I think that the argument for best method in which to convey what happened during the superbowl is a close battle between the gamecast video and reading a good article. The rest of the options definitely fall much shorter than these two.
The television shows such as first take will mainly argue about story lines like, “Is Tom Brady the greatest quarterback of all time?” rather than the analysis of the whole game. They will go into depth about certain aspects of the game but it will not be consistent coverage. The radio is the same thing as the gamecast except you have to visualize what is going on in your head, which takes away lots of the excitement. The game card is without a doubt the most boring option available to a viewer, but also the most straight to the point. Twitter is really just a glorified game card that will happen in real time and also bring up valuable statistics.
Articles are definitely the underdog in this argument, but they are debatably more useful at conveying information. A well written article with plenty of hyperlinks is by far the best mix of efficiency in finding out how the game went compared to time. What they lack is the real-time excitement of watching a game.
When watching the gamecast video, you can really tell it is how sports watching is meant to be. The announcers describing how important each moment is really engages the watchers, and there is definitely no better way to experience a game than to watch it live with your friends or family. While all of these methods are a useful way convey the results of the game, watching the gamecast video is by far the best.
I think that the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. Reading an article is a close second, but none of the other options were nearly as good as these two.
The game follow up shows merely discuss one or two questions regarding players or important plays, rather than analyzing the game as a whole. Twitter really doesn't give you a good idea of what happened in the game. People post about the "sick catch" or the "insane interception", and fail to mention the little things that happen that make all the difference in a game of football.
The least interesting way of conveying information, yet debatably most effective, is the game card. As someone who understands football, I understood what the card was saying, but I was certainly bored by it. I prefer to see the action and hear what is going on, rather than looking at and analyzing stats.
Although you can hear what is going on by listening to the radio, there is nothing like watching a football game. Not only do you get the analysis that an article gives, but you also get to experience the game and its excitement by watching the players, coaches, relatives, and fans.
I believe that there are two most effective platforms for covering the game. There is one for during the game, and one for after the game. While the game is going on, I believe that the gamecast video is best for covering the game. If one is actually watching the game they not only get to see what is going on, but also hear the commentators comments about the players and stats. All of this going on will help the viewer to get a greater understanding of not only the game, but the workings behind it as well. Watching the gamecast video is also the most entertaining platform for covering the game. The suspense, unknown outcome, and excitement for the game makes the experience enjoyable. If one does not watch the gamecast video at the time of the game, they can either record it and watch it another time or read an article that summarizes the game. I believe that articles are also the most effective platform for covering the game after it already occurred. The articles do not bring you through the entire game play by play, but they summarize the best and worst plays, as well as the scores and stats throughout the game. I also believe that articles are the best platform for conveying information. They are the perfect recap of the game that is not too long and releases the right amount of information.
The reason why the gamecast video is so effective is because it brings in all aspects of the game. When watching you see the game, hear the commentators and excitement, and learn about the various sponsors of the teams. All of this provides a fan a true sports game experience, even if they are not there physically. The articles are effective for different reasons. They are effective because they are short and sweet. The articles may not give you the same excitement that the gamecast video does but they will give you all of the information you need to know in order to understand what happened in the game.
Finally I believe that the least effective platform for conveying the game is the gamebook. Even though the gamebook brings you all of the stats and plays, it does not have the true game experience. There is no excitement, commentators, or visuals. The gamebook just tells the game as it went and it does not describe the plays, it’s all numbers.
In my opinion, the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. You saw what was happening and along with it, you got analysis of the game. The announcers would comment on the play that just happened and explain certain game trends and how each of the team's season went. Also the score and time was displayed the entire game and important statistics pertaining to the game (such as rushing yards for each player or team, passing yards, etc.). I also thought that the gamecast video was the most entertaining. You got the commentary, intense feeling of the game, and each play live. The super bowl advertisements were very entertaining to watch.
The one downfall of the live gamecast is that the commentators couldn’t get really in-depth analysis. The commentators couldn’t focus to long on one play or thing since there was so much going on in the game. Also, if you missed something in the game, you couldn’t go back and watch it unless they put a replay in. While this is all true, there wasn’t very much bias.
The most effective medium in terms of conveying information was the gamebook. Each play was recorded and information pertaining it was included. Who caught the ball, who rushed it, who through it, who got the tackle, when it happened, and so on. Statistics of each player and team was included, so you could go back and see how well each player played. The score of each team in each quarter was also be included. The amount of statistics and number was sometimes overwhelming, but you could find almost any information from the game you needed.
The least effective medium in my opinion was twitter. There was very little information from the game unless you followed the right account. Most of the posts were about Lady Gaga’s performance, how the Simpsons predicted the game, and only plays from the game that were spectacular such as Edelman’s catch. There were barely any statistics and analysis of the game.
In my opinion, the most effective platform for covering the game was the live television broadcast. I think that because this is the primary way that people view the game, it is the best. It has video and audio, and most other types of media did not have both of those. Also, in terms of conveying information, most of the information is shown through the actual game, but the announcers on television are able to give statistics and stories about the players and teams, which cannot be done on a score sheet or effectively in an article.
