Very late in the just recent Men’s NCAA semi-final basketball game between Kentucky and Wisconsin, play by play announcer Jim Nance uttered what struck me as not only a highly debatable phrase but one that showed a lack of historical perspective….As the Badgers were about to dispatch the Wildcats and ruin the perfect season, Nance said (something like), “…this has been the greatest(one of) semi-final game in NCAA history”…Now granted Kentucky was unbeaten and either way the result would have been stunning but in my mind, it’s just this kind of hyperbole that sets play by play announcers up to fail…I’m not about to formulate a list of the greatest Final Four games of all time but let’s be realistic, this one wouldn’t make the top ten….It was an okay game but there just might have been more suspense in the earlier game, Duke and Michigan State with $1 million dollars on the line for one college hoop fan…Coincidentally, this is the 50 year anniversary of the epic battle between Michigan’s Cazzie Russell and Princeton’s Bill Bradley, a game that saw the a pair of future teammates go head to head, Russell getting 28, Bradley 29 as the Wolverines prevailed….Easily one of the standards under Nance’s thinking…
The play by play announcer has one job, to describe the action…So when Bob Socci and Jon Meterparel visited the Boston University sports journalism seminar series recently, it came as no surprise that they had very definite ideas as to their responsibility on air…”You just wanna get it right, said Socci, every game is the biggest game you’re gonna call”…Despite the surge in sales of large screen TVs, sports fans still watch on the “small screen”, literally…And they rely on the play by play person to describe what’s going on…Everyone has their favorites, everyone has their least favorites…Website like Awful Announcing and Deadspin have made a living from chronicling miscues…The same goes for lists of Top Ten Best Calls…Take your pick…
My pet peeve has always been announcers who describe everything that’s going on, especially on television…Is it any wonder fans sometimes turn off the sound and listen to the radio call?…Meterparel has done both TV and radio and he says there’s a not so subtle difference, especially when it comes to working a game with a partner…”Incorporating your analyst to make it more of a talk show around the game (is important) from a radio perspective. TV is a polar opposite. It’s kind of like connect the dots but you have to be very descriptive in radio.”
Let’s face it, viewers feel like they know just as much about the players and the game as the people they tune into listen to…The viewers/listeners want it down the middle though …You want to entertain me along the way, throw in a well researched anecdote? Fine…But don’t try to impress me(us) with every little number(stat) you’ve found…Some of the greatest calls in history haven’t lasted more than five words! “Down Goes Frazier!“, “Havlicek Stole the Ball!“, “The Giants Win the Pennant!”…Identify with your audience, understand their passion…You might be just lucky enough to say “I Don’t Believe What I Just Saw!”…
13 Comments
Nicholas Picht posted on April 6, 2015 at 11:46 am
To start, I also heard that call from Jim Nantz and was wondering if he and I were watching the same game. I thought down the stretch, Kentucky really didn’t execute like they were capable of and by no means was the game a nail-biting, shootout classic. But I guess that difference in opinion just proves Frank’s final point that viewers really do think they know the game better than the play-by-play guys do.
Besides Jim Nantz (who I usually do enjoy listening to), I had a huge problem with the play-by-play guys for the Kentucky and Wisconsin TeamStream broadcasts, on TNT and TruTV. I get what Bleacher Report was going for, I really do. Giving fans of the two teams a sort-of all-access look into the game was a cool idea. That being said, it just takes away from the entire integrity of the job. The UK play-by-play guy actually yelled “Thank You” after a Karl-Anthony Towns and-one to tie the game. That was just disgraceful and the exact opposite of “calling it like it is.” Not only does it discredit that guy on the microphone, but it also discredits Bleacher Report for being a place that, to me, isn’t credible.
As for the seminar, I think Bob and Jon did a great job of laying out the job for us. They both really stressed professionalism and the right way to call a sporting event, from lacrosse to the Super Bowl. They really opened my eyes to the amount of power the play-by-play commentators have on the fan’s experience of the event. It can really make or break the game for us. On a positive note, some sportscaster’s calls have given me goose bumps. On the other hand, some are like the UK TeamStream – something you literally cannot listen to without feeling sick.
Bob and Jon also really stressed the difference between radio and TV, something I hadn’t given much thought to in my time watching and calling sports. But, it’s true. TV broadcasts really do have a much more conversational feel, creating a talk show around the game. I think this talk show feel was never more evident than last night’s Opening Night call on ESPN. Dan Shulman, Curt Schilling, and John Kruk really made me feel like I was watching an analytics show with a baseball game on in the background. And I think that’s really crucial, especially in the middle innings when the game starts dragging. I relied on their conversation to drive the game forward, and get me through to the later innings, where the game gained excitement once again.
