ESPN illuminates Duke’s Depth

Melinda Christensen
Mass Comm. 299
Television Critique
7 January 2008


ESPN’s coverage of the Duke, UNC rivalry featured lively, fast-paced action spliced with more in-depth sports coverage and interviews. The broadcast opens with a highlighted play by play of the game, then breaks into a scene of the coaches, and is followed with by two sports commentators giving their synopsis of the game, and an interview with Duke University’s star player.

I enjoyed the excitement in the announcer’s voice throughout the broadcast; however, I thought his remark on Shire’s impressive three-point shot was less than desirable. Calling the shot “Shire Fire,” made me think of a blazing inferno terrorizing Hobbits, rather than a basket. The announcer made a few other rhyming remarks which made me feel that I was watching nursery rhymes, instead of a men’s basketball game; although, the point seems somewhat minute.

Beyond the rhyming, the broadcast was horribly one-sided. ESPN managed to turn a blind eye on UNC, until the very last moments of the broadcast when they briefly recognized some impressive career stats for the team’s star player of the night. Then, the commentators went on to discuss an injured player, but I couldn’t distill which team the injured player was on or if the injured player was benched for the intense rivalry of this game.

The commentators went over the standings of the two teams briefly at the very end of the sportscast. Furthermore, they made no specific mention of who the teams will now face. I think the standings should have been covered before the interview with Shire, and before the cut to the commentators.

The interview with Shire was typical. The lady asked fairly standard questions, and Shire’s responses while fluid seemed scripted. When you play a team like UNC you know you have to bring your best game or you're going to be defeated, said Shire. While this seemed to please the lady with the microphone, I found it rather unsubstantial.

Furthermore, the sportscast entirely lacked dialogue with either team’s head coach. One of the coaches, I can’t say which because the spot was so quick, had a spell of vertigo during the game. I think that could have been an interesting question for an interview, but there was no follow up. I would have also liked even brief commentary from a member of UNC’s team. I thought it was rather poor taste to completely ignore the losing team.

Overall, I enjoyed the highlighted play by play of the game. I think that’s the best way to watch a game if unable to personally attend. However, I think the fast-paced reporting needed to slow after the play by play ended and the commentary and interviews began. Again, I think the sportscast contained some minor holes, which I’m guessing the ESPN after game show probably filled in. I don’t know why I would watch twenty minutes worth of an after game show to glean tidbits of information that should have been included in the commentary wrap up after the game. Furthermore, why should I spend twenty minutes watching an after game show when the highlighted play by play took less than fifteen? And why not cover the bitter-sweet night for UNC’s star player who put up some impressive stats but failed to secure a win?