The pre game show is great..got to give CBC credit for that...but when the games are on gol you get a pre & post game coverage.. CBC has kept Nigel on another good move on their part...but myself i would still rather all TFC games be on GOL...football on a football channel....not just football on a multi subject network...would it kill cbc to run a post game show instead of cutting to the news...Im mean the news!! like
there is not enough channels covering news..>>
I don't understand how anyone can complain about CBC's coverage - they are committing a shitload of resources and some of their top personalities - Scott Russell, Brenda Irving - to the coverage.
CBC is aiming to make soccer their number two sport in terms of coverage behind hockey in preparation for the 2010 World Cup and the level of commitment they have shown TFC is amazing. I'm really impressed.
after every game, you can watch a post-game report by Nigel and Jason, and Carver's press conference streamed live on cbcsports.caOriginally Posted by mighty_torontofc_2008
it's not on the main network, but it is something.
If CBC gets a full mandate review, ala the BBC, in the next two or three years, I doubt we'll see too much sports on it anymore.
constructive criticism... at least from my part. How else can you move forward if you don't get feedback?
@FluSH_RPB / IG: @Flush.rpb
The Legendary
RED PATCH BOYS
Fair point.
Viewer expectations must also be reasonable, though.
another roll the eyes Brenda Irving question (and/or bad research by CBC) - during the pre-match show:
Irving to Cooper: So how come you do so well against TFC with 4 goals?
Cooper: smiles at Irving and says 2 of those were penalty kicks
Yeah, I remember that one... it was a big flop... again Brenda is great, don't get me wrong. But it is clear she doesn't know her Soccer/TFC/MLS as much as she should.
@FluSH_RPB / IG: @Flush.rpb
The Legendary
RED PATCH BOYS
"Next, the Footie Fan Poll. Not only is it probably the dumbest segment in the history of the CBC, but Gina Bucci is a useless chick. Again, good to look at but she's a stumbling wreck. Who cares about what the fans think about Carver in the 85th fecking minute of a close match. This crap is not meant to be shown during the broadcast or at all."
I second the motion. Gina Bucci comes off as a bimbo. If she has any self-respect she should refuse to do anymore of this crap.
As for Brenda Irving, she does not know the game.
If you want a good broadcast, just watch John Helm of the BBC. It is just him, the mike and the cameras. That is all you need. CBC should stop trying to reinvent the wheel and leave the show to Nigel and Jason.
John - re your point on catering to the mainstream tv sports market in N. America: "sawker" is something of an alien sport in the US (and Canada to a lesser extent) but adding sideline commentary is unlikely of itself to increase the ratings. If someone is that disinterested in the sport then they'll just switch off, and adding a sideline snippet is not going to alter that - if anything it smacks of a foreign sport dressed up in US trappings and will just irritate the typical US viewer as "some goddamned foreign sport trying to be american". Surely a better approach is to offer American viewers something different and interesting which can stand on its own merits by keeping the coverage and commentary high tempo and interesting, so that US viewers might watch a bit and think it's worth staying tuned in to, no?
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
I'm not sure I agree with you.
I think, to a certain extent, you have to make the broadcast as palatable for the average sports fan as you possibly can. It's been my experience that sports fans are creatures of habit when it comes to TV viewing and they expect certain things (sideline reports being one of them) when it comes to a game broadcast - and if you don't give it to them, they'll view your product as second-rate or bush-league and might be less likely to tune it again.
I completely understand that some of you don't like the sideline stuff because it's not traditional when it comes to broadcasting soccer.
But I think you have to look at the big picture and understand that on top of catering to hardcore soccer fans as yourselves, we're also trying to reach out to the average sports fan in order to grow the TV audience.
I admit that I'm not a big fan of sideline reporting when it comes to TV (with any sport) but I wouldn't let it ruin my overall enjoyment of a broadcast.
John
^ John
I'm not in the "sideline reporting ruins my viewing experience" bracket, although I'd prefer not to see it. I was just hypothesising that following the well trodden path in terms of US sports broadcasting might not be the most successful idea for soccer coverage. It's the safest path to tread for sure, but soccer has an uphill battle to fight to gain ground in the mainstream US sports market. So instead of just dishing up a hybrid product which pretends to be something it isn't and pleases no-one, why nto try breaking the mould a little bit and see if you can win viewers through innovative and fresh ideas? I'm not suggesting you have to clone Motson et al on the BBC, but a curious mix of a non-US sport drenched in typical US coverage just doesn't seem like a very good idea to me, because you run the risk of alienating the purists and failing to convince the target market.
Last edited by Hitcho; 04-13-2009 at 02:04 PM.
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
You raise an interesting point. I'm just not sure I agree with it.
Fair enough. You obviously know the industry better than me, but from a layman's point of view it just seemed to make sense to me.
Put it this way - I'm from England and when American football (as we call it) first started airing over there a while back, Channel 4 came up with a really good broadcasting package to try and crack the hardcore football, cricket and rugby fans in Britain and it was pretty successful. They steered away from the traditional English approach because that was always going to look stupid with a sport as non-British as American football, but they also avoided the trap of just replicating US coverage to avoid alienating fans who might be interested in the sport but found themselves irritated by the presentation. And it worked. Really well in fact.
EDIT - While I've got your attention, I'd just like to add that as a TFC fan I'm really pleased with the amount of support shown to the coverage of TFC games by the CBC and others, online as well as on tv. It's important that TFC gets a national free to air mainstream broadcaster on side, so whatever bashing the format of presentation might take on here, please be assured that there are an awful lot of people who are really pleased to have the kind of coverage we're now getting. Thanks and keep it up, and keep striving for improvement - for what it's worth I firmly believe that with the amount of kids playing soccer in Canada and the US now that in the future it's going to become a major sport in N. America, but it needs the grass roots tv coverage to continue to grow.
Last edited by Hitcho; 04-13-2009 at 02:20 PM.
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
I agree that CBC are committing a large amount of resources to their TFC coverage but just because they're trying doesn't mean that they're succeeding. I enjoy watching the games on CBC (usually when I get back from the home matches) but there are some things I'd like to see them improve. I'd prefer that the pre-game show dealt more with the MLS than trying to promote the World Cup - something that needs no promotion and also something CBC shouldn't be spending money taxpayer money on when private broadcasters can show all the games on basic cable packages...but I digress - or doing fluff pieces. I'd rather see in depth analysis on other teams in MLS, important plays from the previous week, that sort of thing.
The sideline reporting thing isn't going to go away any time soon and I understand that. I'm sure the MLS is actually in favour of this type of thing. I'm glad that CBC recognizes that if they do have sideline reporting during matches, they shouldn't cut to that reporter while game is being played.
Overall CBC does a fair job but with a couple tweaks, I think the coverage could be very good.
QFT
On the sideline reporter thing, if it's just a case of hearing a different voice for a few seconds while they impart useful info, then that's no big deal, it happens in England now too for things like injury updates in real time etc. plus the main commentator can always just cut back in if something important starts to happen in the game.
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
I agree!
This dialogue isn't people desiring another network cover TFC but rather that the one that is currently doing it (and the one that most of believe is doing a good job of supporting football in this country) could use some improvements to make their broadcast even better. Is that a bad thing?
Nope, not at all. Constructive criticism is never bad and for the most part, I think that's been the norm in this thread.
John, its really not that difficult. It just requires not being lazy and not co-opting other broadcasters bad ideas that seem like good ideas (BTW, I'm not calling you lazy...)
Less is more...it always has been. The best TV calls of soccer are the One man calls. Get a high quality play by play man and let him do both jobs. If an analyst is needed, fine, but leave it at that. There is simply no need for a cut away to a sideline report unless there is an injury.
Who really likes those sideline interviews, when the sweaty player comes off the pitch and talks about how the team gave 110%?I think they are all, generally, poorly done and provide little to no information. I hate them in all sports. They truly are stupid. The athlete doesn't want to give the interview and the questions are almost always poor.
When Halftime comes, cut to the studio. Do analysis, show highlites, possibly analyze other games going on in MLS or other matches involving Canadian pro teams. Heck, talk about soccer in Canada in general (PDL, CSL, PCSL, W-League, etc...). Those would be interesting stories and you would be fulfilling the mandate of being Canada's national broadcaster trying to shine the light on the sport from coast to coast.
Just because other broadcasters use these silly gimmicks that clearly few if any viewers like (the same complaints are being posted on The Voyageurs and U-Sector), why do we have to do the same?
