Originally Posted by chrisfinch:
“I think the main reason Halling, and now Reynolds aren't liked on those NFL UK forums is probably down to a bit of snobbishness. Because those two are British and have not played the game at any real level, the hardcore fans see someone like Reynolds and think 'well I know more about NFL than he does, why is he on there as a pundit and not me?'
A few people I know who have a bit of a passing interest in the NFL (i.e. might watch a bit on a Sunday evening and the Super Bowl) have quite liked both of them, so it's all subjective I guess!”
“I think the main reason Halling, and now Reynolds aren't liked on those NFL UK forums is probably down to a bit of snobbishness. Because those two are British and have not played the game at any real level, the hardcore fans see someone like Reynolds and think 'well I know more about NFL than he does, why is he on there as a pundit and not me?'
A few people I know who have a bit of a passing interest in the NFL (i.e. might watch a bit on a Sunday evening and the Super Bowl) have quite liked both of them, so it's all subjective I guess!”
I think this hits the nail on the head. Sky already know that the devoted NFL fan will watch their coverage, because they have the main Sunday games and all the play offs. If you are an NFL fan and have Sky you are not going to not watch the games because you don't like Reynolds, that would be ridiculous, and they know that.
Where Reynolds comes in handy is the 'floating viewer'. I think if a non-NFL fan drifts across a game on a Sunday night or in the play offs they are going to sit there bemused listening to Reinebold talking about tactics. He is a coaches analyst (obviously) and he speaks like a coach. To someone like me that is great, and I think he's desperately needed amidst the banal waffle from Cadle, but to the non-fan (those Sky and NFLUK want to attract) he will be a massive turn-off.
Reynolds therefore is valuable to Sky and NFLUK by being both knowledgeable but with the ability to talk the language of those who are new to the game. It's the age old argument between those who want an authentic, analytical and in-depth style of coverage and those who want one that allows new fans to engage with what is being said.
I am a Rugby League fan and Sky have arguably gone the same route with coverage there. Eddie Hemmings and Mike Stephenson are pretty much disliked by long-time fans because they are accused of presenting the game in a dumbed down old fashioned way (and in a way that promotes Sky as much as the game) but according to lots of people they attract the non-fan with their style. Sky again know that the long-time fans will bite their lips and put up with it whilst the floating viewer is more likely to stay tuned listening to those two as opposed to presenters who use (to them) excessive amounts of insider terminology or jargon.



