[BC] Along the lines of SB coverage

[DANA PUOPOLO]

The NFL should worry less about TV coverage of their games and worry more
about incompetant officials!

Yesterday's Super Bowl was one of the worst officiated games I ever saw! Pop
Warner judges could have done a better job then the jokers they used
yesterday! Did any of you actually see how BAD their rulings were?

By all rights, Seattle should have won that game. EVERY call went against
them, most of them piss poor!

It almost makes me wonder who paid them off to officiate that way.

Terrible officials who should all be fired!

-D


------ Original Message ------
Received: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 04:16:17 PM PST
From: Alan Kline <akline at netins.net>
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] Along the lines of SB coverage

My guess is that the NFL doesn't want the early game beginning before 1PM
EST,
since that translates to 10AM on the Left Coast.  That being the case,
they're
trying to squeeze two games, with all of their commercial and post-game
bloat,
into a 6-hour period.  That's barely enough under normal circumstances, but
if the late game goes to OT, forget it.

They do try--the late games generally kick on-time, around 4:15 Eastern.  The
audiences will stay with the early games until their conclusion, except in
the
home markets of the teams of the late game(s), in months ending in the letter
"R", or if one of the late game teams has yellow in their jerseys.  Then,
it's
hard to tell.

For the AFC Championship, CBS *promised* that coverage would conclude by 
6:30/5:30 Central, so East and Central stations could do an early local news
before "60 Minutes".  Our management knew better, and we didn't even try to
plan
a newscast.  Our plan was to go back to the network after the game, for the 
CBS Evening News.

The game didn't end until after 7:00 Eastern...

Now, if the prime-time programming is something that CBS *really wants* to
start
on time, they get pretty creative.  For the "People's Choice Awards", they
had
*three* different versions of "60 Minutes" ready to go, depending on the
length 
of football coverage.  There was a 60-minute "60 Minutes", a 45-minute "60
Minutes",
and a 30-minute "60 Minutes".  That way, they could get into the award show
reasonably close to 8PM EST.

Then, there are the evenings when the late game runs close to the "drop-dead"
time
of 7:53:28 EST--after that time, net would fill until 8, drop an hour of
prime, and
prime ends on-time.  I've seen NFL coverage run to 7:53:15--and then prime
runs in
full, 53 minutes late.

I don't mind, though--I'll take the overtime any way I can get it...

And in fairness to the networks, NFL game days must drive them nuts. The
networks are
split so many different ways for regional coverage, the NFL contractual rules
are so
Byzantine, and it's tough to please everybody all the time.  The only thing
that's
more of a nightmare is the first weekend of NCAA "March Madness"...

ak


------ At 10:46 AM 2/6/2006 EST, The Most Honourable Xmitters at aol.com wrote:
-------
>Hello:
>
>While on the subject of the Superbowl, maybe some of you TV types can answer

>this. During FB season, CBS is constantly late airing 60 Minutes to the point

>where I have stopped watching that show. That's OK with me if a game runs
over 
>on occasion because of the character of FB, but why does it happen every 
>bloody Sunday? What is the reason that the game could not start say, 30
minutes 
>earlier? Often 60 Minutes is late getting on the air only by 15 to 30
minutes. 
>This delay would help a lot.
>
>Now is there a legitimate logistical nightmare to starting early, or is it 
>simply the arrogance of the football franchises not wanting to play nice with

>the TV networks?

_______________________________________________
This is the BROADCAST mailing list
To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
http://www.radiolists.net/