Sara Orlesky

See my previous comment FYB, as we are more on the same page on this one than apparently you were aware.

Who said anything about Playboy material for her - give me a break. She is though like the "girl next door" type. :slight_smile:

She looks like a corporate PR girl. Still wouldn't mind if they gave her Black's job :lol:

Out of curiosity Hf, what type do you appear like? :wink:

Nothin like Sara :wink:

…muttering to yourself and your dog under your own breath perhaps…try it here and I’ll be happy to provide you with a cflisthebest duration vacation from this forum…

…what part of ‘keep it to their performance or abilities’ did the majority of the rest of you not understand?..

Sarah knows and does her job very well. I think Trestman has a crush on her.

RedAndWhite I get it, but I think you may have overlooked that my comments on her looks were overall positive and those of some of the others were not in that light. That's where my remark came from after I read their slams.

All the same, I get your point to leave off the comments about the looks, positive or negative, on here if that's the way it is.

people behind assumed identitys talking about sideline reporters looks? WOW REALLY?

you know i'm with EARL on this one,to me,she looks plenty good. she seems genuinely nice actually and the players seem to not mind her and the coaches also. she does her job well. i dont know what people expect.This girl obviously has a love of football,seems like it to me... if you want some bimbo out there prancing around in some sort of bikini top of something..flip it to WWE. of check out the cheerleaders. she's a sideline reporter..what does her looks have to do with anything? NOTHING.

SHE does her job and IMO does it well,most the time. PEOPLE on here nitpick too much about stupid things like how she looks.

I'm not a fan of Orlesky's work, but I generally dislike sideline reporters anyway (Claude Feig is the absolute worst), so it's not really specific to Sara.

As for her looks, well, not my cup of tea. That's all I'll say. :wink:

i find the sideline reporter is more for the casual watcher as aposed to the hardK0re fans like those of us on the forum. Trying to get the softer story, or the more “personal” touch of the players and whats going on. at least when they are reporting during the game. At half is different as they just ask the coaches “what did you do right/wrong, what are you going to change?”

The CFL fans, for the most part are rarely casual, in my experience. you either seem to be right into it, or dont care. the middle of the road fan that a sideline reporter like sara apeals to… well those fans are few and far between in the CFL. this all IMHO

Bang on, friend. It’s been a recurring complaint of mine that TSN’s media coverage of the CFL seems to be geared towards an MOR fan who really doesn’t exist in large enough numbers to justify the bland, content-free questions and the surface analysis. I’m actually fed up even with Cuthbert, Suitor, and Forde. In the BC-SSK game last night, Forde at one point said something to the effect of, “You can feel the momentum shifting on the field for [whichever team, I don’t remember].” Seriously, Duane Forde, could you be any more inane? As if any idiot fan at home can’t tell that one team is grabbing momentum because it just scored a touchdown? How about you talk about the game itself, the one-on-one matchups, the ins and outs of formations and plays?

I’m generally not a big fan of the NFL, but this is one area where I feel they absolutely destroy the CFL. Michaels and Collinsworth are light years ahead of any broadcast tandem we have. Collinsworth provides you with crisp, insightful, specific analysis of the game – Michaels calls the game well and, unlike the insipid, perpetually equivocating Cuthbert and the moronic Black, isn’t shy about expressing an opinion.

Coming off my rant, LOL, sideline reporting is just symptomatic of a bigger problem. So my dislike of Orlesky isn’t really personal.

Man those takes by Canadian and Discipline are awesome! :slight_smile:

There is ample precedent for any sports league, or in many an entertainment example, by which those in production made the stupid decision to dilute the thrust of the content such that ultimately in trying capture all the eyeballs they alienated SOME of the core audience.

No better example exists down here than the sorry likes of ESPN who now no longer are The Worldwide Leader in sports coverage as they were until about 2003, about the time the NFL Network was founded and ESPN was off trying to be also an entertainment network, though they still profess themselves in delusion to be just that.

At a certain point too much greed and/or too many ninnies are weighing in with the wrong heads and ears making such stupid production calls for "the softer, personal side" hooey and so forth.

Last night was case in point. In the pregame, my time was spectacularly wasted by a lengthy Bryan Williams color piece on Brendan Labatte racing stockcars. Seriously, TSN, who on God’s green earth gives a damn that a frickin offensive lineman races stock cars in his spare time? Next up: Cory Boyd’s stamp collection, followed by a featurette on Ken-Yon Rambo’s fondness for making his own pasta.

Just a guess, but perhaps this is their attempt to bring in more MOR fans. Although the CFL might not have a lot right now, it’s not like we couldn’t use them, and it certainly wouldn’t hurt TSN’s bottom line, which in turn would beneficial to the CFL’s, I would think. This is not to say that I think the strategy is working or that they’re implementing all that well.

I'm generally not a big fan of the NFL, but this is one area where I feel they absolutely destroy the CFL. Michaels and Collinsworth are light years ahead of any broadcast tandem we have. Collinsworth provides you with crisp, insightful, specific analysis of the game -- Michaels calls the game well and, unlike the insipid, perpetually equivocating Cuthbert and the moronic Black, isn't shy about expressing an opinion.
That's not just football, though. US channels are almost always going to be better than Canadian for almost any area of broadcasting, except perhaps for hockey and maybe Peter Mansbridge. More money means better talent, at least on average.

A better product creates its own income stream.

Quit going down the road to promote something in its current state. Fix the problem. If this were a car that had a breakdown problem, you don't get the marketing folks to hire some gal to model next to it to get sales up. Fix the problem.

I quite agree that it seems to be their strategy, but I find it a flawed strategy. Those fans don’t exist in large numbers, and what’s worse, even if you do get them in, you’re keeping them at a ‘basic fan knowledge’ level.

That's not just football, though. US channels are almost always going to be better than Canadian for almost any area of broadcasting, except perhaps for hockey and maybe Peter Mansbridge. More money means better talent, at least on average.
On average, that's true, but there's no reason why we can't improve in the broadcasting department. It's more a question of ideology than talent IMO. Guys like Suitor, Forde, and Dunigan know the game -- it's clearly a mandate from TSN that they focus on simple, easily digested storylines and basic commentary.

I like her. I even offered to be her driver. I still haven't got an answer. :expressionless:

Me thinks you guys are trying to turn her into the Rod Black for 2011...

i totally disagree with states broadcasts being better.

Ever watch the Buffalo news that you get over the airwaves? It is awful quality and the reporters are as boring as a bag of bricks.

Compare local to local, though. How does Buffalo compare to, say Hamilton’s channel 11, or some local version of the CBC?

When I said what I said above, I was thinking national vs. national.