BY DR. NANCY SPENCER

An interesting dilemma occurred during a second round Men’s Singles match at the Australian Open when the No. 1 ranked American male Mardy Fish was playing Columbia’s Alejandro Falla. After Falla took the first two sets, the Tennis Channel team of commentators Bill McAtee, Martina Navratilova, and Justin Gimelstob observed Falla was beginning to cramp. In sharing that information with the television audience, Gimelstob and Navratilova remarked on their surprise he was cramping — in light of Falla’s fitness and the fact that weather conditions were cooler. As the match wore on, Gimelstob and Navratilova became increasingly critical of Fish’s tactics, as he had failed to utilize a body serve (a point Gimelstob has made repeatedly to his good friend Mardy Fish). Both criticized his reluctance to play more aggressively by going to the net to finish points. At one point, Gimelstob explained his friendship with Fish made it difficult to say these things (i.e., after making critical remarks, he suggested he might “need a new groomsman” for his May wedding after making these comments—thus confirming Fish was going to be in his wedding).

As the third set began, Falla’s cramping became more evident, prompting Fish to ask Gimelstob if he was cramping. After sharing with the other commentators what Fish had asked, Navratilova spun the following scenario: so he asked if Falla was cramping and you said yes… Gimelstob confirmed that this was what happened. If that is what he conveyed, this is clearly unprofessional behavior for a member of the media.

My question is this: was this coaching? Furthermore, when is or should coaching be allowed in tennis? Tennis commentators frequently point to the strict rules of the ATP and WTA (Men’s and Women’s Associations governing conduct in professional tennis), noting cases where one player’s camp may be violating these strict rules. According to the ATP and WTA rules of tennis, coaching is defined as “communication of any kind, audible or visible, between a player and a coach” (Frost, 2011, para. 2). Clearly, communication occurred between Gimelstob and Fish. But is it a violation if the communication includes a commentator instead of a coach?

Admittedly Gimelstob is not Fish’s coach. That role belongs to South African David Nainkin. However, to complicate things, Gimelstob later acknowledged receiving a text from Mardy Fish’s father, who suggested perhaps Fish needed three coaches. He added that Navratilova and Gimelstob were on the mark so much they should be added to the mix. If that eventuality comes to pass, it would be clear communication between Fish, Gimelstob and/or Navratilova would be a violation. In the meantime, why is their communication not the same as “coaching” in this case?

BY CHRIS RAMBO

The PGA Tour kicked off its 2012 campaign last weekend out in Hawaii with the Hyundai Tournament of Champions. The event, which is comprised solely of tournament winners from the previous season, annually provides snowbound golf fans such as myself with solid commercial-break material during the NFL playoffs as well as the chance to vicariously soak in some sunshine and 80 degree temperatures.

The Golf Channel, which has covered the 1st and 2nd rounds of every tour stop since 2007, provided full tournament coverage because CBS and NBC were still doing football. This year the network introduced a brand new wrinkle to their telecast. In December, it was announced that Johnny Miller, the opinionated color analyst for NBC, would share the booth for the opener with Nick Faldo, the top color man at CBS. The move caused a decent amount of buzz in the golf media. Miller, a two-time major champion and one of the foremost challengers to Jack Nicklaus during the 1970s, has been with NBC since 1990. He is best known for his blunt, plain-spoken analysis, which has upset a few players over the years, but nonetheless has made NBC’s coverage entertaining and informative. 

Faldo has six major championships to his credit and was one of the best players in the world from the late 1980s through the mid-1990s. He started his broadcasting career at ABC in 2004 and drew rave reviews for his subtle, British sense of humor as well as for interesting and insightful anecdotes from his playing days. Faldo joined CBS in 2007 and has also worked for the Golf Channel since that time. Because of their contrasting styles, the straight-ahead Miller and the sly, witty Faldo were expected to be quite the pair. Instead, the duo proved to be nothing special.

During Friday’s opening round coverage, it took only a few minutes for anchor Dan Hicks to try and engage them in a little banter. The initial attempt fell flat as Faldo and Miller each seemed to be trying way too hard to say something funny. From there, they spent the next few minutes stumbling over one another as if each were racing to get the first word in after the shot was hit. Following the first commercial break, things calmed down a little bit, however Miller provided most of the analysis with Faldo contributing little in the way of substance. There were still zero funny or insightful exchanges between the two.

