PDA

View Full Version : Media: NCAA Announcers: Love 'em or Hate 'em, or not



Pages : [1] 2

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 12:38 AM
Separate thread for this.

The complaints about Kellogg over on the in-game thread get under my skin because he's a guy who spends A LOT of time praising Duke and Coach K. Accusing every announcer who ever says anything not complimentary about Duke of being a hater feeds into the "spoiled, whiny" stereotype of the Duke fanbase and, frankly, makes this board a very unpleasant place to be if, like me, you have a love of all college basketball that comprises your affection for duke.

Kellogg has done several Duke games this year. In most of them, Ryan Kelly has made a brief appearance. And during those brief appearances (tonight excepted) Kellogg has actually made a point of talking up Ryan's skills and mentioning how much of a contributor he's going to be at some point -- this for a guy who averages less than 7 minutes a game. Does that sound like a hater? CK has praised Duke's size, he has praised Duke's versatility as well. He has all kinds of positive thoughts about the team and in tonight's game he was even going on about Scheyer's skills with the ball in his hand.

Tonight, the complaints re: Kellogg seemed to centre on 1) a belief that he is a Big Ten homer and 2) a notion that he's feeding a "Duke gets all the calls" meme. We can pick apart every line he said to try to prove or debunk those ideas but I'll just say that I never get the feeling listening to him that he loves or hates Duke, only that he is a guy who appreciates good play when he sees it, on either side of a game, and says so -- but also that he is a guy doing a national broadcast.

One of the things passionate fans tend to do is see everything their team's way. They are used to hearing their local announcers do the same thing. So when they hear a national team calling it from a balanced perspective, to them that sounds anti-their team because they're not used to hearing that. During my years in Cleveland, I would see this every season during the Indians' playoff run as non-baseball fans who were just desperate to see Cleveland win anything continuously slammed the national announcers, finding an anti-cleveland bias in nearly every word they spoke. The real problem was that those guys, unlike local announcer Tom Hamilton, weren't paid by the Cleveland Indians, so didn't always see everything Cleveland's way. That takes some time to get used to if you're new to it.

I don't blame the win-starved fans of Cleveland for behaving that way. The Indians hadn't been winners in 40 years and neither has anyone else in that town. They needed some time to figure out that when you're on the national stage, the announcer isn't there to prop up your team. As a fanbase, we Duke followers don't have that excuse. Duke is a blue blood. The Blue Devils are contenders every single year and our team spends more time in the national spotlight than anybody's. So I would expect any of us to realize that when Kellogg says JaJuan Johnson does a great job running the floor, that's not code for "and those sorry bums at Duke could never possibly stay with him if it weren't for the refs handicapping Purdue".

Let's act like we've been there before. Because we have. This forum will be a better, more enjoyable, more respectable place if we do.

borodevil16
03-27-2010, 12:40 AM
Kelloggs terrible

Tappan Zee Devil
03-27-2010, 12:43 AM
Kelloggs terrible

Care to elaborate?

Huh?
03-27-2010, 12:44 AM
Separate thread for this.

The complaints about Kellogg over on the in-game thread get under my skin because he's a guy who spends A LOT of time praising Duke and Coach K. Accusing every announcer who ever says anything not complimentary about Duke of being a hater feeds into the "spoiled, whiny" stereotype of the Duke fanbase and, frankly, makes this board a very unpleasant place to be if, like me, you have a love of all college basketball that comprises your affection for duke.

Kellogg has done several Duke games this year. In most of them, Ryan Kelly has made a brief appearance. And during those brief appearances (tonight excepted) Kellogg has actually made a point of talking up Ryan's skills and mentioning how much of a contributor he's going to be at some point -- this for a guy who averages less than 7 minutes a game. Does that sound like a hater? CK has praised Duke's size, he has praised Duke's versatility as well. He has all kinds of positive thoughts about the team and in tonight's game he was even going on about Scheyer's skills with the ball in his hand.

Tonight, the complaints re: Kellogg seemed to centre on 1) a belief that he is a Big Ten homer and 2) a notion that he's feeding a "Duke gets all the calls" meme. We can pick apart every line he said to try to prove or debunk those ideas but I'll just say that I never get the feeling listening to him that he loves or hates Duke, only that he is a guy who appreciates good play when he sees it, on either side of a game, and says so -- but also that he is a guy doing a national broadcast.

One of the things passionate fans tend to do is see everything their team's way. They are used to hearing their local announcers do the same thing. So when they hear a national team calling it from a balanced perspective, to them that sounds anti-their team because they're not used to hearing that. During my years in Cleveland, I would see this every season during the Indians' playoff run as non-baseball fans who were just desperate to see Cleveland win anything continuously slammed the national announcers, finding an anti-cleveland bias in nearly every word they spoke. The real problem was that those guys, unlike local announcer Tom Hamilton, weren't paid by the Cleveland Indians, so didn't always see everything Cleveland's way. That takes some time to get used to if you're new to it.

I don't blame the win-starved fans of Cleveland for behaving that way. The Indians hadn't been winners in 40 years and neither has anyone else in that town. They needed some time to figure out that when you're on the national stage, the announcer isn't there to prop up your team. As a fanbase, we Duke followers don't have that excuse. Duke is a blue blood. The Blue Devils are contenders every single year and our team spends more time in the national spotlight than anybody's. So I would expect any of us to realize that when Kellogg says JaJuan Johnson does a great job running the floor, that's not code for "and those sorry bums at Duke could never possibly stay with him if it weren't for the refs handicapping Purdue".

Let's act like we've been there before. Because we have. This forum will be a better, more enjoyable, more respectable place if we do.

