annoy me is when critics and armchair quarterbacks ridicule play-by-play men. Granted, some have it coming (I’m looking at you John Sterling and Hawk Harrelson), but the job is more than just sitting at a desk and talking about what’s going on. It is the job of the broadcaster to tell a story, provide insight and new information, and smoothly navigate a game through the hours it takes to run.
So many times I’ve heard about fed up fans muting Joe Buck and Tim McCarver during the World Series because they can’t stand Buck’s smarminess or McCarver’s ineptitude. Interestingly enough, I don’t think the fans would like it if no one was in the booth during the games. Case in point, there was an NFL regular season game in 1980 where NBC experimented with no broadcasters. The game, which was supposed to be a dud of a match up, was surreal to watch because the sounds of the game became more apparent, but overall it suffered from not having the professionals there to pump up the drama or raise questions. In the end, it was a one-and-done experiment (although NFL Network tried the idea once again in a 2004 preseason game). A nice write-up of the experiment can be seen here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5906858
I’d like to end on the same note Dick Enberg ended on in the above article; most times it’s the balancing of the broadcast that really makes a play-by-play man great, not just their voice or their friendliness or their penchant for making poignant calls. A broadcaster has to know when he/she has to fill in time and when to shut up and let the moment speak for itself. Vin Scully is the master of this technique. So is my idol, Jack Buck. Here he is making my favorite call of all time, twenty years ago today. Revel in his mastery, and never question a play-by-play man’s worth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIW_pPmaps8
P.S.: I read a fantastic Joe Posnanski article yesterday about how all announcers have an expiration date and he used an example of incorporating relevant facts into the game. Tim McCarver was terrible about it in game two of the World Series, while Al Michaels was brilliant during Sunday night’s Colts-Saints blowout. I refer anybody to read it to see what I mean: http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/10/24/baseball-on-fox/
Nick posted on October 27, 2011 at 12:07 am
Also, I can’t stand homers (Michael Kay, Gill Santos, Hawk Harrleson, the list goes on…) and I want to avoid that in my future. That’s why I brought up bias in my question to Doris and Nick.
I can understand why someone from YES or the MSG Network has to watch what they say, but they shouldn’t censor themselves from the truth just because of who pays their checks. If that’s what I was forced to do, I’d find a new job where I can actually do my job.
Joe Parello posted on October 27, 2011 at 12:39 am
I certainly agree with Patrick that it takes many traits to be a successful play-by-play announcer. One trait I was totally unaware of, however, was working in sales the way that Nick is. I thoroughly enjoyed this seminar because it gave us a bit of insight into what it takes to be a good play-by-play announcer and color commentator. Obviously, having Doris was a huge boost, and I was thrilled that she was very honest about last week’s subject, women in the media. I agree with David on one thing, I wish they would have focused a little bit more on the chemistry between the two roles. Believe me, I know what it’s like to have little chemistry with your partner in the booth.
As for as Catie’s comment that an athlete would make a better commentator, I don’t believe that to be true, but it definitely gives you a head start in a number of way. People know that you understand the game and give you a bit of added credibility. Also, you may have connections in the game that could lend you insight to how or why something is happening. That being said, you still need to have that personality and charisma that Patrick mentioned, along with an ease of speech that makes what you say conversational.
On the whole, I thought the seminar was very informative, and I will definitely take some of Doris’ comments about less being more into account the next time I am an analyst. Also, the next time I call a game, I will be more conscious of whether I am doing television or radio and adjust my observations and criticisms accordingly.
Heidi posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:37 am
Of all the seminars we’ve had so far, this one is my favorite. I currently do color for women’s hockey and I do play by play for MIT volleyball. Until last Thursday, I had completely written off doing these things after college. Doris made me think that pursuing these types of jobs is still an option, despite my being a woman. Of course I am realistic about that, but I dare say I was inspired when I walked out of the room. In my two and a half semesters at BU I have met some amazing folks and been encouraged in my pursuits but talking with Doris was only the second time I can say I have been inspired. I am positive that many of my classmates did not walk away feeling the same but the things that Doris and Nick said really hit home for me.
I agree that former players have an advantage when doing color and play by play but I do not feel that necessarily makes them the best. They have a player’s understanding of the game, which is definitely much different than just being a spectator but I think it really depends on personality. It helps to have done it, but that doesn’t mean the person knows the subject matter any better than someone who put in their time studying. There is a saying that I think fits here, “Those who can, do. And those who can’t, teach.” I think, in a backwards way, it applies. Play by play and color are a bit like teaching the audience the sport. Maybe the announcer did not play but they could very well know it enough to be fantastic at their job. It all comes back to hard work. Maybe I’m saying this because I enjoy play by play and color and the only sport I played past a high school level is volleyball. Regardless, I think that while former players do make great announcers, there should not be a line drawn there.
Something else I found interesting, as Joe mentioned, was the sales part of the job that Nick brought up. I honestly had never thought that might be part of an entry level job in this field. That is a little scary. Put that down as another reality check during my job search.
Mallory posted on October 27, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Like Margot, play-by-play or color commentating isn’t for me. So with that in mind I listened in for things I could still takeaway and relate to my future career aspirations. One of these things was what Doris was getting at with “less is more.” And the line “just make sure people don’t turn off the TV because of you…” Less really is more in lots of aspects of television. I don’t plan on going into radio and don’t have to fill up 4 hour gaps with talking so for those few minutes or seconds I get to be on air I really have to make what I’m going to say worth it for the viewer.
I also really enjoyed Doris Burke. She seemed very modest, wise, and willing to share advice with up and coming journalists. I enjoyed how she and Nick Gagalis interacted, adding onto each other’s stories and tips. And even though Nick may have further to go in his career, it was like Doris was learning from him too. I also liked how she never name dropped, very refreshing.
Anyways, I’d have to say I learned more from Doris Burke in her first few statements than I did from the whole ‘women in sports’ seminar. Since we were going to have a ‘women in sports seminar’ I wanted to learn how I could use being a woman to my advantage. I mean why not, we’re acknowledging that women are somehow different than men in this kind of career so how can I take advantage of those differences? In her first statement, Doris said to use anything and everything to your advantage. She admitted she changed her look and didn’t think that it was a coincidence she moved up in her career because of it. So it is important to take into account how visual the television medium is and how important it is to spend time on your appearance and how to manipulate that to suit the particular job you want. She said to continue dressing professional, that women are beginning to dress more casual and most importantly, act professionally. She really laid it out on the table when she said “it is what it is,” you can’t ignore gender and her advice on how to make the best of it was what I wanted to gain from the prior seminar.