Horrible camerawork at bball games
For the love of God, if anyone on this blog is involved in sports broadcasting or network television: tell the game producers to *stop* wasting so much time on everything *but* the live game ball movement. So many times the cameras miss the first 5-10 seconds of each possession by wasting time on individual close-ups or the bench. And today especially, the camera has shown a close up of free-throw shooters without even showing whether the ball went in!
High school games get better camera views of the *actual game*.
The networks are trying to reach out to people who aren't interested in sports and have turned broadcasts into entertainment shows much like what they did to the local news and the morning network news shows.
That why the MVP of the 2018 final four was a nun.
I think it might be more likely that they are working with fewer cameras/camera operators and are trying to do too much with too little.
Classic displacement - I feel you though, and I respect your timing
Not displacement - I've been making this same comment in various game threads (here and reddit) all season. Just seems especially worse the last few weeks.
Noticed the last game ever showed footage of the previously play especially if It was a foul. And, for graphics need 1/3 of the TV to illustrate a teams performance during live action!?
Thank you crg, FFS I want to watch the action, not all the other bullshit they think I want to see.
I just hate the super low baseline/bench views that mess up your perspective.
The biggest star in any ball game is the ball. When the ball is in play, it should be in every shot.
Yeah, I noticed it too, on a key Dickinson free throw late. I had to guess he made it by the satisfied look on his face. Frustrating.
That was truly the culmination of the poor camera work this game.
The stadium is 1/100th full and you can't get the two people who block the camera with their hands when they're cheering to move? Good job, CBS
I enjoy seeing Izzo’s kid.
Also, I hate the shots from one end of the court to the action far away on the other end. What's the matter with the sideline shot that let's you have a clear view of what's happening?
I did notice it one of Dickinson's free throws - you could only tell whether it went in by his reaction. Maybe they're light on staff.
I mean, I am sure the CBS line producer told the guy in the truck to direct a basketball game as he thought Federico Fellini might. Now, that producer had no way of knowing that the director in question had no idea who that was or that the man directed films, so he just sort of did whatever.
There is always a lot of action going on where the ball isn't, and I wish we could see more of it. I get it football - it's a large field and you can't really show it all and still follow the action. But for basketball, you can show half the court easily! Same with hockey, you can easily show the half of the rink where the puck is. So we could see all the action and still follow the ball/puck quite easily.
But noooooo... The producers/directors think you care about the facial expression of the coaches kid at the end of the bench.
Also a couple of times they were still on the in-game ads for CBS shows (I recall a 60 minutes voiceover) while the ball was inbounded and play began.
This reflects a strategic decision by the networks, of course. They think more people are interested in the casual "event" feel than by the actual game itself. Hence the blathering talking heads going off on everything except the game in front of them, the repetitive and inevitable talking points (did you know Juwan Howard was a member of the Fab Five, let's list them all!), the camera-work and directing, etc.
Same thing they always do for the Olympics, for that matter. 80% "life stories" and 20% (if that) the actual sports.
I suppose they're probably right -- they do the market analysis, the research, not me. But ... it's hard for me to wrap my head around, that that many people turn into a Sunday afternoon Michigan vs. Michigan State basketball game not actually interested in the game. Or, I suppose, they think they can capture both. They won't lose the real fans, because what choice do we have? So might as well do what they can to capture the casual fans too?
Infuriating, but like so much of American sports coverage (God, for European sports coverage, where they don't even go to commercial during the game (often even during tennis change-overs!), let alone every minute and a half), we're stuck with it.
Wouldn't it be great to find some way to stage a fan revolt? Minimize time-outs and commercials, slow the roll on those inevitable and interminable video replays, have announcers who know about and can focus on the game and provide useful analysis, etc. Heck, charge less than $12 for a beer! We have the power, of course. We just have no way to organize and use it. Frustrating.
Come on, MGoBlog users, throw some ideas out. How do we organize/coordinate/protest!?
Besides being late to join in on live play, I HATE the opposite end of the court camera shots. You can't see depth on the ole TV screen as the playing is going further way form the viewer. Another pet peeve is the free throw shots from above the rim. I'd rather see how the free throw is lined up and how it arcs to the basket or not. The TV producers are just getting too cute with all these different camera show angles.