• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
NFL - UK Broadcasting Thread
<<
<
20 of 64
>>
>
Gray77
28-01-2015
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 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.
Akilduff
28-01-2015
Originally Posted by malcy30:
“In terms of presenters the guy who does redzone is amazing with the stamina to continue the pace of presentation for almost 7 hours. In the UK I prefer the C4 guys for SNF to Sky. I also always like Nick so was disappointed he left to be replaced by Neil, who actually works better as host with a pundit / player to work with.”

Scott Hanson. Quite simply an astonishingly good anchor.
Jack1
28-01-2015
Originally Posted by Paul1511:
“Reynolds is far superior to Halling.”

Why do you think that?
Paul1511
28-01-2015
Originally Posted by Jack1:
“Why do you think that?”

Halling used to many 'buzz' words. He was also condescending and could not take any constructive criticism. The guy actually sent me a PM 'telling me off' over a throwaway comment I made in a forum post that wasn't even (intentionally) aimed at him.

He was also very disparaging about the college game and almost proud of not caring about it. Given 99.9% of NFL players come from the college ranks, it is useful for presenters to at least have a working knowledge of the top prospects or to at least pretend to care. Reynolds is no draftnik, but he at least acknowledges it's existence and is aware of the main players in the draft pool.
stevebluejay
28-01-2015
Originally Posted by Paul1511:
“Halling used to many 'buzz' words. He was also condescending and could not take any constructive criticism. The guy actually sent me a PM 'telling me off' over a throwaway comment I made in a forum post that wasn't even (intentionally) aimed at him.

He was also very disparaging about the college game and almost proud of not caring about it. Given 99.9% of NFL players come from the college ranks, it is useful for presenters to at least have a working knowledge of the top prospects or to at least pretend to care. Reynolds is no draftnik, but he at least acknowledges it's existence and is aware of the main players in the draft pool.”

Spot on, plus Halling often used to appear to be a bit moody when his beloved Steelers were losing. I remember one playoff game that they lost to the Ravens and then during the next game Halling looked and sounded so disinterested and miserable that it was unbelievable to me and unprofessional.

Reynolds does appear a bit geeky but when he takes over on a Saturday night when Cadle is off, he is a much better host and link man, certainly than the fumbling Cadle who knows very little and is even a poor link man.

The problem in the studio for me is that when Cadle presents, then throws questions over to Reinbold and Reynolds,(when it is not NFL Wembley game related) Neil often is first in with his answer any analysis and it doesn't leave much time for Jeff before they have to hand back over to the 'comms' as Kevin puts it. Now Reinbold is far superior than Reynolds at breaking down game action and also has far greater knowledge of players from teams due to his college and pro links and also his previous coaching experience.

I have no problem with Neil as a genial presenter and a studio of Reinbold and Gayle when available, as at least these guys have coached and played at a high level and you immediately respect them for that, unlike Neil who has probably suited up for the Ipswich Panthers or whatever. It is akin to Sky super Sunday showing the Chelsea Man City game with Thierry Henry and Fred Bloggs in the studio, Bloggs having been a star striker at Sunday league Willerby Wanderers.

Reynolds was a fine host when i last went to the Trafalgar square get together the day before the 49ers Jags game, whilst he sucked up to the guests on stage, especially Goodell and Tomsula, he was a decent link man, didn't take himself too seriously and did it with a smile on his face.

One thing that Reynolds will always have going for him as a presenter over Cadle, is that he fumbles much less and doesn't mis pronounce individual and team names and loses his train of thought as Cadle always does.

I have always thought that Cadle as a former basketball guy was out of his depth and got the job due to being the token American with broadcast experience who was available when Sky first had NFL coverage, i then mistakenly thought that when Sky in the 90's expanded their coverage to doubleheaders and overnight games, surely they would turn over coverage to host who was 'smoother' in his presentation, but Cadle has stayed.