I think that this is also the most entertaining because of the visual aspect. While listening to a radio broadcast can be exciting, it is a whole different level when you can actually see what is going on during the game. I think that it is the most effective through being able to show viewers the game, conveying information, but also having ads, pregame, and halftime show. Normally, commercials are annoying for viewers, but they are talked about and usually better during the Super Bowl.
I think that the least effective type of media is the score card/sheet. Although, it can be really helpful to know what went on in the game, it requires a lot of focus and knowledge about football statistics. It is much harder to tell a story like an article or video can do, so I think that because it is so one dimensional the score sheet is the least effective platform.
After further studying the different outlets of media covering the Super Bowl I think the two most effective ways to cover the game is the Gamecast Video and the articles recapping the game. Personally, if I want to know about the game the best thing to do would be to actually watch the game live. Watching the game live enables you to see in real time everything that is going on and you are able to make your own opinion before a bias source on social media or something can do so. I am also a big fan of the articles following the completion of a game as I believe they are a great way to provide fans with analysis and statistics they may not have realized during the game. Also if you miss the game live, the best way to find out an accurate and short recap would be to read a post game article. Twitter is a good way to get information but it can sometimes be challenging to find what you are looking for and there is a lot of bias.
None of these sources are ineffective, but I am not a huge fan of the Talk shows. I think the commentators don’t necessarily come across with the best information on the game and frankly talk about irrelevant information on the game.
I think the most effective platform for covering the game during the game was the game cast video because as it is happening live the viewer is more likely to pay better attention and stay focussed on the game, so in that way it is very effective. The game cast video's commentators also discuss the plays in greater detail as the plays are happening live and recap the really important or best/worst plays as well. The commentators also comment on specific players and stats from the entire season while there may be downtime or a play is occurring which is very effective. Another type of media that was very effective was the article because it gave a general overview of the game while also mentioning specific plays and players of importance. The articles did a good job of highlighting the most important plays that ended in points earned or showcased an athletes skill. These plays were explained and written in greater detail than was discussed in the game cast video. The article also had hyperlinks to other articles and media sources which made the article even more informative and gave more background information without making the article too wordy, this gives the reader a chance to choose how much in depth they want to read about the Super Bowl. I think the least effective media platform for covering the game was the radio and twitter. While the radio had commentators describing the game, it is very hard to stay focussed on the game when you can't watch the plays as they are happening. It is hard to follow along with the commentators and it can get boring making it inneffecitive. The radio announcers also shared their personal opinions not he players and teams performances throughout the game and entire season making it a bias source. Another media platform that was ineffective was twitter because in order to get actual information a person has to be following the right accounts. Most of the tweets have a very string bias and only focus on one specific play, touchdown, or player. I think twitter is only effective when a person watched the game, read articles about it, and is very knowledgeable on everything that happened. Tweets were usually short and therefore did not contain a lot of information.
I feel the most effective media platform for coverage of a game is the game cast video. It is the most effective because viewers are able to see live coverage of the game while hearing the commentators. The viewers will be more inclined to watch and pay more attention to it, unlike the radio broadcast. Seeing and experiencing a play is a much more effective way to convey information about the game than just saying it. Not only this, but the commentators comment on specific players, stats, and plays that have defined the teams playing. This helps to show which players are the key players, and who to look out for in the video coverage. This is also effective because the score is always posted. However, for post-game coverage, I felt that the article was most effective. The articles successfully outlined the major plays and key players of the game without going into too much detail but also without being too vague. I felt the articles were a perfect quick recap of the game for anyone who missed it and did not want to rewatch the whole game. I felt it was more informative and effective than Twitter, because Twitter is very bias and uninformative. Tweets can range from fans saying, "The Patriots won!" to, "Tom Brady is the GOAT," but there is very limited information regarding the actual playing, plays, and individual player's stats of the game.
I think that the most effective media platform is the game cast video. The game was broadcasted on Fox, and the announcers Joe Buck and Troy Aikman did a good job explaining was was going on. After each play ended they would give analysis of what just happened. This was better than the radio coverage because you could actually see what was going on rather than just listening. I think that the least effective in terms of information was twitter. All that you could get from twitter was the basic information and nothing more. I think that the least effective in terms of entertainment was the playbook. All that you got from the playbook was information that was kind of hard to understand.
I feel as though each platform is effective for different purposes. The best for conveying information and what actually happened would be the gamecast because the viewer is seeing a replay of what actually happen while Joe Buck does the play-by-play and Troy Aikman is the color analyst. The article comes close, but the reader can only imagine how certain plays were executed based on how well the author elaborated. Same goes to the radio for those who like to multitask and listen; the radio broadcasters are there and watching it but do their best job to give their home fans a description of the game play-by-play. A scorecard gives nothing but facts, but certain plays or tiny details such as tight defense won't always show up on the scorecard. For effective presentation of a game from an entertainment standpoint based on opinions, that's where the talk shows come in, they might talk about what happen, but they give biased opinions on the game. The overall most effective tool I think is the gamecast because it has a mix of entertainment done by the announcers while at the same time the cameras actually present what's really going on. A picture itself is worth a thousand words and the camera doesn't lie.
I think that the most effective platform to convey the game was the game cast video for multiple reasons. It was easily the best at capturing the atmosphere of the game, especially with the crowd noise, the commentating, and the players actions. It was cool how the game cast also showed the actual play in motion rather than just a written or verbal summary.
The article was also effective at showing what happened in the game. It gave verbal expressions of how the game went down and gave opinions on each things that happened. It also does a good job to give statistics or background before each play, and can express more facts and statistics about the game than the play can.
In my opinion, the least effective tool was actually the game card. Although it provided a lot of information about game including play summaries, player summaries, statistics, and scores, it did not quite give the viewer a sense of what the game was really like. Football games like the super bowl are defined by emotion and intensity, and the game card cannot provide those. If somebody is interesting in learning a specific statistic about the game, the game card is useful, but it lacks the excitement of other methods.
I think the most effective method of conveying the game was the gamecast video. While the other mediums captured a part of the game, the gamecast video had everything. With the gamecast, we could see the play, the numbers, and hear the commentary all at once.
I do believe that each medium does have its advantages. The radio broadcast allows listeners to do other things such as driving while experiencing the game. Reading the articles and watching First Take give a more insightful look at key moments afterwards. Twitter allows for real-time updates and reactions, and the game card is very useful for analysts and understanding the numbers behind the game.
The least effective in my opinion was Twitter. All of the others include actual facts about the game, whereas much of Twitter was reactions to Lady Gaga's performance at halftime. It was definitely an important part of the Super Bowl experience, but there wasn't very much about the game that could be learned from Twitter.
I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. It was the best at covering the game because it showed each play as it happened, which helped to viewer to capture the overall pattern of how the game transpired. Another good aspect of the game cast video was the commentators. The commentators are very good at analyzing each play, and they also constantly talk about certain stats and highlights from earlier in the season that are important in understanding the game and the players. The gamecast also has a good entertainment aspect, because you can here the crowd noise and puts you closest to the game without actually being there. I also think the television game follow ups are good platforms for covering the game. The best parts of this platform are the pundits who do a great job at recapping the game and analyzing key moments, and the highlights that are always included to show people the important plays.
I think the least effective platform was Twitter. The problem with Twitter was that it didn't have much information about the game, and if there was it was only a little amount due to the limited length of tweets. The people on twitter were mainly talking about the halftime show instead of the game.
I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video, because other than being there live in person what is a better way of getting everything going on in the game, than watching it straight from the TV. The gamecast video also will replay things and mark spots on the field that aren't there in real life, so it could be even better than real life. When there are good plays or even awful plays they repeat them or play them back in slow-mo to watch them closely which is also interesting. In terms of conveying information about the game, I think that the Gamebook would be the most effective way. The game book contains important information on plays made throughout the game, it can also be very confusing to read because it goes so in-depth. So, if you are someone who really knows the game trying to convey information, the gamebook would give you pretty much all the stats there are about the game to receive. In terms of the most entertaining I think the gamecast live game would be most entertaining. The gamecast video has the exact game on the screen along with extra information during breaks that is added in and broadcasters that speak throughout the game. The gamecast video was effective because it gave all the information necessary to watch the game, along with extras, like commercials and extra background information. The least effective in my choice was the radio, I think this because it is very hard to follow when there is nothing to look at besides the name of the radio station. They give a lot of background information and extra facts, which is interesting. But, when they take about the plays that are being made unless you have good knowledge on football it is hard to picture and imagine everything that is happening. And depending on the radio station they are biased towards a certain team.
The most important method to cover the game was by the television broadcast. With the broadcast, viewers can actively engage in the game, as you are watching exactly what is going on in the field. When one has the ability to see and hear everything from the field, it automatically is a step-up from just the hearing, like the radio. Yes, the radio gives you a updated play by play along with the enthusiasm of the announcers, however, all you can really do beyond that is use your imagination to try and put together what the game legitimately looks like. With TV, it cuts that out. There is no need to use your imagination. Overall, this was most effective in maximizing entertainment, as well as displaying statistics and relevant info.
The least important method to cover the game was the game card. Yes, all the statistics are right there in front of you, however, it is extremely boring to look at and for someone who does not know football, it is quite confusing. Some might argue that Twitter is the least as it's all data from random users, however, if you just look at the major, verified accounts, you will find updated info and it will contain some sort of enthusiasm.
I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video because it included all the best components of all six platforms in one. The main reason why the gamecast video was the most effective was because it gave you live visual of each and every playing allowing the viewers to make their own opinions of what their watching. On top of that, they usually replay and comment on big plays during the game in case a viewer missed that play. This platform shows every aspect there is to know about the game while also conveying the least amount of bias possible. When I’m watching or reading about a game I don’t like being informed about by something with bias because I feel like I’m not getting the full truth. When the commentators are talking about certain players to watch or their talking about something that just happened they usually switch the camera to that player or that previous play to back up the information they’re saying incase someone doesn’t agree.
I think the least effective platform for covering the game was Twitter because it might not provide all the information someone’s looking for and usually the information that is provided to you has a bias to it. Twitter wasn’t used by many of the true football fans and was mainly used to talk about the halftime show instead of each play. Each tweet on average was pretty short which left the reader to have to infer some information. For example a tweet could’ve said “Insane catch by Julian Edelman!!!” but I wouldn't be able to know anything about the play except for the fact that Julian Edelman caught the ball. Without something like the gamecast video you don’t get the option to truly experience the each play which is what paying attention to football is all about.
I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the live tv broadcast. This was a high quality video with action replays and several commentators summarizing the game you are watching along with adding additional helpful insight. The other platforms had single parts of this tv broadcast but never the full video plus commentary. I also personally find a radio broadcast with just people talking a bit boring rather than having the option to see the action on screen. The TV is very effective in being the most entertaining option, especially when compared to the stats sheets where you are just looking at a bunch of numbers in a table.
I think the least effective media type would be twitter. The twitter feed comes from people all over the country that make statements or controversial arguments just to create attention for themselves. Most of the time you have no idea what credentials that person has or if he’s even watching the game. I think you won’t learn anything interesting or new that the TV or Radio broadcast won’t show you.
I believe that the most effective platform for covering this game was the TV Broadcast. The TV broadcast was interesting and engaging. It is better than the radio because of the fact that seeing things is a much easier way to report on the game and people who maybe can't really listen well can actually see the game and listen to the commentators summarizing the games and updating people with stats. It's also relatively easy to understand whats going on when people read from the screen rather than researching or looking on twitter. There is a large variety of options for the game being reported on the TV. Twitter doesn't give you any information and can definitely be bias and hard to understand however it is not the least effective.
The least effective to me is the game card. Unless you really like statistics and information, it is hard to understand. It also is very boring so it would lose interest of the reader really quick as a TV broadcast would not. I almost feel as though reading an article station was even better because it gives much more description and seems interesting unlike the facts and stats on the game card.
The most effective platform for covering the game is tv. Tv gives you both audio and visuals so it gives you more than just one way of conveying information. Yes there are other medias that can give you more than one way to give you information but they don't do it as effectively as tv does. Tv lets you watch the game listen to the game and get analysis too. They use many multi media tools to keep the viewer entertained, replays, commentary, first down line, and all the other aids to help the viewer understand and stay entertained. The main reason I picked Tv is because how many people watch the super bowl. Millions of people watch the super bowl on the tv not listening to radio or reading articles, they watch the game. There has to be a reason to that, and I think it’s all the visual and audio aids to make it easy to understand the game. I think the least effective is the radio to listen to a game on the radio you need to have some background knowledge of football. You're relying only on audio to tell you so if you're confused it's hard to figure out what's going on.
In my opinion the best platform to produce media is through televised games because there are a lot more viewers wanting to experience the game through their eyes. The radio and different forms of social media don't work because more people want to watch a game over hearing about it or listening to it. A person would like to see it first hand and get caught up in the action. TV is the best way to covering a sports platform also because you get to see the commentators speaking and their graphs they might present. There are a lot of benefits to using TV as the main source to publicize something. A lot more people are willing to sit down and watch a game over tuning in on the radio. The other platforms can get the message out but they definitely aren't effective enough. Also using something other than TV is less advertised than a basketball game is on TV. there would be signs all around the city the home team was from. TV is the best media platform by far.
I think that the most effective platform for conveying the super bowl was without a doubt the game cast video. As a sports fan, the tv broadcast is the superior option because it offers both play by play description with visual benefits, as well as the valuable and noteworthy analysis and side stories. I also like the gamecast the best because it is consistently more reliable and engaging for the viewers. As a viewer, having the ability to see the plays happen before my eyes is very crucial because otherwise I would have to rely on someone besides myself to help figure out what is going on. I think watching the game live on tv is without a doubt the most engaging and entertaining platform. However, I think each platform does have it's benefits. Talk shows can show you knew perspectives and important plays you might have missed while originally watching the game, and articles and radio probably provide the best analytical breakdown of the game because they can gather and reflect on the players thoughts and emotions after the games, however, both lack an entertaining visual effect that so many viewers desire. I think that the game card can effectively show depict the best play by play description, however unless it is paired with radio analysis or a talk show, it often can't capture or maintain a viewer's attention. I think that overall there are positives and negatives from all the platforms, however, the game cast incorporates the most positives and has the least negatives, so I would personally say it is the best of the available options.
I think that the argument for best method in which to convey what happened during the superbowl is a close battle between the gamecast video and reading a good article. The rest of the options definitely fall much shorter than these two.
