George Stroumboulopoulos to host Hockey Night in Canada

[hockeyfan1]

I enjoyed the Olympic coverage where they had sportsnet, cbc and tsn all contributing. Oh well.

Nothing wrong with that.  It made for a nice collaboration.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I thought this was pretty funny: http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/videos/clips-season-21/strombos-hockey-night-in-canada

EDIT: And a Youtube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVg3Mcmc79Q

 

[mc]

I thought this was pretty funny: http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/videos/clips-season-21/strombos-hockey-night-in-canada

Thanks for posting that. HILARIOUS!

 

[bakeapples]

Strombo - fine, fine

but is Glenn Healy still going to be around?

 

[Rebel_1812]

One of the reporters just asked if the CBC - Sportsnet relationship has been awkward.

Yes, dumb reporter, if that's true I'm sure the VP will spill those details on air at this press conference.

not dumb.  Thats the kind of question that should be asked and answered.  Its not his fault most press just rephrase corporate press releases.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

One of the reporters just asked if the CBC - Sportsnet relationship has been awkward.

Yes, dumb reporter, if that's true I'm sure the VP will spill those details on air at this press conference.

not dumb.  Thats the kind of question that should be asked and answered.  Its not his fault most press just rephrase corporate press releases.

Why should it be answered?

 

[Kin]

Why should it be answered?

Transparency?

 

[mc]

Why should it be answered?

Transparency?

You can't be serious! You want that question answered in a PR conference?

"So who from the CBC hates Kipper"?
"Everyone really, he took one too many punches to the head that bastard. We won't be keeping him on anyways. Next question."

 

[Kin]

You can't be serious! You want that question answered in a PR conference?

You're assuming that the answer is yes though. That question isn't one that can't possibly be answered without engaging in a PR disaster. I'm a former media relations professional and here are my ten seconds of work to craft answers to that question, regardless of what the answer is:

No: Not at all. In fact, I think that everyone has been surprised by how smooth the relationship has worked out. In fact (insert anecdote about how everyone is getting along).

Yes: With any change this drastic there are always going to be bumps in the road but I think what we're seeing today is the result of how those wrinkles have been ironed out and we're now positioned to provide our customers with the best hockey coverage...

Neither answer hurts the company to a meaningful extent, both answers give reporters something to write and that's about as win-win as a question gets. Even if the answer is a lie...that question is a gosh-darn softball. It gives whoever's answering it the perfect pivot into talking about just how fantastic things are. It's soundbite stuff.

 

[hap_leaf]

Ah, good old Don. Despite his often nonsensical ramblings, he and Mclean have forgotten more about hockey than strombolopolus will ever know.

You do realize that hosting a studio show isn't the same thing as being an analyst or reporter, right?

You do realize that you took my remark out of context, right?

I don't think I did. Both of your posts made reference to your belief that, somehow, Stroumboulopoulos doesn't have enough "hockey knowledge" for the job which genuinely makes me wonder if you know what the job really entails.

George can probably get the hosting portion of the job performed OK.  But he is in no way going to shine the way Ron does when it comes to hockey knowledge.

It is one of the best traits Ron has - the ability to compare two players, eras, teams or recall specifics like the way some team won 3-2 in 1988 that has some relevance to the game underway.  He's intelligent and knowledgeable, unrehearsed and on the fly.  He knows the rules inside out as being a qualified ref himself.  I generally agree with his opinions and comments and most of the time makes you think.

I really am doubting whether this guy could name who won the Cup off the top of his head the last 25 years and I would bet money Ron could do that.  I just think when engaged in interesting conversation as a host, that comes into play.  The general knowledge and the specific knowledge that gives meaning and insight into the topic of discussion and in interviews.

Unless I am completely underestimating George's insight, I think this will be really obvious what is missing after Ron is gone.  Unless they choose to give him hardly any speaking time, which may be for the best to turn it over to an expert after his quick introductions.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Ah, good old Don. Despite his often nonsensical ramblings, he and Mclean have forgotten more about hockey than strombolopolus will ever know.