Agreed, I like Kellogg. He is a Big 10 homer, but he always mentions fouls when he is calling a game, no matter what team(great pick Z).
The only thing I know about the Indians is that Charlie Sheen played for them so I'll take you're word for it....let's just be glad Hubert Davis wasn't calling the game.

GoingFor#5
03-27-2010, 12:44 AM
I don't particularly like him, but I didn't notice the bias a lot of the forum posters were harping on today. I usually notice an anti-Duke bias when its Jay Bilas talking.

Vincetaylor
03-27-2010, 12:45 AM
Clark Kellogg is not terrible. That's ridiculous. I didn't catch any anti-Duke sentiment from him at all tonight. If Len Elmore was doing the game, it would be a different story.

bulldog44
03-27-2010, 12:45 AM
Funny, I was going to start a thread regarding Clark as well however for pretty much exact opposite reasons to yours. I tell you what, if you recorded the game, I would like for you to go back and do a comparison on the thing that REALLY irked me about him. Check the amount of times he said anything regarding Purdue getting away with a call/foul/travel/carry/etc.... and the amount of times he did so with Duke. Granted the Zoubek pick and the goaltend by Miles should have/could have been made, but from the get go, the Smith charge should not have been a charge and many other "missed" calls from the fault of Purdue, were not made. The reason this incenses me so is , yes we did get away with a few, but if only the Duke side is pointed out, it gives ammo to the "Duke gets all the calls" crowd. I hate to see us get away with blatant things, I really do, but I hate just as much for a Hawkeye to be placed on us, and Helen Keller on the opposing team. 9f 9f 9f

roywhite
03-27-2010, 12:46 AM
My take on Kellogg is that he's okay, but really not up to the job of being the lead analyst on the #1 announcing team. Doesn't give the average fan much additional insight.

borodevil16
03-27-2010, 12:46 AM
Just seemed tonight he was a lot more one sided with bringing all the "missed" calls to the viewers attention. I cant even imagine how many fouls could have been called on Purdue especially johnson but these were never mentioned. Always a Duke player doing something wrong or dirty

CoachJ10
03-27-2010, 12:47 AM
I am not sure why you are defending Mr. Kellogg. Clark is a poor announcer, plain and simple. He is as biased as they come. Any game you listen to...you can tell who he is cheering for (generally a Big 10 team). He really brings nothing to the table in terms of educating or enlightening the viewer.

mgtr
03-27-2010, 12:48 AM
I think Kellogg is OK, and I will take 50 Kelloggs over one Elmore any day of the week!

Huh?
03-27-2010, 12:48 AM
I really just want to listen to Gus Johnson for every game, forever.

diveonthefloor
03-27-2010, 12:50 AM
I don't think Kellogg is untalented....

I just can't listen to him so I mute the sound on any game he is announcing.

It's his "always in your face" tone of voice that drives me nuts. Sorta like Dickie V except with an anxious tone rather than a jubilant tone. Just grates on my nerves so I mute it.

Highlander
03-27-2010, 12:50 AM
I don't think I heard Kellog say a single time that Purdue "got away with one there." However, every Duke play that was questionable was a miss by the referees. Case in point:

In the first half Nolan gets called for a charge that was a close call. Instead of a replay, we get to see Purdue's breakaway dunk 3 times. Miles fouls a 3 point shooter. Again, no replay. But when Zoubs moves on a screen, Thomas draws a questionable charge, or Plumlee touches the net on a shot, you can bet there will be a replay (and there was each time). On the replay, Kellog made a point to show how Duke either acted (Thomas) or got away with one (Zoubs, Plumlee). That annoyed me.

I didn't think the officiating was all that biased personally, but I did get tired of every questionable play that Duke got getting dissected by Kellog while Purdue's banging and hand checking went unnoticed.

Kfan4Life
03-27-2010, 12:51 AM
Gus is the man.

gumbomoop
03-27-2010, 12:52 AM
Due to rather frustrating circumstances, I was unable to see the first half of the Purdue game. [Apparently I was lucky.....]

But on the 2 second-half calls that I recall CK saying the refs blew it - and in those 2 cases in Duke's favor - I thought he was correct: (1) the Z screen on the great KS drive - I thought it was clearly a moving pick, and Z still is prone to this [as are the MPs, and LT a bit]. Now, maybe CK should have said, every time he repeated this missed call, "But the refs are letting 'em play, and it's really rough out there, and Purdue sure seems to be getting away with an amazing number of hand-checks and body-bumps." He should have said that, yes. But Z set a moving screen. (2) the MP1 hand-in-net that - if that's the rule - should have been called interference.

camion
03-27-2010, 12:52 AM
Was that Kellog? I tuned late and assumed it was Elmore.

DevilHorns
03-27-2010, 12:55 AM
I usually don't travel down to the ESPN "conversation" portion of the post-game boxscore, but I did tonight just to see what the fans were saying. Many people on there were talking about how Duke won because of the calls. Not only Purdue fans but basketball fans in general. Did they just watch the same game I did?

Because Kellogg, CBS, whoever almost always make it a point to show a missed call or bad call that favors Duke we always get the perception of a team that gets all the calls. There were an incredible amount of missed calls, reach in defense throughout the whole game. I remember that key cut to the basket by Jon in the 2nd half that got us going. He got fouled at least 2 times on that drive. Sure the refs werent calling the tough D in general, and I understand that theres an expected amount of missed calls. But please, why not show a slow motion of that play, singling out how he's getting hacked? But instead, we get a slow motion highlight of shot interference with a grab of the net, and then 20 seconds dwelling on it instead of talking about the continuing game. Please. I realize by rule thats a bucket. But dont dwell on it. Think about this. Can you name me one play that the announcers dwelled on that was in favor of Duke? Exactly. You cant.

moonpie23
03-27-2010, 12:56 AM
kellog is not "terrible", however, he DOES look for the crease to dig at duke....len elmore is just pathetic...