After about 50 minutes, the network made what I thought to be a curious decision when they pulled Miller from the booth and left Faldo with back-up anchor Terry Gannon—who relieved Hicks. For those who watch golf consistently, such a move is not all that unusual, as networks frequently rotate on-air talent to keep everyone fresh during the 5-6 hour broadcast. However, I thought Golf Channel might try and leave Faldo and Miller together for a longer stretch of time in an effort to develop some sorely-lacking chemistry. Miller returned to the booth after an hour, but the spark viewers had been promised was still missing. The only attempt at any sort of byplay was made by Faldo when he awkwardly poked fun at Miller for the stack of notes he had in front of him (It should be noted Faldo came to the booth armed with little more than a coffee cup). After about 10 minutes together, Miller left the booth again, and would not return for yet another hour. For hour three, they were back together again—this time with Hicks—for the rest of the broadcast. Again, Hicks tried often to set them up, but again, nothing much came out of his effort.

Overall, the tandem of Faldo and Miller fell far short of the expectation level the Golf Channel created for its viewers. While there was no detectable animosity between the two, they just did not have anything resembling a spark. Their back-and-forth exchanges felt stiff and forced, which disrupted the flow of the broadcast. Both were at their best when they operated as they would for a normal broadcast—allowing their individual styles to flourish uninhibited. Fortunately for the Golf Channel, most fans were probably watching the NFL playoffs anyway. They will have a few more tournaments to tinker with the format.

BY JORDAN CRAVENS

The reason fans tune in to watch the No.1-ranked Baylor women’s basketball team is to see Brittney Griner, the Bears’ 6-foot 8-inch post player who has changed the face of the game. ESPNU commentators for the game, Bob Picozzi, play-by-play, and Brooke Weisbrod, color analyst, gave viewers what they wanted by talking in-depth about Griner’s ability to be a “game changer.”

The pair kept fans updated on Griner’s chase for a shot-blocking record, talked about how Baylor needed to be more involved in the offense, and improvements she has made from last season. At one point, while Griner was shooting a free throw, Weisbrod explained how it is a challenge for Griner to shoot a women’s basketball because of the size of her hands. “That looks like me trying to hold on to a Nerf ball and trying to shoot a free throw,” Weisbrod said.

While the commentators focused on Griner, they also highlighted the guard and forward play of Baylor and keyed in on St. John’s top players.One strength of the broadcast was the pair’s ability to be critical of both teams’ play. Sometimes, commentators shy away from criticizing a team, but, in my opinion, giving the student-athletes both praise and criticism is their job. “That wasn’t exactly the most successful 2-on-1 we’ve ever seen from Baylor, was it,” Picozzi asked. “No, it wasn’t,” Weisbrod replied.

Picozzi also was not afraid to say when players shot air balls, or made poor choices on the court. “Not very good shot clock awareness there for the Red Storm,” he commented.

During the first half, unranked St. John’s was the aggressor and Weisbrod was quick to point this out. “St. John’s is more focused than Baylor today. I see a look of daze on their faces (Baylor),” she said.

One critique I had of Picozzi was his lack of excitement. His voice remained monotone for much of the game. Given St. John’s was halfway to pulling off a major upset of the nation’s No.1 team, his voice and comments should have reflected this.

After St. John’s hit a three and then tallied an easy lay up, Picozzi said, in a flat voice, “That’s a momentum changer.”

To have an unranked team like St. John’s give Baylor all it could handle, Picozzi should have played his commentary to the potential upset. A St. John’s player suffered a serious injury in the second half, and I thought both commentators handled the situation appropriately. As much as they would have liked to speculate about the injury, the broadcast team refrained. Instead, they tried to establish where the injury happened in the preceding play. They also adjusted the tone of their voices out of respect for the injured player.

BY ADAM KUFFNER

The most exciting game of the young college basketball season took place Saturday in Bloomington, Ind. The University of Kentucky and Indiana University, two high-profile universities rich with tradition, went to battle on ESPN. Kentucky, ranked No. 1 in the nation, faced a tough road test against an undefeated and unranked Indiana Hoosier team on the rise behind head coach Tom Crean.

The game exceeded expectations as there was excitement play after play. Dan Shulman provided the play-by-play commentary while the famous Dick Vitale served as analyst. Vitale, known for his passion for the game of basketball, proved his love for the game after huge plays. Shulman added some excitement to his voice, as well. As Kentucky came roaring back late in the game, Vitale made an important note that Indiana was not getting the ball to its freshman phenom Cody Zeller. This analysis came at a perfect time as viewers were able to take notice of the key piece missing from the Hoosier puzzle, which allowed Kentucky to take the lead with under two minutes to play. Nonetheless, the Wildcats missed free throws down the stretch, and Indiana’s Christian Watford drilled a three at the buzzer to give Indiana the upset victory 73-72.

ESPN did a great job of covering the post-game craziness that packed Assembly Hall. Shulman and Vitale went speechless following the three to let fans at home take in the unbelievable atmosphere as Hoosier fans stormed the court. The production crew replayed the game-winning three from multiple camera angles to show how different people reacted to the play. For example, both coaches’ reactions were displayed and a wide shot of Assembly Hall showed fans storming the court following the basket. 

ESPN concluded a great broadcast by waiting to interview Indiana head coach Tom Crean following the huge win. Crean was celebrating and had trouble making his way to the announcers’ table through the mass chaos on the court. Nonetheless, ESPN’s wait proved to be a smart move as Crean delivered a solid interview by mentioning how big this win was for his program

This game was a great game to watch as a regular sports fan who was neutral in regards to wanting a specific team to win the game. The whole ESPN crew helped make this game even more exciting than it already was. The whole production was extremely successful to capture one of the best games of the 2011 sports year. 

BY MATT OSTROW

The commentary for the first BIG 10 Championship game added to an already exciting game.  On the call for the game was Gus Johnson doing the play-by-play and Charles Davis on color commentary.  The two were a great combination. Gus Johnson was exuberant like he normally is and Charles Davis provided calm insights into the game. In a back and forth game between the Badgers and the Spartans, full of excitement, the team gave the fans great commentary.

The most memorable call of the game was when Wisconsin had a 4th and 6 with 4:17 left in the game, down by five points.  The Badgers decided to go for it on 4th down and Johnson did a fantastic job setting the stage for what was a great moment.  The Badgers’ quarterback ended up rolling out and throwing across the field to receiver Duckworth, who caught the pass even though he was double-covered byMichigan State players. Johnson used few words to describe the play, but used his words wisely to call the great play.  Johnson said, “4:23 to go, big play here for Russell Wilson.  Wilson looking, fires across the field! Oh! What a catch at the 6-yard-line. Duckworth 36 yards and a first-down for the Badgers.”  After that exciting call by Johnson, Davis went on to tell about how the offensive coordinator felt about receiver Duckworth who just made a huge play. It was great to know the back story of this little known receiver.

The production was also great by FOX.  FOX does not do many college football games and I am used to seeing only NFL football on FOX, but they did a great job capturing the atmosphere inIndianapolis.  There were great shots from every angle of great plays as well as good shots of the crowd and bands.  The only gripe I have is I feel FOX should have a separate song that plays into commercial break instead of the same song they play for NFL Sunday games.  The atmosphere of college football is much different than the NFL and their NFL song does not capture the feeling of college football.

The team of Johnson and Davis provided great insight and back-story into the very exciting BIG 10 championship game.  This was my first time seeing this team of commentators and I think I would watch almost any type of football if I knew they were on the call.

BY CHRIS RAMBO

Yesterday’s SEC Championship Game, in which top-ranked LSU rallied to blow away No.14  Georgia 42-10, was the last SEC game of the year for CBS and their superb broadcast team of Verne Lundquist (play-by-play), Gary Danielson (color analyst), and Tracy Wolfson. With the exception of a three-year stay at TNT in the mid-1990s Lundquist has been with CBS since 1982 and is one of the most versatile and widely respected men in the business. He has broadcasted everything from NFL football, to college basketball, to golf, and even figure skating. Danielson has been at Lundquist’s side for SEC games since 2006, prior to which he was Brent Musberger’s color man for seven years at ABC. Wolfson is now in her seventh season working the sidelines for CBS.