I think there is a lot of 'jobs for the boys' at Sky, Eddie and Stevo with RL, formerly Keys and Gray until they found a reason to bin Gray off and Keys followed. All the former England captains with the cricket etc etc.
I do wonder if Halling even follows the NFL these days, not that he has the nice boxing gig? I tweeted him more than once about the NFL and the Steelers but never got a reply.
Paul1511
28-01-2015
This was discussed earlier in the thread. Halling had a Steelers theme at his wedding, which was only a few years ago. In fairness, I consider myself a fairly serious NFL but I don't really use Twitter for NFL news or discussion.
ukdude7
30-01-2015
Looks like Channel 4 have Nat and Mike in a Studio in the UK whilst Gethin Jones, Vernon Kaye and Adam Rickman are live from Pheonix. Wonder what made them choose that approach. I think the BBC also did a similar thing with their coverage, for the first two years they were live from the stadium (giants v pats, cards v steelers) then reverted to a base studio from the UK.

Sky will be live from the stadium. Remember the days Kevin used to go out there for Super Bowl week then fly home to do the studio show. How dispiriting must that have been. Nick Halling would also do alternative commentary, I remember one year when it was forced on viewers (possibly Rams v Titans?).
ukdude7
30-01-2015
RE Neil Reynolds

He comes across as a nice bloke and enthusiastic about the game, probably a better host than an analyst. However a perfect example of what grates with me is just now at the Super Bowl coaches press conference where he gets up and asks them a question about the London games. Two days before they coach in the Super Bowl! I know he's part PR part journalist but it still makes my eyes roll. As if either coach is going to say something negative. Is there nothing more worthwhile to ask?? The Japanese guy from Touchdown magazine in Japan asked them about what they want to establish early in the game, gameplan wise. A proper football journalist question.
Occasionally, just occasionally, there are things bigger than the Wembley games.
Alex2606
30-01-2015
Originally Posted by ukdude7:
“RE Neil Reynolds

He comes across as a nice bloke and enthusiastic about the game, probably a better host than an analyst. However a perfect example of what grates with me is just now at the Super Bowl coaches press conference where he gets up and asks them a question about the London games. Two days before they coach in the Super Bowl! I know he's part PR part journalist but it still makes my eyes roll. As if either coach is going to say something negative. Is there nothing more worthwhile to ask?? The Japanese guy from Touchdown magazine in Japan asked them about what they want to establish early in the game, gameplan wise. A proper football journalist question.
Occasionally, just occasionally, there are things bigger than the Wembley games.”

This was the tweet from NFL Network's Ian Rapoport straight after Belichick's answer to Neil's question

Quote:
“Bill Belichick just delivered a commercial for football in London.”

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/561192526179102721

The problem is Reynolds doesn't just work for Sky he works for NFL UK, the lines between journalist, presenter and PR are too blurred much of the time. The result is it eats into Sky's coverage and diminishes it

Having said that it's been great to able to watch the continuous NFL Network feed this week
stevebluejay
30-01-2015
Originally Posted by ukdude7:
“RE Neil Reynolds

He comes across as a nice bloke and enthusiastic about the game, probably a better host than an analyst. However a perfect example of what grates with me is just now at the Super Bowl coaches press conference where he gets up and asks them a question about the London games. Two days before they coach in the Super Bowl! I know he's part PR part journalist but it still makes my eyes roll. As if either coach is going to say something negative. Is there nothing more worthwhile to ask?? The Japanese guy from Touchdown magazine in Japan asked them about what they want to establish early in the game, gameplan wise. A proper football journalist question.
Occasionally, just occasionally, there are things bigger than the Wembley games.”


Totally agree with all of that and it grates on me too.

These teams won't even be at Wembley next season anyway. Reynolds needs to step back a little and realise that the Sunday night Sky programme does not have to be a permanent advert for the Wembley games and also when he puts his interviewing hat on, he can ask questions other than continually promoting the Wembley games.

I've no problem with him in the build up to a Wembley game or even in summer camp asking a Ryan Tannehill for example about travel, London and the global NFL picture but also ask him about his Dolphins team, prospects for the season and what they have to do to get to the next level.

Maybe i am in the minority here, in that i hope we never get a UK NFL franchise, i'm all for 3 games a season and varying the teams if possible, and if the NFL want to expand it to 8 games or whatever, then again i've no problem with it and as long as the 49ers come over i will go to the games as i have done. But living 200 miles away and needing to make a full weekend of it, it is an expensive proposition if my team aren't there, so i will pick and choose my games, based on cost. I still hope the games sellout and continue to garner the interest as they do now, but as has been said previously there are far more deserving US cities to get a franchise. Reynolds would be unbearable if we ever got a franchise here and i don't want to hear about the London Monarchs or whatever they would be called incessantly during a broadcast.
brian017
30-01-2015
Why are Sky simulcasting the SB on SS1 and 3? Seems rather pointless to me?
arunan22
30-01-2015
Originally Posted by brian017:
“Why are Sky simulcasting the SB on SS1 and 3? Seems rather pointless to me?”

