The Athletic - Boston Athletic poll: Bruins broadcast voted worst in NHL

Aussie Bruin

Registered User
Sponsor
Aug 3, 2019
9,738
21,460
Victoria, Aus
I love Jack. I hope he is doing well.

I envision him sitting at hope every day, then at 7 going into his office. Putting on a sports coat and tie, and doing play by play on some old game available on youtube, and still complaining about the calls, and dropping hate all over opponents he doesn't like

This is actually plausible. In an interview last year Jack said that he spent some of the playoff games at the Garden sitting in one of the boxes by himself calling the games with a headset on, because that was the only way he could cope with watching them without getting over-invested and ranting about the bad calls and plays.

So I could well believe he's spending some of his time at home watching and calling old games!
 

CharasLazyWrister

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
24,360
21,006
Northborough, MA
NESN needs to clear out the graphics and improve the picture quality in general.

I like Jack & Brick. Not a fan of the intermission guys but then I'm not much on talking plus I know what happened in the previous period, I have two eyes and a brain that work fairly well. Maybe if they discussed something else I'd listen. Need to get rid of the in between period "interviews" with the coaches too, they just say the same damn thing over and over again.

I'd love it if one network did an entire game without PBP or commentary, just the sounds of the game. I bet it would rock.

This is my complaint about most intermission reports in general. The exception is if you watch a national broadcast of say a football game, the intermission report is essentially talking about other games going on and showing highlights. That’s great.

Having people that think they’re smarter and more observant than you “break down” what happened in the previous round of play that you just watched has a negative entertainment value. I don’t understand what the incentive is to watch it. Dale and Barry are just bland when they’re not attempting terrible dad jokes. And Billy is just annoying for the most part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMC

Clint Eastwood

Eff the Habs
Nov 11, 2018
4,833
8,863
I like NESN. Love Jack and Brick. Hate the ticker.

That heat zone thing they do at the intermission is a f***ing ridiculously stupid idea though.

"Look at the comparison between Alex Killorn and Brad Marchand" God awful idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvilDead

crimsonace

Registered User
Mar 7, 2010
2,160
1,563
Indianapolis, IN
Many of you complain that the Bruins lost Goucher but the fact is Vegas made him an offer he could not refuse.

Jack had already signed an extension with NESN and Goucher was content with radio but then VGK came calling mainly because Eric Tosi who had worked with the Bruins convinced the Vegas owner that Goucher was the best option to sell hockey to the locals.

Judd Sirott will be a year to year thing as when/if Pat Foley retires in Chicago, Sirott would be the prime candidate to replace him.

Goucher is fantastic, but the timing simply wasn't right for him to move to TV for reasons @Fenway has pointed out. There's a lot more money in TV than radio and Dave had gotten his feet wet doing some college games on TV on Bruins off-nights and enjoyed it. Doing TV PXP is a *completely* different game. I've done both, and it takes a lot of getting used to providing the captions for the pictures, rather than painting them ... and also getting used to having a producer in your ear, which doesn't happen in radio. I watch a lot of VGK games and am happy for him to have the unique opportunity to introduce hockey to a new market.

@crimsonace - The Sports Museum has recently found the KMOX St Louis call of the Bobby Orr goal. Since Blues play by play announcer Dan Kelly was doing the game for CBS - KMOX assigned the sports anchor of KMOX-TV who had relocated to St. Louis from Boston after losing his job at WHDH when the Bruins radio contract went to WBZ - His name was Bob Wilson.

I knew Bob Wilson had spent the 1969-70 season in St. Louis with KMOX and filled in on Blues games when Dan Kelly had national TV commitments, but had assumed his calls had been lost to history (as Fred Cusick's WBZ radio call of the goal likely would've been had a teenaged KPD not been recording it). Glad to hear it has survived. It would be a treasure to hear that.
 

crimsonace

Registered User
Mar 7, 2010
2,160
1,563
Indianapolis, IN
You don’t think Judd would stick around here for this gig? How much better is the Chicago gig at this point, if at all?

