In my opinion, watching the game on TV is the most effective way to cover the game. On TV, you get commentary as well as the visuals that go along with it. This way, if the commentators have any bias you will be able to discern the truth by watching the game. And the commentators will provide interesting statistics and info about the season that you would not be able to get by actually going to the game. However, keeping up to date on the game by checking twitter is useful in it's own aspect. Because twitter limits your posts to 140 characters, each post about the game is short and concise. If you are interested in a quick summary of the game, twitter is the way to go. Lastly, listening to the game on the radio has a benefit. You can listen to the radio in the car which is something you cannot do with TV or articles. (Hopefully). Overall, I believe that watching the game on TV is the most effective method of covering the game because of the benefits of visuals, commentators, and watching Lady Gaga jump off the stadium during the half-time show
I definitely feel that the television coverage and analysis of the Super Bowl was the most effective for covering the game. Sports outlets using a television postgame program allows the viewer to get instant analysis of the game while it’s still fresh in their mind, and immediately after the game without even having to change channels on their TV, making access to it so easy. Television analysis programs the sports outlet’s views and expert analysis to the most people(Those who kept the TV on after the game ends). I got the most information from the television postgame program, and found it the most entertaining by far, with some of my favorite retired players providing their expert analysis and an insight into the players’ minds, after having been in the same situations themselves. It was so effective because it would be watched right after the game, when you still care about the game the most and everything is still fresh in your mind, where most other media sources are delayed or are missing components that television programs have. On the other side of things, I found that articles were the least effective as I personally take much less interest in football and the Super Bowl in the days after, and articles fail to provide the energetic atmosphere that you get with Twitter and live broadcast.
I think that watching the Super Bowl on TV is the most effective platform for covering the game. Watching the game on TV gives you both audio and and visual of the game so you are not left guessing on what exactly happened. In addition a lot of announcers prove you with other information that you might find in articles after the game. Watching the game on TV is by far the most entertaining and exciting way to watch the game. In addition there is pregame and postgame analysis so there is plenty of build up and you get an insight on other professionals options of the game afterwards. While Twitter and the Radio are a good way to check the score or even follow the game the entire time, they do not provide a fan a visual that clearly indicates what is going on. In addition the articles only summarize the game and give facts, but that is several days after the game so there is not much fun in that because all the excitement is gone. However, in my opinion the worst platform is the game card. It is honestly one of the more boring things to read. Frankly it might be more boring then reading a US Gov textbook. Although it has great details and you could find some cool statistics in it, it is almost impossible to sit down and even read one full page of it. Watching the game on TV gives you the ability to get insight and statistics before and after the game while also keeping you on the edge of your seat during the game.
I believe that with out a doubt watching the Super Bowl live on TV is the most entertaining and informational. While watching the game on the TV, it gives you the visual of course but also the commentating as well. Which is a wealth of information if you listen to it carefully. Because you're entertained by watching it on the TV you are intrigued and ready to take in new information from the commentating. I think the Radio is the second best option if you don't have a TV or are in the car and want to listen to the game. These two ways to view the Super Bowl are way better than the other options. I think the absolute worst way to find out what has happened in the Super Bowl is to look at a huge packet of stats in the game card. When I was looking at it in class today, it was cool but very boring and you couldn't read more than one page with out blowing your mind out. If you were to just read the game card you wouldn't know the excitement that happened in the game while watching or listening to it. None of these methods come close to to the entertainment and information you get from watching the game live on TV.
In my opinion, I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the Gamecast Video. It was effective in various ways, but also had an entertainment factor that other platforms were lacking. First of all, the use of various shots and angles, and replays of plays allows for a proper understanding of what was occurring in the game. In addition, the shots between plays of players and coaches on the sidelines add an emotional aspect to the game, showing expressions and body language that the fans can relate to. One of the most entertaining factors of actually watching the game is advertisments. These advertisements cater to the interests of the viewers, generally promoting luxury, cars and beer. A lot of them have a very patriotic theme or important messages, such as the Audi commercial about gender equality. Other advertisements have more of a comedic value to them, such as Melissa McCarthy's. These types of commercials make emotional connections with viewers, and make them laugh, generally increasing the entertainment of the game.