I guess a great way to think about play-by-play is the same way to think about life, by the words of Joe Dimaggio – there could be somebody watching/listening to me for the first time. You want to make a positive impact on their lives.
That, and “I’d like to thank the good Lord for making me a Yankee.”
Figured that was appropriate on Opening Day.
Conor Ryan posted on April 6, 2015 at 11:45 pm
Innovation and expansion within sports media has given viewers/readers many things over the last few years, but the biggest gift? Options.
Look no further than the coverage of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. While “neutral” commentators such as Jim Nantz were on the main broadcast, there were two “team streams” available on related networks, giving viewers the ability to follow along on two streams with slanted coverage towards specific teams.
Where viewers were once forced to play with the cards that were dealt to them, now they have power to pick and choose how they want to listen to sports coverage. It’s officially on their terms.
As Prof. Shorr noted, everyone already thinks they’re an expert when it comes to ruling on the performance of sports broadcasters, and the inception of media watchdog sites such as Awful Announcing and Deadspin certainly don’t make the job any easier for these sportscasters.
However, sticking with the basics can still take you far in the play-by-play market. Both Bob Socci and Jon Meterparel might not have entered this industry during the saturated overflow of content over the last few years, but they are also aware of the trials and tribulations that come with the job.
Socci noted that it’s hard to make your mark in the profession — there can be a whole slew of beat writers covering one game, but there can’t be a whole fleet of broadcasters. Opportunities are limited, and you need to make your mark quickly.
Every PxP commentator has his own unique style, something that Meterparel harped on. It’s alright to experiment and find what audience and style suits you, but there are still the basics that all sportscasters should still follow.
While there are many essentials to follow, such as being prepared (although not over prepared, as Meterparel noted), the biggest key just has to be being aware of the situation of the game.
The requirements for calling a game on radio differ greatly from announcing the same contest on TV, and it’s on the broadcaster to recognize that and adapt. It’s important to be cognizant, but not artificial in your work.
As with most of the new features and trends emerging in the world of sports journalism, it can serve as a bit of a double-edged sword, especially for new broadcasters entering the industry.
While criticism and critiquing will be at an all-time high for aspiring play-by-play commentators just starting out, it just comes with the territory at this point.
Prepare, tune out the noise, and be “organic,” as Socci stated. The rest should sort itself out in due time.
Katie Peverada posted on April 7, 2015 at 1:02 pm
This was the first seminar I went into without any set questions to ask or specific information I wanted to glean as a journalist. I was more interested purely from the standpoint of a fan; from the standpoint of the little girl that used to lie in her bed on summer nights and listen to Joe Castiglione call the Red Sox. However, as the seminar went on, I found that I could have asked them any question I’d had before and they’d of been able to answer it in some capacity.
(Disclaimer: not that I would ever rule out doing play-by-play or anything – obviously I’d be willing to do something helped me in my career – but it just never crossed my mind as something to ardently pursue).
From a personal fan standpoint, Socci talking about finding a way to connect to the fan and to make sure they’re having fun. They go to the practices, games and such with the goal of just always being prepared. It made me think to my favorite announcers, such as Doc Emrick, Julie Foudy, Ian Darke, Pat Foley, Eddie Olczyk, Al Michaels, and Chris Collinsworth (just to name a few). What I like about them is that they do the little things to connect to the average fan. Olczyk and Collinsworth explain the game in such a way that I don’t have to take the time out to do it myself (ex. if my sister is watching and asks a question, I can just say listen). With Foudy and Emrick (and who could get Pierre), I find myself loving the stories they tell and the connections they make. They just make the game enjoyable, occasionally throw in stats, but make sure to throw in the human element too.
From a journalistic standpoint, much of what Socci and Meterparel said resonated with the learning student in me. They talked about networking and not being afraid to be aggressive, to make that extra connection. They touched on getting involved any way you can, no matter what the role may be.
Also, Nick brought up Socci and Meterparel stressing the difference between radio and television and how the role of the analysts/play-by-play guys for each format is different, which are all true and valid points. However, Socci and Meterparel also brought up how preparing for the different roles –for the television broadcast or the radio or the story or the show – how important writing skills are for telling the story, how no matter what you have to do the work and the research for the game (or story).