If that opportunity were to come available to him, I wouldn't fault him for pursuing it. Chicago is his home. Judd grew up there, was the IHL/AHL Wolves' PXP announcer and later the pre/postgame host on Blackhawks (and Cubs) radio broadcasts ... and TV often provides good financial opportunities.
 

crimsonace

Registered User
Mar 7, 2010
2,160
1,563
Indianapolis, IN
This is my complaint about most intermission reports in general. The exception is if you watch a national broadcast of say a football game, the intermission report is essentially talking about other games going on and showing highlights. That’s great.

Having people that think they’re smarter and more observant than you “break down” what happened in the previous round of play that you just watched has a negative entertainment value.

NFL or college football intermission shows are - as you noted - national and breaking down as many as a dozen games going on at the same time (NFL halftimes are also only 12 minutes AND are going out to every game going on at that time nationally, so there's not much time to do much). Hockey is unique in that there are two intermissions, both are 18 minutes long, and there's only so many out-of-town highlights and featurettes you can show in those 36 minutes.
 

CharasLazyWrister

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
24,360
21,006
Northborough, MA
NFL or college football intermission shows are - as you noted - national and breaking down as many as a dozen games going on at the same time (NFL halftimes are also only 12 minutes AND are going out to every game going on at that time nationally, so there's not much time to do much). Hockey is unique in that there are two intermissions, both are 18 minutes long, and there's only so many out-of-town highlights and featurettes you can show in those 36 minutes.

That’s right.

Im surprised it is worth it to have an intermission show at all during these local broadcasts. Does that really keep people tuned in? Seems it would be worth it just to air ads for 17 minutes.

As a matter of fact, this is what the NBC Sunday broadcasts seem to do. I swear the actual “intermission show” is like 2 minutes long.
 

GabeTravels

ME > MN > GA
Sponsor
Nov 24, 2011
5,506
3,167
Marietta, GA
So it's impossible to know for sure...

But if the NESN job were to open up in the future, would Goucher come back?

I know he's been in New England forever...but now that he's established out there...maybe he'd stay put?

NESN should absolutely pursue him when Jack hangs 'em up.
 

Aussie Bruin

Registered User
Sponsor
Aug 3, 2019
9,738
21,460
Victoria, Aus
This is my complaint about most intermission reports in general. The exception is if you watch a national broadcast of say a football game, the intermission report is essentially talking about other games going on and showing highlights. That’s great.

Having people that think they’re smarter and more observant than you “break down” what happened in the previous round of play that you just watched has a negative entertainment value. I don’t understand what the incentive is to watch it. Dale and Barry are just bland when they’re not attempting terrible dad jokes. And Billy is just annoying for the most part.

That’s an interesting point of view. The trend in most sports broadcasting around the world in recent years has been towards having more ‘experts’ involved in commentating on and analyzing games, both during the play and in the intermissions. As far as I can tell the prevailing belief in TV-land seems to be that viewers want the game and particular plays explained to them with the help of new technologies and value the opinions of designated experts, most of whom are ex-players/coaches, and that this makes for good, attractive TV which ‘sells’. This belief is in line IMO with a wider societal trend in which people identified as experts in their field have become deified as founts of incontrovertible truth who must be listened to for our own good and may not be questioned by the mere populace.

But in the sporting realm at least I think it does have to be asked how much of such alleged expert commentary is really necessary and wanted by the viewers? Personally I like informed opinion and review if it genuinely adds something to what I'm watching and provides insight that I might otherwise not have had. But if it's too frequent, purely exists to make use of some gimmick tech or is simply stating the obvious then I find it grating. I think on the whole there's definitely a place for review and analysis in sports broadcasting, but in recent years I feel we're starting to get too much, and often it's detracting from the viewing experience rather than adding to it.
 

BigGoalBrad

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
9,908
2,684
So it's impossible to know for sure...

But if the NESN job were to open up in the future, would Goucher come back?

I know he's been in New England forever...but now that he's established out there...maybe he'd stay put?

NESN should absolutely pursue him when Jack hangs 'em up.

Pretty sure they are the same age.
 