The most effective platform of covering the game in my opinion was the gamecast video. In conveying information, the commentators are supposed to be unbiased, so the information is more factual. Unlike the radio, there is far less bias because the viewer can see the plays with their own eyes and not relying on a commentator to describe plays for them. With the visual aid of television, the viewer can see and interpret plays and calls for themselves. Watching gamecast video is also more entertaining than other mediums due to the atmosphere created. As a viewer, seeing the fans and energy of the game adds to the excitement and emotion for fans.
I believe that watching the Super Bowl was by far is the most effective platform. I think this because the viewer is able to visually see and hear what is happening in the game. When the viewer is able to see what is happening it is lot more entertaining and easier to follow than the other options. When a person is able to watch it is a lot more fun for them to watch because they are able to process what is actually happening instead of having to process what a commentator or statistics are saying. What I found the least effective were all the statistics. I thought this because it took all of the enjoyment of the Super Bowl out by having to read a bunch of numbers. Although it may be cool to see all of the statistics, it does not compare to the thrill of being able to watch the Super Bowl.
The most effective platform for covering a game is watching the game or television: game follow up. It is effective in both conveying information and entertainment. This is because it is able to show the importuning talking points, which are very interesting and fun to watch. As well as give their insights into the game which is interesting getting a professionals view of the action. The least effective media was a game card. The card is only numbers on tackles, yards, and more. I and many others find this form of entertainment a little boring because you don’t hear anything or have any movement. Although some find the numbers interesting, they use them and talk about them on the game follow up.
I thought the most effective platform for covering the game was the live video feed. From that coverage as the viewer you are able to see what was actually happening and explanations from the commentators that allow you to form your own opinion. A lot of the other sources such as the articles and talk shows gave a better insight to reactions from the public after the game. They covered mainly the controversy over the patriots winning and what is considered the best super bowl of all time. I thought Twitter was the least effective but it was also the biggest source for entertainment because it is a constant thread of posts from fans, companies, teams and players. There were a lot of political references, cartoons and jokes played on parts of the game.
I think the best way to watch and learn disect the game is through a TV. Football is a sport with a lot of moving parts on a really big field. It's really hard to just hear about a play or read about it because you can never really picture it perfectly. If you have the TV, you can watch any aspect of the game that you want to watch. Some people like to watch stuff that happens away from the ball, this kind of watching is not covered in the newspapers or radio shows. The focus is always on what the general public wants to see, and not what you want to see.
I think that the most effective way of broadcasting the Super Bowl was the game cast video that showed the highlights of the game. This was the most effective, with the game card right behind it as the second most effective because it takes the stats from the game card and visually shows the person watching what is going on. The issue with the the game card is that if there is a spectacular play, Julio Jones' catches or Julian Edelman's catch, you would not be able to see it happening rather only see the yards total. While viewing the game on TV, the viewer can see the action happen in front of them which is not only more interesting to the viewer, but it is also credible. Twitter is not credible because not every tweet will be about what is actually going on, spreading rumors, and can easily spread lies about the game. Also, the television broadcast is the best because the announcers talking do not have a basis as the home team's radio show does. Whenever there was a flag thrown on the Falcons, the radio people who broadcast to mainly Patriots fans would exaggerate on the penalty and if there was something that the Falcons did right, they would complain that there should have been a flag. The only non-effective part about the game-cast video was the adds that take away the focus from the game. Also, the game-cast video had replays, so if a person missed out on a great play, the announcers would replay the game and can circle key players to watch live. During the game, the announcers were using next-gen stats that allowed them to analyze the game card and allow the regular viewer to understand the facts.