ReplyDeleteThe television shows such as first take will mainly argue about story lines like, “Is Tom Brady the greatest quarterback of all time?” rather than the analysis of the whole game. They will go into depth about certain aspects of the game but it will not be consistent coverage. The radio is the same thing as the gamecast except you have to visualize what is going on in your head, which takes away lots of the excitement. The game card is without a doubt the most boring option available to a viewer, but also the most straight to the point. Twitter is really just a glorified game card that will happen in real time and also bring up valuable statistics.
Articles are definitely the underdog in this argument, but they are debatably more useful at conveying information. A well written article with plenty of hyperlinks is by far the best mix of efficiency in finding out how the game went compared to time. What they lack is the real-time excitement of watching a game.
When watching the gamecast video, you can really tell it is how sports watching is meant to be. The announcers describing how important each moment is really engages the watchers, and there is definitely no better way to experience a game than to watch it live with your friends or family. While all of these methods are a useful way convey the results of the game, watching the gamecast video is by far the best.
I think that the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. Reading an article is a close second, but none of the other options were nearly as good as these two.
ReplyDeleteThe game follow up shows merely discuss one or two questions regarding players or important plays, rather than analyzing the game as a whole. Twitter really doesn't give you a good idea of what happened in the game. People post about the "sick catch" or the "insane interception", and fail to mention the little things that happen that make all the difference in a game of football.
The least interesting way of conveying information, yet debatably most effective, is the game card. As someone who understands football, I understood what the card was saying, but I was certainly bored by it. I prefer to see the action and hear what is going on, rather than looking at and analyzing stats.
Although you can hear what is going on by listening to the radio, there is nothing like watching a football game. Not only do you get the analysis that an article gives, but you also get to experience the game and its excitement by watching the players, coaches, relatives, and fans.
I believe that there are two most effective platforms for covering the game. There is one for during the game, and one for after the game. While the game is going on, I believe that the gamecast video is best for covering the game. If one is actually watching the game they not only get to see what is going on, but also hear the commentators comments about the players and stats. All of this going on will help the viewer to get a greater understanding of not only the game, but the workings behind it as well. Watching the gamecast video is also the most entertaining platform for covering the game. The suspense, unknown outcome, and excitement for the game makes the experience enjoyable. If one does not watch the gamecast video at the time of the game, they can either record it and watch it another time or read an article that summarizes the game. I believe that articles are also the most effective platform for covering the game after it already occurred. The articles do not bring you through the entire game play by play, but they summarize the best and worst plays, as well as the scores and stats throughout the game. I also believe that articles are the best platform for conveying information. They are the perfect recap of the game that is not too long and releases the right amount of information.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why the gamecast video is so effective is because it brings in all aspects of the game. When watching you see the game, hear the commentators and excitement, and learn about the various sponsors of the teams. All of this provides a fan a true sports game experience, even if they are not there physically. The articles are effective for different reasons. They are effective because they are short and sweet. The articles may not give you the same excitement that the gamecast video does but they will give you all of the information you need to know in order to understand what happened in the game.
Finally I believe that the least effective platform for conveying the game is the gamebook. Even though the gamebook brings you all of the stats and plays, it does not have the true game experience. There is no excitement, commentators, or visuals. The gamebook just tells the game as it went and it does not describe the plays, it’s all numbers.
In my opinion, the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. You saw what was happening and along with it, you got analysis of the game. The announcers would comment on the play that just happened and explain certain game trends and how each of the team's season went. Also the score and time was displayed the entire game and important statistics pertaining to the game (such as rushing yards for each player or team, passing yards, etc.). I also thought that the gamecast video was the most entertaining. You got the commentary, intense feeling of the game, and each play live. The super bowl advertisements were very entertaining to watch.
ReplyDeleteThe one downfall of the live gamecast is that the commentators couldn’t get really in-depth analysis. The commentators couldn’t focus to long on one play or thing since there was so much going on in the game. Also, if you missed something in the game, you couldn’t go back and watch it unless they put a replay in. While this is all true, there wasn’t very much bias.
The most effective medium in terms of conveying information was the gamebook. Each play was recorded and information pertaining it was included. Who caught the ball, who rushed it, who through it, who got the tackle, when it happened, and so on. Statistics of each player and team was included, so you could go back and see how well each player played. The score of each team in each quarter was also be included. The amount of statistics and number was sometimes overwhelming, but you could find almost any information from the game you needed.
The least effective medium in my opinion was twitter. There was very little information from the game unless you followed the right account. Most of the posts were about Lady Gaga’s performance, how the Simpsons predicted the game, and only plays from the game that were spectacular such as Edelman’s catch. There were barely any statistics and analysis of the game.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the most effective platform for covering the game was the live television broadcast. I think that because this is the primary way that people view the game, it is the best. It has video and audio, and most other types of media did not have both of those. Also, in terms of conveying information, most of the information is shown through the actual game, but the announcers on television are able to give statistics and stories about the players and teams, which cannot be done on a score sheet or effectively in an article.
