Thoughts on Football Night in America
Here are random thoughts that I had while watching NBC’s new Football Night in America, their Sunday-night highlights-and-commentary show that precedes their Sunday night game:
- This is a 75-minute show. They went 15 minutes before showing the first highlight. WTF?! The only explanation that I have for it is to avoid showing highlights against the 4:00 p.m. ET starts that sometimes go past three hours. That said, if this is your intention, I as a viewer want to know that. 12 minutes in, I was wondering, “Is this just going to be another damn Bob Costas Olympic-style broadcast?” Then, on the teaser heading to the break, they discussed that they’d go to highlights next. Almost too late for me: however, I’d TiVo’d the thing, so I was ready to bail.
- The one good thing about the first segment: they did an around-the-league with their on-site reporters bringing you the top news. It had just enough football to keep you mildly interested.
- The group seemed relaxed and together, but almost too much so for a first show. Any show like this—especially one where the cast sits on leather chairs out from behind desks and essentially is inviting you into their living room—needs to develop its camraderie slowly. This felt like walking into a locker room full of veteran players: intimidating, awkward, and a little off-putting. I’m not asking for stilted, but I am asking for slow development.
- Sterling Sharpe’s honed repartee didn’t fit in so well with Cris Collinsworth and Jerome Bettis as it did with Steve Young, Tom Jackson, and Michael Irvin. In fact, I felt at times like Sharpe was expecting Costas to pull a Chris Berman on him, which … say what you will about Costas, but he doesn’t have the big man bombast that Berman has. [That's mostly a good thing.] Costas, the professional TV guy, is purely there to guide the broadcast and keep things going.
- That said, do we really even need Costas? Collinsworth is such a polished TV guy that you could probably get him to play the gig pretty straight and have him lead the coverage. Now, I’m not one of these guys that says that I want only players doing commentary—I think outsiders can pick up on things that players don’t—but … when I think Costas, I think baseball and Olympics.
If you’ve read all that and feel that I’m disappointed in the offering, you’d be right. Even the highlights were just … mediocre. I preferred what NFL Primetime brought to the game: the fast-paced music, the feeling of drama, etc. ESPN had all the cues in the broadcast—done on the fly by people who were just that good—that let you know to start paying attention again if you’d been distracted by something else going on in the room. I never got that feeling with Football Night in America; it never really drew me back in.
I’m going to sample ESPN’s Monday night offering and see which I like; I’m fine with waiting a day for a pre-packaged highlight show. Frankly, I’m curious to see how stunning ESPN can make theirs with a day to do film work and cutdowns on timing.

yeah, as soon as i saw the name of the show i was a bit put off. Primetime was absolutely wonderful. something i Tivo’d religously. the highlights were upbeat, fast music, not just the scoring plays, but other significant plays as well. lots of stats at the end of the highlight. FNiA was a big letdown. is ESPN planning on runnign a highlight show tonight? that would be nice.
September 11th, 2006 at 09:24Well, the name was okay with me, but … Hockey Night in Canada is all about a game, while this is a quasi-highlight show. Feh.
September 11th, 2006 at 13:28After watching a bit of Berman on Sunday morning, it hit me why I like ESPN better that the networks. When the guys start on ESPN, they have to play it straight. The deliver the news on SportsCenter and show that they can do it. As they develop their name and personality, the get bigger, more energetic, more enthusiastic. (see Berman, Stuart Scott, Corso… basically any of the guys you KNOW on ESPN)
At the networks, as guys move up… the try to become more respectable… which to me makes them more boring. (thinking more of the newscasters than the sports guys) The only guys that have some amount of energy and life on the networks are the former players, I think simply because they haven’t been ‘taught’ to behave on camera.
September 12th, 2006 at 06:16Well, but the ESPN guys’ outlandishness is a bit of an acquired taste. Those groups work best when there’s a good leavening of personalities in the room: Tom Jackson is the best foil that Chris Berman could have because TJ picks his spots to get riled up and otherwise keeps Boomer in check [and it's the only place on ESPN where this happens, unfortunately].
I watched the new NFL Primetime on Monday and … I wish that they’d changed the name. Stu Scott? Michael Irvin? Chris Mortenson? Steve Young? It felt like the B team [especially because Young and Scott have not developed their rapport just yet, and because Stu is at the "I'm Keith Hernandez" point in his career].
Ah well.
September 14th, 2006 at 20:51