The team’s experience and overall chemistry was apparent throughout the evening, as the whole telecast flowed very smoothly. Although, at age 71, he’s slipped a bit lately, Lundquist still does a good job at describing the action. He stays away from overused clichés and does a nice job at matching the intensity of his call with that of the game. He also knows that a TV announcer’s best moments often come when he or she says nothing at all and simply lets the viewer soak in the atmosphere. A good example from yesterday’s game occurred as the end of the first quarter. Fourteen-point underdog Georgia had just dominated the first 15 minutes and was in front 10-0. As the quarter wound to a close the CBS cameras went to an extended shot of the Georgia fans cheering wildly while a fired up Bulldog bench urged them to get even louder. Throughout the whole prolonged sequence, neither Lundquist nor Danielson said a word, resulting in a picture that communicated the story of the 1st quarter far better than any words. As mentioned earlier, Lundquist seems to be slipping these last couple of years, and there were a few signs of this yesterday, as he was occasionally slow to spot flags as well as choppy at times heading into breaks.

Danielson, overall, did a very nice job. His analysis was almost completely free of mindless chatter and focused exclusively on x’s and o’s. He did a good job at instantly identifying the key aspect of a play and breaking it down in a timely manner so Lundquist could describe what was happening next. I can’t think of many instances where Danielson spilled over into the next play. Also, because he had already broadcast several LSU and Georgia games this season, Danielson was aware of many little nuances in both schools schemes and also very familiar with many players strengths and weaknesses. He was spot on most of the game with calling out package and personnel changes.

In the 4th quarter, with LSU fully in control, Lundquist and Danielson diverged slightly from the action to discuss the BCS situation. It was widely believed going into the game that LSU—win or lose—had already secured a rematch with Alabama in the national title game. With the Tigers cruising, attention shifted to whether the No.2 Crimson Tide deserved a chance to avenge their loss to LSU or whether No.3 Oklahoma State should jump them in the polls. Danielson spent considerable time on the subject, running through the offensive and defensive statistics for both squads, and expressing his displeasure with the current BCS system. Danielson has been criticized—justifiably—in the past for being over the top in his praise of the SEC, but he did not seem to be too out-of-line here, although it was clear he thought Alabama was superior to Oklahoma State. I give the team credit for holding off on the BCS talk until the game was out of reach. There was a mention, for the sake of context, during the pre-game remarks, but after that the focus of Lundquist and Danielson was squarely on the game at hand. That is the way it should be (and the way it isn’t for a couple of teams at ESPN).

Wolfson did a good job working the sidelines, quickly gathering injury information and providing some interesting behind the scenes stories. One moment that stood out came early in the third quarter after LSU had smacked Georgia for two quick touchdowns to move in front 21-10. Wolfson described Georgia defensive coordinator Todd Grantham as flinging his clipboard down and desperately imploring his players to regain their first-half intensity. Momentum was squarely with the Tigers, and Wolfson’s image perfectly captured where the game stood.

Overall, despite a few minor flaws, the CBS team is, in my opinion, the most enjoyable in college football. Too bad we won’t see them do any more big games until next season.

BY KELSEY KOHLMAN

The sports broadcast I chose to analyze was the Wednesday night Mid-American Conference football matchup between Bowling Green State University and Ohio University, which occurred on November 16. The commentators for this event were Dave LaMont and Ray Bentley. To start out the coverage, the broadcasters emphasized the importance of the impact players for each team. They seemed very knowledgeable when speaking about each of these impact players, as they backed up their opinion with stunning stats that were some of the best in the nation. 

In addition, they informed viewers of the Bowling Green offensive line starting lineup change. Also, the MAC overall standings were shown, as well as a complete explanation of what is at stake in this game for both teams. Occasional “In Game Updates” of the Miami (Ohio)/Western Michigan matchup were shown, since the outcome of that game made a difference in the MAC West Conference race. Overall, they gave a great brief introduction to the matchup. Throughout the game, the commentators showed equal enthusiasm for both teams when explosive plays occurred. They commented on almost every play instead of drawing out unnecessary conversation about previous plays or getting off-topic. This keeps the viewers interested, enthused, and into the competition. The commentators were also very well informed on the style of play of both teams. They explained how Ohio University adopted their hurry-up offense from Troy University.

Another unique aspect of telecast was the showcase of the Stroh Center. This is the brand new $30 million athletic facility on the campus of BGSU. A clip of the YouTube sensation, “Stroh Center Rap” was shown, which showcases the interior of the facility as well as recognizes the multi-million dollar donors. A live interview with the star of the video, BGSU student/rapper Mikey “Rosco” Blair, was conducted by the commentators in the media box. During this interview, viewers were encouraged to watch the full clip of the video on YouTube (which currently exceeds 121,000 hits), as well as follow the young rapper on Twitter. In addition, footage of Dick Maxwell’s lecture that occurred in the Sport Media class Tuesday night was shown.  LaMont and Bentley followed this footage by saying how honored they felt to be a part of the lecture and in the presence of a prestigious member of sport media. I thought it was excellent to see aspects of our campus, student talent, and Sport Management program at BGSU showcased on national television.