_Gary
03-27-2010, 12:56 AM
Funny, I was going to start a thread regarding Clark as well however for pretty much exact opposite reasons to yours. I tell you what, if you recorded the game, I would like for you to go back and do a comparison on the thing that REALLY irked me about him. Check the amount of times he said anything regarding Purdue getting away with a call/foul/travel/carry/etc.... and the amount of times he did so with Duke.

Bingo! Give this person a kewpie doll. That's where I'm at with Kellogg tonight. Yes, I think he basically called the game pretty well - BUT - he definitely overemphasized some of the calls where he thought Duke got the benefit and completely underemphasized the opposite situation when Purdue benefited. That's what ticked me off tonight, and Clark was guilty of it several times in both halves. Just a fact, my friend. Just a stone cold hard fact.

FerryFor50
03-27-2010, 12:58 AM
Separate thread for this.

The complaints about Kellogg over on the in-game thread get under my skin because he's a guy who spends A LOT of time praising Duke and Coach K. Accusing every announcer who ever says anything not complimentary about Duke of being a hater feeds into the "spoiled, whiny" stereotype of the Duke fanbase and, frankly, makes this board a very unpleasant place to be if, like me, you have a love of all college basketball that comprises your affection for duke.

Kellogg has done several Duke games this year. In most of them, Ryan Kelly has made a brief appearance. And during those brief appearances (tonight excepted) Kellogg has actually made a point of talking up Ryan's skills and mentioning how much of a contributor he's going to be at some point -- this for a guy who averages less than 7 minutes a game. Does that sound like a hater? CK has praised Duke's size, he has praised Duke's versatility as well. He has all kinds of positive thoughts about the team and in tonight's game he was even going on about Scheyer's skills with the ball in his hand.

Tonight, the complaints re: Kellogg seemed to centre on 1) a belief that he is a Big Ten homer and 2) a notion that he's feeding a "Duke gets all the calls" meme. We can pick apart every line he said to try to prove or debunk those ideas but I'll just say that I never get the feeling listening to him that he loves or hates Duke, only that he is a guy who appreciates good play when he sees it, on either side of a game, and says so -- but also that he is a guy doing a national broadcast.

One of the things passionate fans tend to do is see everything their team's way. They are used to hearing their local announcers do the same thing. So when they hear a national team calling it from a balanced perspective, to them that sounds anti-their team because they're not used to hearing that. During my years in Cleveland, I would see this every season during the Indians' playoff run as non-baseball fans who were just desperate to see Cleveland win anything continuously slammed the national announcers, finding an anti-cleveland bias in nearly every word they spoke. The real problem was that those guys, unlike local announcer Tom Hamilton, weren't paid by the Cleveland Indians, so didn't always see everything Cleveland's way. That takes some time to get used to if you're new to it.

I don't blame the win-starved fans of Cleveland for behaving that way. The Indians hadn't been winners in 40 years and neither has anyone else in that town. They needed some time to figure out that when you're on the national stage, the announcer isn't there to prop up your team. As a fanbase, we Duke followers don't have that excuse. Duke is a blue blood. The Blue Devils are contenders every single year and our team spends more time in the national spotlight than anybody's. So I would expect any of us to realize that when Kellogg says JaJuan Johnson does a great job running the floor, that's not code for "and those sorry bums at Duke could never possibly stay with him if it weren't for the refs handicapping Purdue".

Let's act like we've been there before. Because we have. This forum will be a better, more enjoyable, more respectable place if we do.

I said I wasn't going to comment, but I can't resist.

I like Kellogg overall. Just not when he calls a Duke game. Why? Because every game, he'll do the same thing - lean toward one team as the one getting the beneficiary of calls. But when he does it during Duke games, it detracts from my overall enjoyment. I prefer non-biased announcers to call games. For that reason, I also don't like hearing Len Elmore or Dick Vitale call games.

I don't really care or pay attention to when he does it during other games, even when over-praising his alma mater, Ohio State.

If you want specifics, I'd have to take notes during the games. So I issue this challenge to you - watch a game he calls with Duke involved and count the times he makes a negative comment about Duke and a negative comment about the other team. And then, for fun, count the positive comments for each. I'd be willing to do the same.

Fact of the matter is, and maybe this isn't just his fault, Duke doesn't get the benefit of the doubt in terms of media generated perception. The entire country outside of Duke fans thinks Duke gets every call. So when a questionable call (or non-call) goes in Duke's favor, you can bet there are replays from every angle at super slow motion pointing out the infraction. But when the opposite happens, like when Lance Thomas takes a legit charge 10 feet from the basket and gets called for a blocking foul, no replay.

Where Kellogg *is* at fault is with his side comments. More often than not, he's right when he makes them, like with the Zoubek screen. But he harped on it. And repeated. Should it have been a foul? Yes. But then again, when Z challenges Johnson's shot, never touches him and gets sent off for his 5th, do we hear CK say "tough call for Zoubek." Nope. Not a mention. No replay. Rinse and repeat.

Another specific sequence -

Purdue knocks the ball out of bounds on a rebound. An over the back could have been (and probably should have been) called. The whistle blows and the following sequence takes place.

Jim Nance: Call against Purdue there (because he probably thought that there should have been, given the contact and the timing of the whistle).

CK: Nope. Just out of bounds.

Correct? Yes. But where's the replay? Where's the "Purdue got away with one there!"?