Finally, I really liked when Meterparel said, “Take pride in your work and prepare the same way for each game. No matter [the game] it should be one of the biggest games you’ve ever done.” It took me back to the Newcomers seminar when Kolb – and Professor Shorr – spoke about how excited the local high schools get at coverage. For someone, somewhere, a game you’re going to cover is in fact the biggest game.
So while I did learn about some of the ins and outs of the play-by-play trade, what I found was the message was the same as I’ve found in a lot of the other seminars. It doesn’t matter what avenue we’re going down with our careers, the messages and lessons that Jon Meterparel and Bob Socci offered are applicable to anyone in the industry.
Dylan Haines posted on April 7, 2015 at 6:36 pm
An announcer’s voice is what I remember from a game aside from the actual results of a game. In big moments it is their voice that I hear react to an event that just happened. The better announcers that I hear tend to elevate the emotions of a game if they are commentating a big play. They connect with by relaying the emotions of being there to me at home watching it on my tv or computer. This, to me, is the most important job of an announcer besides getting the call correct.
Play by play announcers may have an analyst next to them that they have to work with. This being said, the jobs are separate for a reason. The play by play man can deliver the final words on a big play while the analyst sits back and pitches in on how and why things happen. Both the play by play guy and the analyst cannot steal each other’s thunder. This requires a lot of chemistry between the two.
I want to be an analyst. I went in to this seminar with a mindset of passively listening to the men. I know the men are great at what they do, but the field does not interest me too much. By the end of the seminar though, I learned a lot from these guys because an analyst needs to know the role of not only himself but his partner, the play by play guy. I do not want to restate what an announcer says on the air to the fans at home because that is redundant and not “fun.” The fans, like myself, want a fun atmosphere. They want to feel the emotions of the game, they do not want to be spoon fed the same story twice. The seminar showed the fine line between an analyst and a play by play person. I described the emotions earlier in this post and those are for the play by play guy to hammer home.
I also noticed that a lot of the same themes run through all the different career paths of sports journalism. Being on the air, especially, requires you to have done a lot of homework each night on the two teams competing in the game. In previous seminars, being prepared was a major point that the featured people told the class. I am realizing it now that it makes even more sense to have a lot of research if I am to go on air or write an article about a game because my audience will be a well informed group of fans. Being accurate also goes hand in hand with doing research because the homework I do will lead to formulating truthful claims on air or in a piece. As Professor Shorr stated in his blog, I would not want to see my face on the front page of Deadspin.
Pat O'Rourke posted on April 7, 2015 at 7:37 pm
I think it’s easy to get on announcers calling games when you haven’t done it before. That’s not to say we can’t criticize or share opinions, but I think when you’ve done play-by-play, you gain an appreciation for the craft.
As an undergrad, I dabbled in play-by-play calling Division III games for the school TV station at Western New England University. It’s certainly not easy, particularly hockey. My first hockey game I called, I felt like I was hit with a bag of bricks off the opening faceoff. And it’s not hard to get caught up in the moment either, as Jim Nantz seemed to Saturday night. I watched a good portion of the game, tuning in after the Bruins game, and it was an exciting game, but it was no Bird-Wilkins.
That’s why I have such a respect for guys like Jon Meterparel and Bob Socci, because I’ve been in their shoes and know how hard it is.
Socci, as he mentioned, is replacing a legend to boot. Gil Santos not only was a legend in these parts, but was in my opinion the best play-by-play man I’ve ever heard. Growing up in a hockey family, I spent most weekends driving to and from rinks, therefore on Sundays during the fall, Gil and Gino Capelletti would be on the radio in the car. Before Janet Jackson screwed it all up, my dad would mute the TV and put the radio broadcast on at home. Like the famous slogan went, ‘turn down your TVs and turn up your radios’.
It’s not an easy art to perfect. You appreciate all those who go for it, not just the great ones.
Kelly Landrigan posted on April 8, 2015 at 1:07 pm
Like Katie, I had never really considered play-by-play as a viable career path. Not that I didn’t find it interesting, but I believe it’s one of the most difficult fields do be successful in. Prior to coming to BU, I had never heard Bob Socci or Jon Meterparel call a game before. I grew up in a New York sports market, so my Sundays were typically filled with the voices of Ian Eagle and Boomer Esiason.