Fenway

HF Bookie and Bruins Historian
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2007
68,589
98,268
Cambridge, MA
That’s an interesting point of view. The trend in most sports broadcasting around the world in recent years has been towards having more ‘experts’ involved in commentating on and analyzing games, both during the play and in the intermissions. As far as I can tell the prevailing belief in TV-land seems to be that viewers want the game and particular plays explained to them with the help of new technologies and value the opinions of designated experts, most of whom are ex-players/coaches, and that this makes for good, attractive TV which ‘sells’. This belief is in line IMO with a wider societal trend in which people identified as experts in their field have become deified as founts of incontrovertible truth who must be listened to for our own good and may not be questioned by the mere populace.

But in the sporting realm at least I think it does have to be asked how much of such alleged expert commentary is really necessary and wanted by the viewers? Personally I like informed opinion and review if it genuinely adds something to what I'm watching and provides insight that I might otherwise not have had. But if it's too frequent, purely exists to make use of some gimmick tech or is simply stating the obvious then I find it grating. I think on the whole there's definitely a place for review and analysis in sports broadcasting, but in recent years I feel we're starting to get too much, and often it's detracting from the viewing experience rather than adding to it.

Once upon a time intermissions were innocent



I have thought for 50 years what hampers the NHL as a national TV property is TWO intermissions but the NHL in their early days saw 2 intermissions as a way to sell more hot dogs and beers.

CBC back in 1959 had ONE sponsor (Esso) and this is what you saw between periods



In 1968 NHL intermissions were a nuisance for CBS in the US

 

Aussie Bruin

Registered User
Sponsor
Aug 3, 2019
9,738
21,460
Victoria, Aus
Some wonderful footage there @Fenway. I can definitely see the drawback of two intermissions for the networks both of terms of having more time to fill and having to twice keep their audiences when there's no play and make sure they come back for the next period.

Which got me thinking of hypothetical alternatives. Two halves surely isn't viable for hockey because it's way too high intensity and physical and the players would be utterly exhausted mid-way through the second. You could go more basketball style and have four 15 min quarters, which just 5 min breaks at the end of the 1st and 3rd where the players stay on the bench and a longer 20-25 min break at the half. But I don't think the ice would last 30 mins, so the question is could the ice be resurfaced fast enough in the short breaks to make them viable?

For all that, there's something nice about the uniqueness of hockey's three periods, and it's pleasing in the way it mimics classical storytelling or theatre in having sports drama in three acts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMC

sarge88

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 29, 2003
25,306
20,495
That’s right.

Im surprised it is worth it to have an intermission show at all during these local broadcasts. Does that really keep people tuned in? Seems it would be worth it just to air ads for 17 minutes.

As a matter of fact, this is what the NBC Sunday broadcasts seem to do. I swear the actual “intermission show” is like 2 minutes long.

Being totally honest, in the last 10 - 15 years, I don't think I've ever watched a between periods segment once. Sometimes I don't get to watch the game from the start, so I'm often 1/2 hour to and hour or more behind and I just fast forward through it. Or, if I'm watching live I'll switch to another game that is going on at the time or get up and pick up the house a bit, pack my lunch for the next day or surf the internet.
 

crimsonace

Registered User
Mar 7, 2010
2,160
1,563
Indianapolis, IN
Which got me thinking of hypothetical alternatives. Two halves surely isn't viable for hockey because it's way too high intensity and physical and the players would be utterly exhausted mid-way through the second. You could go more basketball style and have four 15 min quarters, which just 5 min breaks at the end of the 1st and 3rd where the players stay on the bench and a longer 20-25 min break at the half. But I don't think the ice would last 30 mins, so the question is could the ice be resurfaced fast enough in the short breaks to make them viable?

The old IHL experimented with four 12-minute quarters and a halftime in a preseason game in the mid-1990s. It didn’t go over well ... 30 minutes would be too long without a resurface (the ice was really bad after 24, although I don’t think a dry scrape was done between quarters).

