How would you rate Fox's BCS coverage? [Archive]

Partial Qualifier

1/9/2007, 11:30 AM

please, less crowd shots and more action! And more halftime analysis/less band coverage!!

But Fox seems to have better overall camerawork than ABC.

I liked that they often came back early from timeouts, instead of going with commercials the full 2 minutes.

As a group, I think their announcers are horrible. Sorry.

Overall: 3 out of 5 stars

***

:norm:

sooneron

1/9/2007, 11:33 AM

The one thing that I did like was the band coverage, I'll give it up to them for that, they could have done the usual crap with cgi football robots, but they held off.

WTF do you want more analysis from talking heads for? Are they really telling you anything that you didn't already notice?

Their announcers did suck. I liked Barry and Jimmy though.

2.5 stars

8timechamps

1/9/2007, 11:36 AM

I like Fox's coverage. Better than ESPN by far. The only thing I hate is the announcing. But, until they come up with a team of Switzer and Tillman in the booth, we'll just have to suffer.

sjt

1/9/2007, 11:37 AM

It's amazing that they managed to work a football game in between all of those commercials!!!

Partial Qualifier

1/9/2007, 11:39 AM

WTF do you want more analysis from talking heads for? Are they really telling you anything that you didn't already notice?

To be specific, I don't mind seeing the band coverage IF i can hear the band.. they ddin't properly mic the bands. I thought it was just OU's band at first but no, all the bands sounded crappy. But I'd much rather see the school bands than Ashlee Simpson, etc.

my preference would be to see stats, replay the critical plays, etc.

Rock Hard Corn Frog

1/9/2007, 11:40 AM

Uh....23?

fadada1

1/9/2007, 11:41 AM

no musburger = just fine with me.

too many commercials. the dodge truck with rockem sockem robots was cool the first time... after 1357 viewings, not so much.

bri

1/9/2007, 11:42 AM

Top to bottom, the announcing sucked. Replays were sometimes very hard to come by. The picture is pretty, but that doesn't matter when they're wasting it on eleventy million crowd shots of the same four drunk Notre Dame fans.

Fox sucks. Please give back the BCS to ESPN/ABC. I'll take a drop in picture quality just to have competent coverage.

sooner518

1/9/2007, 11:43 AM

touchdown....PAT....commercial....kickoff....comme rcial

it only happened last night(none of the other BCS games that I noticed), but that ****ed me off. especially with the new rules aimed at "shortening game time". what a joke. lets just hope that doesnt become the norm like in the NFL.

Other than that, the announcers were bad, but the camera work was great for the most part. Barry Alvarez did a good job I think.

OSUAggie

1/9/2007, 11:50 AM

I liked Alvarez. Fox's football play-by-play people are generally not good. That was also the case in the BCS bowls. Charles Davis was about as bad as he usually is. Terry Bradshaw/Howie Long color team in the Sugar was pathetic.

I say if a network doesn't cover any games throughout the year, they shouldn't get to cover the 5 biggest at the end of the year. It'd be like NBC taking the NCAA Basketball Tournament.

SelmaBamaFan

1/9/2007, 11:53 AM

There was a game on last night?

Partial Qualifier

1/9/2007, 11:58 AM

no musburger = just fine with me.

too many commercials. the dodge truck with rockem sockem robots was cool the first time... after 1357 viewings, not so much.

BE YOU.......
DO WHAT YOU DO........
HEY HEY THERE'S NOTHING BETTER..
DOCTOR PEPPER.........

:)

TopDawg

1/9/2007, 11:59 AM

There was a game on last night?
That joke would've worked better if you weren't the first person to specifically refer to last night (except a few references to Alvarez) ;)

I didn't notice a significant improvement in picture quality. It wasn't high def, so that part sucked. But it wouldn't have mattered if it was on ABC because stupid Cox and ABC can't get together on their high def crap. They'll probably get it worked out in time for us to watch Desperate Housewives reruns in high def and then run into another dispute at the end of August.

But I digress. I agree that the announcing sucked and that there were too many crowd shots, but how was the picture quality better?

starrca23

1/9/2007, 12:01 PM

I would have like a Joe Buck, Troy Aikman combo if I have to watch on Fox.

sooneron

1/9/2007, 12:11 PM

The picture quality would have been better, had it been cbs. Fox's camera's color temps are set too cool.

TheHumanAlphabet

1/9/2007, 12:12 PM

please, less crowd shots and more action! And more halftime analysis/less band coverage!!

WRONG!!!!

Less man blabbing and more University Bands!!!!

sooneron

1/9/2007, 12:19 PM

To be specific, I don't mind seeing the band coverage IF i can hear the band.. they ddin't properly mic the bands. I thought it was just OU's band at first but no, all the bands sounded crappy. But I'd much rather see the school bands than Ashlee Simpson, etc.

