Announcers: Love 'em. Hate 'em. Or not...

[lotusland]

I'm not sure how that relates to my post but, if you would you care to collect some data in an attempt to support your position, see above and post or PM me.

What data? My point is that your proposed exercise is pointless. If the officials make a questionable call that favors Duke and LE points that out is it bias or commentary? Likewise if he points out a bad call that goes other way does that mean he's not biased? No it just means the officials made a questionable call in the opponent's favor.
Why would I count that?

[Indoor66]

Seems to me that if both sides think he is favoring the other side, he is probably doing a good job or reporting what happened.

[Duvall]

Seems to me that if both sides think he is favoring the other side, he is probably doing a good job or reporting what happened.

Well, either that or he's consistently terrible.

[killerleft]

Yeah, I noticed that none of the legion Elmore supporters stepped up to the plate on that one. Sure it's a somewhat annoying task, but most of us here have DVRs and are going to be watching the game anyway. A number of people in this thread have spent more time defending Elmore's neutrality than it would take to pull out a pad of paper and write time signatures down when Elmore criticizes calls that went against Duke.

My guess is that it would hardly take any time at all-- 91_92_01_10 is the one who's going to have the real work to do here.

This particular member of "Len's Legion" realizes that no matter what game or series of games are measured, we will probably confirm our own biases. Plus, it is in my interest to have a Lovable Len. I have enough trouble watching a close Duke game without trying to figure out which announcer doesn't like my team. I'll leave that to the multitaskers.

Oh, and let's remember that Elmore, Gminski, etc. are doing their thing in real time. Not an easy job. I would be more amazed if these guys got it right all the time.

[91_92_01_10_15]

What data? My point is that your proposed exercise is pointless. If the officials make a questionable call that favors Duke and LE points that out is it bias or commentary? Likewise if he points out a bad call that goes other way does that mean he's not biased? No it just means the officials made a questionable call in the opponent's favor.
Why would I count that?

That is not what I said at all. My theory is that he does not see questionable calls that favor Duke's opponents as often, or he sees them and chooses not to comment. As evidence, I suggested I count how many times he questions a call favoring Duke vs. one that favors its opponent.

In other words, if he commented on an official's error 10 times in a single game, and 9 of those 10 calls benefited Duke, it would be some evidence of bias.

I don't see how you could say it is pointless. It's certainly not an valid empirical study, but it represents an effort to collect some evidence, at least. The only way it would be pointless would be if you actually believed that the officials were favoring Duke, an idea that I think has been debunked repeatedly, and Elmore was just reporting that.

I think I'll do it, whether I get any help or not, and I will post the results in this thread.

[lotusland]

That is not what I said at all. My theory is that he does not see questionable calls that favor Duke's opponents as often, or he sees them and chooses not to comment. As evidence, I suggested I count how many times he questions a call favoring Duke vs. one that favors its opponent.

In other words, if he commented on an official's error 10 times in a single game, and 9 of those 10 calls benefited Duke, it would be some evidence of bias.

I don't see how you could say it is pointless. It's certainly not an valid empirical study, but it represents an effort to collect some evidence, at least. The only way it would be pointless would be if you actually believed that the officials were favoring Duke, an idea that I think has been debunked repeatedly, and Elmore was just reporting that.

I think I'll do it, whether I get any help or not, and I will post the results in this thread.

So when, in your opinion,there is a questionable call either favoring Duke or their opponent, you will record whether LE's response is even handed (in your opinion).

In that case I predict that your interpretation of all your opinions will support your opinion.

[91_92_01_10_15]

So when, in your opinion,there is a questionable call either favoring Duke or their opponent, you will record whether LE's response is even handed (in your opinion).

In that case I predict that your interpretation of all your opinions will support your opinion.

No, again I don't think you're getting me. I will not be making a judgment about the quality of call. My only judgment will be whether Elmore is questioning a call. Although there is still room for my bias to creep in, there's not nearly as much as if I were trying to identify whether a call was "questionable" or not.