What was so interesting for both Bob and Jon to point out is the monumental difference between TV play-by-play announcers and radio play-by-play announcers. I’m as loyal of a New York Jets fan as you can find anywhere, so if I’m not watching a game in-person or on TV, I’m listening in the car on the radio. As much as I enjoy a TV broadcast, I sometimes find myself more enthralled by the radio announcing. It forces me as a fan to really think and imagine what the play is going to look like. It’s exciting to have to rely solely on the announcing to find out the result of the play! Luckily in a New York or Boston sports market, I think fans are blessed to have talented play-by-play announcers for both broadcast mediums. However, as other students have pointed out, you can definitely hear the difference between TV and radio announcers, which isn’t always a good thing.
Something else both Bob and Jon brought up was the concept of storytelling and when it’s appropriate in calling games. Like Nick alluded to in his post, storytelling is an essential role for some sports, especially baseball. When games are long and not always filled it action, it’s great to hear the announcers weave in information that I wouldn’t normally know as a fan. Jon told me that play-by-play announcers get just as much access to the team as any other journalist, as long as they make it known that they want to be involved. I think the mark of good announcing is knowing when to fill the silence in a game and when to let the natural sounds fill that void. After this seminar, I definitely have a more keen ear tuned into sports broadcasts.
Christina Patracuolla posted on April 8, 2015 at 4:16 pm
In journalism, I think broadcasting and play-by-play are the most intimidating jobs you could have. However, I also realize that no matter what branch of the business i end up in I will be facing harsh criticism from somewhere.
As play-by-play guys, I respect Socci and Meterparel for their ability to call a game so smoothly and to know what to say and what not to say on the spot. As for myself, I can’t say I would know what to say or how to fill the time during games like baseball and golf, but Socci comforted me in explaining the experience needed by every great announcer despite his natural talent at the job.
It opened my eyes into all of the work that goes into calling each game and both Meterparel and Socci’s tips were invaluable. Not many people think about how much background research goes into each game and it blows my mind to think about each player no matter if they’re a starter or a bench player or ranked number one in the world or 250th.
If you’re on the air, there is no editor or filter and a pregnant pause midsentence could get you in trouble, especially by the critical eyes and ears of the fans (Look at Jim Nantz’s slip up). The seminar gave me confidence as a confused journalism student as to what field I want to get into and as a good researcher, Socci assured me with practice there is no reason I should not consider the broadcast end of things.
As I write this, I am watching Masters coverage for the upcoming weekend and after the play-by-play seminar, I realized I have become much more tuned into what the announcers are saying. Meterparel talked about how he got his voice originally from an announcer he used to listen to regularly on the radio before he molded his own voice into the one it is today.
The Socci/Meterparel seminar subtly made me more aware of the voices I listen to on a weekly basis. Instead of listening to just the information they’re giving me, I am listening to the technicalities and tones in which they present it. Overall, the seminar has allowed me to feel more comfortable opening up my options after graduation.
Keiko Talley posted on April 8, 2015 at 10:51 pm
There are many jobs in sports journalism that don’t allow for error. You have to get the correct score, you can’t give out too much information for the injury, you have to call the right call. But being a play-by-play announcer doesn’t allow for any mistake at all. As a play-by-play announcer you are the voice of the game, you have to be the person that people are going to rely on to help them get through the game easier.
Personally I find it too hard to listen to games through the radio. I feel they’re talking to much and describing it in such detail that when I can finally catch up the play is over-but that could just be me needing to be more of a visual person.
I don’t think that the play-by-play announcer is supposed to teach me about the game. Yes I believe that they should be entertaining me to a point, but not to the point where the game becomes about them. I want to be able to watch my game without having to focus on what it is that the announcer just said and if I agree with it or not.
Although being a play-by-play announcer is not something I ever thought about doing (much like Katie and Kelly) I do think there is more of an art in that job. You have to know your stuff, like I said before you CANNOT mess anything up, but you also have to engage your viewer/listeners. You can’t add too much detail on TV because than the viewer is going to turn the sound off. You can’t make it too plain on the radio because the listener isn’t going to understand what is going on. But you also have to find a way to connect with your viewer/listener, which is so much harder when you aren’t telling them about a story. You have to make the game interesting for the know it all fan and the first time viewer. You have to keep their attention and make them sit at the edge of their seat until the final buzzer, which is it’s own art form.
Although I wasn’t at this seminar because I was sick, I would of liked to hear about how Bob Socci and Jon Meterparel prepare for their shows. What type of research they do, and how they decide to write their show.
