Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

jcookc6 · 06-08-2004, 04:20 AM

sorry about that. here is the article
Cole key to CBC success

CHRIS ZELKOVICH

Flipping back and forth between CBC and ABC during the Stanley Cup final reveals some major differences.

For one, ABC doesn't have a guy wearing an electrified Calgary Flames jersey over a jacket that was apparently made from a tablecloth. Why, there was even a sense of objectivity on the American network.

But it goes much deeper than that.

The most obvious difference is that the game sounds a whole lot more exciting on ABC. That's because ABC broadcasts in surround-sound while the CBC has yet to shell out for stereo. Maybe next century.

The difference was most noticeable during the introduction to Saturday's game, when the roar of the crowd in Calgary rattled my speakers. It gave a viewer the feeling he was in the middle of madness. On CBC, it sounded like a Blue Jays crowd.

On CBC, they talk hockey. On ABC, they talk some hybrid sport that includes things like "the zone" and "the side wall."

But if you watch long enough, you realize there's another big difference: Bob Cole.

And I don't mean that in the "What game is Bob Cole watching?" sense. I mean it in the "Bob Cole can really make a game sound exciting" sense.

The guy who calls hockey for ABC, Gary Thorne, is pretty good even if you're baffled by his penchant for weird terminology, which is obviously aimed at those millions of Americans who don't understand hockey.

But he's no Bob Cole.

The difference between Thorne and Cole's calls were as noticeable as the difference between the quality of the network's sound.

That was most obvious on a breakaway by Tampa Bay's Brad Richards. On ABC, it sounded pretty much like a routine play. On CBC, Cole wrung every ounce of excitement and emotion out of the play, making it sound like a game turning point.

In fact, it was.

It's been said that Cole conveys the flow of the game so well that a blind person could follow the action when he's in the broadcast booth. Sometimes only the visually impaired would fail to notice that things aren't unfolding quite as Cole calls them, but sometimes I wonder how important that really is.

Besides, when he does mess up Harry Neale can usually correct him.

Ask most people what they like or dislike about specific announcers and the answer usually comes down to the voice. On that, Cole has few peers. He may be in the twilight of his career, but he can still crank it up.

There's also a major similarity between the two networks: They both do a pretty good job of covering the game.

And that has to be a concern for the NHL. After all, if ABC can't outdraw the WNBA with a solid product, just what is NBC going to have to do when it takes on this albatross next season?

06-08-2004, 04:20 AM	#9 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	sorry about that. here is the article Cole key to CBC success CHRIS ZELKOVICH Flipping back and forth between CBC and ABC during the Stanley Cup final reveals some major differences. For one, ABC doesn't have a guy wearing an electrified Calgary Flames jersey over a jacket that was apparently made from a tablecloth. Why, there was even a sense of objectivity on the American network. But it goes much deeper than that. The most obvious difference is that the game sounds a whole lot more exciting on ABC. That's because ABC broadcasts in surround-sound while the CBC has yet to shell out for stereo. Maybe next century. The difference was most noticeable during the introduction to Saturday's game, when the roar of the crowd in Calgary rattled my speakers. It gave a viewer the feeling he was in the middle of madness. On CBC, it sounded like a Blue Jays crowd. On CBC, they talk hockey. On ABC, they talk some hybrid sport that includes things like "the zone" and "the side wall." But if you watch long enough, you realize there's another big difference: Bob Cole. And I don't mean that in the "What game is Bob Cole watching?" sense. I mean it in the "Bob Cole can really make a game sound exciting" sense. The guy who calls hockey for ABC, Gary Thorne, is pretty good even if you're baffled by his penchant for weird terminology, which is obviously aimed at those millions of Americans who don't understand hockey. But he's no Bob Cole. The difference between Thorne and Cole's calls were as noticeable as the difference between the quality of the network's sound. That was most obvious on a breakaway by Tampa Bay's Brad Richards. On ABC, it sounded pretty much like a routine play. On CBC, Cole wrung every ounce of excitement and emotion out of the play, making it sound like a game turning point. In fact, it was. It's been said that Cole conveys the flow of the game so well that a blind person could follow the action when he's in the broadcast booth. Sometimes only the visually impaired would fail to notice that things aren't unfolding quite as Cole calls them, but sometimes I wonder how important that really is. Besides, when he does mess up Harry Neale can usually correct him. Ask most people what they like or dislike about specific announcers and the answer usually comes down to the voice. On that, Cole has few peers. He may be in the twilight of his career, but he can still crank it up. There's also a major similarity between the two networks: They both do a pretty good job of covering the game. And that has to be a concern for the NHL. After all, if ABC can't outdraw the WNBA with a solid product, just what is NBC going to have to do when it takes on this albatross next season?