I think that this is also the most entertaining because of the visual aspect. While listening to a radio broadcast can be exciting, it is a whole different level when you can actually see what is going on during the game. I think that it is the most effective through being able to show viewers the game, conveying information, but also having ads, pregame, and halftime show. Normally, commercials are annoying for viewers, but they are talked about and usually better during the Super Bowl.
I think that the least effective type of media is the score card/sheet. Although, it can be really helpful to know what went on in the game, it requires a lot of focus and knowledge about football statistics. It is much harder to tell a story like an article or video can do, so I think that because it is so one dimensional the score sheet is the least effective platform.
ReplyDeleteAfter further studying the different outlets of media covering the Super Bowl I think the two most effective ways to cover the game is the Gamecast Video and the articles recapping the game. Personally, if I want to know about the game the best thing to do would be to actually watch the game live. Watching the game live enables you to see in real time everything that is going on and you are able to make your own opinion before a bias source on social media or something can do so. I am also a big fan of the articles following the completion of a game as I believe they are a great way to provide fans with analysis and statistics they may not have realized during the game. Also if you miss the game live, the best way to find out an accurate and short recap would be to read a post game article. Twitter is a good way to get information but it can sometimes be challenging to find what you are looking for and there is a lot of bias.
None of these sources are ineffective, but I am not a huge fan of the Talk shows. I think the commentators don’t necessarily come across with the best information on the game and frankly talk about irrelevant information on the game.
I think the most effective platform for covering the game during the game was the game cast video because as it is happening live the viewer is more likely to pay better attention and stay focussed on the game, so in that way it is very effective. The game cast video's commentators also discuss the plays in greater detail as the plays are happening live and recap the really important or best/worst plays as well. The commentators also comment on specific players and stats from the entire season while there may be downtime or a play is occurring which is very effective. Another type of media that was very effective was the article because it gave a general overview of the game while also mentioning specific plays and players of importance. The articles did a good job of highlighting the most important plays that ended in points earned or showcased an athletes skill. These plays were explained and written in greater detail than was discussed in the game cast video. The article also had hyperlinks to other articles and media sources which made the article even more informative and gave more background information without making the article too wordy, this gives the reader a chance to choose how much in depth they want to read about the Super Bowl. I think the least effective media platform for covering the game was the radio and twitter. While the radio had commentators describing the game, it is very hard to stay focussed on the game when you can't watch the plays as they are happening. It is hard to follow along with the commentators and it can get boring making it inneffecitive. The radio announcers also shared their personal opinions not he players and teams performances throughout the game and entire season making it a bias source. Another media platform that was ineffective was twitter because in order to get actual information a person has to be following the right accounts. Most of the tweets have a very string bias and only focus on one specific play, touchdown, or player. I think twitter is only effective when a person watched the game, read articles about it, and is very knowledgeable on everything that happened. Tweets were usually short and therefore did not contain a lot of information.
ReplyDeleteI feel the most effective media platform for coverage of a game is the game cast video. It is the most effective because viewers are able to see live coverage of the game while hearing the commentators. The viewers will be more inclined to watch and pay more attention to it, unlike the radio broadcast. Seeing and experiencing a play is a much more effective way to convey information about the game than just saying it. Not only this, but the commentators comment on specific players, stats, and plays that have defined the teams playing. This helps to show which players are the key players, and who to look out for in the video coverage. This is also effective because the score is always posted. However, for post-game coverage, I felt that the article was most effective. The articles successfully outlined the major plays and key players of the game without going into too much detail but also without being too vague. I felt the articles were a perfect quick recap of the game for anyone who missed it and did not want to rewatch the whole game. I felt it was more informative and effective than Twitter, because Twitter is very bias and uninformative. Tweets can range from fans saying, "The Patriots won!" to, "Tom Brady is the GOAT," but there is very limited information regarding the actual playing, plays, and individual player's stats of the game.
ReplyDeleteI think that the most effective media platform is the game cast video. The game was broadcasted on Fox, and the announcers Joe Buck and Troy Aikman did a good job explaining was was going on. After each play ended they would give analysis of what just happened. This was better than the radio coverage because you could actually see what was going on rather than just listening. I think that the least effective in terms of information was twitter. All that you could get from twitter was the basic information and nothing more. I think that the least effective in terms of entertainment was the playbook. All that you got from the playbook was information that was kind of hard to understand.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though each platform is effective for different purposes. The best for conveying information and what actually happened would be the gamecast because the viewer is seeing a replay of what actually happen while Joe Buck does the play-by-play and Troy Aikman is the color analyst. The article comes close, but the reader can only imagine how certain plays were executed based on how well the author elaborated. Same goes to the radio for those who like to multitask and listen; the radio broadcasters are there and watching it but do their best job to give their home fans a description of the game play-by-play. A scorecard gives nothing but facts, but certain plays or tiny details such as tight defense won't always show up on the scorecard. For effective presentation of a game from an entertainment standpoint based on opinions, that's where the talk shows come in, they might talk about what happen, but they give biased opinions on the game. The overall most effective tool I think is the gamecast because it has a mix of entertainment done by the announcers while at the same time the cameras actually present what's really going on. A picture itself is worth a thousand words and the camera doesn't lie.
ReplyDeleteI think that the most effective platform to convey the game was the game cast video for multiple reasons. It was easily the best at capturing the atmosphere of the game, especially with the crowd noise, the commentating, and the players actions. It was cool how the game cast also showed the actual play in motion rather than just a written or verbal summary.
ReplyDeleteThe article was also effective at showing what happened in the game. It gave verbal expressions of how the game went down and gave opinions on each things that happened. It also does a good job to give statistics or background before each play, and can express more facts and statistics about the game than the play can.
In my opinion, the least effective tool was actually the game card. Although it provided a lot of information about game including play summaries, player summaries, statistics, and scores, it did not quite give the viewer a sense of what the game was really like. Football games like the super bowl are defined by emotion and intensity, and the game card cannot provide those. If somebody is interesting in learning a specific statistic about the game, the game card is useful, but it lacks the excitement of other methods.
-Jesse Haymes
DeleteI think the most effective method of conveying the game was the gamecast video. While the other mediums captured a part of the game, the gamecast video had everything. With the gamecast, we could see the play, the numbers, and hear the commentary all at once.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that each medium does have its advantages. The radio broadcast allows listeners to do other things such as driving while experiencing the game. Reading the articles and watching First Take give a more insightful look at key moments afterwards. Twitter allows for real-time updates and reactions, and the game card is very useful for analysts and understanding the numbers behind the game.
The least effective in my opinion was Twitter. All of the others include actual facts about the game, whereas much of Twitter was reactions to Lady Gaga's performance at halftime. It was definitely an important part of the Super Bowl experience, but there wasn't very much about the game that could be learned from Twitter.
I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video. It was the best at covering the game because it showed each play as it happened, which helped to viewer to capture the overall pattern of how the game transpired. Another good aspect of the game cast video was the commentators. The commentators are very good at analyzing each play, and they also constantly talk about certain stats and highlights from earlier in the season that are important in understanding the game and the players. The gamecast also has a good entertainment aspect, because you can here the crowd noise and puts you closest to the game without actually being there. I also think the television game follow ups are good platforms for covering the game. The best parts of this platform are the pundits who do a great job at recapping the game and analyzing key moments, and the highlights that are always included to show people the important plays.
ReplyDeleteI think the least effective platform was Twitter. The problem with Twitter was that it didn't have much information about the game, and if there was it was only a little amount due to the limited length of tweets. The people on twitter were mainly talking about the halftime show instead of the game.
I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video, because other than being there live in person what is a better way of getting everything going on in the game, than watching it straight from the TV. The gamecast video also will replay things and mark spots on the field that aren't there in real life, so it could be even better than real life. When there are good plays or even awful plays they repeat them or play them back in slow-mo to watch them closely which is also interesting. In terms of conveying information about the game, I think that the Gamebook would be the most effective way. The game book contains important information on plays made throughout the game, it can also be very confusing to read because it goes so in-depth. So, if you are someone who really knows the game trying to convey information, the gamebook would give you pretty much all the stats there are about the game to receive. In terms of the most entertaining I think the gamecast live game would be most entertaining. The gamecast video has the exact game on the screen along with extra information during breaks that is added in and broadcasters that speak throughout the game. The gamecast video was effective because it gave all the information necessary to watch the game, along with extras, like commercials and extra background information. The least effective in my choice was the radio, I think this because it is very hard to follow when there is nothing to look at besides the name of the radio station. They give a lot of background information and extra facts, which is interesting. But, when they take about the plays that are being made unless you have good knowledge on football it is hard to picture and imagine everything that is happening. And depending on the radio station they are biased towards a certain team.
ReplyDeleteThe most important method to cover the game was by the television broadcast. With the broadcast, viewers can actively engage in the game, as you are watching exactly what is going on in the field. When one has the ability to see and hear everything from the field, it automatically is a step-up from just the hearing, like the radio. Yes, the radio gives you a updated play by play along with the enthusiasm of the announcers, however, all you can really do beyond that is use your imagination to try and put together what the game legitimately looks like. With TV, it cuts that out. There is no need to use your imagination. Overall, this was most effective in maximizing entertainment, as well as displaying statistics and relevant info.
ReplyDeleteThe least important method to cover the game was the game card. Yes, all the statistics are right there in front of you, however, it is extremely boring to look at and for someone who does not know football, it is quite confusing. Some might argue that Twitter is the least as it's all data from random users, however, if you just look at the major, verified accounts, you will find updated info and it will contain some sort of enthusiasm.
I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the gamecast video because it included all the best components of all six platforms in one. The main reason why the gamecast video was the most effective was because it gave you live visual of each and every playing allowing the viewers to make their own opinions of what their watching. On top of that, they usually replay and comment on big plays during the game in case a viewer missed that play. This platform shows every aspect there is to know about the game while also conveying the least amount of bias possible. When I’m watching or reading about a game I don’t like being informed about by something with bias because I feel like I’m not getting the full truth. When the commentators are talking about certain players to watch or their talking about something that just happened they usually switch the camera to that player or that previous play to back up the information they’re saying incase someone doesn’t agree.
ReplyDeleteI think the least effective platform for covering the game was Twitter because it might not provide all the information someone’s looking for and usually the information that is provided to you has a bias to it. Twitter wasn’t used by many of the true football fans and was mainly used to talk about the halftime show instead of each play. Each tweet on average was pretty short which left the reader to have to infer some information. For example a tweet could’ve said “Insane catch by Julian Edelman!!!” but I wouldn't be able to know anything about the play except for the fact that Julian Edelman caught the ball. Without something like the gamecast video you don’t get the option to truly experience the each play which is what paying attention to football is all about.
I think the most effective platform for covering the game was the live tv broadcast. This was a high quality video with action replays and several commentators summarizing the game you are watching along with adding additional helpful insight. The other platforms had single parts of this tv broadcast but never the full video plus commentary. I also personally find a radio broadcast with just people talking a bit boring rather than having the option to see the action on screen. The TV is very effective in being the most entertaining option, especially when compared to the stats sheets where you are just looking at a bunch of numbers in a table.
ReplyDeleteI think the least effective media type would be twitter. The twitter feed comes from people all over the country that make statements or controversial arguments just to create attention for themselves. Most of the time you have no idea what credentials that person has or if he’s even watching the game. I think you won’t learn anything interesting or new that the TV or Radio broadcast won’t show you.
I believe that the most effective platform for covering this game was the TV Broadcast. The TV broadcast was interesting and engaging. It is better than the radio because of the fact that seeing things is a much easier way to report on the game and people who maybe can't really listen well can actually see the game and listen to the commentators summarizing the games and updating people with stats. It's also relatively easy to understand whats going on when people read from the screen rather than researching or looking on twitter. There is a large variety of options for the game being reported on the TV. Twitter doesn't give you any information and can definitely be bias and hard to understand however it is not the least effective.
ReplyDeleteThe least effective to me is the game card. Unless you really like statistics and information, it is hard to understand. It also is very boring so it would lose interest of the reader really quick as a TV broadcast would not. I almost feel as though reading an article station was even better because it gives much more description and seems interesting unlike the facts and stats on the game card.
The most effective platform for covering the game is tv. Tv gives you both audio and visuals so it gives you more than just one way of conveying information. Yes there are other medias that can give you more than one way to give you information but they don't do it as effectively as tv does. Tv lets you watch the game listen to the game and get analysis too. They use many multi media tools to keep the viewer entertained, replays, commentary, first down line, and all the other aids to help the viewer understand and stay entertained. The main reason I picked Tv is because how many people watch the super bowl. Millions of people watch the super bowl on the tv not listening to radio or reading articles, they watch the game. There has to be a reason to that, and I think it’s all the visual and audio aids to make it easy to understand the game. I think the least effective is the radio to listen to a game on the radio you need to have some background knowledge of football. You're relying only on audio to tell you so if you're confused it's hard to figure out what's going on.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the best platform to produce media is through televised games because there are a lot more viewers wanting to experience the game through their eyes. The radio and different forms of social media don't work because more people want to watch a game over hearing about it or listening to it. A person would like to see it first hand and get caught up in the action. TV is the best way to covering a sports platform also because you get to see the commentators speaking and their graphs they might present. There are a lot of benefits to using TV as the main source to publicize something. A lot more people are willing to sit down and watch a game over tuning in on the radio. The other platforms can get the message out but they definitely aren't effective enough. Also using something other than TV is less advertised than a basketball game is on TV. there would be signs all around the city the home team was from. TV is the best media platform by far.
ReplyDeleteI think that the most effective platform for conveying the super bowl was without a doubt the game cast video. As a sports fan, the tv broadcast is the superior option because it offers both play by play description with visual benefits, as well as the valuable and noteworthy analysis and side stories. I also like the gamecast the best because it is consistently more reliable and engaging for the viewers. As a viewer, having the ability to see the plays happen before my eyes is very crucial because otherwise I would have to rely on someone besides myself to help figure out what is going on. I think watching the game live on tv is without a doubt the most engaging and entertaining platform. However, I think each platform does have it's benefits. Talk shows can show you knew perspectives and important plays you might have missed while originally watching the game, and articles and radio probably provide the best analytical breakdown of the game because they can gather and reflect on the players thoughts and emotions after the games, however, both lack an entertaining visual effect that so many viewers desire. I think that the game card can effectively show depict the best play by play description, however unless it is paired with radio analysis or a talk show, it often can't capture or maintain a viewer's attention. I think that overall there are positives and negatives from all the platforms, however, the game cast incorporates the most positives and has the least negatives, so I would personally say it is the best of the available options.
ReplyDelete