Jack Michaels - Oilers PBP

Jack Micaels game calling during the play ....


  • Total voters
    209

abootzky

Registered User
Jun 15, 2007
1,614
207
If you like drinkin' I recommend that you take a shot every time Michaels says the word "Bob" during play. You'll be so hammered halfway through the first period that you'll become oblivious to the "...OILERS radio network" shtick and you won't even make it anywhere near "OOOVVERTIIIIIIME!!!".
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
34,806
15,422
If you like drinkin' I recommend that you take a shot every time Michaels says the word "Bob" during play. You'll be so hammered halfway through the first period that you'll become oblivious to the "...OILERS radio network" shtick and you won't even make it anywhere near "OOOVVERTIIIIIIME!!!".

Finally...a practical common sense approach to enduring Jacks call. :D

Might get a little expensive by April though. ;)
 

Drivesaitl

Finding Hemingway
Oct 8, 2017
50,301
64,919
Islands in the stream.
What is this thing called Radio that people used to listen to? Before the days of you know, vinyl, cassette, CD, streaming, TV, HD, PVR, etc.

So my biggest question, and I have no idea because I would never do it again, is why, oh why, would people listen to radio?

Is Amos and Andy still on or the Shadow?

I get that people may be working or something when the games are on. Recording devices are designed to remedy that situation. I learned decades ago that I garner next to nothing of what occurs during a game from listening a radio call of a game.
my sum experience with radio is its a boring entity long since been rendered into stone age antiquity by other means of hd delivered experience.

I listened to games on the radio when I was 7 yrs old. When no other option was available, when there 3 channels on TV and two hockey games/week televised on TV. Never going back to radio and don't know why anybody would. Just PVR the damn game or watch a stream or replay of it or something. Radio? heh, that's the annoying thing in my car that plays horrible radio until I setup something else to play or jam in a CD. Its the AM and FM setting on a Boom box or stereo that never gets switched on and I presumed is there just as an ode to ancient past. Radio is podcast pocks on the entertainment landscape. Anything else being more interesting. Visual conveyed experience being more interesting..
 

Drivesaitl

Finding Hemingway
Oct 8, 2017
50,301
64,919
Islands in the stream.
I'll preface comments above and I just find it interesting. Cognition and absorbing and retaining information fascinates me. I should mention that I literally cannot listen to audio books. I'm essentially incapable of it. I'm an avid reader of text in books or online. My brain absorbs information well VISUALLY. Give me an audio book and my mind instantly wanders, looks at stuff, thinks about other stuff. if I put an audiobook on and went for a walk I would literally have not even 20% focus on whats playing. Yet give me any print and I'm zoned right in.

This study makes it seem like I'm not so alone;

Your Brain On Audio Books: Distracted, Forgetful, And Bored

People just focus very little, generally to auditory information. Some people report just falling asleep when read to (childhood vestige?)

Theres even a lot of studies that say people interpret literature, and narratively remember it or make it up differently if they are listening vs reading. Even that the speaker in audiobooks so vastly changes the experience of the book just by their voice. Even changes the meaning even though the words are the same..

The reason I'm interested in this is a cognitive psych course I took once on how the brain loads, memory chunks, and retains or expels information. So that memory retention and learning modalities and those kinds of things just fascinate me. To anybody interested, and I apologize in an instance for the distraction if it is that, how do you listen to radio and concentrate on what its saying?

I get lost virtually within minutes or seconds. When I listen to an Oilers podcast I have to take notes (written/visual modality) to virtually retain anything. My brain is not hardwired to audio. When I used to be a student I had to literally write every work a prof says and then read it later because I absorb maybe 30% of stated information in am auditory lecture format. But I realize everybody is probably different. from the earliest age I could read literally anything and with pretty good retention. So I am strong in that area. Possibly even that I was such a strong reader that other forms of information processing modalities didn't work as well for me. I also have ADHD. Reading helps me to focus and stay on task. Audio is all about the wandering, I have never managed to concentrate adequately with audio only.

