NBC coverage of Sunday Night Football? (1 Viewer)

[Ministry of Pain]

1. If MNF ratings were slipping then why would you hire Al Michaels and John Madden...I don't think they make an interesting booth team, never liked them on MNF and not real excited about them last night.

2. The sideline reporting was actually pretty good....Andrea Kramer is a little too much barbara Walters for me but she was on the spot and had the injury updates, thought that was pretty good.

3. Collinsworth...what was he there for? Either get in the booth or don't. They had an array of hosts at halftime and I'm not sure what they were going away from the game and to him for...I do in general like CC but put him in the booth.

4. Halftime Show was actually a lot of fun. The Cinci fans rocked and were ready to tear bettis apart. I like Bettis but Sharpe was sitting there to the side sort of sulking that he wasn't getting much air time. I liked the halftime show but I would watch Bob Costas host a fishing show and I hate fishing. Guy to me has been a premier broadcaster and unfortunately hasn't covered football enough in some time. His HBO show has been good too.

5. Did anyone else think their HD stunk? The picture kept pixalating or something. And they never advertised it was in HD...so was it? I assume it was but the Dodger-Giants game on ESPN HD was a heckuva lot better looking in comparison.

Thoughts?

 

[Sinrman]

Only watched the few minutes before halftime, and then halftime, so I did get to see them. I really like Bettis, and I thought it was hilarious when the Cinncy fans booed him and he put his championship ring on and waved to them.

I actually like Collinsworth, but that group together.......just didn't fit right. Sterling is the past. They need to move him on. Costas? Bleh... always thought he was a waste. Put Shannon Sharpe and Jerome Bettis together, and just go for it..

 

[JaxBill]

I thought the producing was subpar.

When Portis was injured they cut it off and went to commercial.

There were a couple times where it looked like the camera was either being moved or just panning the field.

 

[jpwest]

When Portis was injured they cut it off and went to commercial.

I would consider this a good thing. I don't need to see a bunch of trainers' rear ends while the announcers speculate on what the injury could be. Or watch the play again and again. For injuries and instant reply reviews, cut to commercial, come back and tell me what I need to know.

 

[kevthegrad]

1) Putting up a still photo of those two fat twins riding bicycles in black adn white from the 40's would have been more entertaining than what we USED to get on Sunday nights. NEVER forget the hell of ESPN SUnday Night Football OK? Therefore, last night was a HUGE step forward. No Paul McGuire & Theisman. This alone makes this discussion pointless.

2) The program came off as slick. NBC is going to put a good product out there. I never understand the under current of negativity that Madden and Michaels get. They're the #1 announcing team out there for the NFL now...and before them it was Madden and Summerall. So they've got the best known names, therefore their product looks like the real deal.

3) Collinsworth has just enough "tell it like it is" in him, like slamming his local team ("Well it was a pretty good half for the Bengals, nobody got arrested...") that I think he will keep things interesting. Bettis has the 'recently retired player' aura. Sterling is Sterling, and Costas does a good job keeping the half time show moving along.

4) Andrea Kramer looked like a bug from a horror movie. Her eyes or the make u around them made her look like something from my nightmares. Her constant blinking was the stuff of voodoo and mind control, but she's better than most....although Bonnie B is better. Pam Oliver might be too.

Final thoughts: Between the control NBC will have in which games they present, the main players on the show, and the fact it's NOT Paul McGuire and Joe Theisman arguing over instant replay, this show will be 100 times better than the old version, and I look forward to a season of it.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

1) Putting up a still photo of those two fat twins riding bicycles in black adn white from the 40's would have been more entertaining than what we USED to get on Sunday nights. NEVER forget the hell of ESPN SUnday Night Football OK? Therefore, last night was a HUGE step forward. No Paul McGuire & Theisman. This alone makes this discussion pointless.2) The program came off as slick. NBC is going to put a good product out there. I never understand the under current of negativity that Madden and Michaels get. They're the #1 announcing team out there for the NFL now...and before them it was Madden and Summerall. So they've got the best known names, therefore their product looks like the real deal.3) Collinsworth has just enough "tell it like it is" in him, like slamming his local team ("Well it was a pretty good half for the Bengals, nobody got arrested...") that I think he will keep things interesting. Bettis has the 'recently retired player' aura. Sterling is Sterling, and Costas does a good job keeping the half time show moving along.4) Andrea Kramer looked like a bug from a horror movie. Her eyes or the make u around them made her look like something from my nightmares. Her constant blinking was the stuff of voodoo and mind control, but she's better than most....although Bonnie B is better. Pam Oliver might be too.Final thoughts: Between the control NBC will have in which games they present, the main players on the show, and the fact it's NOT Paul McGuire and Joe Theisman arguing over instant replay, this show will be 100 times better than the old version, and I look forward to a season of it.