You do realize that hosting a studio show isn't the same thing as being an analyst or reporter, right?

You do realize that you took my remark out of context, right?

I don't think I did. Both of your posts made reference to your belief that, somehow, Stroumboulopoulos doesn't have enough "hockey knowledge" for the job which genuinely makes me wonder if you know what the job really entails.

George can probably get the hosting portion of the job performed OK.  But he is in no way going to shine the way Ron does when it comes to hockey knowledge.

It is one of the best traits Ron has - the ability to compare two players, eras, teams or recall specifics like the way some team won 3-2 in 1988 that has some relevance to the game underway.  He's intelligent and knowledgeable, unrehearsed and on the fly.  He knows the rules inside out as being a qualified ref himself.  I generally agree with his opinions and comments and most of the time makes you think.

I really am doubting whether this guy could name who won the Cup off the top of his head the last 25 years and I would bet money Ron could do that.  I just think when engaged in interesting conversation as a host, that comes into play.  The general knowledge and the specific knowledge that gives meaning and insight into the topic of discussion and in interviews.

Unless I am completely underestimating George's insight, I think this will be really obvious what is missing after Ron is gone.  Unless they choose to give him hardly any speaking time, which may be for the best to turn it over to an expert after his quick introductions.

Strikes me as a little unfair to compare the hockey knowledge of a guy who has worked as the hockey host since 1987 to someone just starting.  MacLean didn't have the 27 years of experience when he started out either.  He did radio and was a sports anchor in Calgary for a short period of time before becoming host of HNIC.

 

[Bullfrog]

I don't know much about media, but I have to question the relevancy of his hockey experience. Ultimately, isn't he just responsible for keeping the show going and asking the right questions of his guests, who are presumably hockey experts?

Plus, I have to assume he's not completely void of hockey knowledge and will (with the help of a team) research the issues and prepare prior to the shows.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

You can't be serious! You want that question answered in a PR conference?

You're assuming that the answer is yes though. That question isn't one that can't possibly be answered without engaging in a PR disaster. I'm a former media relations professional and here are my ten seconds of work to craft answers to that question, regardless of what the answer is:

No: Not at all. In fact, I think that everyone has been surprised by how smooth the relationship has worked out. In fact (insert anecdote about how everyone is getting along).

Yes: With any change this drastic there are always going to be bumps in the road but I think what we're seeing today is the result of how those wrinkles have been ironed out and we're now positioned to provide our customers with the best hockey coverage...

Neither answer hurts the company to a meaningful extent, both answers give reporters something to write and that's about as win-win as a question gets. Even if the answer is a lie...that question is a gosh-darn softball. It gives whoever's answering it the perfect pivot into talking about just how fantastic things are. It's soundbite stuff.

I don't disagree with that and that's exactly what you would get. Isn't it the exact thing that many complain about though.....answers found in a can.

 

[hap_leaf]

Ah, good old Don. Despite his often nonsensical ramblings, he and Mclean have forgotten more about hockey than strombolopolus will ever know.

You do realize that hosting a studio show isn't the same thing as being an analyst or reporter, right?

You do realize that you took my remark out of context, right?

I don't think I did. Both of your posts made reference to your belief that, somehow, Stroumboulopoulos doesn't have enough "hockey knowledge" for the job which genuinely makes me wonder if you know what the job really entails.

George can probably get the hosting portion of the job performed OK.  But he is in no way going to shine the way Ron does when it comes to hockey knowledge.

It is one of the best traits Ron has - the ability to compare two players, eras, teams or recall specifics like the way some team won 3-2 in 1988 that has some relevance to the game underway.  He's intelligent and knowledgeable, unrehearsed and on the fly.  He knows the rules inside out as being a qualified ref himself.  I generally agree with his opinions and comments and most of the time makes you think.

I really am doubting whether this guy could name who won the Cup off the top of his head the last 25 years and I would bet money Ron could do that.  I just think when engaged in interesting conversation as a host, that comes into play.  The general knowledge and the specific knowledge that gives meaning and insight into the topic of discussion and in interviews.