This seems to be the new trend on sky sports recently. They did this with a PL game a few months ago and then the darts final too.

I guess they want it on sky sports 3 for consistency purposes to go with the rest of the nfl content this week, and sky sports 1 to give it headline prominence. Slightly OTT but it must make commercial sense and maximise ratings I suppose.
Staffs Steve
31-01-2015
Originally Posted by arunan22:
“This seems to be the new trend on sky sports recently. They did this with a PL game a few months ago and then the darts final too.

.”

It also happened with F1 USA Grand Prix simulcast on SS1 and SSF1.

Tomorrow is the Superbowl and NBC provide the match coverage. Commentary coming from the regular Sunday Night Football crew.

New England v Seattle
NBC - Al Michaels, Cris Collinsworth, and Michele Tafoya.


As it's the final match this season here is a chart of the commentary team appearances on television in the UK throughout this season.

26 CBS/NFLNET -Jim Nantz, Phil Simms, Tracy Wolfson.
22 NBC - Al Michaels, Cris Collinsworth, Michele Tafoya.
18 ESPN - Mike Tirico, Jon Gruden, Lisa Salters.
11 FOX - Joe Buck, Troy Aikman*, Erin Andrews.
4 CBS – Greg Gumbel, Trent Green, Evan Washburn.
4 FOX – Kevin Burkhardt, Jon Lynch, Pam Oliver.
4 FOX – Thom Brennaman, Troy Aikman* or Donovan McNab, Charissa Thompson.
3 CBS – Ian Eagle, Dan Fouts, Jenny Dell.
2 FOX – Kenny Albert, Daryl Johnstone, Tony Siragusa.
2 CBS – Kevin Harlan, Rich Ganon, Stacy Dales.
1 FOX- Justin Kutcher, David Diehl, Laura Okmin.
1 FOX - Mike Goldberg, Brendon Ayanbadejo, Peter Schrager.
1 FOX – Chris Myers, Ronde Barber, Jenifer Hale.
1 ESPN – Chris Berman, Trent Dilfer, Lindsay Czarniak.

*Note that Troy Aikman covered 14 games altogether. 11 with Joe Buck and Erin Andrews, and 3 with Thom Brennaman and Charissa Thompson.
mromega
31-01-2015
Originally Posted by Staffs Steve:
“
26 CBS/NFLNET -Jim Nantz, Phil Simms, Tracy Wolfson.
4 FOX – Kevin Burkhardt, Jon Lynch, Pam Oliver.
3 CBS – Ian Eagle, Dan Fouts, Jenny Dell.”

This season was far too much Phil Simms and not enough of the other quality commentators. But obviously Sky don't have the choice of commentators.

Next years Super Bowl is on CBS, so more Phil Simms.
Jack1
31-01-2015
Originally Posted by stevebluejay:
“Totally agree with all of that and it grates on me too.

These teams won't even be at Wembley next season anyway. Reynolds needs to step back a little and realise that the Sunday night Sky programme does not have to be a permanent advert for the Wembley games and also when he puts his interviewing hat on, he can ask questions other than continually promoting the Wembley games.

I've no problem with him in the build up to a Wembley game or even in summer camp asking a Ryan Tannehill for example about travel, London and the global NFL picture but also ask him about his Dolphins team, prospects for the season and what they have to do to get to the next level.

Maybe i am in the minority here, in that i hope we never get a UK NFL franchise, i'm all for 3 games a season and varying the teams if possible, and if the NFL want to expand it to 8 games or whatever, then again i've no problem with it and as long as the 49ers come over i will go to the games as i have done. But living 200 miles away and needing to make a full weekend of it, it is an expensive proposition if my team aren't there, so i will pick and choose my games, based on cost. I still hope the games sellout and continue to garner the interest as they do now, but as has been said previously there are far more deserving US cities to get a franchise. Reynolds would be unbearable if we ever got a franchise here and i don't want to hear about the London Monarchs or whatever they would be called incessantly during a broadcast.”