The best way to watch the game and stay entertained was certainly through a television. In my opinion, it's easy and immensely enjoyable. You wanna experience history and the best way to do that is through watching it on TV. The graphics are unbelievable, commentary is precise/accurate, and you get to feel as close to the game as possible. With TV being so revolutionized these days, I'd rather stay at home than go to a game. You get the whole idea of what's going on from many different angles. For sports fanatics, this allows them to analyze it better and see positives and negatives in their team's performance. I utilize the TV because radio is way too boring. The reality is listening to someone talk is way worse. Social media is great for after the game, but it's cruddy for the duration of the game because you can't see what's actually going on. It's more something I'd use for player and expert opinions. Likewise, highlights are great, but it should only be used if you couldn't watch the game or didn't wish to. I'd much rather see the game develop as it's happening in real life. In addition, it only shows a few highlights, rather than the entire game.
I think that the most effective way of broadcasting the Super Bowl was the video that showed the highlights of the game. This was by far the most effective, because it showed the top plays, and the plays that made put each team in the position they were in. The game card was great because it showed the productivity of each player, and there game stats. It gave u a mental picture of the performance that player had. The drawback with that is you can't see a spectacular catch or play from a stat sheet. I did not like hearing the home or away broadcast because they had a major bias. To watch the game on fox with neutral commentators is the right way to watch the game because there is no bias. They root for the big plays, and discuss their personal opinions. I think that you also have to keep in mind everything the commentators say because some of their opinions is not everyones opinion. Lastly, Twitter was not credible because it could be everyday people posting their opinions. Their opinion may not be factual. The Falcons Twitter, and Patriots twitter reported the score, and when someone scored a touchdown or a field goal. That is fun to watch because it is not opinion based, it actually happened.
I believe that the most effective way of broadcasting the Super Bowl is watching it live on television. While other methods offer many important insights that can help better you understanding and experience, the only way to truly experience a game of that magnitude is to actually watch it. Watching the game gives so much more that can be read in a box score, followed on twitter, or even watching the highlights of the game. For this Super Bowl especially, there were so many changes in the actual game, as well as the emotions of the game. You could literally witness the emotion in these players through your television screen. This is the part of sports that most true sports fans enjoy most and it cannot be replicated in any other platform. Overall, many platforms of media can be useful in covering the Super Bowl or a large sporting event, but none of these platforms can be matched by the experience of actually watching the game.
The most effective platform for covering the game and getting information and entertainment would be the radio. Many people in my generation wouldn't want to listen to the radio because they think it's boring, however when listening on the radio, you get a lot of information. There are no visuals for you. You have to listen to everything the announcer tells you. The information gets told directly to you and it's very informative. It's also entertaining because you get the full game, you just don't get the full picture. The announcers fix that by putting the image in your head. If all you want is information, the most informative platform would be the game card. The game card gives you every stat that you would want to know and not much else. It's a lot of numbers and it's not so entertaining, however very informative. The most entertaining platform would be Gamecast Video. The platform lets you watch the game, which is exactly what people want to do. This is the most entertaining platform for very clear reasons. The least effective platform is a game follow up on television. These shows don't give you much information at all and assume that you already watched the game. It also isn't the most entertaining platform, because it's just some guys in suits talking. In the end, each platform has it's ups and downs. I'd stick to just watching the game on TV.
I believe that the most effective way to watch and understand the game is to watch it live on T.V. Not only are you able to see what is happening but you also get various camera angles and replays so you can see for yourself if that was a catch or if he got both feet in. An example of this in the Super Bowl was pretty much all of Julio Jones amazing catches where he was barely able to get both feet down before going out of bounds and this is something I don't think you would be able to comprehend if it was from another form of watching or listening to the game. Edelman's catch at the end of the game is another great example of how live T.V was able to inform you that it was a catch and you were able to see it for yourself with the numerous replays and camera angles. Live T.V also gives you the opportunity to connect with all the players emotions whether it was being down by 25 points with little hope or the comeback and winning touchdown you were able to see all the players emotions come to the surface. This isn't something you would be able to comprehend fully if you were listening to it or reading play by play.
I think that the most effective way for covering the game is by television. The television has the game live and you can see what is happening in the moment. The box score isn't as good because it only has stats and not physically what happened. For example, Edelman's amazing play would just say he had a 30 yard catch. A radio is probably the closet to the television because even though you can't see what is happening, they describe everything so you can picture in your head exactly what is happening. The post game shows are by far the worst especially if the show is run by someone like Stephen A. Smith. He tends to ramble on about something that has nothing to do with the topic that was supposed to be discussed. So if you want to know about the Super Bowl game, don't go to him for the information. Lastly, the Twitter is not so great because you are limited to 140 characters and that can be hard to simplify what was happening in that particular moment. Overall, the TV game live is the best option, but a radio is a close second if you are somewhere where a TV is accessible.
Watching the Super Bowl on TV is most definitely the best way to follow the game itself. For one, you probably don't get the amazing commercials on radio or on the box score. Super Bowl commercials are an essential part of the Super Bowl as a whole. There is also no way to fully grasp the game itself without watching the game on tv. Following it on twitter, or on radio just isn't the same.
The way in which we consume sports has evolved as the number of ways to interact with a game has multiplied. At a baseline, the television broadcast is the most effective platform for covering the game—it’s the closest a viewer will get to physically being in NRG stadium, and provides the largest number of images/sound from the actual game, supplemented with statistics and anecdotes from the broadcasters. There is a reason this is the most widely utilized means of following the game. From a personal standpoint, I was most entertained by the radio broadcasts. I’m a little biased, considering I have a soft spot for radio calls, but I am always interested to see how radio broadcasters paint the picture of a big moment. The broadcasters have to describe exactly what is happening as the game develops for listeners, everything from where the ball is on the field to formations, uniform colors, and referee names. It’s obviously less effective than television, but the radio sportscaster closely resembles a sportswriter in the sense his/her job is to make you feel like you’re there with only his/her words. It’s a challenging feat, but both the Atlanta and New England radio streams accomplished this. If you’re a fan of one of the two teams the radio broadcast might be a better option because while national broadcasts are regurgitating general stats you’ve heard a thousand times (ex: Tom Brady is looking for his fifth Super Bowl ring), the local feed is actually for local fans, and thus will provide team-centered stats and stories. The game stories are fun to read if you’re looking for the outside-the-box facets of the game. In the age of social media and television, no one is reading an online game story to find out who won; instead, the writer’s descriptions of the off-the-cuff moments are captivating, such as Robert Kraft handing out cigars in the Patriots locker room with a big smile following the team’s victory. I felt the least effective platford was the “Television Show” category. I prefer to read about and watch the game and form my own opinions rather than hearing the loudmouthed yelling of someone else’s. I enjoy hearing ideas from forming players, but I’m not exactly sure what makes Skip Bayless more qualified to talk about the greatness of Tom Brady any more than I am, except for the fact he’s being paid millions of dollars to do it. These opinion-based shouting matches don’t seek to inform—instead, they seek to entertain and inundate a viewers with bells and whistles. Unlike the television broadcast, radio, and game stories, these shows do not further your experience or help you enjoy the game any more.
I personally find that watching the game is the most effective way to cover sports. Watching the game on television allows the consumer to not only hear the game but get visuals as well, especially if you are not as sports inclined as others. Other platforms are very good ways to catch up on missed games or if you are busy, listening on the radio can be a very good idea, but nothing beats being able to see the game. With T.V. it's as if you are there. No other platform allows you to feel that close to the game while in your own home or on your smartphone or tablet. I think using twitter is a good way to get others thoughts on the game as well but not the best way to get caught up on the game.
I find that watching the game is the most effective way to cover sports. Watching, and being able to see the events unfold in real time, is similar to actually being at the game. This allows for the viewer to gain the most and experience the game in his or her own way. The other ways of covering sports such as radio, they don't allow you to be able to see the game yourself. So listening to the Super Bowl on the radio this year, you wouldn't have been to see how spectacular Edelman's catch was in the turning point in the game and the listener would've missed out on that experience.
In my opinion, watching the game on TV is the most effective way to cover the game. On TV, you get commentary as well as the visuals that go along with it. This way, if the commentators have any bias you will be able to discern the truth by watching the game. And the commentators will provide interesting statistics and info about the season that you would not be able to get by actually going to the game. However, keeping up to date on the game by checking twitter is useful in it's own aspect. Because twitter limits your posts to 140 characters, each post about the game is short and concise. If you are interested in a quick summary of the game, twitter is the way to go. Lastly, listening to the game on the radio has a benefit. You can listen to the radio in the car which is something you cannot do with TV or articles. (Hopefully). Overall, I believe that watching the game on TV is the most effective method of covering the game because of the benefits of visuals, commentators, and watching Lady Gaga jump off the stadium during the half-time show
ReplyDeleteI definitely feel that the television coverage and analysis of the Super Bowl was the most effective for covering the game. Sports outlets using a television postgame program allows the viewer to get instant analysis of the game while it’s still fresh in their mind, and immediately after the game without even having to change channels on their TV, making access to it so easy. Television analysis programs the sports outlet’s views and expert analysis to the most people(Those who kept the TV on after the game ends). I got the most information from the television postgame program, and found it the most entertaining by far, with some of my favorite retired players providing their expert analysis and an insight into the players’ minds, after having been in the same situations themselves. It was so effective because it would be watched right after the game, when you still care about the game the most and everything is still fresh in your mind, where most other media sources are delayed or are missing components that television programs have. On the other side of things, I found that articles were the least effective as I personally take much less interest in football and the Super Bowl in the days after, and articles fail to provide the energetic atmosphere that you get with Twitter and live broadcast.
ReplyDeleteI think that watching the Super Bowl on TV is the most effective platform for covering the game. Watching the game on TV gives you both audio and and visual of the game so you are not left guessing on what exactly happened. In addition a lot of announcers prove you with other information that you might find in articles after the game. Watching the game on TV is by far the most entertaining and exciting way to watch the game. In addition there is pregame and postgame analysis so there is plenty of build up and you get an insight on other professionals options of the game afterwards. While Twitter and the Radio are a good way to check the score or even follow the game the entire time, they do not provide a fan a visual that clearly indicates what is going on. In addition the articles only summarize the game and give facts, but that is several days after the game so there is not much fun in that because all the excitement is gone. However, in my opinion the worst platform is the game card. It is honestly one of the more boring things to read. Frankly it might be more boring then reading a US Gov textbook. Although it has great details and you could find some cool statistics in it, it is almost impossible to sit down and even read one full page of it. Watching the game on TV gives you the ability to get insight and statistics before and after the game while also keeping you on the edge of your seat during the game.
ReplyDeleteI believe that with out a doubt watching the Super Bowl live on TV is the most entertaining and informational. While watching the game on the TV, it gives you the visual of course but also the commentating as well. Which is a wealth of information if you listen to it carefully. Because you're entertained by watching it on the TV you are intrigued and ready to take in new information from the commentating. I think the Radio is the second best option if you don't have a TV or are in the car and want to listen to the game. These two ways to view the Super Bowl are way better than the other options. I think the absolute worst way to find out what has happened in the Super Bowl is to look at a huge packet of stats in the game card. When I was looking at it in class today, it was cool but very boring and you couldn't read more than one page with out blowing your mind out. If you were to just read the game card you wouldn't know the excitement that happened in the game while watching or listening to it. None of these methods come close to to the entertainment and information you get from watching the game live on TV.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the Gamecast Video. It was effective in various ways, but also had an entertainment factor that other platforms were lacking. First of all, the use of various shots and angles, and replays of plays allows for a proper understanding of what was occurring in the game. In addition, the shots between plays of players and coaches on the sidelines add an emotional aspect to the game, showing expressions and body language that the fans can relate to. One of the most entertaining factors of actually watching the game is advertisments. These advertisements cater to the interests of the viewers, generally promoting luxury, cars and beer. A lot of them have a very patriotic theme or important messages, such as the Audi commercial about gender equality. Other advertisements have more of a comedic value to them, such as Melissa McCarthy's. These types of commercials make emotional connections with viewers, and make them laugh, generally increasing the entertainment of the game.
ReplyDeleteThe most effective platform of covering the game in my opinion was the gamecast video. In conveying information, the commentators are supposed to be unbiased, so the information is more factual. Unlike the radio, there is far less bias because the viewer can see the plays with their own eyes and not relying on a commentator to describe plays for them. With the visual aid of television, the viewer can see and interpret plays and calls for themselves. Watching gamecast video is also more entertaining than other mediums due to the atmosphere created. As a viewer, seeing the fans and energy of the game adds to the excitement and emotion for fans.
ReplyDeleteI believe that watching the Super Bowl was by far is the most effective platform. I think this because the viewer is able to visually see and hear what is happening in the game. When the viewer is able to see what is happening it is lot more entertaining and easier to follow than the other options. When a person is able to watch it is a lot more fun for them to watch because they are able to process what is actually happening instead of having to process what a commentator or statistics are saying. What I found the least effective were all the statistics. I thought this because it took all of the enjoyment of the Super Bowl out by having to read a bunch of numbers. Although it may be cool to see all of the statistics, it does not compare to the thrill of being able to watch the Super Bowl.
ReplyDeleteThe most effective platform for covering a game is watching the game or television: game follow up. It is effective in both conveying information and entertainment. This is because it is able to show the importuning talking points, which are very interesting and fun to watch. As well as give their insights into the game which is interesting getting a professionals view of the action. The least effective media was a game card. The card is only numbers on tackles, yards, and more. I and many others find this form of entertainment a little boring because you don’t hear anything or have any movement. Although some find the numbers interesting, they use them and talk about them on the game follow up.
ReplyDeleteI thought the most effective platform for covering the game was the live video feed. From that coverage as the viewer you are able to see what was actually happening and explanations from the commentators that allow you to form your own opinion. A lot of the other sources such as the articles and talk shows gave a better insight to reactions from the public after the game. They covered mainly the controversy over the patriots winning and what is considered the best super bowl of all time. I thought Twitter was the least effective but it was also the biggest source for entertainment because it is a constant thread of posts from fans, companies, teams and players. There were a lot of political references, cartoons and jokes played on parts of the game.
ReplyDeleteI think the best way to watch and learn disect the game is through a TV. Football is a sport with a lot of moving parts on a really big field. It's really hard to just hear about a play or read about it because you can never really picture it perfectly. If you have the TV, you can watch any aspect of the game that you want to watch. Some people like to watch stuff that happens away from the ball, this kind of watching is not covered in the newspapers or radio shows. The focus is always on what the general public wants to see, and not what you want to see.
ReplyDeleteI think that the most effective way of broadcasting the Super Bowl was the game cast video that showed the highlights of the game. This was the most effective, with the game card right behind it as the second most effective because it takes the stats from the game card and visually shows the person watching what is going on. The issue with the the game card is that if there is a spectacular play, Julio Jones' catches or Julian Edelman's catch, you would not be able to see it happening rather only see the yards total. While viewing the game on TV, the viewer can see the action happen in front of them which is not only more interesting to the viewer, but it is also credible. Twitter is not credible because not every tweet will be about what is actually going on, spreading rumors, and can easily spread lies about the game. Also, the television broadcast is the best because the announcers talking do not have a basis as the home team's radio show does. Whenever there was a flag thrown on the Falcons, the radio people who broadcast to mainly Patriots fans would exaggerate on the penalty and if there was something that the Falcons did right, they would complain that there should have been a flag. The only non-effective part about the game-cast video was the adds that take away the focus from the game. Also, the game-cast video had replays, so if a person missed out on a great play, the announcers would replay the game and can circle key players to watch live. During the game, the announcers were using next-gen stats that allowed them to analyze the game card and allow the regular viewer to understand the facts.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to watch the game and stay entertained was certainly through a television. In my opinion, it's easy and immensely enjoyable. You wanna experience history and the best way to do that is through watching it on TV. The graphics are unbelievable, commentary is precise/accurate, and you get to feel as close to the game as possible. With TV being so revolutionized these days, I'd rather stay at home than go to a game. You get the whole idea of what's going on from many different angles. For sports fanatics, this allows them to analyze it better and see positives and negatives in their team's performance. I utilize the TV because radio is way too boring. The reality is listening to someone talk is way worse. Social media is great for after the game, but it's cruddy for the duration of the game because you can't see what's actually going on. It's more something I'd use for player and expert opinions. Likewise, highlights are great, but it should only be used if you couldn't watch the game or didn't wish to. I'd much rather see the game develop as it's happening in real life. In addition, it only shows a few highlights, rather than the entire game.
ReplyDeleteI think that the most effective way of broadcasting the Super Bowl was the video that showed the highlights of the game. This was by far the most effective, because it showed the top plays, and the plays that made put each team in the position they were in. The game card was great because it showed the productivity of each player, and there game stats. It gave u a mental picture of the performance that player had. The drawback with that is you can't see a spectacular catch or play from a stat sheet. I did not like hearing the home or away broadcast because they had a major bias. To watch the game on fox with neutral commentators is the right way to watch the game because there is no bias. They root for the big plays, and discuss their personal opinions. I think that you also have to keep in mind everything the commentators say because some of their opinions is not everyones opinion. Lastly, Twitter was not credible because it could be everyday people posting their opinions. Their opinion may not be factual. The Falcons Twitter, and Patriots twitter reported the score, and when someone scored a touchdown or a field goal. That is fun to watch because it is not opinion based, it actually happened.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the most effective way of broadcasting the Super Bowl is watching it live on television. While other methods offer many important insights that can help better you understanding and experience, the only way to truly experience a game of that magnitude is to actually watch it. Watching the game gives so much more that can be read in a box score, followed on twitter, or even watching the highlights of the game. For this Super Bowl especially, there were so many changes in the actual game, as well as the emotions of the game. You could literally witness the emotion in these players through your television screen. This is the part of sports that most true sports fans enjoy most and it cannot be replicated in any other platform. Overall, many platforms of media can be useful in covering the Super Bowl or a large sporting event, but none of these platforms can be matched by the experience of actually watching the game.
ReplyDeleteThe most effective platform for covering the game and getting information and entertainment would be the radio. Many people in my generation wouldn't want to listen to the radio because they think it's boring, however when listening on the radio, you get a lot of information. There are no visuals for you. You have to listen to everything the announcer tells you. The information gets told directly to you and it's very informative. It's also entertaining because you get the full game, you just don't get the full picture. The announcers fix that by putting the image in your head. If all you want is information, the most informative platform would be the game card. The game card gives you every stat that you would want to know and not much else. It's a lot of numbers and it's not so entertaining, however very informative. The most entertaining platform would be Gamecast Video. The platform lets you watch the game, which is exactly what people want to do. This is the most entertaining platform for very clear reasons. The least effective platform is a game follow up on television. These shows don't give you much information at all and assume that you already watched the game. It also isn't the most entertaining platform, because it's just some guys in suits talking. In the end, each platform has it's ups and downs. I'd stick to just watching the game on TV.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the most effective way to watch and understand the game is to watch it live on T.V. Not only are you able to see what is happening but you also get various camera angles and replays so you can see for yourself if that was a catch or if he got both feet in. An example of this in the Super Bowl was pretty much all of Julio Jones amazing catches where he was barely able to get both feet down before going out of bounds and this is something I don't think you would be able to comprehend if it was from another form of watching or listening to the game. Edelman's catch at the end of the game is another great example of how live T.V was able to inform you that it was a catch and you were able to see it for yourself with the numerous replays and camera angles. Live T.V also gives you the opportunity to connect with all the players emotions whether it was being down by 25 points with little hope or the comeback and winning touchdown you were able to see all the players emotions come to the surface. This isn't something you would be able to comprehend fully if you were listening to it or reading play by play.
ReplyDeleteI think that the most effective way for covering the game is by television. The television has the game live and you can see what is happening in the moment. The box score isn't as good because it only has stats and not physically what happened. For example, Edelman's amazing play would just say he had a 30 yard catch. A radio is probably the closet to the television because even though you can't see what is happening, they describe everything so you can picture in your head exactly what is happening. The post game shows are by far the worst especially if the show is run by someone like Stephen A. Smith. He tends to ramble on about something that has nothing to do with the topic that was supposed to be discussed. So if you want to know about the Super Bowl game, don't go to him for the information. Lastly, the Twitter is not so great because you are limited to 140 characters and that can be hard to simplify what was happening in that particular moment. Overall, the TV game live is the best option, but a radio is a close second if you are somewhere where a TV is accessible.
ReplyDeleteWatching the Super Bowl on TV is most definitely the best way to follow the game itself. For one, you probably don't get the amazing commercials on radio or on the box score. Super Bowl commercials are an essential part of the Super Bowl as a whole. There is also no way to fully grasp the game itself without watching the game on tv. Following it on twitter, or on radio just isn't the same.
ReplyDeleteThe way in which we consume sports has evolved as the number of ways to interact with a game has multiplied. At a baseline, the television broadcast is the most effective platform for covering the game—it’s the closest a viewer will get to physically being in NRG stadium, and provides the largest number of images/sound from the actual game, supplemented with statistics and anecdotes from the broadcasters. There is a reason this is the most widely utilized means of following the game. From a personal standpoint, I was most entertained by the radio broadcasts. I’m a little biased, considering I have a soft spot for radio calls, but I am always interested to see how radio broadcasters paint the picture of a big moment. The broadcasters have to describe exactly what is happening as the game develops for listeners, everything from where the ball is on the field to formations, uniform colors, and referee names. It’s obviously less effective than television, but the radio sportscaster closely resembles a sportswriter in the sense his/her job is to make you feel like you’re there with only his/her words. It’s a challenging feat, but both the Atlanta and New England radio streams accomplished this. If you’re a fan of one of the two teams the radio broadcast might be a better option because while national broadcasts are regurgitating general stats you’ve heard a thousand times (ex: Tom Brady is looking for his fifth Super Bowl ring), the local feed is actually for local fans, and thus will provide team-centered stats and stories. The game stories are fun to read if you’re looking for the outside-the-box facets of the game. In the age of social media and television, no one is reading an online game story to find out who won; instead, the writer’s descriptions of the off-the-cuff moments are captivating, such as Robert Kraft handing out cigars in the Patriots locker room with a big smile following the team’s victory. I felt the least effective platford was the “Television Show” category. I prefer to read about and watch the game and form my own opinions rather than hearing the loudmouthed yelling of someone else’s. I enjoy hearing ideas from forming players, but I’m not exactly sure what makes Skip Bayless more qualified to talk about the greatness of Tom Brady any more than I am, except for the fact he’s being paid millions of dollars to do it. These opinion-based shouting matches don’t seek to inform—instead, they seek to entertain and inundate a viewers with bells and whistles. Unlike the television broadcast, radio, and game stories, these shows do not further your experience or help you enjoy the game any more.
ReplyDeleteI personally find that watching the game is the most effective way to cover sports. Watching the game on television allows the consumer to not only hear the game but get visuals as well, especially if you are not as sports inclined as others. Other platforms are very good ways to catch up on missed games or if you are busy, listening on the radio can be a very good idea, but nothing beats being able to see the game. With T.V. it's as if you are there. No other platform allows you to feel that close to the game while in your own home or on your smartphone or tablet. I think using twitter is a good way to get others thoughts on the game as well but not the best way to get caught up on the game.
ReplyDeleteI find that watching the game is the most effective way to cover sports. Watching, and being able to see the events unfold in real time, is similar to actually being at the game. This allows for the viewer to gain the most and experience the game in his or her own way. The other ways of covering sports such as radio, they don't allow you to be able to see the game yourself. So listening to the Super Bowl on the radio this year, you wouldn't have been to see how spectacular Edelman's catch was in the turning point in the game and the listener would've missed out on that experience.
ReplyDelete