Kellogg will praise players from Duke, but a lot of announcers do. Why? Because they're pretty darn good players. But that doesn't outweigh the rest of the one-sided commentary designed to bring in viewers and continue the trend of Duke hate.

bulldog44
03-27-2010, 01:00 AM
Bingo! Give this person a kewpie doll. That's where I'm at with Kellogg tonight. Yes, I think he basically called the game pretty well - BUT - he definitely overemphasized some of the calls where he thought Duke got the benefit and completely underemphasized the opposite situation when Purdue benefited. That's what ticked me off tonight, and Clark was guilty of it several times in both halves. Just a fact, my friend. Just a stone cold hard fact.

Thankkk ya thank ya verrry much. I will name the Kewpie doll George, and I will hug him and pet him and..... ;)

77devil
03-27-2010, 01:06 AM
Bill Foster recruited Kellogg, though it turned out that Duke was never seriously in the hunt, which Kellogg stated in a print interview after he committed to OSU. He made a disparaging comment about the ACC in the same interview. That was enough for me. His facile and partisan body of work on the air is ample reinforcement.

SeattleIrish
03-27-2010, 01:09 AM
I've watched every game (on TV) this year, and nothing Clark said jumped out at me as biased.

That said, I think he is simply a very bad announcer. He CONTINUALLY got information wrong, frequently getting facts wrong, including the identification of our players multiple times.

He seems to be a nice enough guy. He doesn't blather on too long (drives me insane when Vitale or Bill Raferty are on a jag about some historic coach or some non-playing team...all the while missing completely some amazing play that just appeared IN THE GAME ONE OR THE OTHER IS ANNOUNCING!). But I perceive him as making a very noticable number of factual errors - seemingly far beyond the mean.

Just not good.

s.i.

roywhite
03-27-2010, 01:09 AM
Who really thinks Kellogg is a better analyst than Mike Gminski or Jay Bilas?

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 01:09 AM
My take on Kellogg is that he's okay, but really not up to the job of being the lead analyst on the #1 announcing team. Doesn't give the average fan much additional insight.

He is not in Packer's league for technical analysis, that's for sure. But then, it seemed nearly everyone was convinced Packer had it in for their team. Not me, i liked Packer.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 01:11 AM
Who really thinks Kellogg is a better analyst than Mike Gminski or Jay Bilas?

Better analyst? No. He's got much more personality than those guys, though. Of CBS's tournament analysts at this point, I would like to see Raftery get the lead job. He's the best combo of analysis and personality, imo, but I don't think it's going to happen.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 01:12 AM
Bill Foster recruited Kellogg, though it turned out that Duke was never seriously in the hunt, which Kellogg stated in a print interview after he committed to OSU. He made a disparaging comment about the ACC in the same interview. That was enough for me. His facile and partisan body of work on the air is ample reinforcement.

So let me get this straight, dude turned down an acc scholarship offer how many years ago, so you dismiss him as an announcer forever as a result?

Unbelievable.

And let's hear some examples of his "facile and partisan" body of work.

_Gary
03-27-2010, 01:15 AM
He is not in Packer's league for technical analysis, that's for sure. But then, it seemed nearly everyone was convinced Packer had it in for their team. Not me, i liked Packer.

Oh my. If you truly believe Billy Packer wasn't biased against Duke then we have nothing more to say. One of us is living in some Bizarro parallel world because it's been plain to me for almost a decade now that Packer is as anti-Duke as one can get. He was the catalyst for the entire "Duke gets all the calls" with his biased Final Four comments in 2001. If we'd had someone else announcing those games against Maryland and then Arizona I'm convinced we wouldn't be dealing with all the media blast back like we get today.

Lulu
03-27-2010, 01:16 AM
Was that Kellog? I tuned late and assumed it was Elmore.

That's funny. My subconscious actually did think I was listening to Elmore until my brain actively kicked in.

GoingFor#5
03-27-2010, 01:17 AM
Who really thinks Kellogg is a better analyst than Mike Gminski or Jay Bilas?

What defines an analyst? A lot of these so-called "analysts" give us a lot of technical information and it sounds right, but if they are so good I would think they'd be better at making picks.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 01:18 AM
I said I wasn't going to comment, but I can't resist.

I like Kellogg overall. Just not when he calls a Duke game. Why? Because every game, he'll do the same thing - lean toward one team as the one getting the beneficiary of calls. But when he does it during Duke games, it detracts from my overall enjoyment. I prefer non-biased announcers to call games. For that reason, I also don't like hearing Len Elmore or Dick Vitale call games.

I don't really care or pay attention to when he does it during other games, even when over-praising his alma mater, Ohio State.

If you want specifics, I'd have to take notes during the games. So I issue this challenge to you - watch a game he calls with Duke involved and count the times he makes a negative comment about Duke and a negative comment about the other team. And then, for fun, count the positive comments for each. I'd be willing to do the same.

Fact of the matter is, and maybe this isn't just his fault, Duke doesn't get the benefit of the doubt in terms of media generated perception. The entire country outside of Duke fans thinks Duke gets every call. So when a questionable call (or non-call) goes in Duke's favor, you can bet there are replays from every angle at super slow motion pointing out the infraction. But when the opposite happens, like when Lance Thomas takes a legit charge 10 feet from the basket and gets called for a blocking foul, no replay.

Where Kellogg *is* at fault is with his side comments. More often than not, he's right when he makes them, like with the Zoubek screen. But he harped on it. And repeated. Should it have been a foul? Yes. But then again, when Z challenges Johnson's shot, never touches him and gets sent off for his 5th, do we hear CK say "tough call for Zoubek." Nope. Not a mention. No replay. Rinse and repeat.

Another specific sequence -

Purdue knocks the ball out of bounds on a rebound. An over the back could have been (and probably should have been) called. The whistle blows and the following sequence takes place.

Jim Nance: Call against Purdue there (because he probably thought that there should have been, given the contact and the timing of the whistle).

