Why do we need anouncers for TV sports?

It's not radio so you do not need anything explained the events are right there on your TV. Yet we have people who sit there the whole game and describe what is happening as you see it. Sometimes they have stories of their playing days or strategy but it's mostly saying things like "and Brady throws a touchdown" "that is strike 3". We know!

 

My blind uncle enjoys listening to football games with us while we watch together in a family environment.

Commentary is also beneficial for people who don't know what's happening. If you hear someone say on a radio in a car race they're loose and you're unfamiliar with what that means, the commentators dissect and interpret that so the viewer can understand and obtain some sort of idea of what's happening.

I actually find it comforting to listen to certain announcers. Come February and I'm ready for the racing season and I hear Mike Joy's voice, I get excited.

 

Are you kidding where would we be over the years without


Jim Lampley (HBO Boxing)
Phil Liggett (the Tour De France, and Olympic Bicycling)
Verne Lundquist (College Basketball)
Seam McDonough (College Football)
Jim Nantz (Golf)
Joe Buck (MLB Baseball)
Mike Tirico (NBC Sports)
Al Michaels (NFL)
Chris Berman (ESPN Sports Center)
Vin Scully (Baseball)
Bob Costas (NBC Sports)
Dick Enberg (NBC Sports)
Howard Cosell (ABC Sports)
Tim McCarver (Baseball)
Pat Summerall (CBS Sports)
Bryant Gumbel (NBC)
Marv Albert (NBA Basketball)
Brent Musburger (NCAA Football)
David Feherty ( PGA Golf)

 

Please dont tell me you watch golf

 

to sell products of the sponsors both of the event itself and of the media, all the bits and pieces of technologies, and the wages of the people who maintain and operate them.
of course we wouldn't need 2/3rds of any of this if we didn't make everything have to be about money,
and yes, flourishing economies CAN exist, without guns, slaves or money.
it is to prevent us from even imagining the latter to be possible, let alone that it can be and has,
actually been done, that is the REAL reason most genocides have been committed.

well, you had to ask. not that i give a rat about sports as such generally.
but i am all for most things that give people a smile while being mostly harmless.

the other thing i do have to agree with the op; i also find annoying,
they try to be entertaining, but the point is, whatever they do,
is really a distraction, i think, from what most people are there for.

 

YESSSSSS!!!! And Hotwater is on FIRE!!!!!!!

But to answer the OPs question, I like the back and forth banter. It's like hanging out with a couple of friends who are watching the same game as you. And Tommy Heinsohn just makes the whole experience...hilarious.

 

most sports announcers do seem to be kind of idiots, but they still can provide information that you may not know. and it kind of depends on the sport. something like baseball or football, where there's long pauses between the action, really relies on the announcers to fill those gaps with some sort of stimulation besides watching a football team huddle up or a pitcher scratch his balls for 5 minutes.

 

I don't watch any sports, but I know Stan watches sports all of the time...or he is busy doing other things while he has it on the background...his eyes not glued to the tv... and it helps him to to know when to look at the TV and see the incredible touch down or whatever.....lol

 

I do. Shit, I bet on it.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't actually know all that much about sports. I don't think you would make this thread if you did.

I'm glad for sports announcers on tv, it's better having someone else explaining a Flea Flicker or a Sacrifice Bunt when watching sports with other people. If it is that troublesome for you though, they did invent this button on most tv's called "Mute" and it's purpose is to silence all the sound, furthermore I think nearly all Tv's have volume control.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't actually know all that much about sports. I don't think you would make this thread if you did.

I'm glad for sports announcers on tv, it's better having someone else explaining a Flea Flicker or a Sacrifice Bunt when watching sports with other people. If it is that troublesome for you though, they did invent this button on most tv remotes called "Mute" and it's purpose is to silence all the sound, furthermore I think nearly all Tv's have volume control.

 

"Well, this is an interesting incident, Brian," said one radio commentator to another. "I don't think there have been any mysterious materializations on the pitch since, oh since, well I don't think there have been any - have there? - that I recall?"

"...For those of you who've just tuned in, you may be interested to know that, er ... two men, two rather scruffily attired men, and indeed a sofa - a Chesterfield I think? Have just materialized here in the middle of Lord's Cricket Ground. But I don't think they meant any harm, they've been very good-natured about it..."

-Life, The Universe And Everything, Chapter 4

 

Since Tiger Woods won the Masters in 1997 by 12 strokes and I've been following his stellar career ever since

 

the thing is for me, wherever i am, whatever i'm doing, i'm there to enjoy what's there, not be distracted from it, by a bunch of idiots making mundane comments about it.

maybe this different for sports fans. maybe they go wherever they go, do whatever they do, for the sole purpose of being social with each other.
to each their own. i wouldn't want to live like that myself. maybe that's why i'm not a fan of sports, or even soap operas.

for me its why have sports, announcers, or tv, at all?

i'd rather go for a walk in the woods, or make things, or dream about how to make things.
i'd rather listen to little furry creatures and the wind through the trees, then the sound of the human voice.

as for learning things, watching someone else do them, or books, or tools and try to figure out for yourself how you want to do them.
i've always found the human voice the least useful way. its only something you have to tolerate in order to get credit for completing some formal class.

that don't mean i don't like people. they can be fun to be with once in a while. and i do want everyone to be able to be happy.

they're just not at the root of what gives me pleasure or gratification.

 

Why does a city need three news stations and tell you to the same shit the others did?

 

Never forget that Shooter McGavin blew a 4-shot lead on the back 9 http://glfdig.st/LQL2O7Z

 

I love sports but I hate most sports movies with a few exceptions ….He Got Game, The Rocky Movies, White Men Can’t Jump, Caddyshack, and the Natural

 

why do all three have to be owned by the same motivation of greed that doesn't care whether they tell you anything useful, as long as enough people buy them to sell advertising space?
why to keep people informed is for them to have the choice of consent. that was (supposedly) the whole point, of constitutional governments.
greed doesn't do a better job of this then indipendent agencies or even governments themselves.
but truly seperate voices, well tell you some different things, and most things from different angles.
i'll agree there's a major problem, lack of useful information, when the ownership of sources is consolidated.

 

I liked Field Of Dreams. Granted, it wasn't about baseball but I liked that the movie used it as the backdrop.

 

rather obvious answer to the topic question: "need" isn't why they're there.