I also proposed, or course, that someone from the other side of the aisle also count to try to offset my bias.

[lotusland]

No, again I don't think you're getting me. I will not be making a judgment about the quality of call. My only judgment will be whether Elmore is questioning a call. Although there is still room for my bias to creep in, there's not nearly as much as if I were trying to identify whether a call was "questionable" or not.

I also proposed, or course, that someone from the other side of the aisle also count to try to offset my bias.

I think you are right, I'm really not getting you. But I am really looking forward to learning the results of your study. Best of luck!

[ncexnyc]

This particular member of "Len's Legion" realizes that no matter what game or series of games are measured, we will probably confirm our own biases. Plus, it is in my interest to have a Lovable Len. I have enough trouble watching a close Duke game without trying to figure out which announcer doesn't like my team. I'll leave that to the multitaskers.

Oh, and let's remember that Elmore, Gminski, etc. are doing their thing in real time. Not an easy job. I would be more amazed if these guys got it right all the time.

WOW, you've just given me a great marketing idea. "Len's Legion" t-shirts. We can have a picture of the MD mascot with an afto and wearing glasses and on the back we can rip-off the X-Files and have it read, "I want to believe."

[oldnavy]

The production of games and the annoucers generally aggrivate me to no end. I have to watch the game, but I do not have to listen to the sound so I usually hit mute. I find that I can watch the game without having to listen to noise from the announcer no matter who they are. Most of the time they are not telling me anything useful or anything that will help me enjoy the game. When was the last time one of the announcers actually told you how many team fouls a team had? I know it happens every once in a while, but you hear a lot more about other junk than what is actually happening on the court. I will often go to a game cast on the computer to keep up with the stats that actually matter in the game, like personal fouls, team fouls, etc...

Now, if I could figure a way to keep the camera on the action and off players running down the court who just scored, or off the coaches on the bench or heaven forbid a mother of a player in the crowd or some explayer, I might be able to get back to the basics of enjoying watching a game on TV. I cannot tell you how many times we have missed plays because someone in the production truck thought it would be interesting to show a face in the crowd or coach rather than the ball in play on the court...

OK, off my soap box...

[Reilly]

... When was the last time one of the announcers actually told you how many team fouls a team had? I know it happens every once in a while ...

This is *the* biggest pet peeve of a friend of mine: team fouls rarely mentioned. A huge component of the game influencing strategy, and it's rarely talked about.

[moonpie23]

i keep mentioning this, so i'll repeat it... Mute your TV and turn on Bob Harris on the radio feed. Not only will you have a great announcer (it's always great when they're on YOUR side and see things YOUR way, ) you'll be about 1.5 seconds in front of the tv.

as you listen to the play by play, you KNOW where the ball is going and what's going to happen and you have just enough time to watch the play being set up. It's pretty kewl..

I used to do it just because i couldn't stand the TV announcers, but now i'm hooked on the advance info...

just fyi....not a city ordinance or anything,..

[91_92_01_10_15]

i keep mentioning this, so i'll repeat it... Mute your TV and turn on Bob Harris on the radio feed. Not only will you have a great announcer (it's always great when they're on YOUR side and see things YOUR way, ) you'll be about 1.5 seconds in front of the tv.

as you listen to the play by play, you KNOW where the ball is going and what's going to happen and you have just enough time to watch the play being set up. It's pretty kewl..

I used to do it just because i couldn't stand the TV announcers, but now i'm hooked on the advance info...

just fyi....not a city ordinance or anything,..

Nice, I always looked at the 1.5 second gap as a disadvantage. I never thought that it might be a positive. I'll try that.

[Kimist]

...

Now, if I could figure a way to keep the camera on the action and off players running down the court who just scored, or off the coaches on the bench or heaven forbid a mother of a player in the crowd or some explayer, I might be able to get back to the basics of enjoying watching a game on TV. I cannot tell you how many times we have missed plays because someone in the production truck thought it would be interesting to show a face in the crowd or coach rather than the ball in play on the court...

OK, off my soap box...

Excellent points!!

