Tom Brady to join Fox sports

#2
#2
Boston Vol said:
After his playing career is over. 10-year deal worth $375 million. Pretty good gig if you can get it.
Tom Brady gets monster 10-year, $375 million deal from Fox Sports
Click to expand...

Even as someone who loves good commentary, I do not understand these huge deals at all. How many people are actually watching because Brady/Romo/Aikman is on the call? I pick the games I watch based on the matchups. Commentary can either be a blessing or a curse, but whichever it is, it's an afterthought.

And also, is Brady even going to be good at it? Just because he's likable and knows the game doesn't mean he's going to be anywhere near $37m/year good at it. I think he'll be good, but this is a big bet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again, SlipKidVol and 95 Vol Alum
#3
#3
n_huffhines said:
Even as someone who loves good commentary, I do not understand these huge deals at all. How many people are actually watching because Brady/Romo/Aikman is on the call? I pick the games I watch based on the matchups. Commentary can either be a blessing or a curse, but whichever it is, it's an afterthought.

And also, is Brady even going to be good at it? Just because he's likable and knows the game doesn't mean he's going to be anywhere near $37m/year good at it. I think he'll be good, but this is a big bet.
Click to expand...
I dont really get it either. I think it has a lot to do with them losing Aikman and Buck obviously. But they are paying Brady much more than Aikman or Buck. I'm with you though, when Romo is calling a game I'm watching I'm like "oh cool Romo is calling this game" but I dont active seek out games he is calling.

I guess they are banking on him being the next best thing but its a huge risk imo. He could be another Jason Witten.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#5
#5
K-town Vol Fan said:
I dont really get it either. I think it has a lot to do with them losing Aikman and Buck obviously. But they are paying Brady much more than Aikman or Buck. I'm with you though, when Romo is calling a game I'm watching I'm like "oh cool Romo is calling this game" but I dont active seek out games he is calling.

I guess they are banking on him being the next best thing but its a huge risk imo. He could be another Jason Witten.
Click to expand...
Is there a large number of casual fans who actually tune into games based on who is commentating? I don't know anybody, casual fan or not, who makes a decision to watch a game in whole or in part based on who is commentating. I would watch games if there was no commentary, or horrendous commentary. But I'm also not a casual fan.

Maybe Romo, Brady, etc., provide value by getting people to stick around? I.e., a non-football fan/casual fan is channel surfing, tunes in, finds the commentary entertaining, and sticks around?
 
#6
#6
K-town Vol Fan said:
I dont really get it either. I think it has a lot to do with them losing Aikman and Buck obviously. But they are paying Brady much more than Aikman or Buck. I'm with you though, when Romo is calling a game I'm watching I'm like "oh cool Romo is calling this game" but I dont active seek out games he is calling.

I guess they are banking on him being the next best thing but its a huge risk imo. He could be another Jason Witten.
Click to expand...

Greg Olsen and his partner (his name escapes me) are probably about as good as Aikman and Buck, they just don't have the star power. The thought was maybe that Fox wasn't going for the vanity hires and was content with those 2 when they let Buck/Aikman walk but then they said "hold my beer."
 
#7
#7
05_never_again said:
Is there a large number of casual fans who actually tune into games based on who is commentating? I don't know anybody, casual fan or not, who makes a decision to watch a game in whole or in part based on who is commentating. I would watch games if there was no commentary, or horrendous commentary. But I'm also not a casual fan.

Maybe Romo, Brady, etc., provide value by getting people to stick around? I.e., a non-football fan/casual fan is channel surfing, tunes in, finds the commentary entertaining, and sticks around?
Click to expand...

I would guess there are some hard core Pats fans that tune in for Brady but otherwise, nobody is doing that.

I can kind of see it with the Manningcast because it's entertaining even if the game sucks. It's loose and funny and they have guests and it's like you're hanging out with them. It's almost more like a talk show. I'm sure a significant audience is tuning in just for them (I know I did sometimes), but not for a normal broadcast team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#8
#8
05_never_again said:
Is there a large number of casual fans who actually tune into games based on who is commentating? I don't know anybody, casual fan or not, who makes a decision to watch a game in whole or in part based on who is commentating. I would watch games if there was no commentary, or horrendous commentary. But I'm also not a casual fan.

Maybe Romo, Brady, etc., provide value by getting people to stick around? I.e., a non-football fan/casual fan is channel surfing, tunes in, finds the commentary entertaining, and sticks around?
Click to expand...

The only games I’m turning on for commentary is if Bill Walton is calling it or Mark Jones calling a late PAC-12 basketball game. That’s it
 
#9
#9
Drew Brees stepping down at NBC. I love the guy and maybe he would be great with reps, but he wasn't good last year, IMO.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top