In light of the global recession, if you get rid of some of these silly features that people don't generally like anyway you save even more money. I almost never watch those silly human interest stories that broadcasters seem to be so enamoured with as a way to fill time at half time or pre-game but which are wildly boring and obviously cost money because you need a host and a camera crew to do them. What people want is analysis, highlites, the occasional contest, etc... when they are not watching the live play by play.
Furthermore, most attempts at live interactivity between viewers and the broadcast goes poorly. The only thing that ever works, even slightly, are the occasional emails submitted by listeneres/viewers to the broadcast crew, of the variety that I hear on the Premier League radio broadcasts on Fan590. Those are done well. Your live blogging feature has some potential, assuming the quality of the questions you get are of a quality worthy of being read on the air at halftime or pre-game.
The KISS philosophy is always the best one.
Have you guys ever test marketed your broadcasts with a mixed group of hardcore soccer fans, serious sports fans (but not necessarily soccer fans) and casual viewers? I'd be shocked if the majority opinion would differ greatly from mine.
Just a thought that popped into my head and has me wondering.
Not all sporting events are the same. You're not going to cover the Raptors in the same way you'd cover Championship Snooker. Saying that, I'll never buy the argument that because one method works or is the de facto standard for one sport you should use it for all sports.
Leading on from that, you've got hundreds of soccer broadcast models to emulate from countries where the sport is exceedingly popular, a fact which suggests that those countries have perfected or at least refined their coverage to cater to as broad a range of fans as possible. Not everyone in England or Italy is automatically a footy crazed nut and I think it's a little naive to assume that the broadcasters in those areas aren't attempting to present balanced and accessible programming to try and bring in more viewers while at the same time providing the more 'hardcore' fans with something that they're happy with.
There seems to be a great fear in North American broadcasters of providing 'dead time' where nothing is happening or nothing new is being disseminated. The thing is, whereas in baseball and hockey and football (the NA kind) you've got lots of times where nothing IS happening (when the ball has been fouled off out of play, or there's a penalty or icing called, or the players are huddled deciding on the play or a flag has been thrown on the previous play or a video review is going on), in soccer you don't have these things (or at least a lot LESS of this type of thing). Even if a player isn't doing something spectacular, there's movement away from the ball, positioning, etc. There's a lot less dead time and consequently a lot less time for the sorts of things that are 'standard' for North American broadcasts.
All this amounts to the wrong type of broadcasting for the sport based on ideas of what a 'typical' North American audience wants to see. I would argue that the typical sports fan wants first and foremost to see the sport that they tuned in to watch. Someone flipping through the channels and passing over CBC while a big splash graphic of Stefan Frei's college stats isn't going to suddenly stop and be interested.
Don't worry about educating the viewing audience. Worry about producing the best damn soccer coverage on the planet. Because ultimately if the broadcast is worth watching people will educate themselves on their own time.
And THAT won't cost the CBC a dime.
I could tolerate all of the broadcast if the camera work was better. I hate to say I would even do without HD if it meant a few more camera angles being filmed by people with better experience with footy.
You can fool around with the formula for the broadcast all you want but the fact of the matter is...your presentation of the actual game is bush-league.
I'm not privy to all of the reasons why that cannot be done...but that would be where I would put my efforts, rather than worrying about which hot chick should be reading the blog, or standing on the sidelines.
ditto - CBC doesn't need to re-invent the wheel - just need to follow what is being done in Europe. They don't have sideline reporters, footie polls or any other stuff during the match. If they have this stuff, it's either before, after or during half time.
And I don't agree that you need to tart it up for the unwashed Canadian masses. The World Cup broadcasts use British announcers (often times only 1 per match). And whenever TSN has used ESPN announcers, howls of protest have forced them to go back to English guys.
Plus, CBC doesn't know enough about footy broadcasting anyway - so why try to over complicate things? Follow the global leaders.
TFC is a success in the stands because it didn't try to overly North Americanize things. MLS has also finally learning this fact. When will CBC & more especially Sportsnet figure this out also?
Here's how I think the show should be done.
-During the match, cameras always stay on the action(including fan reaction to goals, etc). If CBC must, then the only thing acceptable to cut away for, is a quick 'audio' interview connected to player injury. A good example is what ITV and BBC did/do for F1 coverage when a driver retires from the race.