CK: Nope. Just out of bounds.

Correct? Yes. But where's the replay? Where's the "Purdue got away with one there!"?

Kellogg will praise players from Duke, but a lot of announcers do. Why? Because they're pretty darn good players. But that doesn't outweigh the rest of the one-sided commentary designed to bring in viewers and continue the trend of Duke hate.

You clearly came into this game expecting something and, sure enough, you found it. I would submit to you that kind of thinking is exactly how Duke got into this "duke gets all the calls" trap in the first place.

And by the way, now that Duke has had a few "average" years -- by the standards set in the previous 5 seasons or so, all of that talk has died down considerably. Funny how that works.

I really wasn't focused on CK's mentions about calls because I wasn't going in expecting bias. I do remember nantz saying something about contact on a purdue shot, implying maybe there should've been a foul, and kellogg saying "that's the way it's been in this one all night. on both sides. a little contact isn't going to get a call."

diveonthefloor
03-27-2010, 01:18 AM
Oh my. If you truly believe Billy Packer wasn't biased against Duke then we have nothing more to say. One of us is living in some Bizarro parallel world because it's been plain to me for almost a decade now that Packer is as anti-Duke as one can get. He was the catalyst for the entire "Duke gets all the calls" with his biased Final Four comments in 2001. If we'd had someone else announcing those games against Maryland and then Arizona I'm convinced we wouldn't be dealing with all the media blast back like we get today.

Yeah, I have to agree. And after the way he treated the student monitors years back at Cameron, it was clear that he pretty much had disdain for Duke. I bet he had to go take a shower after interviewing K after his NC's.

I was a happy camper the day I heard Packer was canned. (I bet Coach K wasn't too sad either.)

DukeDevilDeb
03-27-2010, 01:19 AM
He is not in Packer's league for technical analysis, that's for sure. But then, it seemed nearly everyone was convinced Packer had it in for their team. Not me, i liked Packer.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone put in black and white that they liked Packer. Maybe you mean Mark rather than Billy? No one was worse, and I am so glad he's retired.

No one is ever going to call a game in the Devil's favor. I think Clark did OK except for the basket interference comment.

DevilHorns
03-27-2010, 01:20 AM
That's funny. My subconscious actually did think I was listening to Elmore until my brain actively kicked in.

Ya his voice isnt as whiny as Elmore's

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 01:21 AM
Oh my. If you truly believe Billy Packer wasn't biased against Duke then we have nothing more to say. One of us is living in some Bizarro parallel world because it's been plain to me for almost a decade now that Packer is as anti-Duke as one can get. He was the catalyst for the entire "Duke gets all the calls" with his biased Final Four comments in 2001. If we'd had someone else announcing those games against Maryland and then Arizona I'm convinced we wouldn't be dealing with all the media blast back like we get today.

Like I said, EVERY fan base believe Packer hates them. And no, I don't think Packer was anti-Duke, although to be honest, I never really focused much on it. That's a big difference between me and you, I guess. I liked Packer because he clearly knew what he was talking about, wrt strategy. That's what I'm interested in. This whole business of dissecting every single comment for any hint of bias quickly becomes tiresome and tends to become a case of always finding exactly what you're looking for, not matter what.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 01:23 AM
I don't think I've ever seen anyone put in black and white that they liked Packer. Maybe you mean Mark rather than Billy? No one was worse, and I am so glad he's retired.

No one is ever going to call a game in the Devil's favor. I think Clark did OK except for the basket interference comment.

No, I mean Packer.

B-I-L-L-Y P-A-C-K-E-R.

And I know most people don't like him. That's because he was very blunt and most fans simply aren't interested in hearing it like it is.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 01:26 AM
Just seemed tonight he was a lot more one sided with bringing all the "missed" calls to the viewers attention. I cant even imagine how many fouls could have been called on Purdue especially johnson but these were never mentioned. Always a Duke player doing something wrong or dirty

Dirty? he alleged Duke players of being dirty? when?

I remember him talking about Z's pick and Miles' goaltend -- both of which he was correct about. I don't remember him in any way insinuating that someone did something dirty.

licc85
03-27-2010, 01:27 AM
everybody has their own favorite announcer, personally, I enjoy Kellogg's commentary, I think he's entertaining and offers insightful comments, I find that he does his research well, and I don't think he misses calls as often as some of you guys have accussed him of. Vitale is good too, he has plenty of enthusiasm, he gets distracted a bit, but he does go crazy when something great happens, and I like that. Raftery is just creepy . . . and packer is such a know-it-all and is super arrogant, so I'm not all about him either. Bilas is kind of boring, but he's very intelligent, and he's a Dukie. Elmore clearly hates duke, but he's also not terrible.

77devil
03-27-2010, 01:28 AM
So let me get this straight, dude turned down an acc scholarship offer how many years ago, so you dismiss him as an announcer forever as a result?

No, its not that he turned down an ACC scholarship, but that he dissed my Alma mater and the conference in an interview when he had no reason to do so. It was a no class move and I have no reason to give him a pass.


And let's hear some examples of his "facile and partisan" body of work.

Read this thread or replay tonight's game

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 01:29 AM
I am not sure why you are defending Mr. Kellogg. Clark is a poor announcer, plain and simple. He is as biased as they come. Any game you listen to...you can tell who he is cheering for (generally a Big 10 team). He really brings nothing to the table in terms of educating or enlightening the viewer.

I explained in the post that started this thread why I was doing this.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 01:30 AM
Due to rather frustrating circumstances, I was unable to see the first half of the Purdue game. [Apparently I was lucky.....]