Josh Schrock posted on April 8, 2015 at 11:21 pm
Play-by-play announcers have a tougher job than anyone can possibly realize until they experience it firsthand. I used to think that all announcers had to do was just show up to the game and tell the audience what is happening, it seemed too simple. When I was doing my internship in Geneva, New York as the beat writer, I was asked to also be the radio play-by-play announcer because the intern they had hired turned out to not be very good. Apparently, thinking a double and a double play were the same thing confused the fans that were listening at home. The first few games I did were a struggle because I didn’t do the necessary research before the games and had no idea when to let the game breathe and stop talking. Like Socci said in the seminar, doing minor league baseball games by yourself, when there is no one in the stadium is really hard. Having that experience gave me a new found respect for announcers at all levels but especially those that have climbed the ranks from those empty minor league ballparks to the national stage. That summer I spent announcing games was undoubtedly the most fun I’ve ever had at anything that can be called work and gave me knowledge about preparation that I can take with me into any area of journalism.
Lee Altman posted on April 8, 2015 at 11:57 pm
Play-by-play announcing represents one pinnacle of sports journalism. Narrating the story of a game to hundreds, thousands, or millions of viewers is a great responsibility. Announcers such as Al Michaels, Jim Nantz, and Marv Alberts are some of the best in the business. As Bob put it, these guys “know how to use their instrument;” that is their voice. A recent Sports Illustrated article by Steve Rushin, titled “More Than Meets the Ear,” was dedicated to nothing but the sounds of sports: “the pocketa-pocketa-pocketa of a boxer working the speed bag, the death rattle of a golf ball as it falls into the cup, the hiss and pop of bratwurst on a nine-dollar packing-lot grill.” The point of the article was to highlight the little sounds in sports that often go overlooked but quietly enrich the fan’s viewing experience. Many sports fans recall the 2010 World Cup tournament when, in essence, the vuvuzelas (those annoying little plastic trumpets) destroyed the broadcasts of the games. The drone of thousands of these instruments in concert drowned out the little sounds of the game.
The best play-by-play announcers supplement the audio and visual presentation of the game; not over power it. Even as a Red Sox fan, I can appreciate the beautiful idiosyncrasy of John Sterling shouting, “Yankees win! Yankees win!” after a vintage Derek Jeter walk-off single. It seems that every other sentence you hear from announcers like Vin Scully has the potential to be legendary. Where some announcers would simply say a player is out with a knee injury, Scully offers more poetic phrases, such as player X “has a bruised knee and is listed as day to day… aren’t we all?” The best announcers have a rhythm that is synchronized with the game. As Meter put it, the announcer shouldn’t say “groundball to the shortstop if I can see it.”
Prof. Shorr’s criticism of Nantz’s comment is fair and well deserved. Even out of the 15 years worth of NCAA semi-final games I’ve seen and can remember, I acknowledge that the Kentucky game was not even one of the greatest of those games. I do, however, feel that Nantz deserves credit for his polished and professional broadcast style. To his credit, you rarely hear him describe something during a television broadcast that doesn’t specifically need explaining. While watching the Kentucky game, I noticed that the announcers were frequently and appropriately silent. In the void of their voices, the sounds of the game held court: the squeak of Nike Hyperdunks and Air Jordans on freshly waxed hardwood. The whoosh of Sam Dekkr’s sinewy frame as he glided through the lane. The grunt as he collided with Kentucky’s hulking, skyscraper of a big-man, Karl Anthony-Towns. Imagine muting the announcers, shutting of the images, and following the game only based on the squeaks, grunts, thuds, shrills, cheers, and boos. If each sound is like an instrument in an orchestra, then the play-by-play announcer is the conductor. When all of the little noises meld together, a game can become more than just a game. Close your eyes and listen; it may not be Beethoven’s Symphony #9, but it can be just as good.
Nick Garrido posted on April 9, 2015 at 12:29 am
While I did not get to attend this seminar, it seems like Bob and Jon really kept the class interested since people above me admitted that while they had not thought of broadcasting games as a career, they were interested throughout.
I’ve done quite my fair share of radio broadcasts and broadcasts on the Patriot League Network. I can definitely agree it’s not easy. I look back on my freshman year broadcasts and I realize how bad I sounded and how I was all over the place.
There is an art to broadcasting effectively. I remember Kevin Edelson telling me a few years ago that he did not understand why BU didn’t offer a course on sports broadcasting. So many people don’t get it right in terms of telling the story of the game in a neutral and effective manner. You can’t be a cheerleader for either team. I personally have to mute Bruins games on NESN. I cannot stand to listen to Jack Edwards. It seems like nobody I’ve talked too thoroughly enjoys listen to him do Bruins games.