Heres an interesting thing. Go to any lecture. Presentation. people look at the presenter, much of the time. Basically stare at them. Even though its the words, not the vision you are supposed to be paying attention to. But I think a lot of people learn that they have to focus visually on the speaker in order to focus on the speaker. Or at least that's what 9/10 students do. I'm forever fascinated with how the human brain works, or doesn't work.

I realize in advance this is way out there but just wanted to explain further how auditory radio information just doesn't work for me. To the point where I can't even fathom the activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Batman

Stoneman89

Registered User
Feb 8, 2008
28,572
24,167
I'll preface comments above and I just find it interesting. Cognition and absorbing and retaining information fascinates me. I should mention that I literally cannot listen to audio books. I'm essentially incapable of it. I'm an avid reader of text in books or online. My brain absorbs information well VISUALLY. Give me an audio book and my mind instantly wanders, looks at stuff, thinks about other stuff. if I put an audiobook on and went for a walk I would literally have not even 20% focus on whats playing. Yet give me any print and I'm zoned right in.

This study makes it seem like I'm not so alone;

Your Brain On Audio Books: Distracted, Forgetful, And Bored

People just focus very little, generally to auditory information. Some people report just falling asleep when read to (childhood vestige?)

Theres even a lot of studies that say people interpret literature, and narratively remember it or make it up differently if they are listening vs reading. Even that the speaker in audiobooks so vastly changes the experience of the book just by their voice. Even changes the meaning even though the words are the same..

The reason I'm interested in this is a cognitive psych course I took once on how the brain loads, memory chunks, and retains or expels information. So that memory retention and learning modalities and those kinds of things just fascinate me. To anybody interested, and I apologize in an instance for the distraction if it is that, how do you listen to radio and concentrate on what its saying?

I get lost virtually within minutes or seconds. When I listen to an Oilers podcast I have to take notes (written/visual modality) to virtually retain anything. My brain is not hardwired to audio. When I used to be a student I had to literally write every work a prof says and then read it later because I absorb maybe 30% of stated information in am auditory lecture format. But I realize everybody is probably different. from the earliest age I could read literally anything and with pretty good retention. So I am strong in that area. Possibly even that I was such a strong reader that other forms of information processing modalities didn't work as well for me. I also have ADHD. Reading helps me to focus and stay on task. Audio is all about the wandering, I have never managed to concentrate adequately with audio only.

Heres an interesting thing. Go to any lecture. Presentation. people look at the presenter, much of the time. Basically stare at them. Even though its the words, not the vision you are supposed to be paying attention to. But I think a lot of people learn that they have to focus visually on the speaker in order to focus on the speaker. Or at least that's what 9/10 students do. I'm forever fascinated with how the human brain works, or doesn't work.

I realize in advance this is way out there but just wanted to explain further how auditory radio information just doesn't work for me. To the point where I can't even fathom the activity.


To simplify this.

Men react better to visual stimulation. Women can get off on books.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Supermassive

harpoon

Registered User
Dec 23, 2005
14,678
12,707
The 'Oilers radio network' schick I can understand. Don't like it, but he's obligated to say that.
What bugs me is the 'ladies and gentlemen, the pleasure was all mine' sign off.
It presumes that we are thanking him for his barely adequate work.
He should think of something different to say when signing off cause listening to him has never been a 'pleasure'.
 

Lacaar

Registered User
Jan 25, 2012
4,243
1,447
Edmonton
I never can understand why all the radio guys work for the team. Why don't they work for the rights holder.
I'm guessing it's mostly money/cost basis and the teams wanting the announcer to butter them up or not be overly critical. But they don't do the same for the t.v broadcasts.

Michaels isn't bad. We were just spoiled by having Rod Phillips. though I don't listen much and when I do i'm not paying complete attention and mostly just listening for raised voices etc.
 

