Waubonsie Valley Boys Basketball Broadcast vs. Naperville North; MMEA - ID# 243

Waubonsie Valley
Division: A
Live Event Coverage Sports
 
Entry Description

Segment of Waubonsie Valley Boys Basketball broadcast vs. Naperville North

Recent Teacher Comments

  • 4/27 9:22 am - Tighten wide cam; don't need to see ceilings, lights, high walls. Good use of cutaway cams.
  • 4/25 8:54 am - Very appropriate coverage of the game. I saw everything I needed to see and you didn't overuse the under the basket cameras. You used those appropriately to isolate the head coach of the other team as well as in the dead ball situation. The top camera did a great job of following the action and letting the viewer see what they needed to. The play-by-play is OK but great insight from the color analyst when he was talking about the defensive setup early as well as remarking on pace of play as it went.
  • 3/12 9:07 am - The main game camera was too wide-- there's some room to push in a pull back and isolate the half court game the same way a person would watch if they were at the game. The announcers were a little too passive compared to some of the other entries in this category. Work on projecting confidence. The next best thing to being in the game is broadcasting it and oftentimes becomes even more exciting than being a player. Score bug graphic is nice and clean, doesn't distract from the visuals. Cutaways to the coach pacing and medium shots of the players are good go to's to break up the monotony of the wide shot, so that was positive to see.
  • 3/3 9:53 am - Positive: I really liked the lower third graphic and shot of the coach for Naperville north. I also liked the moments you were able to take an alternative shot. As far as the scoreboard, I loved the graphics and that is a very creative way to show the clock (I assume with a camera dedicated to get the footage and then crop and place it down there)
  • 3/3 9:53 am - Improvements: The top camera was taken far too often. The game often felt impersonal. Although the commentating wasn't bad, it definitely has room for improvement. There isn't a natural chemistry between these two. I would have liked to have seen a bit more from the other two cameras - maybe shots of the crowd, bench or close ups of players. Even alterative angles during the game play would have been nice.
Judge 1

Positives:

Improvements:

Judge 2

Positives: I liked the lower third / score / time graphic. It is very appealing to the eye.

Improvements: A few things to improve this broadcast... the announcers could be more engaging and show a bit more emotion to the action on the court, but what didn't help with this was a relatively low audio level. I didn't notice different camera angles during game action. This would help to make the broadcast more engaging.

Judge 3

Positives: Color announcer gave good, detailed information. Good use of graphics, especially identifying one of the coaches.

Improvements: Play by play announcer sounded either unprepared, nervous or both at times. Too much dead air.

Judge 4

Positives:

Improvements: