I personally find him to have some severe faults.
(1) Give us the football score periodically, instead of waiting for a dead ball break. eg. So with the Hawks trailing 17-7, Carter brings the offense up to the Jayhawk 38, with 12:53 left before the Half.
Hanni too often neglects to do this, so I drive half way to Kansas City from Lawrence before I hear him announce the score.
(2) Tone of voice. Hanni sounds too much like he is just reading from a prepared script instead of using traditional sports broadcaster voice. Listen to KSU broadcaster Wyatt Thompson to get an idea of what I like to hear in an announcer. Thompson describes the action with a tone that resembles someone seeing something and is trying to convey to someone else what is going on. Hey Frank, I think I see our buddy Joe over there hitting on your girl. You know how you would say that to Frank. And it wouldn't be like you were just reading that line off of a notepad. And that is the way Thompson excels.
(3) Too much use of personal glitz that has no bearing on what just happened. We don't need to know that a player is a Senior and from the Ukraine after that player nails a shot to give KU the lead after trailing for much of the game. Just keep to the facts -- Svi hits from 3 ! …. and KU finally goes up by 1 with 2:38 left to play ! -- and let the color man do the color.
Hanni would probably make for a great "in-studio" guy, you know, the guy who is back at the network control, like JB on the NFL, and gives scores of the other games and heads the discussion with the other analysists.
But as a play-by-play guy I don't find him very pleasing to listen to. I can only give him a grade of "C'' at best. He's a great guy. But I wish he would listen to other announcers and pattern himself after the things they do and how they call the action.
How do you guys feel?
(1) Give us the football score periodically, instead of waiting for a dead ball break. eg. So with the Hawks trailing 17-7, Carter brings the offense up to the Jayhawk 38, with 12:53 left before the Half.
Hanni too often neglects to do this, so I drive half way to Kansas City from Lawrence before I hear him announce the score.
(2) Tone of voice. Hanni sounds too much like he is just reading from a prepared script instead of using traditional sports broadcaster voice. Listen to KSU broadcaster Wyatt Thompson to get an idea of what I like to hear in an announcer. Thompson describes the action with a tone that resembles someone seeing something and is trying to convey to someone else what is going on. Hey Frank, I think I see our buddy Joe over there hitting on your girl. You know how you would say that to Frank. And it wouldn't be like you were just reading that line off of a notepad. And that is the way Thompson excels.
(3) Too much use of personal glitz that has no bearing on what just happened. We don't need to know that a player is a Senior and from the Ukraine after that player nails a shot to give KU the lead after trailing for much of the game. Just keep to the facts -- Svi hits from 3 ! …. and KU finally goes up by 1 with 2:38 left to play ! -- and let the color man do the color.
Hanni would probably make for a great "in-studio" guy, you know, the guy who is back at the network control, like JB on the NFL, and gives scores of the other games and heads the discussion with the other analysists.
But as a play-by-play guy I don't find him very pleasing to listen to. I can only give him a grade of "C'' at best. He's a great guy. But I wish he would listen to other announcers and pattern himself after the things they do and how they call the action.
How do you guys feel?