Good stuff...I almost spit up my raisan bran with that #1 cooment. I also liked where they placed the score and play clock...down at the bottom. FOX PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THIS! They eat up the top 1/3 of the screen with their score strip...it almost looks like the Fox News channell where they have so much stuff up you can't even tell who they are interviewing.

 

[Revo]

I'm kind of wondering how the ratings will be once the season begins. As a huge football fan, I always watch 3 games a day. But by the 3rd game, I'm generally footballed out. 11 hours of football is enough for anyone.

Now, they have a big pomp & circumstance on the 3rd game of the day. Will it have the same relevance as when there was only one game on? I'm not sure.

 

[djcolts]

5. Did anyone else think their HD stunk? The picture kept pixalating or something. And they never advertised it was in HD...so was it? I assume it was but the Dodger-Giants game on ESPN HD was a heckuva lot better looking in comparison.

I'm glad someone said this because I was concerned while watching some of this that my TV's picture was bad.

 

[cscmtp]

I think they did a nice job, but i agree, the picture kept getting fuzy, i don't believe that was true High Def.

 

[amnesiac]

i thought Andrea Kramer was ok, but she had one segment where it seemed like she would never stop talking.

sideline reports are supposed to be quick and to the point.

am i alone here?

 

[tkrull]

I'm kind of wondering how the ratings will be once the season begins. As a huge football fan, I always watch 3 games a day. But by the 3rd game, I'm generally footballed out. 11 hours of football is enough for anyone.Now, they have a big pomp & circumstance on the 3rd game of the day. Will it have the same relevance as when there was only one game on? I'm not sure.

Last year it seemed that after a score, we'd have a commercial. ABC/ESPN would then come back, do the kickoff and then ANOTHER commercial. NBC appears to have dumped the commercial break after the kickoff. I like that.

 

[ATC1]

i thought Andrea Kramer was ok, but she had one segment where it seemed like she would never stop talking. sideline reports are supposed to be quick and to the point. am i alone here?

No, I agree. The interview with S. Moss was like someone scratching a calk board. " What will the team do if Portis is out. How will Al Sauders do?" What is he supposed to say. "We'll panic and probably pack it in?" BTW S. Moss did a fantastic job with the interview.Also, they rode the C. Palmer issue too far, but there the information they were giving was dead on accurate and very interesting.

 

[ATC1]

I'm kind of wondering how the ratings will be once the season begins. As a huge football fan, I always watch 3 games a day. But by the 3rd game, I'm generally footballed out. 11 hours of football is enough for anyone.Now, they have a big pomp & circumstance on the 3rd game of the day. Will it have the same relevance as when there was only one game on? I'm not sure.

Last year it seemed that after a score, we'd have a commercial. ABC/ESPN would then come back, do the kickoff and then ANOTHER commercial. NBC appears to have dumped the commercial break after the kickoff. I like that.

I thought the same thing last night. I thought it might be beacuse it was preseason game.

 

[pacman_fl]

Maybe it's just me, but nothing matters except who is playing. Good game = good ratings. Good game (from a personal or fantasy point) will keep my up until midnight on a Sunday or Monday (HUGH ISSUE THERE; man I miss the West Coast during football season). Bad game with no fantasy starters = poker night on FSN or High Stakes Poker on GSN.

 

[Blue_Devil_31]

As a huge football fan, I always watch 3 games a day. But by the 3rd game, I'm generally footballed out. 11 hours of football is enough for anyone.

wrong. i go to a sports bar so i can watch 15 games on sunday. we got a spot where 8 tvs are right in front of us, so the only time we miss games is when they have 9 or 10 early games...which is stupid, btw, but that's another topic.no such thing as "enough for anyone". perhaps enough for you, but not me.

 

[pelland]

5. Did anyone else think their HD stunk? The picture kept pixalating or something. And they never advertised it was in HD...so was it? I assume it was but the Dodger-Giants game on ESPN HD was a heckuva lot better looking in comparison.Thoughts?

I agree on the HD issue. I noticed it last week and I did the same as you, flipped to ESPNHD for comparison. NBC picture was terrible and I hope they correct this during the preseason. Fox + ESPN HD looked good.

 

[joffer]

5. Did anyone else think their HD stunk? The picture kept pixalating or something. And they never advertised it was in HD...so was it? I assume it was but the Dodger-Giants game on ESPN HD was a heckuva lot better looking in comparison.Thoughts?