NHL intermissions used to be 10 minutes, then 15. They were extended to 18 to allow for more on-ice promotion - sponsorship elements (and more time to sell beer and pretzels). With NHL teams using two ice resurfacers, there’s no real reason why intermissions couldn’t be shortened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aussie Bruin

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
This is my complaint about most intermission reports in general. The exception is if you watch a national broadcast of say a football game, the intermission report is essentially talking about other games going on and showing highlights. That’s great.

Having people that think they’re smarter and more observant than you “break down” what happened in the previous round of play that you just watched has a negative entertainment value. I don’t understand what the incentive is to watch it. Dale and Barry are just bland when they’re not attempting terrible dad jokes. And Billy is just annoying for the most part.

I always watch the first few minutes of the intermission to get Jaffe and Pederson's take. Because they are smarter and more observant about the game. Middleton was my favorite, pulled no punches. Of course he was soon relieved of his duties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chizzler

EvilDead

Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.
Nov 6, 2014
9,696
8,200
Taiwan
I think there cameras blow, there is a stark difference in quality when NBC/NBC Sports does a game in the visual sense.

I could take or leave Jack and Brick, but would take them any day over Eddie O.

Funny thing about Jack, and everyone calling him a homer is that IMO he’s not even the biggest homer broadcaster in this town. Zolak is easily the worst, and Tommy isn’t the far behind.

I would pay extra to hear a game without commentary too btw

Heinsohn is such a homer he makes Johnny Most seem unbiased.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPB2776

RoccoF14

Registered User
Mar 1, 2016
5,390
7,999
Chicago, IL
The 2020 NHL broadcast rankings: The best and worst markets...
4. St. Louis Blues
The broadcast: Fox Sports Midwest carries Blues games, with John Kelly on play-by-play and Darren Pang doing colour.

3. Vegas Golden Knights
The broadcast: AT&T SportsNet Rocky Mountain carries Golden Knights games, with Dave Goucher on play-by-play and Shane Hnidy doing colour.

2. Dallas Stars
The broadcast: Fox Sports Southwest carries Stars games, with Josh Bogorad on play-by-play and Daryl Reaugh doing colour.

1. Carolina Hurricanes
The broadcast: Fox Sports Carolinas carries Hurricanes games, with John Forslund on play-by-play and Tripp Tracy doing colour.

I gotta say, the survey definitely got the top 4 right......All 4 of these broadcasts are excellent.

For me, John Forslund is the best Play by Play man in hockey, and Daryl Reaugh is the best color man......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennis Bonvie

EvilDead

Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.
Nov 6, 2014
9,696
8,200
Taiwan
I will still contend that the best NHL commentary team is Gary Thorne and Bill Clement. I don't know what heavens on earth have to be moved, but I demand whoever gets the NHL TV contract next must hire these two to be the broadcast team instead of Doc Emerick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GabeTravels

crimsonace

Registered User
Mar 7, 2010
2,160
1,563
Indianapolis, IN
I gotta say, the survey definitely got the top 4 right......All 4 of these broadcasts are excellent.

For me, John Forslund is the best Play by Play man in hockey, and Daryl Reaugh is the best color man......

I’m pretty much in agreement with the top 4 - if I’m watching a random game, VGK is my first choice. I love Dave Goucher’s work and Shane Hnidy is a fantastic analyst. Carolina with John Forslund is a close second. Forslund - who nearly got the Bruins job in the mid-1990s - is a really good and easy listen and I can see why he does a lot of NBC work. I enjoy John Kelly in St. Louis. You can hear the influence on him from his father, who is one of the greatest ever at the craft (and Darren Pang is one of my favorite analysts). Josh Bogorad has had huge shoes to fill with Dave Strader’s passing but has done admirably - and Reaugh is one of the best in the game. Outside of that group, I also immensely enjoy Pat Foley in Chicago. He and Eddie Olczyk have incredible chemistry and his play-by-play is on point. Nashville TV was also a favorite but Pete Weber - another favorite - moved to radio.
 

Aeroforce

Registered User
Apr 28, 2012
3,364
5,386
Houston, TX
As an out of market viewer, I love Jack, and miss him when I can't get the NESN feed.

The replays of the 2011 Habs series reminded me how different and less acrimonious the game is today. Dad and I watched Ice Guardians and that was discussed even 4-5 years ago when it was filmed.

There are passionless, dud games today, especially with few rivalries and lots of back-to-backs. Jack is clearly trying to up the entertainment factor. Oftentimes it seems forced, but I don't fault him for trying.

I also find in the modern age, any sort of brash personality is going to ruffle feathers, especially among the young. I'm not defending their actions, but I did not think the punishment fit the crimes with either Don Cherry or Jeremy Roenick. But a vocal sect of fans despised them, and they gave them enough rope to hang them.

But as a viewer, I have watched much less of the new milquetoast presentations of both HNIC and NBC.

Obviously fans of opposing teams will loathe Jack. But I am glad the Bruins' broadcast still has some personality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aussie Bruin

Aussie Bruin

Registered User
Sponsor
Aug 3, 2019
9,738
21,460
Victoria, Aus
As an out of market viewer, I love Jack, and miss him when I can't get the NESN feed.

The replays of the 2011 Habs series reminded me how different and less acrimonious the game is today. Dad and I watched Ice Guardians and that was discussed even 4-5 years ago when it was filmed.

There are passionless, dud games today, especially with few rivalries and lots of back-to-backs. Jack is clearly trying to up the entertainment factor. Oftentimes it seems forced, but I don't fault him for trying.

I also find in the modern age, any sort of brash personality is going to ruffle feathers, especially among the young. I'm not defending their actions, but I did not think the punishment fit the crimes with either Don Cherry or Jeremy Roenick. But a vocal sect of fans despised them, and they gave them enough rope to hang them.

But as a viewer, I have watched much less of the new milquetoast presentations of both HNIC and NBC.

Obviously fans of opposing teams will loathe Jack. But I am glad the Bruins' broadcast still has some personality.

Personality, difference and individuality are definitely slowly but surely being pushed out of the media landscape. If you act in a certain manner or say certain things too often that don't fit in with the mainstream or which can be jarring for some people then you won't last long on TV or radio these days. Two things have changed in recent years - firstly of course we are much more PC and socially aware now, secondly the vast increase in social media has made it much easier for dissatisfaction to be aired loudly, even if it's only coming from a small group of people.

There are positives to this but the irony of it is that in an age where we rightfully celebrate difference and diversity, our fear of offending or alienating people and our propensity for airing our grievances and demanding they be heard is actually steadily eliminating diversity and individuality from our media, with the result that most people appearing on our screens are becoming increasingly bland, cautious and formulaic lest they say the wrong thing or act the wrong way and find themselves howled down and fired. What we're often left with are products that certainly offend or disgruntle less viewers, but which don't appeal to and genuinely entertain many either, with presenters who are shallow and/or reluctant to really engage with their audience and let their true opinions and personalities be shown.

It's a shame, but I'm not sure there's any reversing the current trend which is now well-entrenched.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aeroforce

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
I will still contend that the best NHL commentary team is Gary Thorne and Bill Clement. I don't know what heavens on earth have to be moved, but I demand whoever gets the NHL TV contract next must hire these two to be the broadcast team instead of Doc Emerick.

I really liked Clement.

But not Thorne. He was smooth so it was easy to miss that he was often saying something completely wrong.
 

chizzler

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 11, 2006
13,206
6,235
I’ll take a better picture and no ticker and deal with Edwards. NBC puts on a clearer picture. It’s not even close. The Bruin whites are white on NBC. Nesn’s are off white. No reason not to upgrade with what the Sox get!!!
 

BruinsNetwork

Guest
Only in the NHL will writers on a national platform try to grow and personify the players in the game, but then turn around and knock Jack Edwards. Yes, he’s over the top, emotional and too much at times. However, he still calls a good game, has great energy and an even better personality. He loves the game of hockey and gives credit where and when it’s due to the opposition.

He’s a Bruins announcer on a New England broadcast. If he were calling the game in Toronto for the Leafs this whole time I’d be willing to bet the dialogue would be different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aussie Bruin

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->