Okay, here in Seattle the Mariners have two announcers for radio and a seperate team for TV. But the Sonics do a "simulcast" when they broadcast on TV. Basically the radio team does double duty on radio and TV at the same time.

My question is, which do you prefer?

My preference is to have a specific team do the TV broadcast. Sometimes it's a little distracting having the play-by-play guy constantly chattering. And they can't do instant replay for TV viewers as seamlessly when doing a simulcast because they're also on the radio.

Which do you prefer?

For Cincinnati Reds' broadcasts, we have two separate broadcast teams.

Hall of Famer Marty Brennaman does radio (he'd done it since 1974 with Joe Nuxhall, ex-Red and holder of the designation of youngest guy to play MLB at 15 in 1945). Marty still does a great call of a game and is no way above taking a shot at the Reds if he feels they need it.

The Reds have George Grande and ex-Red Chris Welch as TV guys. Chris and George have done the TV gig for, geez, nearly a decade now. They're enjoyable enough, competent.

I'm fine with split crews.

Here's a quiz...anybody know who did Reds' radio broadcasts with Joe before Marty took over? He's a fairly well known guy, kinda miraculous in a way...

See, I'm thinking more and more that I don't like simulcasts. I suppose it's great to hear our regular radio guy as often as possible, but it's distracting hearing him chatter away on the TV. I believe a TV broadcast should be tailored for a viewing audience, not a radio audience.

we used to have steve stone...*sniff*