The mistake was obvious. Angels broadcaster Matt Vargasian made an egregious error when a ball he thought was going foul ended up being a home run. This was no home run that just curled inside the foul line. It was a home run that was fair by a good 20 feet. Vargasian is also no rookie when it comes to calling baseball games. He's a 20 year veteran. You can read all about it here:
Vargasian was not at the ballpark when he made his infamous blunder. He was in a studio calling the game remotely. Several major league teams are doing it this way for their TV and /or radio. Not to name names, but Baltimore, the Angels and the Blue Jays (for radio) have stuck with their pandemic plan of not sending broadcasters on the road, though it appears the Orioles and Angels are reversing course and investing in sending broadcasters on the road. I use the term "investing" because that's there's a cost/benefit to doing this. My guess is this investment does not result in a ratings increase, but does radically improve the quality of the broadcast and more importantly gives the on-air broadcaster credibility. They are now in the venue, able to engage with players and coaches, do on-site research and in general get a better feel or vibe for the game. No dark studio with monitors in front of you. Instead the real feel of the crack of the bat, the popping of the catchers mitt and the everyday sounds of the crowd. Part of the appeal of being a broadcaster is being at the stadium, arena, gym, venue. That said the cost of sending two or three people on the road is not one to be taken lightly. Flights, hotels, and meals are billed to either the team, or radio/TV station depending.
There are both benefits and drawbacks to sending broadcasters on the road or keeping them at the studio. The cost one is an obvious tangible drawback. However, while saving money, how much quality are you sacrificing keeping broadcasters at home calling games off of a monitor in a studio. What if the visuals fail? That doesn't happen if you are at a game. What happens if the angle or camera shot you are presented with doesn't give you the whole story? That's less likely to happen if you are the venue.
This year I've done both. I've been live at the venue calling games, and I've called games off of a monitor. For me its an easy argument. There is no substitute to being at the arena/venue. If you make a mistake, you own it as yours. It didn't come because the camera angle switched, or the action froze on the monitor, or your wifi signal was inconsistent. However, if the flip side is no broadcast at all? Well, I'll take the monitor and all the pitfalls that come with it.
When I called some of the games at the U Sports Men's Volleyball Championship, and Women's Basketball Championship the set up was one I'd never had before, and certainly provided some unique challenges. I was in my own space, be it an office or at home with my own headset and microphone with a colour commentator in their own space. For the volleyball games my colour commentators were in Woodstock and Vancouver while for basketball they were in Alberta and Quebec. I'd never met them and pre-game communication consisted of a couple of Zoom calls, or hastily exchanged texts and emails. It is far from the ideal way to try and get on-air chemistry but I will say that we made it work. There were hiccups, talking over each other, some delays but I was always told to "improvise, adapt and overcome" and to get the show on the air. The rest will take care of itself. So, that's what we did. We received some heavy criticism of our basketball coverage because at first there was no ambient crowd sound, people were not happy we were not at the venue and there were some mistakes that could have been avoided. We did get a lot better as the tournament progressed and our work in the final was, I thought , very good. It was mentally taxing though. I was constantly afraid that my home wifi would drop, or we would lose connection with the producers who were also remote. The alternative was having no coverage at all, so the remote option became the prudent one and really the only sound one to choose.
On the whole, if you can send your on-air broadcasters on the road, do it. am not against the idea of remote broadcasting if the alternative is no broadcast at all, but in this day and age more and more teams are broadcasting games live, and doing it efficiently and at the venue. Eat the cost and enhance your coverage. Find creative ways to save on costs. Maybe the most expensive road trip can be skipped, or if it is cheaper, broadcasters drive or take a train instead of flying. I'll use the Leafs broadcasts as an example. You have 41 road games to fund. Detroit, Buffalo, Ottawa, Montreal and maybe Pittsburgh are reasonable driving or train options. Of course if these are part of a larger road trip, then your solutions need to be more creative. Leafs GM, at the time, Lou Lamierello removed broadcasters from the team flight calling it an extension of the dressing room. Maybe having broadcasters back on the team charter can be revisited for certain road trips to help trim costs. My guess is to send two commentators and a production person on the road costs upwards of $150 000 in travel, accommodation costs. I'd certainly maximize the content on-air if you are sending broadcasters on the road. More podcasts/video content can be added if broadcasters are on-site. Its not an insignificant amount or investment but your broadcasters will be happier and better at their craft. The fan base won't think you are cutting corners and on the whole your coverage will bet better for it.
Comments