We’re very big fans of announcers being responsive to giving good context to how they do their jobs whenever there are mistakes or criticism. Often this helps fans realize why things are done a certain way, or how and why things can easily go wrong.
Earlier this year, Chris Fowler had a really good explanation of how his poor “eye mechanics”caused him to call a field goal as being good when it was no good. Along this front, NFL RedZone‘s Scott Hanson offered up a pretty extensive explanation of how he approaches job when a Twitter user chimed in hopes of nudging Hanson to talk less during NFL RedZone, citing Paramount+’s UEFA Champions League whiparound coverage on The Golazo Show as an example of a different approach.
@ScottHanson if you have access to paramount plus I urge you to watch for 15 min to check out how @Nicocantor1 and the producers handle their champions league whip around show. they go to the games and show the games without constant talking over it.
— AJB (@ajb_reaI) November 8, 2023
Ouch! Not very subtle!
I’d probably just ignore that if I were Hanson, as it’s hard to keep everyone happy. While Hanson’s chattiness and enthusiasm is hard to not notice and does draw some criticism, from what I can tell most fans enjoy Hanson’s schtick.
But Hanson took it upon himself to quote tweet that, and offer the following thoughtful response.
You might not accept this as an answer/reason, but I’ll try anyway:
Trust me, I’m not trying to talk over any live football more than I have to – (or more than I deem appropriate, for context / perspective).
However: many times during a show, we are in a double or triple box with simultaneous snaps. If I “shut up”, which audio would you like to hear? (Keep in mind, you have a 50% or 66% chance of being “wrong” in your choice).
Another option would be mixed audio. Want that? Try 33% 33% 33% sound in a triple box. Good luck with that mosh.
You can believe me or not – but I’ve thought this through more than anyone on the planet. My intention is to host the greatest football show possible. I’m not paid by the word – & I ain’t doing this for *my* glory.
I/we make the best choices we can – knowing all the variables involved – based on my 30 yrs of Sports TV experience, and our (NFLRZ Staff) collective hundreds of years. Hope this helps your understanding.
Hope this Tweet reads as sincerely as it was written. Hope to “see ya” Sunday!!
I do think Hanson makes a good point that his narration is helpful and probably necessary when there are multiple games on the screen at the same time or they are bouncing from game to game in quick succession. There is a lot going on during those moments and more context is warranted.
That said, beyond that, Hanson didn’t offer much up for the times where there aren’t multiple games on the screen which is the majority of the ~7 hour broadcast. Is there too much added commentary during those times? Again, it’s subjective, although I will say DirecTV’s version of RedZone (which was retired after last year) was noticeably a bit lighter on added commentary from their host Andrew Siciliano. Is Hanson’s proactive commentary and context too much, or is it giving the majority of fans just what they want or need?
At the end of the day, NFL RedZone is one of the most popular and beloved programs in sports media, and Hanson is the long-time host who seems to genuinely love what he does even during challenging times. There is a clearly a large swathe of viewers who love him, what he does, and his style of doing so.
Hanson has clearly put some thought into the size of his role, and he’s comfortable with where he and the show landed in regard to his on-air commentary. Credit to him for extensively explaining his POV to this inquiry. But his explanation did not win over the Twitter critic in question.
its awesome being able to see every game, less awesome when one guy is never not talking.
— AJB (@ajb_reaI) November 8, 2023