I know what you mean, the problem is that it is not easy to mic a marching band on a field in a building not really meant for musical acoustics.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi

1/9/2007, 12:21 PM

has anyone noticed that on fox there are a lot fewer booth reviews than on abc? it seems in games that if the channel flashes a replay of a controversial call that the ref is more likely to review it. on fox, you hardly ever get a timely replay (if at all) and it seems a lot fewer booth reviews.

toast

1/9/2007, 12:33 PM

It's amazing that they managed to work a football game in between all of those Dodge rock'em/sock'em commercials!!!

fixed

tbl

1/9/2007, 12:34 PM

The idea behind the band coverage was good... too bad they screwed it up by zooming in tight on the formations for most of the shots instead of giving us the 50 yd line view for the majority of the time.

Why would anybody want more halftime analysis and less band performance??? We already have to sit through 3 pre-game shows.

Their camera work was horrible. I couldn't believe how many times the camera guys got fooled by the play action, also they had bad angles all over the place.

I've never minded their NFL coverage, but their NCAA coverage sucks big time.

Partial Qualifier

1/9/2007, 01:06 PM

Why would anybody want more halftime analysis and less band performance??? We already have to sit through 3 pre-game shows.

I don't sit through any pre-game shows unless I have to.. hey! maybe that's my problem! ;)

again... a nice band presentation is one thing... close up shots of marching bandmembers, horrible audio, blue tarps, etc. doesn't do it for me. Good concept though - maybe next year's presentation will be better

SoonerLB

1/9/2007, 01:30 PM

1. Too many commercials for sure!
2. If you are going to show crowd shots, then train the camera operators to pick out fodder for the fark board!
3. I personally could care less about marching bands at halftime, the sound is always bad, and they rarely stumble over each other for that much needed comedic effect!
4. Did I mention too many commercials?
5. Announcers were OK with me, could have been better, could have been worse.
6. Instant replay needs major improvement!
7. And lastly, there were entirely too many commercials!

TopDawg

1/9/2007, 01:35 PM

With the rate at which announcers are getting worse and worse, I'd be perfectly happy with a station that did away with them entirely.

Mic the stadium so that you can clearly hear the PA, the band(s), the general crowd noise, etc. Have regular crowd and sideline shots, but from far-away cameras that are zoomed in, so that the people don't know they're on TV and respond (in)appropriately.

Show replays when they are warranted. Maybe have someone in the booth who can break down the big plays, critical replays/reviews, and stuff like that, but keep the talking to a minimum.

I think if done correctly, this could be an incredible game-watching experience.

Doged

1/9/2007, 01:48 PM

fadada1

1/9/2007, 01:52 PM

I think if done correctly, this could be an incredible game-watching experience.
true. but i like the idea of being shrunk down to the size of dennis quaid in that movie with meg ryan, and attached somehow to the football. now THAT would be, as you say, an incredible game-watching experience.

RedstickSooner

1/9/2007, 02:05 PM

1) I liked the band coverage, in theory, as it was a throwback to the old days, when every bowl (and most regular games) had plenty of halftime coverage of the bands on the field.

2) More cheerleaders - they are one of the greatest payoffs when you invest in HD, and there's nowhere near enough of them.

2b) Why not film the cheerleaders using that ultra-slow-motion replay thing Fox has? That'd be kewl.

3) Commercials are okay, provided you keep the breaks to a fairly uniform length -- I usually start watching the game about 10 minutes late, and skip through the commercials courtesy of Tivo.

IB4OU2

1/9/2007, 02:33 PM

Fox Sucked!

Their announcers sucked and HD broadcast sucked too.

Give it back to ABC/ESPN.

TopDawg

1/9/2007, 02:50 PM

Anyone else remember when this was tried with NFL games?

Cool idea at first, but in practice it was terrible. Hard to say why, as dumb as the talking heads are, but it really was bad.

When was that?

Partial Qualifier

1/9/2007, 02:56 PM

When was that?

Seems like it was about 1988 or so. They did it just one sunday during the regular season if memory serves. The whole game you were going "when are they gonna ****ing say something!?!"

Yah, it was wierd.

TopDawg

1/9/2007, 03:04 PM

I wouldn't suggest it for the major networks because they're all about appealing to as big an audience as possible. But it might be good for the NFL network to try now that they're doing college games.

I dunno, maybe it would be a flop. But I (think I) would like it.

Partial Qualifier

1/9/2007, 03:19 PM

I thought it was an awesome idea too. Maybe if they re-thought it..

The problem was this: it was impossible for the network to be active enough with the cameras at critical times (penalties, etc.) in order to satisfy your brain enough, to feel like you're "really there".

English majors.... I apologize. A prepositional what??

You didn't always know exactly what was going on at critical times and it just didn't work too well. Very awkward.

