Author Topic: Best TPiR Announcer (Read 11191 times)

passwordplus · « **Reply #45 on:** March 09, 2004, 08:51:07 PM »

Yeah, Randy is and always will be my #1 choice, but Rich Fields is a close 2nd without a doubt.

passwordplus · « **Reply #46 on:** March 09, 2004, 08:53:02 PM »

[quote name=\'JRaygor\' date=\'Feb 25 2004, 09:44 AM\'] Out of curiosity, has anyone heard from I Haven't Heard Him Yet ?

What an strange name for that guy !
-Joe R. [/quote]
Yeah, he is announcing the late night show "To Be Announced" on your local CBS stations!

Catch it right after the 3am informercial!(grin)

passwordplus · « **Reply #47 on:** March 10, 2004, 04:46:27 AM »

[quote name=\'WhirlieBird74\' date=\'Mar 4 2004, 06:16 PM\'] After listening to Rich Fields on the 3/4/2004 edition of TPIR, he could give Randy West a run for his money. Just a warning... [/quote]
Art Sanders also. But I think Randy deserves the gig considering his connections to the show(Johnny O. and Rod)

I posted this reply earlier but it didn't come thru somehow. Is Invision burping lately?

cmjb13 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 10, 2004, 11:48:20 AM »

[quote name=\'passwordplus\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 04:46 AM\']But I think Randy deserves the gig considering his connections to the show(Johnny O. and Rod)[/quote]
You can't be serious about that reason.

clemon79 · « **Reply #49 on:** March 10, 2004, 12:40:46 PM »

[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 09:48 AM\'] [quote name=\'passwordplus\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 04:46 AM\']But I think Randy deserves the gig considering his connections to the show(Johnny O. and Rod)[/quote]
You can't be serious about that reason. [/quote]
There is at least _some_ logic to it. It makes sense for the predecessor to have been "trained" by the two previous announcers. Who would know the nuances better?

Of course, Randy is the man for the gig for 47 other good reasons, too, but this isn't nearly as bad of one as you make it out to be.

cmjb13 · « **Reply #50 on:** March 10, 2004, 01:06:45 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 12:40 PM\'] [quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 09:48 AM\'] [quote name=\'passwordplus\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 04:46 AM\']But I think Randy deserves the gig considering his connections to the show(Johnny O. and Rod)[/quote]
You can't be serious about that reason. [/quote]
There is at least _some_ logic to it. It makes sense for the predecessor to have been "trained" by the two previous announcers. Who would know the nuances better?

Of course, Randy is the man for the gig for 47 other good reasons, too, but this isn't nearly as bad of one as you make it out to be. [/quote]
If you put it that way, you are right.

Getting the job based on connections only rather than knowing how to do the job is a different story.

clemon79 · « **Reply #51 on:** March 10, 2004, 01:31:49 PM »

[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 11:06 AM\'] Getting the job based on connections only rather than knowing how to do the job is a different story. [/quote]
You may be right, but that's how 95% of the corporate world works, so you might as well get used to the idea.

cmjb13 · « **Reply #52 on:** March 10, 2004, 02:12:58 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 01:31 PM\'] [quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 11:06 AM\'] Getting the job based on connections only rather than knowing how to do the job is a different story. [/quote]
You may be right, but that's how 95% of the corporate world works, so you might as well get used to the idea. [/quote]
If connections were the case, Burton would already have the job.

MyCapableAssistant · « **Reply #53 on:** March 10, 2004, 02:26:14 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 10:40 AM\'][quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 09:48 AM\'] [quote name=\'passwordplus\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 04:46 AM\']But I think Randy deserves the gig considering his connections to the show(Johnny O. and Rod)[/quote]
You can't be serious about that reason. [/quote]
There is at least _some_ logic to it. It makes sense for the predecessor to have been "trained" by the two previous announcers. Who would know the nuances better?

Of course, Randy is the man for the gig for 47 other good reasons, too, but this isn't nearly as bad of one as you make it out to be.[/quote]
Absolutely Chris. I think it *ALSO* makes sense for the predecesor
to have **GAME SHOW** experience, and besides TALENT alone,
Randy has had the MOST *game show* experience of them all !

In fact, other than Burton, NONE of the other's have had ANY *game show* experience, have they??

Now what REALLY makes sense??

I think Rich is very good, but I don't think he's as good as Randy.

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #54 on:** March 10, 2004, 10:44:39 PM »

[quote name=\'MyCapableAssistant\' date=\'Mar 10 2004, 02:26 PM\'] In fact, other than Burton, NONE of the other's have had ANY *game show* experience, have they?? [/quote]
Well, Paul Boland did...but he doesn't really count.

cmjb13 · « **Reply #55 on:** March 13, 2004, 07:44:30 AM »

Take this with a grain of salt.

From tvgameshows.net

CBS has apparently reset its counter to zero on its Price web page for viewers to vote for their choice as the new announcer on the series

clemon79 · « **Reply #56 on:** March 13, 2004, 02:20:30 PM »

[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Mar 13 2004, 05:44 AM\'] CBS has apparently reset its counter to zero on its Price web page for viewers to vote for their choice as the new announcer on the series [/quote]
As usual, he cites no source. Hack.

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #57 on:** March 13, 2004, 10:38:39 PM »

Well, if whoever's running the polls is trying to maintain some small amount of usefulness in the polling, it would make some sense to record the current results and THEN reset everything to zero whenever a new name is added. Not a tremendous amount of sense, but some.

cmjb13 · « **Reply #58 on:** March 14, 2004, 09:37:40 AM »

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Mar 13 2004, 10:38 PM\'] Well, if whoever's running the polls is trying to maintain some small amount of usefulness in the polling, it would make some sense to record the current results and THEN reset everything to zero whenever a new name is added. Not a tremendous amount of sense, but some. [/quote]
They really should have waited until all the announcers episodes aired and then put up the poll.

I'm guessing they didn't do that because people wouldn't remember that person weeks later?

MyCapableAssistant · « **Reply #59 on:** March 14, 2004, 12:03:49 PM »

Quote

They really should have waited until all the announcers episodes aired and then put up the poll.

Well, yeah. That makes complete sense. And the ONLY thing that I
can think of which makes common sense is for Price to include
a sample of each prospective announcer beside his name.

Quote

I'm guessing they didn't do that because people wouldn't remember that person weeks later?

But isn't restarting the polls everytime someone NEW hits the air,
doing just that... having us make a choice from MEMORY?

I wonder if perhaps Price has ALREADY made their choice?

Do you think they would arrive at such a decision by
viewer MEMORY... or CHANCE?