Can you give an example of a female analyst so that I more understand your point? Every example I can think of falls into the category of show host, or reporter, which you are OK with.
That is exactly who I mean. The show hosts. Where I work they have a big screen on ESPN in the break room. I stand there and watch as these women at 6am attempt to give their "analysis" on all things sports. They fail.
But this goes further than just the sports shows. Think of the sidelines "reporter" at the end of games asking the player of the game questions. it is almost cliche the first question asked is, "How did it feel to throw the winning touchdown."
That is a question that has no purpose. "Well, Sylvia, it felt like crap. I was really wanting to lose this game because I had money riding on it in Vegas." What the heck is the guy going to say.
I'd much prefer something along the lines of, "Rodgers, how did the play develop for you to throw that pass and get in field goal distance to beat the Cowboys? Was that by design, or did it organically unfold?"
And watching sports evolve, men are starting to ask these "feeling" questions instead of asking something specific about the game, and the chess match that caused your team to win.
Frankly, I could wax on about this for a while because I have put a great deal of thought in how sports events/ TV production has changed since the early sixties. I find the element of the uninitiated hosting these shows, or interviewing the players to be the diluting of the games periphery. I don't walk around roiling inside about this. But have seen the changes over the decades and believe the producers either believe the people watching are stupid, or they are pitching to the lowest common denominator. Somewhat the way the military trains the average GI.
Just my opinion.