I agree on the HD issue. I noticed it last week and I did the same as you, flipped to ESPNHD for comparison. NBC picture was terrible and I hope they correct this during the preseason. Fox + ESPN HD looked good.

the motion artifacts were terrible. i checked over at the AVS forum and it was common all over the country. not sure if it was a problem with NBC or a bandwidth problem with all the local affiliates. hope it gets betteragree with kevthegrad, anything after McGuire and Theisman is a step up.

 

[Urinal Mint]

I thought the HD picture quality sucked. Pixelated and blocky.

 

[SammyJankis]

5. Did anyone else think their HD stunk? The picture kept pixalating or something. And they never advertised it was in HD...so was it? I assume it was but the Dodger-Giants game on ESPN HD was a heckuva lot better looking in comparison.Thoughts?

I agree on the HD issue. I noticed it last week and I did the same as you, flipped to ESPNHD for comparison. NBC picture was terrible and I hope they correct this during the preseason. Fox + ESPN HD looked good.

the motion artifacts were terrible. i checked over at the AVS forum and it was common all over the country. not sure if it was a problem with NBC or a bandwidth problem with all the local affiliates. hope it gets betteragree with kevthegrad, anything after McGuire and Theisman is a step up.

Noticed the same thing as well. The Eagles Sunday Night game on NBC last week was the first football game I've watched on a new HD set I got in the spring. It seemed like the players would get blurry just before the snap. I was sorely disappointed.Then I watched part of the Falcons-Pats game on Fox the other night and the picture was outstanding. Had me really looking forward to football in HD.Since then, I've caught a few games and every one has looked spectactular except for the NBC games.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

5. Did anyone else think their HD stunk? The picture kept pixalating or something. And they never advertised it was in HD...so was it? I assume it was but the Dodger-Giants game on ESPN HD was a heckuva lot better looking in comparison.

Thoughts?

I agree on the HD issue. I noticed it last week and I did the same as you, flipped to ESPNHD for comparison. NBC picture was terrible and I hope they correct this during the preseason. Fox + ESPN HD looked good.

the motion artifacts were terrible. i checked over at the AVS forum and it was common all over the country. not sure if it was a problem with NBC or a bandwidth problem with all the local affiliates. hope it gets betteragree with kevthegrad, anything after McGuire and Theisman is a step up.

Wow, haven't heard of that site since the "Mike & Mike" contest for HD....

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I was not a fan of them not always having down and distance on the screen.

I forget (all bleeding together) - did they have the first down stripe on the field?

 

[joffer]

5. Did anyone else think their HD stunk? The picture kept pixalating or something. And they never advertised it was in HD...so was it? I assume it was but the Dodger-Giants game on ESPN HD was a heckuva lot better looking in comparison.

Thoughts?

I agree on the HD issue. I noticed it last week and I did the same as you, flipped to ESPNHD for comparison. NBC picture was terrible and I hope they correct this during the preseason. Fox + ESPN HD looked good.

the motion artifacts were terrible. i checked over at the AVS forum and it was common all over the country. not sure if it was a problem with NBC or a bandwidth problem with all the local affiliates. hope it gets betteragree with kevthegrad, anything after McGuire and Theisman is a step up.

Wow, haven't heard of that site since the "Mike & Mike" contest for HD....

it's scary what they know over there apparently OTA broadcasts were showing the same problems, so it wasn't the cable companies

 

[Kleck.]

Wasn't MNF's ratings slipping more because of WWE?

 

[kevthegrad]

Wasn't MNF's ratings slipping more because of WWE?

No, no chance at all.WWE's ratings have been in the 3.8 - 4.2 range for most of the last year or two.By contrast, during the last wrestling 'boom' period when WCW and WWE were duking it out, Raw was up around a 6.0 some weeks. This is back around '98 - '00.The wrestling market got saturated and WCW going away actually has resulted in more than half the audience that was watching between 1996 - 2000 being gone now. So WWE should not be impacting MNF at all...

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I'm kind of wondering how the ratings will be once the season begins. As a huge football fan, I always watch 3 games a day. But by the 3rd game, I'm generally footballed out. 11 hours of football is enough for anyone.Now, they have a big pomp & circumstance on the 3rd game of the day. Will it have the same relevance as when there was only one game on? I'm not sure.

Last year it seemed that after a score, we'd have a commercial. ABC/ESPN would then come back, do the kickoff and then ANOTHER commercial. NBC appears to have dumped the commercial break after the kickoff. I like that.

I thought the same thing last night. I thought it might be beacuse it was preseason game.

I don't think the networks choose when the TV commercial breaks are. I'm pretty sure they are set long before the broadcast with rules like: "The first stoppage of play after the 4 minutes to go mark in the first half.", etc.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

I always do my best to ignore the guys in the booth. Usually listen to the games on the radio with tv sound turned down.

And enough already with the sideline bimbos. None of them have ever had anything interesting to say and only a few have been worth looking at.