Who is "more deserving"? Why would having an NFL team here make you worse off?
stevebluejay
31-01-2015
Originally Posted by Jack1:
“Who is "more deserving"? Why would having an NFL team here make you worse off?”

As said earlier in the thread by others, cities such as LA, San Antonio, Portland etc, for me are far more deserving than London. Just my opinion though.

Don't understand your other question though, i never said i would be worse off if an NFL franchise is in London i don't believe!
stevebluejay
31-01-2015
Apparently Neil is going to be 'roaming' the sidelines during the game tomorrow, with Kev, Jeff and Shaun up in the booth in Arizona, i feel he might be better suited to the role, anyone agree?

Also i wonder as well why Nat and Mike aren't in Arizona, i wonder if it is a Channel 4 cost cutting measure, but surely it wouldn't have cost a fortune to bring them along with the people that are already there, it's hardly an entourage.

Is this the last year of Channel 4s deal? If so, i wonder if they will pick up a new deal or whether the BBC or Five will look to get back in.
AMCHRISPNORTH80
01-02-2015
I heard the Sky Sports 3 coverage will be the NBC feed...with UK adverts rather than the American ones.
PhilH36
01-02-2015
Beaten me to it....was gonna ask why SS1 and SS3 are listed as showing the same programmes right through till 6am tomorrow morning!
AMCHRISPNORTH80
01-02-2015
I could be wrong but following the NFL Network tv coverage all week long it would make sense. We'll find out at 10pm I suppose!
Bosox
01-02-2015
Originally Posted by stevebluejay:
“Also i wonder as well why Nat and Mike aren't in Arizona, i wonder if it is a Channel 4 cost cutting measure, but surely it wouldn't have cost a fortune to bring them along with the people that are already there, it's hardly an entourage.”

Are they really presenting it from London? Sorry but that's really poor from C4.
scurry
01-02-2015
Originally Posted by AMCHRISPNORTH80:
“I heard the Sky Sports 3 coverage will be the NBC feed...with UK adverts rather than the American ones.”

Where did you hear that? Hope so.
mavreela
01-02-2015
Originally Posted by AMCHRISPNORTH80:
“I heard the Sky Sports 3 coverage will be the NBC feed...with UK adverts rather than the American ones.”

Yes, as it always is.

American advertisers are not going to clear and pay Sky (or Channel 4) to broadcast commercials that have no relevance to the UK, and Sky (and Channel 4) are not going to give away advertising for free.

Sky Sports have also used the US host broadcaster's coverage for their main commentary since 2007, with it being the only option since 2009.

Sky last produced their own commentary in 2008, whilst the NFL's international feed was last used by the BBC in the same year. That was the last Super Bowl called by Dick Stockton.
arunan22
01-02-2015
Originally Posted by mavreela:
“Yes, as it always is.

American advertisers are not going to clear and pay Sky (or Channel 4) to broadcast commercials that have no relevance to the UK, and Sky (and Channel 4) are not going to give away advertising for free.

Sky Sports have also used the US host broadcaster's coverage for their main commentary since 2007, with it being the only option since 2009.

Sky last produced their own commentary in 2008, whilst the NFL's international feed was last used by the BBC in the same year. That was the last Super Bowl called by Dick Stockton.”

As in, I assume it will be the normal NBC commentary on both Sky sports 1 and 3 - the same thing on both channels. The only difference in the game coverage will be the pre/post match studio stuff - but I doubt sky are showing the NBC studio stuff today?
Ads
01-02-2015
Originally Posted by arunan22:
“As in, I assume it will be the normal NBC commentary on both Sky sports 1 and 3 - the same thing on both channels. The only difference in the game coverage will be the pre/post match studio stuff - but I doubt sky are showing the NBC studio stuff today?”

I watched the opening 15 minutes of the NBC pre game show and it was pretty tedious - they are stringing it out for 5 and a half hours until kick off so its just endless padding and adverts. I'll probably tune in about 10.30pm to watch the last minute build up.

Slightly geeky but I wonder what NBC's superbowl intro will be. 3 year's ago they just did a special version of their usual annoying Sunday Night Football intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5oIkGzzOwU

Last year Fox did this short and sweet version of their transformer stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSXd7O5bjpo

And the year before CBS delivered something pretty impressive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQGB2iy6pDc
<<
<
20 of 64
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map