But on the 2 second-half calls that I recall CK saying the refs blew it - and in those 2 cases in Duke's favor - I thought he was correct: (1) the Z screen on the great KS drive - I thought it was clearly a moving pick, and Z still is prone to this [as are the MPs, and LT a bit]. Now, maybe CK should have said, every time he repeated this missed call, "But the refs are letting 'em play, and it's really rough out there, and Purdue sure seems to be getting away with an amazing number of hand-checks and body-bumps." He should have said that, yes. But Z set a moving screen. (2) the MP1 hand-in-net that - if that's the rule - should have been called interference.

That is the rule.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 01:32 AM
No, its not that he turned down an ACC scholarship, but that he dissed my Alma mater and the conference in an interview when he had no reason to do so. It was a no class move and I have no reason to give him a pass.



Read this thread or replay tonight's game

It's not really about a pass, it's about the extrapolation on your part. He said something in an interview so you now assume every game he does he's got it in for Duke? That's just a bit silly, IMO.

I've already seen tonight's game and even here in a Duke fan forum not everyone agrees with you, so I would suggest that it's not nearly as cut and dried as you would like to think.

dukemsu
03-27-2010, 01:35 AM
Let me preface this by saying I did not hear the feed of tonight's game. I was in a bar in Chicago watching Duke on one screen and MSU on another. Bad top 40 music was all I heard.

I agree, to a point, that Kellogg does tend to show a bit of favorability to the Big 10. However, since I have a foot in both leagues, I will say that it's nice that someone at the Four Letter or CBS give some love to the Big 10. The ACC and especially the Big East get more than their share of trumpeting from analysts on both networks.

Off that soapbox. I agree with several people on here that Kellogg just isn't very good, certainly not good enough to be the analyst on the #1 announce team. It seems to me that Packer's departure came about suddenly for whatever reason, and Kellogg got tossed in. Bilas is far and away the best game analyst in college basketball. It's not close. But CBS couldn't install him in that role for multiple reason (can't show Duke favoritism, his work with the Four Letter). Raftery is in my opinion the next best choice, but no one asked me.

Kellogg is prone to just shouting out his catchphrases, and at times appears to try too hard to belabor a point. He also just gets things wrong far too often for a lead analyst. Maybe he'll get better. But there's no one at CBS that could step into that spot unless Jay gets relieved of his duties at ESPN.

dukemsu

Kfanarmy
03-27-2010, 01:38 AM
During half time an awful lot of carping about officials, someone said Jon should sit...now all this whining about an announcer. What gives? I personally don't think anyone is good enough to announce games...except of course those folks who know all of this detailed info that leads them to know their team is getting called for more fouls, and the other team is getting away with everything in every game; the players aren't good enough and someone nearly always shouldn't be in the game...by those analytic standards, I guess pretty much any fan of any team would, in their own mind, be a better announcer than anyone else.

tommy
03-27-2010, 01:38 AM
Dream team for me of announcers currently working college ball would be Gus as PBP (no brainer) and Bilas for color. Gus has such terrific enthusiasm -- without making it about himself -- and he knows hoops for sure. Bilas is smart and insightful and doesn't feel the need for any shtick to try to draw attention to himself like Vitale, Raftery, and others. Just analyze the game and do it without bias -- I think Bilas does that the best of the color guys working today.

Kellogg seems like a nice enough guy, and I don't see bias in his comments, but he only rarely offers insight into anything significant, and his language is so full of words that are bigger and more flowery than he needs to use in order to express his thoughts. It's just tiring after awhile. Simple, descriptive language is all you need, big guy. We get it. You're not just a dumb ex-jock. But every word doesn't have to be four syllables long, ya know?

DevilHorns
03-27-2010, 01:43 AM
During half time an awful lot of carping about officials, someone said Jon should sit...now all this whining about an announcer. What gives? I personally don't think anyone is good enough to announce games...except of course those folks who know all of this detailed info that leads them to know their team is getting called for more fouls, and the other team is getting away with everything in every game; the players aren't good enough and someone nearly always shouldn't be in the game...by those analytic standards, I guess pretty much any fan of any team would, in their own mind, be a better announcer than anyone else.

Thats not what this thread is really about. Its more about how Kellogg tends to highlight missed calls or bad calls that present Duke in a way that perpetuates the stereotype "Duke gets all the calls." Some think Kellogg is great, generally un-biased or possibly even pro-Duke and pro-Coach K. Others think he tends to dwell on plays that make it appear that Duke is getting favoritism from the officials, though in general, any real fan knows that calls go both ways, and an undrstandable amount of missed calls will generally occur regardless.

77devil
03-27-2010, 01:48 AM
It's not really about a pass, it's about the

I've already seen tonight's game and even here in a Duke fan forum not everyone agrees with you, so I would suggest that it's not nearly as cut and dried as you would like to think.

Again, you assume something I didn't write. I never wrote nor suggested that I "assume every game he does he's got it in for Duke?" I wrote that I don't care for him for the reasons I gave.

As for your opinion on Billy Packer and his anti Duke bias, you lack the history and the perspective of his non recruitment by Duke, and the decades of his commentary twice a week as the television broadcast analyst for ACC games.

brevity
03-27-2010, 01:57 AM
By now I would think this thread included some mention of what Kellogg (and Nantz) were saying about Purdue.

Twice in the game they talked at some length about NEXT year's Boilermaker core. I kind of understand why they would bring it up late in the game, when the outcome was close to sealed, but I think they talked about it in the first half as well, when they first showed Robbie Hummel. That was just bizarre; I would not blame a Purdue fan for feeling like the announcers were immediately writing off the team in front of them.

In comparison, I'm not sure why a Duke fan would complain. Calls here and there, some for us and some against. It's a hard game to officiate, and harder still to second-guess without the benefit of seeing replays in your living room. I thought they did fine. But then, announcers who are on point rarely bother me, even if I strongly disagree with them or feel like they carry a bias.

