employed by ND? I think she does a great job.
Is Holly Rowe...
- Thread starter Rockne's Rambler
- Start date
She has been at ESPN for as long as I can remember -- and yes, she does a good job.
Agreed. She is a true professional at what she does. I always enjoy her interviews of players/coaches.
Holly Rowe is terrible. She, along with 99% of the sideline reporters are completely useless and wish they would eliminate them. Babbling, cackling hens that bring nothing to the game.
Professional, prepared, and knowledgeable. Articulate as well. Agree. I have enjoyed listening to her for quite sometime.
I have to agree with Rambler.
Anyone remember the days of NBC football sideline reporter John Dockery? Now that man hated doing ND home games. He always gave good sideline reports about the visiting team but hardly ever ND.
But I like the sideline reports. They hustle to get reports on all kinds of shit.
Anyone remember the days of NBC football sideline reporter John Dockery? Now that man hated doing ND home games. He always gave good sideline reports about the visiting team but hardly ever ND.
But I like the sideline reports. They hustle to get reports on all kinds of shit.
Holy cow . You may may want to back off of the Sake and Tsingtao when chomping on those spring rolls
Who says it's true ? It's an opinion. As long as her employer is satisfied no one else's opinion really matters. We should all be so respected and successful in our chosen professions as she is. Viewers have a simple choice as to whether they want to watch her work or not.
Silly argument. Viewers aren't going to turn off a football game because of the sideline reporter who talks for maybe 2 minutes a game. And if they did they would just switch back over after their 30 seconds are over
Just because a network puts you on TV doesn't mean you are good at your job, see The View
Most sideline reporters are there because of their looks. And their job is pretty meaningless
Agree with everything you said except Holly is not there for her looks so Im not sure why she is on. She adds zero to the football game.
Someone needs to look up the definition of " true " a word you used. Holly Rowe has been in the business many years and I would opine that you and Chitown are in a small minority when it comes to evaluating her abilities to perform her duties on air. I think she's excellent and along with Lisa Salters and Michelle Tafoya the best in the business.
I dont care for The View and almost all programming on Fox News. That doesn't mean those folks aren't good at their jobs as the ratings indicate otherwise. Not caring for the content is far different than assessing actual abilities. That's why opinions are just that.
Last edited:
Your opinion is absolutely yours . I think she's very professional and executes her responsibilities well.
Agree, and it’s usually the earpiece that does the talking.
The coaches shouldn’t have to put up with it, in college and in the NFL
I'm not surprised in the least you wouldnt like Fox news. You're still getting hopped up on your 20th booster shot
The gawt dayum women need to stay in the kitchen and fetch me alcohol and deli meat sammiches!!
Absolutely she does.
That said, the posters that are making the derogatory comments regarding Holly Rowe are pretty consistent with regards to the many people they mock in the CFB business, including long tenured head coaches who are male. At least they are again, consistent.
Let's not turn this into something it's not. The male reporters suck also. They all are pretty useless and don't really add anything of substance. But I'm something of misanthrope.
I don't let my personal opinions of content determine an individuals ability to perform their duties. I'm capable of distinguishing between the two.
You don't think Holly Rowe is bright enough to come up with her own questions? I think you underestimate her.
As for whether the sideline/halftime interviews--which take, what, all of 30 seconds?--are an annoyance to the coaches, I don't doubt that some of them feel that way, but I think the majority of the viewing audience probably likes those short segments, and when television networks are paying the NFL and colleges billions of dollars to broadcast their product, you put up with an annoyance or two.
Frankly, I watch Marcus Freeman interviews and see them as a huge plus to the Notre Dame name. He is young, articulate and cuts a handsome figure, and always gives a positive message. How can that not but help sell the ND brand? You guys need to get out of the cave a little more often. (Just kidding.)
No, I don’t think that she or any of the sideline reporters have the in-depth knowledge to ask poignant questions
The questions are usually inane.
ie., a coach’s team is down 24-6 at halftime and the interviewer will ask, “ coach what do you have to do in the second half?”
Most of the direction and questions come from the earpiece and not from the interviewer
I think Holly Rowe is plenty bright enough to ask an intelligent and insightful question. She doesn't need a producer talking in her earpiece and telling her the questions to ask. Most of the questions are probably scripted beforehand, anyway.
BTW, "poignant" means to evoke a sense of sadness. Is that really what you meant? I suppose if you are down 24-6 at the half, then maybe the coach would indeed be sad.
And yes, the questions are often inane, but I imagine the networks include the sideline reporter stuff because their research shows the audience likes it.
None of the sideline reporters add anything to the telecast.
When you’re down 24 to 6 one could make the case for being sad and/or having regrets.
I don't. Why don't you get a job or use the bathroom so we won't have to read all the crap you post here.
