borna,  I think that I remember some times in the past when the press was at floor level like what you purpose and what is the case at the Women's Final Four -- which I'm watching at the moment (No, BL, it's not on my iPhone!).  Perhaps some other old timers can remember this better than I do.  I'm talking a long time ago -- back when the Convo was in its first decade.  As I remember this may not have been true for every game, but for some of the "big games" -- like when we had Indiana, O$U, Purdue, Loyola (Chi), etc., in the house.   

Correct OCF, there used to be some press seating in front of the students.

The location of press row is very unpopular with announcers.  For reporters?  Doesn't make too much difference.

ANd yet....Alan....

every commentator on radio and TV I have ever spoken with prefers to be on the floor. I suppose they would much rather go on providing uninformed views.

For the record I hate floor level seats much preferring to see the game mid court and up top to understand the ofensive and defensive patterns and not caring so much about the up close and personal stuff. Buthtat is my opinion and I am not privy to what I would think were I responsible for the broadcast portion.  It would be interesting to go back to the Illinois State or WInthrop games and see if there is any peceivable difference inthe call on the floor vs a home game.
 
Maybe Russ can come on and tell us why he prefers to be on the floor.

There's got to be a way to move Russ and Rob down there and leave everyone else upstairs.

I think part of the reason announcers would like to be courtside is so they get information sooner. If there is a controversial call or something of the sort the announcers can hear the referees explanation to the coaches and then relay the information on to their audience sooner.

That's my point exactly Tom.  My guess is the reason they want to be on the floor is because they want to be a part of the action and be seen.  Front row isn't always the best seat in the house.

You're right, MonroeClassmate. 

Also, it is correct that press row during the 90s was in front of the Ozone.  I actually had press credentials for a few years and remember sitting there when we beat BGSU during the 90s when Daniels was playing for them.  11,000 legitimately in the house and Ohio rallied late to win.  I remember the student section jumping on and over the press tables and running out on the floor. 

If I were a broadcaster, I think I would prefer being courtside compared to where press row is now.  However, so much has been invested in setting up press row where it is now that I doubt the entire row would be moved unless it was part of overall renovations to the Convo.  Someone did mention moving just Russ and Rob down to the floor, and I don't think it would be too much of a problem to do that. 

On another note...why can't we invest some funds in dressing up the outer concourse with displays about Bobcat basketball history?  This has been suggested on here before but apparently has never gotten any traction.

Extending the length of the scorers table and putting radio in a similar position as Buffalo's would make sense.

I don't know what you do with television.

But putting them back in front of the students would be a mistake. One memorable MAC doubleheader's halftime interview with Jim Larranaga comes to mind.

How would you compare this experience to football and basketball where announcers seem to be able to capture the color of the game and they're much further from the field that announcers in the Convo are from the floor?

Putting the press in front of the O Zone takes too much away from the best environment in the MAC.

I assume Alan means FB & baseball, and in the case of the former, I really think a FB game can be done off-site with acceptable loss of quality of content. No one broadcasts FB from the sideline. Often, TV broadcasters watch live action when they would be better off using monitors during a game. It's amazing how often live announcers botch short-yardage situations because they are watching the field instead of a monitor that would include the keyed-in first-down line.

Essentially, given access to all of the available cameras & relevant nat audio from a site, a remote broadcast of most sports probably wouldn't suffer much. I'm shocked more miserable ESPN3-esque games aren't conducted this way for TV.

Unlike FB/baseball/hockey, hoops is conducive to being announced from as close as possible. Little danger of collision or being hit in the face by a hard ball or puck at courtside. Doesn't suffer from helmets/hats, so players are more likely to have visible expressions & personality compared to the others for TV. Hand-held cameras can be safely manned closer to the action than in any other sport. There's a lot of good natural sound available to you with rudimentary mics and even more with fairly low-$$ basket & floor mics. The only sport easier to conduct for TV purposes is probably wrestling/MMA/boxing in a studio setting (see: AWA, The Pink Room Episodes)

All of the positives about basketball above are predicated on being as close as possible. The argument is mostly, if you can be close, why not? That sense of visual distance is desirable in hockey and especially football or NASCAR, but not what most folks want in hoops.