College basketball is a lot easier to watch when you grow a thicker skin.

cptnflash
03-27-2010, 02:01 AM
Late to this thread... just want to say that I 100% agree with the original post. Whatever shortcomings Kellogg may have as a broadcaster, an anti-Duke bias is definitely not one of them.

DevilHorns
03-27-2010, 02:04 AM
Its subtle guys.

He dwells on missed calls or bad calls that make Duke look like the recipient of ref favoritism. This cycle feeds itself.

If you listen carefully or track the media coverage, you'll notice he never did that for Purdue, though he definitely had the opportunity to.

I'm not saying he hates K or hates the Duke program, just to be clear.

magjayran
03-27-2010, 02:35 AM
I watched the game and didn't feel that Kellog showed any bias. He's not my favorite announcer but he's far from my least.

cptnflash
03-27-2010, 02:55 AM
Its subtle guys.

He dwells on missed calls or bad calls that make Duke look like the recipient of ref favoritism. This cycle feeds itself.

If you listen carefully or track the media coverage, you'll notice he never did that for Purdue, though he definitely had the opportunity to.

I'm not saying he hates K or hates the Duke program, just to be clear.

I've just finished rewatching the game online, and I have to say, even after listening for it as a result of this thread, I am absolutely unable to detect any anti-Duke bias in Clark Kellogg. In fact, were I so inclined, I could post a long list of complementary/positive comments he made about us that were not mandated by the game action at hand.

sweetchiba51
03-27-2010, 03:35 AM
Kellogg is fair. It's good to see someone call the game for what it is! Better than Packer...

Emeritus
03-27-2010, 04:11 AM
Kellogg was wretched, and IMO was very unbalanced in his commentary...more critical of Duke. The entire game was a damnable rugby scrum...I really don't enjoy these "let them play" games...but, Hallelujah, Duke prevailed. Congrats to our valiant gladiators!

GODUKEGO
03-27-2010, 07:53 AM
I do not know about bias (not Len) but he is bad. First half, we are playing great defense and he says "Look at that tenacious Purdue defense". The second half, Purdue has the ball and he is referencing Duke's offense. Our two uniform colors are even close to the same color. Hello!! And who is Lance Smith???

MrBisonDevil
03-27-2010, 08:02 AM
Just seemed tonight he was a lot more one sided with bringing all the "missed" calls to the viewers attention. I cant even imagine how many fouls could have been called on Purdue especially johnson but these were never mentioned. Always a Duke player doing something wrong or dirty

Calls were missed. It is Kellogg's, and every announcer's, job to point that out. The missed call commentary was not more or less than other non-Duke games Kellogg has called, which I've seen numerous times this season.

Some of our fan base gets too caught up in arguing against the "Duke gets all the calls" myth, which has been proven to be false. I tend to side on "don't feed the beast". Let that myth die.

TruBlu
03-27-2010, 08:28 AM
Of the anti-Duke announcers, I would rate them as follows:

1) Packer -- Extremely obnoxious (please stay retired)
2) Elmore -- Openly a Duke hater, and doesn't try to hide it
3) Clark -- A minor irratation

I think the announcers bias does cause some of the public's hatred for Duke, and Packer pretty much started it all. Mute button should be the hailed as the invention of the decade.

Deslok
03-27-2010, 08:46 AM
I will say, I was annoyed by Kellog's commentary during the game. But that's the first time I can recall saying that. In general, I find him to be one of the better guys out there. I kind of wonder if the fact that it was a Big 10/non Big 10 matchup might have played a role in it. Another example, Brad Daugherty, I always thought was a pretty good commentator so long as he wasn't doing UNC games, when his emotional attachments got the better of him. Because I haven't had a problem with his previous game commentary that I've witnessed, I wonder if it was a similar type thing that shaded his vision of things. He wasn't wretched or anything last night, but he wasn't good, which is what he usually is.

Oh, and just a note for those folks noting good folks... please CBS, bring Knight into the studio for the Final Four. We all know he knows and analyzes the game better than anyone, get him in there for the final weekend of the year.

Buckeye Devil
03-27-2010, 08:47 AM
Since it seems that no analyst meets with any approval, let just have Gus do the play by play and bring on Dennis Miller.

Seriously, if I could have one guy do the color on an NCAA tourney game, I would go with Hubie Brown even though he is an NBA guy. The man seems to know the game and does some real analysis without all the hype and bravado. He is pretty logical and concise, lets you know what a team is doing right or wrong, and does not mint new words like "physicality." I like an understated approach which he seems to take.

weezie
03-27-2010, 08:52 AM
....let's just be glad Hubert Davis wasn't calling the game.

Or that Stuart Scott is too much of a dope to call games.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 08:59 AM
Again, you assume something I didn't write. I never wrote nor suggested that I "assume every game he does he's got it in for Duke?" I wrote that I don't care for him for the reasons I gave.

As for your opinion on Billy Packer and his anti Duke bias, you lack the history and the perspective of his non recruitment by Duke, and the decades of his commentary twice a week as the television broadcast analyst for ACC games.

actually, no I don't lack the history. I'm plenty old enough to be aware of Packer's long record of work in the ACC and I know about him not getting recruited by Duke. You have made a false assumption.

I have no motive for lying about this. I know it's nearly impossible for some people to believe but I don't hate Packer, never have. And you can't make me! LOL

I think it's fascinating that there are so many fanbases that all believe Packer has it in for them and them alone. Maybe the truth is he just hates everybody. That would actually be balanced. hehe.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 09:04 AM
Kellogg was wretched, and IMO was very unbalanced in his commentary...more critical of Duke. The entire game was a damnable rugby scrum...I really don't enjoy these "let them play" games...but, Hallelujah, Duke prevailed. Congrats to our valiant gladiators!

