ABC's broadcast of Super Bowl XXXIV last night earned a
43.0/61 preliminary overnight Nielsen rating, up 5% over
last year's 40.8/60 overnight rating (ABC). ABC earned
mixed reviews for its presentation of the game. In Seattle,
John Levesque writes ABC "had the dream game yesterday, and,
to its credit, didn't drop the ball." Levesque gives ABC a
"solid B for its effort." Levesque: "Fox, please take note
--- the network's telecast suffered from some instant-replay
glitches early on, but it never overshadowed the game
coverage" (SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER, 1/31). USA TODAY's
Rudy Martzke: "ABC duplicated its standing as a leader in
pro football presentation" (USA TODAY, 1/31). CBS
SportsLine's Bob Keisser writes ABC's coverage "was
technically sound, didn't miss a single important replay,
wasn't buffeted too much by intrusive commercial breaks and
benefited from a typically flawless performance by Al
Michaels" (CBS SportsLine, 1/31). But in NJ, Randy Lange
writes that ABC's broadcast "was a lot like the game itself:
Much promise, some highlights, and for much of the game, not
enough big plays. ... Aside from some excellent field-level
replays, the rest of ABC's game was off from its normal
Monday night level" (Bergen RECORD, 1/31). In Atlanta,
Prentis Rogers writes ABC's coverage "had the feel of that
old beer slogan: taste great, less filling" (ATLANTA
CONSTITUTION, 1/31). In Baltimore, Milton Kent writes ABC
"turned in a professional effort. ... But you just felt that
the broadcast should have been better" (Baltimore SUN,
1/31). In Dallas, Barry Horn calls ABC's effort
"unspectacular, but not inefficient." Horn: "ABC stuck to
basics. There were no bells and whistles. ... Just a meat-
and-potatoes production" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 1/31). In
N.Y., Richard Sandomir writes last night's broadcast
"usually matched the level of ABC's best work on ['MNF'].
But it overused sideline and booth shots of assistant
coaches, which seldom escalated tension" (N.Y. TIMES, 1/31).
In DC, Leonard Shapiro: "ABC's 32 cameras offered gorgeous
views of plays from all angles, though the constant panning
to players' wives, brothers, moms, 14th cousins and yes,
Georgia Frontiere pacing the sideline, got very old, very
quickly" (WASHINGTON POST, 1/31). In N.Y., Phil Mushnick
likens ABC's coverage to a "strobe light show," writing that
ABC jumped "from closeup to closeup, in the stands, on the
sidelines, on the field, to Mrs. Kurt Warner and wherever
else a camera could go." Mushnick: "Heck, you'd have
thought the game was being played on the sidelines" (N.Y.
POST, 1/31). In Indianapolis, Marc Allan writes ABC's
production "was shaky" and criticizes the net for not enough
replays and for "mediocre color commentary most of the
night" (INDIANAPOLIS STAR, 1/31). In Chicago, Ed Sherman
calls the telecast "flat, in no small part because the game
was boring for three quarters. ... Then the game got great,
and the telecast was saved" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 1/31).
STAND BY YOUR TWO-MAN BOOTH? In Atlanta, Prentis Rogers
credits Michaels and analyst Boomer Esiason, and adds that a
"three-man booth could not have done a better job of point-
counterpoint" (ATLANTA CONSTITUTION, 1/31). In Seattle,
John Levesque writes that Michaels "helps us forget that
Esiason ... is a work in progress, a guy who sometimes makes
George W. Bush look articulate" (SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER,
1/31). In DC, Leonard Shapiro: "Michaels, as usual, was
superb in his play-by-play. ... Esiason was also on his
game" (WASHINGTON POST, 1/31). In N.Y. Bob Raissman "Esiason
... delivered big-time" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 1/31). In L.A.,
Larry Stewart: "This may have been Esiason's best telecast
in his two years at ABC" (L.A. TIMES, 1/31). In
Philadelphia, Bill Fleischman: "Esiason and Michaels were
everything broadcasters should be at a major event."
Esiason "was insightful" (PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, 1/31).
Also in L.A., Tom Hoffarth writes under the header,
"Michaels Saves Telecast" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 1/31). In
Dallas, Barry Horn calls Esiason "sharp" and "insightful,"
while Michaels "is simply the best NFL play-by-play voice
working today" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 1/31). In Denver,
Kevin Coleman: "Once again, Michaels' unparalled ability of
combining wit, sarcasm and a touch of common sense made
ABC's production ... a solid effort" (DENVER POST, 1/31).
USA TODAY's Rudy Martzke writes Michaels was "incomparable"
and "on top of the action," while Esiason was "demonstrating
his improvement from early in the season" (USA TODAY, 1/31).
But in Miami, Barry Jackson writes under the header,
"Esiason Bombs In Super Bowl Broadcast." Jackson:
"Esiason's dull, colorless commentary ... reinforced the
need for a third announcer in the ABC booth and again called
into question the network's decision to dump Dan Dierdorf
after last season." Jackson: "Too often, Esiason merely
stated the obvious" (MIAMI HERALD, 1/31). In Minneapolis,
Judd Zulgad writes on Esiason: "For every valid point he
made, there were several instances when [he] appeared to be
talking just for the sake of it" (STAR TRIBUNE, 1/31).