I like your suggestion though. Basically, give us a really dry play-by-play dude and maybe some sparse replay/critical play/penalty commentary but keep it to a minimum.

TopDawg

1/9/2007, 03:24 PM

But infuriating confusion at critical times IS part of feeling like you're "really there."

Yeah, I can see how that would be frustrating. And it's a slippery slope. As soon as you give someone the okay to explain critical things, it's not long before everything is a critical thing.

Maybe someday we'll have the option to mute only the announcers and take in all the other gameday sounds. Then, when we want to, we can "un-mute" the announcers.

Harry Beanbag

1/9/2007, 05:19 PM

I know what you mean, the problem is that it is not easy to mic a marching band on a field in a building not really meant for musical acoustics.

That stadium in Glendale has the worst acoustic properties of any structure ever made by man. Apparently, the Stones played there not very long ago and people couldn't even figure out what song they were doing.

tbl

1/9/2007, 05:26 PM

Commercials are okay, provided you keep the breaks to a fairly uniform length -- I usually start watching the game about 10 minutes late, and skip through the commercials courtesy of Tivo.
Dude, I've been backlogged 60 minutes of a game and I still catch up before the end of the 3rd quarter. 10 minutes gets you through 2 commercials breaks, 3 tops.

SoCal

1/9/2007, 05:28 PM

I was trying to figure out who the hell is Charles Davis...among other things "he perfers the company of men".:eek:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Charles+Davis+fox+football
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davis_(football_player)

Indy Sooner

1/9/2007, 06:47 PM

I would have like a Joe Buck, Troy Aikman combo if I have to watch on Fox.

I think Joe Buck is the most overrated play-by-play man on TV... followed closely by Al Michaels. I would give Bryant Gumbel the award, but his performance this season has caused his classification to change from overrated to horrid.

jwlynn64

1/10/2007, 01:03 AM

The commercial after a score and after the kickoff is the biggest whip in any sporting event ever concieved by man. They do it every game (pro and college). Only toward the end of the game when they have already used up their sold commercial sports do they give us a break from this.

The ABC HD signal sucks as do most of their announcing teams. Fox did at least as good as we would have received from them. CBS has the best picture but Fox's was pretty good as well.

Penguin

1/10/2007, 05:32 AM

Oh, my God. Did somebody earlier in this thread try to compliment Joe Buck?

When they have Joe Buck and Tim McCarver covering a baseball game, I lose 40 IQ points. They are the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of broadcasting.

Mazeppa

1/10/2007, 09:02 AM

Get rid of the giant down and distance arrows and the rushing air sound effects. That's a little too much.

arcman46

1/10/2007, 10:33 AM

Chris Myers is no Bonnie Bernstein.:D

Partial Qualifier

1/10/2007, 11:27 AM

Ahh.. good point. :D

TheHumanAlphabet

1/10/2007, 11:34 AM

The ABC HD signal sucks as do most of their announcing teams. Fox did at least as good as we would have received from them. CBS has the best picture but Fox's was pretty good as well.

I was commenting to the Mrs. that the CBS, and Fox HD signal looks so much better than the ABC feed. Isn't it all the same signal or is it like there is HD and then there is HD? At least in Houston on Time Warner, ne Comcast the ABC HD signal is not as good as the others (to my and the Mrs. eyes)...

trpltongue

1/10/2007, 12:11 PM

My biggest complaint with Fox broadcasts is the terrible camera angles. During play there are a number of times where I can't even tell what set we're in because the camera is so tight. During replays (if they ever even show them) they never show a larger field shot, or even the relevant camera angle. I still don't know how BSU scored their first touchdown. All I ever saw was a receiver running wide open. I much prefer ABC's camera angles where I can actually see what's going on in the FOOTBALL GAME and not what color the D-lineman used to write on his eye-black sticker.

Luthor

1/10/2007, 12:22 PM

The commentators they selected weren't the sharpest bit in the box but it beat the heck out of ESPN's continual USC and ND crotch slurping. I'd say overall it wasn't that bad. They did pan away from the field too often and spend to much time having what's her name conduct stupid intervues away from the action on the field.

TopDawg

1/10/2007, 06:30 PM

I was commenting to the Mrs. that the CBS, and Fox HD signal looks so much better than the ABC feed. Isn't it all the same signal or is it like there is HD and then there is HD? At least in Houston on Time Warner, ne Comcast the ABC HD signal is not as good as the others (to my and the Mrs. eyes)...

A lot of it has to do with camera quality. Fox used to suck in this regard. It was just a notch above local cable access. But props to them, cuz when they upgraded to HD, they went top-notch. Still, though, it wasn't broadcast in HD in Norman over Cox. That sucks.

ESPN and CBS have the best HD.

TopDawg

1/10/2007, 06:32 PM