Although this was a great telecast, there were a few minor mishaps. In the first half, the commentators kept conversing as the program went to a commercial break, as if the commercial took them by surprise. In addition, there was numerous cut outs of the referee microphone, which caused brief confusion in penalty clarifications. Also, when the Stroh Center was first shown, one of the sportscasters said “the official opening of the 30 million dollar facility will be tomorrow night with a women’s basketball game against Michigan State.” However, this scenario is totally false, as the volleyball and men’s basketball teams have played in the arena; not to mention the women’s basketball team plays Purdue not Michigan State. However, after the next commercial break, the commentator corrected himself saying that the facility had already been used.

Overall, I was very impressed with the way the game was broadcasted. Normally mid-major college football games are broadcasted by no-name sportscasters, and mediocre work is expected. However, both men had a very enthusiastic tone of voice during the whole game, which keeps viewers excited and “into the game.” Being very well informed of both teams, as well as incorporating unique aspects to the telecast made it very easy for viewers to stay tuned in, which is a sportscaster’s main goal.

BY DR. JACQUELYN CUNEEN

Joe Frazier passed away last week. He won boxing gold for his country at the 1964 Olympics and then had a hallmark career as a heavyweight champion. Back in the day when the World Series was probably the biggest annual sports event on television and Super Bowl Sunday had not yet achieved its status as a national holiday, Smokin’ Joe was one of the most famous American athletes of his time. Yet it is very likely that many Americans would not even recognize him on the street because big boxing matches were big radio events. If shown on television at all, matches, even as recently as the 1970’s, were often broadcast days or weeks later, usually on ABC’s wonderful anthology show, Wide World of Sports. Sometimes, fans could pay the price and see a fight live in selected movie theaters. However, the live events were broadcast to most everyone via radio, and the announcers were fabulous.

Consider that most play-by-play announcers have time to gather their thoughts in-between plays, pitches, passes, hits, shots, and attempts. Boxing announcers do not call play-by-play, they call blow-by-blow; and since boxing action is so quick most of the time, the announcers appeared to be the hardest working broadcasters in all of sport. If they were good at it, they painted a ringside picture for listeners with their choice of language and their amazing cadence.

Howard Cosell is probably the most famous boxing announcer associated with Frazier’s era. Supposedly, Cosell was hated by most of his colleagues as well as by most sports fans, but he was one of the most identifiable boxing broadcasters mainly because he seemed to have good access to Muhammad Ali. Ali used to say that he “made” Cosell and Cosell used to say that he “made” Ali. Commentators focusing on Frazier’s passing speculate that Frazier and Ali made each other. Arguments can be made for all of the above theories, but the bottom line is that radio made them all.

BY LOREN BRANCH

As a Bowling Green State University student, a basketball fan, and a volunteer team manager, I had no choice but to take a homework break to watch this game on my Xbox since ESPN3 isn’t offered on campus. In addition to realizing how well the team exceeded expectations, keeping up with the talented and athletic Bulldogs and only losing the game by a single digit margin, I also paid close attention to the two commentators. Throughout the entire game, from start to finish, all of their comments favored Georgia. It’s not that they were doing this on purpose, but it seems like a lot of commentators and analysts play favorites without even thinking about it. It is basically an instinct for them.

The announcers seemed surprised by how well BG was playing. It was like they expected the worst at all times. At one point in the first half, in a shocked voice, an announcer said, “Bowling Green is actually out rebounding Georgia.” There was a play where BG’s Scott Thomas stole an outlet pass and the announcer said, “Somehow Thomas came up with the ball.” The fact of the matter is that the pass hit him directly in the chest and he did what any other college basketball would, grabbed it and tried to create a scoring opportunity. In addition, the announcers acted like losing the game would not be that big of a deal for BG. They acted as if losing the game would not count against their record just because they are a mid-major conference team.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not blaming announcers for their comments favoring the “better” teams in sports. As I said before, it’s almost like an instinct for them and they cannot help but seem surprised when the underdogs are doing well. They are just simply expecting one thing and reacting how we all react when we are surprised by something.