-Halftime should involve Nigel and Jason's analysis of the match and whatever else they want to discuss. League results, insight, fan polls, etc., should be shown at this halftime.
-If there must be interviews than it should 'only' be after the match. Preferably never. Post game analysis with Nigel, League results, and future contests, finalise the tv coverage.
Pretty straight forward and it would hardly be alienating the most average sport fan to tweak the CBC coverage to this simple format. In fact, the CBC could save time and resources by doing it this way.
I generally enjoy the CBC coverage and I applaud John for sticking with this thread and responding to people's feedback.
I half-heartedly agree that CBC needs to appeal to a North American audience but I am only luke warm on the sideline reporter issue. If you reaaly want to go with a winning formula, why not emulate the best 10 minutes of CBC sports coverage? That is HNIC's Coach's Corner. Like him or hate him, it's hard to take your eyes off of Don Cherry.
If you could find a credible "expert" who could analyse a game in the same way that Cherry does, I think it would be very successful. Don't just tell us that TFC needs help at the back; show us the movement off the ball and explain how it should be different. Throw in the odd "Kids, when you're playing the game you should do it like this..." statement the way Cherry does. And most of all, get someone with the enthusiasm for the game that Grapes shows (this may mean he's not a stuffy old Englishman). Find someone who knows the sport in this country and can talk about the up and coming player he saw last week in some lower league game.
I know that this is a tall order and that Don Cherry's don't just grow on trees. But if you can find his equivelent, it would do wonders for boosting your ratings.
I generally enjoy the CBC coverage and I applaud John for sticking with this thread and responding to people's feedback.
I half-heartedly agree that CBC needs to appeal to a North American audience but I am only luke warm on the sideline reporter issue. If you reaaly want to go with a winning formula, why not emulate the best 10 minutes of CBC sports coverage? That is HNIC's Coach's Corner. Like him or hate him, it's hard to take your eyes off of Don Cherry.
If you could find a credible "expert" who could analyse a game in the same way that Cherry does, I think it would be very successful. Don't just tell us that TFC needs help at the back; show us the movement off the ball and explain how it should be different. Throw in the odd "Kids, when you're playing the game you should do it like this..." statement the way Cherry does. And most of all, get someone with the enthusiasm for the game that Grapes shows (this may mean he's not a stuffy old Englishman). Find someone who knows the sport in this country and can talk about the up and coming player he saw last week in some lower league game.
I know that this is a tall order and that Don Cherry's don't just grow on trees
Of course I can't take my eyes off of him because his attire is so god damn blinding.
Is CBC going to try and get the Whitcaps games (home) in 2011? And would that effect their coverage of TFC? What would be perfect is if
CBC could do an afternoon TFC game on a Saturday and have a night
time Whitecaps game as part of a MLS doubleheader!! might be wishful
thinking
Nice problem to have.Is CBC going to try and get the Whitcaps games (home) in 2011? And would that effect their coverage of TFC? What would be perfect is if
CBC could do an afternoon TFC game on a Saturday and have a night
time Whitecaps game as part of a MLS doubleheader!! might be wishful
thinking
That's all I'll say about that.
Im sure a TFC-Caps league match would be well viewed
You cannot compare BBC footy coverage to the CBC. John Helm is the best in the business. The CBC is learning.
If he was still alive I think Brian Budd would have been perfect for that Soccer version of Don Cherry.I generally enjoy the CBC coverage and I applaud John for sticking with this thread and responding to people's feedback.
I half-heartedly agree that CBC needs to appeal to a North American audience but I am only luke warm on the sideline reporter issue. If you reaaly want to go with a winning formula, why not emulate the best 10 minutes of CBC sports coverage? That is HNIC's Coach's Corner. Like him or hate him, it's hard to take your eyes off of Don Cherry.
If you could find a credible "expert" who could analyse a game in the same way that Cherry does, I think it would be very successful. Don't just tell us that TFC needs help at the back; show us the movement off the ball and explain how it should be different. Throw in the odd "Kids, when you're playing the game you should do it like this..." statement the way Cherry does. And most of all, get someone with the enthusiasm for the game that Grapes shows (this may mean he's not a stuffy old Englishman). Find someone who knows the sport in this country and can talk about the up and coming player he saw last week in some lower league game.
I know that this is a tall order and that Don Cherry's don't just grow on trees
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote