Sportscasters Talent Agency of America

Listened to more than one D-1 radio broadcast in the last few days where the announcer rarely gives the score. You get “So and so by 4” but is is 64-60? Is it 78-74? Why not take the extra one or two seconds and give the score. Thought that was basic.

If these happen to be younger sportscasters, they could simply be influenced by TV sports vs. radio, where score and time are always displayed.

I do think that over time, the quality of radio PxP has diminished greatly--partially by those that are more influenced by TV - where PxP'ers don't "paint" a word picture, as well as announcers that rely heavily on tossing out statistics and game notes. So many sportscasters are more inclined to "entertain" on their social media platforms, and then come up short on the broadcast, ending up more numbers driven as opposed to painting a word picture (and on TV, creating an atmosphere to the broadcast).

PxP'ers should realize that stats are great as supporting information, but not to carry the broadcast.

Phil, I agree with everything you said.

The initial point is quite valid. I hear the same thing.

Time and score was one of the points of emphasis in the Three Weeks To Better Basketball Play-by-Play Challenge we hosted this month. Many participants told me they thought they were doing a good job with time and score until I asked them to listen and evaluate themselves. Only then did they realize their inconsistency.

It's easy to let the fundamentals erode without being aware it is happening. Honest self critique is the best way to combat it. Maybe when you self-critique, concentrate on one thing per session -- like time and score. Then make that one thing the thing you focus on improving in your next broadcast.

Great topic, Steve and Phil. I appreciate you getting it started.

It's acceptable occasionally to do that to mix it up. Marv Albert would do this on TV and also on radio.
"Starks for 3.....Yes!.....The Knicks.....by.....five!"
Although many times he would say, "Knicks...by...five....72-67."

On its own can work particularly well if you just said the score...which you should be doing all the time anyway.
If they brought the ball upcourt and you said 69-67...and then by the end of the possession they bang down the three...at that point it's acceptable to give a one-off "Knicks by five!"

If you do that over and over without context or full score and you just go "Knicks by 5"..."Knicks by 3"..."Knicks by 5" for each basket then you are annoying and I don't want to listen to your call. Like you guys, I have heard broadcasters who do this.

Saying a team leads by X sounds silly in baseball and hockey. It's simply 3-1. You don't say, "Rangers by 2" as your one-off score reference. That's weird.

Definitely important for context in football though. Not all fans can do the math. You have to do it for them. When it's 41-26 in the 4th quarter it's on you to explain that its a 15 point difference and potentially still just a two-touchdown game with a 2-point conversion.
If you semi-recently said the score and then they kick a FG it's acceptable to exclaim "the kick is good...and now the Bears lead by 18." In football, that number alone has more meaning for many fans than saying "41-23" because math is hard.

I always try to give the score and time in almost every possession and assuredly after each made basket. You don't know who might just be tuning in and hasn't followed the game. Like the others, I have noticed more and more at the D-1 level announcers aren't giving the score like they should. A former athletic director at WKU told me years ago before filling in on some basketball broadcasts this: "If you do only one thing, please, please tell the score and time!" I've never forgotten that.

I always try to give the score and time in almost every possession and assuredly after each made basket.

A great rule of thumb.

Bob makes a great point, too. On TV, it is fine to give the deficit if the score is on the screen. In radio, its okay to say the deficit after a made basket, but also be sure to give the numeric score. It gives context to how deep we are into the game.

PhilGiubileo wrote:If these happen to be younger sportscasters, they could simply be influenced by TV sports vs. radio, where score and time are always displayed.

I do think that over time, the quality of radio PxP has diminished greatly--partially by those that are more influenced by TV - where PxP'ers don't "paint" a word picture, as well as announcers that rely heavily on tossing out statistics and game notes. So many sportscasters are more inclined to "entertain" on their social media platforms, and then come up short on the broadcast, ending up more numbers driven as opposed to painting a word picture (and on TV, creating an atmosphere to the broadcast).

PxP'ers should realize that stats are great as supporting information, but not to carry the broadcast.

That's ass backwards. Social media is all well and good, but if your PBP is as dry as a box of flour, why should one visit your tweets?

I'm alright with it every so often. In hoops you give scores so frequently that a little variety is good. I wonder if it's because of the game's pace that broadcasters don't think they have time to say "Team X leads 57-54". They don't want to interrupt game flow with what they believe to be a too-long score reference. Having to take their eyes off the court and all

Nah, I think the earlier theory is correct that younger announcers lose the elements of radio play-by-play because TV guys can always just say the margin "Knicks by 5" because the score-bug is always on the screen.
However, to counter that idea...I do believe less-stellar radio broadcasters were doing that pre-1995 scorebug stuff on TV broadcasts. I can't remember for sure though.

Some simply don't think about it. They know "time and score" are important...but actually following through and providing that...well, it slips their mind.