Unless I am completely underestimating George's insight, I think this will be really obvious what is missing after Ron is gone.  Unless they choose to give him hardly any speaking time, which may be for the best to turn it over to an expert after his quick introductions.

Strikes me as a little unfair to compare the hockey knowledge of a guy who has worked as the hockey host since 1987 to someone just starting.  MacLean didn't have the 27 years of experience when he started out either.  He did radio and was a sports anchor in Calgary for a short period of time before becoming host of HNIC.

I've read Maclean's book and it gives (too much) detailed info on his early days.  I get that you have to start somewhere.  But like a young Ron, I'd rather see some young sportscaster in the role than a forty something VJ turned talk show host.  I just don't think this is George's dream to be on HNiC.  He should be in the music industry more than in hockey.  I think Freidman would have been perfect but apparently doesn't look as good as Boyfriend. 

 

[Rebel_1812]

I don't think the decision to have strombo as the host had anything to do with hockey.  His time slot on CBC had no ratings before he took over and did his show.  They are hoping that he can increase the hockey ratings in a similar fashion.  But the hockey ratings are already strong.  So then the best success he can hope for is a minor increase in ratings and maybe improving the pre-game show.

 

[Kin]

I've read Maclean's book and it gives (too much) detailed info on his early days.  I get that you have to start somewhere.  But like a young Ron, I'd rather see some young sportscaster in the role than a forty something VJ turned talk show host.  I just don't think this is George's dream to be on HNiC.  He should be in the music industry more than in hockey.  I think Freidman would have been perfect but apparently doesn't look as good as Boyfriend.

I think, and I'd say that I have a little inside info on this, that Friedman probably wants to be a reporter more than he wants to be a host.

Anyways, with regards to Stroumboulopoulos and his hockey knowledge, again, I think you're vastly overrating how difficult the stuff we're talking about is. If he's capable of intelligently conversing about filmmaking with Quentin Tarantino, the environment with David Suzuki and politics with Jean Chretien do you really think the intricacies of the NHL season are going to elude him? Considering he's been a lifelong fan of the sport? I mean, you can see him interview countless hockey people on his show and he's not asking which end of the stick you hold.

Traditionally, I think, hockey people have sort of put up this false wall of authority and professionalism that you're talking about where ordinary people simply can't grasp the complexities of what they do but as we're finding out in other sports that's just not true. Bill Simmons, who's the most popular sports writer in North America, didn't get there because he spent decades in locker rooms or scouting. He's popular because he's been a sports fan and brings that perspective to an insular world. Watching the game, following it from a removed perspective...that gives you insight that people who are inside a sport can lack. Look at Bill James revolutionizing Baseball writing and Baseball itself without setting foot inside a locker room, look at someone like Daryl Morey as the GM of the Houston Rockets with basically no sports experience in his background but being able to figure things out because he's a very smart person. There's an insight and knowledge level that comes from being involved with sports at a professional level but it's not the sort of thing bright people can't figure out once they make it their job.

HNIC will still have the perspective of guys like Hrudey and Weekes and Cherry, guys who have that insider knowledge, so the idea that you'll have a host that doesn't have that knowledge doesn't bother me in the slightest. I want fresh perspective. I don't just want Ron continuing to play the Smithers to Cherry's Mr. Burns. 

 

[Stickytape]

I just don't like Stroumbo.  I mean, he's nice, and well-meaning, but he comes across as a bit of a phony douche bag to me.

Then again, so did Ron.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

At some point, maybe it's you.

 

[2badknees]

I just don't like Stroumbo.  I mean, he's nice, and well-meaning, but he comes across as a bit of a phony douche bag to me.

Depending on the stature of the guest, he either looked like your quote, or completely out of his league, fidgiting around and pandering. I just don't see much substance. Clearly CNN didn't either.

 

[Scot4bz]

Funny....and makes me even more frightened...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVg3Mcmc79Q[/youtube]