Another thing that gets overlooked in this business is the amount of preparation that needs to go in before a game. I’m sure Bob and Jon would say that they spend hours and hours doing research, talking to players, and making notes for the games. I didn’t learn until my junior year, how much work you need to put in before games. There are very few jobs as broadcasters, in my opinion. I would of loved to ask them if they think its one of the tougher sports jobs to break into as a career.
This seminar is important because quite simply there are no classes offered on broadcasting. This seminar was probably a once in a semester type thing for people in our class to talk to two professional play-by-play broadcasters that they’ve probably would of never had spoken too. I’ve listened to Bob before and I think he does a great job. Just like any job, you have to put the hard work in to be successful. There aren’t many opportunities when it comes to commentating live sporting events.
Joe Weil posted on April 9, 2015 at 2:31 am
Play-by-play broadcasting has intrigued me ever since I was kid. I have many favorites, but the man who’s inspired me the most to try play-by-play is Jon Miller. Sunday Night Baseball was my favorite sporting event to watch growing up and Miller was one of the biggest reasons why. He’s insightful, unbiased, and most importantly fun to listen to. His home run calls “way, way back there!”, “This one’s headed for (insert town)!”, and “Adios Pelota” brought the game to life (This might be my favorite one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQeJ8YQuqh8).
As I listened to Miller through the years, I thought to myself, “How cool would it be to have his job?”
Fast-forward to now, I am hoping to pursue a career in play-by-play after graduation. At BU, I’ve been fortunate to call a substantial amount of games. I broadcasted all the women’s basketball games this season and this summer I am going to be calling baseball games for the Falmouth Commodores in the Cape Cod League.
So for obvious reasons, this was my favorite seminar and I was excited to hear what our guest speakers had to say. I have an admiration for both Bob Socci and Jon Meterparel and it was great to hear them speak about their careers. As they told us, play-by-play is much harder than it seems and it takes time to get better. Bob’s story about going to random games to get practice resonated with mw because I recently went to a Northeastern game to get more reps broadcasting baseball.
It wasn’t surprising that they both said they aren’t in favor of ultra homerism. They know to be more enthusiastic when things are going right for their team, but they stressed how important it is to not over do it. Another great piece of advice they gave was to avoid clichés. This is easier said than done, but it’s all about fighting back that urge. For instance, Bob made sure his end of the game call for the Super Bowl was organic.
I thought it was interesting when Bob and Jon talked about the difference between TV and radio play-by-play. I can speak from first hand experience that radio play-by-play is a much different beast. For radio, you need to describe everything and paint the clearest picture possible. TV is much easier.
But one intriguing thing they both said is that a person who starts by doing radio will be better off. And when you think about it, it makes sense. If you can do it on the radio, you’ll be ok for TV. Almost, if not all, the people doing play-by-play on TV started on the radio. Gary Cohen of SNY (Mets) started on WFAN and Michael Kay of the YES Network started on WCBS 880. That’s something I never thought about before this seminar.
I loved Bob’s quote at the end about treating every broadcast as if someone’s hearing you for the first time. I try to be aware of that every time I’m behind the microphone because you never know who’s listening. I’ve had parents (of the girls on the bball team) tell me they love listening to my broadcasts. It means the world to me when they say that.
Hopefully I will get similar compliments as my audiences grow throughout my career.
Karly Finison posted on April 9, 2015 at 11:08 am
Like many of my peers, I had not given much thought to play-by-play announcing as a career either. With that said, Lee put it perfectly, “Play-by-play announcing represents one pinnacle of sports journalism.” It is something many sports journalists dream to do years before they may ever, if at all, have that opportunity.
I appreciated Bob Socci and Job Meterparel’s visit to our class. I thought they both were very down to earth in talking about their career paths. Yet what I found most interesting was when they both acknowledged that making the switch from television to radio announcing can be a huge challenge. With radio, announcers have the responsibility to paint a much clearer picture for listeners, while with television, announcers can rely on the game itself.
We consider sports games entertainment and PxP announcers play a huge role in that. If they’re energetic about a certain play, fans at home will likely get excited. Even so, PxP announcers must choose their words wisely, just as many of my peers have agreed. Yet what stuck out to me the most was both Socci and Meterparel’s willingness to admit their mistakes and improve. Socci even talked about taking voice lessons right before getting his job as PxP announcer for the New England Patriots. After all, not everyday will be perfect, yet the nature of sports journalism allows professionals to continually adapt.