I’m curious why people have a problem with off site commentary? I understand it sends the message that the broadcasters care less if they don’t bother to commentate on site but how does it diminish the quality of the commentary? Is there a feel to the game that is lacking in the commentary because the environment adds to the value of the commentary? I’ve never noticed a difference, as long as the crowd noise is amplified at the same level, the broadcast seems the same with on or off site commentary.
Stuff can happen outside the view of the camera, plus something to being there to absorb the atmosphere, if you will. Maybe they have access to more camera angles?
These guys just seem like they’re chatting away and looking up at the game from time to time and maybe a spotter is telling them the name of the person who just scored.
Unless it’s a real big game I think being there and the atmosphere it provides is marginal to the quality of the commentators. I think the quality or lack there of has more to do with the commentators themselves. If Bob Costas and Pat Summerall in their prime were involved they could call a game from Mars and it would be great.
Well except for the 15-min delay for radio signals to go to Mars.
It is all a sad feedback loop — there’s no atmosphere because people stopped going to games; soon the games will be played in a basketball studio with announcers in a broadcast studio and fans will all watch on 5-in phone screens and press buttons that will be interpreted by an AI program to make fake crowd noise. I hope I die before it comes to that.