But you failed to mention the always aggravating sideline butt-views of the refs or the wide views (while the game is in progress) from the farthest reaches of the arena - envision watching something on the court from the back row of the most distant section of the Dumb Dome.

Reminds me a lot of what a local (I live in RALeigh area) TV station does for ACC football games they "cover." They show the fans, they show the ground-level views of some distant plays, they may even show...from ground level...two players colliding in the end zone, and they REALLY enjoy showing only the football in the air going from unknown location A to unknown location B. I've long ago learned that if I wish to see any meaningful highlights of local college games that I must instead try some of the other area channels instead.

k

[BlueDevilBaby]

i keep mentioning this, so i'll repeat it... Mute your TV and turn on Bob Harris on the radio feed. Not only will you have a great announcer (it's always great when they're on YOUR side and see things YOUR way, ) you'll be about 1.5 seconds in front of the tv.

Not being in the area, I have to listen on XM and am couple seconds behind. Tried to listen to radio a few times but find the delay too annoying so end up with the knuckleheads on TV. I eventually tune them out by paying 1/2 attention to the game and rewinding when some awesome play happens. I find I can watch the games in a much calmer state on tape delay versus live. See, no broken bones in over a year!

[alteran]

This is funny, really funny. Maybe we can get someone from Scientific American Magazine to moderate this excercise in objectivity.

I do hope that came off somewhat tongue in cheek.

I do find the experiment intriguing, if (admittedly) silly. Maybe a better way to approach this would be as a bet, because no one would really call this scientific. And I always like a good and/or stupid bet.

I would definitely bet that if you counted calls disputed by Len in Duke games, Len would have a bias in favor of questioning the calls in Duke's favor. I would also be willing to accept consensus in this thread of what constitutes a disputed call.

Stakes could be cost-free, like a sig bet, or actual stakes. I always pay up when I lose, and I lose as often as I win.

Any takers in Len's Legion?

[Reilly]

I do hope that came off somewhat tongue in cheek.

I do find the experiment intriguing, if (admittedly) silly....

Sports Illustrated recently ran an excerpt from a book that posited that home field advantage was partially or mainly attributable to refs being influenced by the home crowd. To the extent a "Duke gets all the calls" mentality takes hold, and Elmore like Packer before him contributes to that "truth", and other crowds get even more agitated and it influences crowds and hence refs and outcomes/point differentials, it doesn't seem so silly. Len Elmore's flapping lips could be the butterfly wings that cause Duke some losses and championships and millions of dollars.

[OldPhiKap]

Hit mute, and put on The Allman Bros. Live at Fillmore East instead. As loud as you can.

It'll all be fine.

[killerleft]

Sports Illustrated recently ran an excerpt from a book that posited that home field advantage was partially or mainly attributable to refs being influenced by the home crowd. To the extent a "Duke gets all the calls" mentality takes hold, and Elmore like Packer before him contributes to that "truth", and other crowds get even more agitated and it influences crowds and hence refs and outcomes/point differentials, it doesn't seem so silly. Len Elmore's flapping lips could be the butterfly wings that cause Duke some losses and championships and millions of dollars.

Yow! Does this mean Dickie V has already won us a couple championships and made us lots of money?

[Reilly]

Yow! Does this mean Dickie V has already won us a couple championships and made us lots of money?

I don't think so. We already maximized our ref-influencing value (at home) with our great crowd. Dickie V's yammering does not make our home crowd more effective so as to influence the refs more, as our home crowd is already maxed out w/out his help. Billy Packer's and Len Elmore's season after season conspiracy theories, however, make opposing crowds (which are not normally at Cameron-esque maximum levels) ratchet it up, thus influening the refs more in those places. And their conspiracy theories cloud the mind of the neutral site fans for the NCAAs, turning them against Duke, which in turn turns the refs against us, and gives the 'home court' advantage to the other team.

It was an interesting SI read. I'm not sure I buy it entirely (that *the refs* is what leads to home court advantage), but it was an interesting read (it was a book excerpt).