CornKicker

Holland is wrong..except all of the good things
Feb 18, 2005
12,159
3,636
i listen to a lot of radio as i drive back and forth to rinks all night. I have Sirius so i get eh home feed of what ever game is on, if the oilers are on ill just stream it on my phone. there are some WAY worse radio tandems out there, Pittsburgh is awful, NYI is terrible, tampa is had to listen to. Colorados guys are great, columbus guys suck, san jose guys are good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RegDunlop

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
34,806
15,422
The 'Oilers radio network' schick I can understand. Don't like it, but he's obligated to say that.
What bugs me is the 'ladies and gentlemen, the pleasure was all mine' sign off.
It presumes that we are thanking him for his barely adequate work.
He should think of something different to say when signing off cause listening to him has never been a 'pleasure'.

I agree that he has to say the Oilers radio network BUT he isnt forced to say it like he is a carnival announcer trying to make it sound a lot more exciting than it is. It just sounds phony to me.
 

RegDunlop

Registered User
Nov 5, 2016
3,854
4,161
Edmonton
In other afternoon news....

Apparently supermassives wife stays up till midnight reading when he's on night shift!!
 

Beerfish

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
19,513
5,665
I used to listen to both the Esks and the oilers on the radio and often turn down the sound on the tv to do so. I have not listened to an Esky or oiler game on the radio in about 3 years. The play by play guys are not good and the colour guys are excuse making shills.
 

Husker Du

Registered User
Sponsor
Mar 18, 2012
4,789
4,177
Edmonton
The 'Oilers radio network' schick I can understand. Don't like it, but he's obligated to say that.
What bugs me is the 'ladies and gentlemen, the pleasure was all mine' sign off.
It presumes that we are thanking him for his barely adequate work.
He should think of something different to say when signing off cause listening to him has never been a 'pleasure'.


He says this because it’s true. Nobody gets any pleasure from his broadcasts except him.
 

RipsADrive

Registered User
Sep 16, 2008
9,417
7,328
Edmonton
I was listening to the Germany game at work and I remember for over a minute Bob and Jack were debating who would be the #7 defenceman in the regular season while I could hear the play continuing in the background.

I mean, I know nothing huge is probably happening right now but you're supposed to be our eyes. Wtf is going on?
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
20,224
17,291
Tokyo, Japan
He isn't the worst guy out there (stand up Jack Edwards and the Colorado guy). He's sort of all right; he just about gets by.

But I agree that he comes off like a carnival announcer sometimes, which feels tacky.

(Off topic, but the worst hockey broadcaster in history was the dude who called Oilers' games on -- I think -- Edmonton CTV or something in 1992-93. He lasted barely one season and was done, either because the network lost the broadcasting rights after ITV did it for years, or because the was the worst broadcaster in history. But I can't remember his name. Anyone?)
 

Asher

Registered User
Jun 23, 2007
14,987
11
Micheals is terrible, but I doubt that's a controversial opinion. The real blame, imo, belongs on Stauffer though. I still remember when they were looking for a new pbp guy, and Bob talked a little about the process on his radio show. He let it drop that he had a major say in the hiring, and that the having chemistry with him (ie. Bob) was a key requirement for any applicant. Watching them together, it's pretty obvious to me that they cared a lot more about finding someone who could tolerate Bob's personality (and that ain't easy task) than someone who could do the job.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
34,806
15,422
Micheals is terrible, but I doubt that's a controversial opinion. The real blame, imo, belongs on Stauffer though. I still remember when they were looking for a new pbp guy, and Bob talked a little about the process on his radio show. He let it drop that he had a major say in the hiring, and that the having chemistry with him (ie. Bob) was a key requirement for any applicant. Watching them together, it's pretty obvious to me that they cared a lot more about finding someone who could tolerate Bob's personality (and that ain't easy task) than someone who could do the job.

Interesting...I didnt know that. That explains some things.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad