I'm curious which TV crews you would prefer the Red Wings aspire to?
Off the top of my head, I never heard Dave Strader stray very far into frivolity as a play by play guy, and Paul Woods is an example of a color guy that is more likely to tell you about the other teams 3rd pairing d-men than his political views.
They are humble enough to bring you into the building, instead of putting a velvet rope around it.
I like a color guy that has the ethos of a referee for unbiased critique, that allows him to delve into the details of the game, without being a distraction or too subjective/involved in confirmation bias, and a PbP guy that would rather listen to skates and sticks, then tell a story from the past or a gossipy anecdote.
Bruce Connal was a producer with a reputation for being really invested in the events he was covering. It's great when a producer is following closely enough that there can be narrative and summarial threads running through the broadcast, and timely replays and angles, without the broadcast devolving into a conversational tone that overrides the pacing and flow of the game/event. No "more on this after the break", no split screen interviews while play is going on, no oscar picks or whatever.
Sideline reporters can add backstory, and delve into the details and volatility of an athletes journey and personal performance, instead of interviewing his parents about what it's like to have their first Little Caesers pizza.
There is a world of unlicensed/licensed music and video editing programs for artists to line up highlights, recaps and unique cuts of the action, instead of drag and dropping footage into a pre-cut advertisement for a specific track that is contractually obligated to happen during the broadcast.
On-air promotions could be focused around growing the game, and engagement from the youth in the game and community, instead of a fundraiser for "non-profits".
And again, I'm just saying the bar is being set really low. I don't find FSD and Ken and Mick to be any more flawed than any other regional or national broadcast under the NHL's umbrella.
But it's a sport that lends itself to dynamic coverage. It happens on an enclosed 360 degree surface in the same locations dozens of times a year. Each game features a tangible head to head match up of measurable attributes and tactical formations that can be objectively observed. Non-invasive player,camera and stat tracking hasn't moved an inch since the false start in the blue puck era.
It's a niche sport with a dedicated and knowledgeable fanbase, where the risk of engaging with new or inexperienced viewers is next to none, yet broadcasts talk down to the viewers, and over the action, for fear of alienating the uninitiated.
So with all that in my mind, it's hard for me to applaud the NHL and FS, for their bare bones, personality and familiarity driven,
discount broadcasts.
I think more dynamic and mature in-game coverage would do more to teach the game to new fans, than constant harping on basic generalities about the game, and I think if the media was more engaged in the development of the season, us long term fans would have more to sink our teeth into, and feel less like the regular season was a vacuumblender that is going to spit out 16 fairly evenly matched teams.
Hockey is a sport that should be greatly benefiting from the age of technology and media that it is in. Instead it keeps falling further into obscurity.