I agree with you about one thing, I don't like these football games on the hardwood either. There is a balance between calling touch fouls and what they let go in this one. And it's not exactly a delicate, thin line either.

Back on topic, how would you say he was critical of Duke?

bluepenguin
03-27-2010, 09:22 AM
We all have different views of whether Kellogg was harping on bad calls in Duke's favor, perpetuating the myth that Duke gets all the calls. I don't think anyone will dispute that he pointed out several calls he thought went in Duke's favor. But, can anyone point to any time in the game when he actually said a call went in Purdue's favor? That's my beef. Refs aren't perfect and they miss calls. But fer crying out loud, make sure you point it out both ways.
As for me, I'll take Bob Knight over any other announcer discussed in this thread. The man knows the game and calls it like it is.

Eckster
03-27-2010, 09:23 AM
As a member of the #1 Broadcast team (with Jim Nantz), I'm hoping to get three more chances to hear Clark Kellogg comment on Duke in the next few weeks, not because I particularly love his commentary, but because it means Duke is playing well enough to move on in this tournament! :D

Saratoga2
03-27-2010, 09:37 AM
There are a number of guys that are senile or biased. I have trouble deciding which I dislike the most. I would include Vitale and Patrick in one category while Elmore and Kellog fit in the other.

If I would have my pick for color it would be Bobby Knight, who gives deeper commentary lets you know why the call was made. There are many other goodannouncers, so the networks have a choice.

Too bad that different networks don't do quality control on their products and move the bad performers out of center stage.

Lid
03-27-2010, 09:38 AM
We all have different views of whether Kellogg was harping on bad calls in Duke's favor, perpetuating the myth that Duke gets all the calls. I don't think anyone will dispute that he pointed out several calls he thought went in Duke's favor. But, can anyone point to any time in the game when he actually said a call went in Purdue's favor? That's my beef. Refs aren't perfect and they miss calls. But fer crying out loud, make sure you point it out both ways.
IMO, this is exactly the point. I like Clark Kellogg generally, and I don't think anyone has said that he was wrong to point out the missed calls that favored Duke. They were definitely missed, and that was shown clearly in the MANY replays.

The problem is that there were several missed calls that favored Purdue, as well, and those received neither replays nor commentary. Devildownunder, *that* is what people are talking about, I believe.

I've never heard anyone say they like Billy Packer, either -- kudos to you for being brave and sticking your neck out on that one! Whether he especially hated Duke, I have no idea, but he definitely became more verbally ugly after his little run-in at Cameron several years ago.

barjwr
03-27-2010, 09:45 AM
. . . and does not mint new words like "physicality."

Amen.

By the way, what the heck does "stick-to-it-ive-ness" mean? Possibly the same as . . .
. . . "persistence?"
. . . "tenacity?"
. . . "perseverance?"

Someone please buy these dopes a thesaurus.

FerryFor50
03-27-2010, 09:49 AM
IMO, this is exactly the point. I like Clark Kellogg generally, and I don't think anyone has said that he was wrong to point out the missed calls that favored Duke. They were definitely missed, and that was shown clearly in the MANY replays.

The problem is that there were several missed calls that favored Purdue, as well, and those received neither replays nor commentary. Devildownunder, *that* is what people are talking about, I believe.

I've never heard anyone say they like Billy Packer, either -- kudos to you for being brave and sticking your neck out on that one! Whether he especially hated Duke, I have no idea, but he definitely became more verbally ugly after his little run-in at Cameron several years ago.

That is *exactly* what I am saying. And I gave examples.

But they're only good if people read em. :)

sagegrouse
03-27-2010, 09:56 AM
Pretty much everything has been said on this thread, but not everyone has said it. Now it's my turn.

IMHO (when the Grouse clucks, the H is often silent). Clark Kellogg is just fine. He is genial, reasonably knowledgeable, and treats the contest like a game where players and fans should be having fun. I am sure CBS is working with him to control his volubility -- boy, can he talk! I remember his prattling on with the Prez at the Duke-G'town game.

The key moment for me was when he said something like: "You know, Jim, I have a feeling here that Duke is about to crack this nut, and take over the game." This was about the eight-minute mark. Kellogg was absolutely right, and was saying, in effect, that it was over for Purdue. How would you feel about that if you were a Boilermaker?

The business about "missed calls" and the like don't bother me, unless said with malice. At every level of basketball I have watched, the better players and the better teams seem to get the benefit of the doubt because they play with smoothness and confidence. And, of course, Zoubek absolutely crushed Chris Kramer -- twice!

Billy Packer was the pioneer for basketball analysis -- a former coach and player who knew the ins and outs of the game. Billy said exactly what he thought -- which can always be a problem in communication -- and it far too often came out as negative. That's probably the ex-coach, and the good ones at the mike know how to put a positive slant on their commentary (Bill Raftery, for example). Hey, Billy, this is a game! You aren't the coach any more -- entertain the audience, for goodness sakes!

Len Elmore has a similar problem. Elmore, a former prosecutor, acts like he never met a suspect -- er, basketball player -- who wasn't guilty of something. Lighten up, Len!

Anyway, I am with Devil Down Under, who actually left Cleveland (well, Shaker Heights) to move to Sydney, Australia, and who graces this Board from a position half a world away.

sagegrouse

BobbyFan
03-27-2010, 10:00 AM
Like I said, EVERY fan base believe Packer hates them. And no, I don't think Packer was anti-Duke, although to be honest, I never really focused much on it. That's a big difference between me and you, I guess. I liked Packer because he clearly knew what he was talking about, wrt strategy. That's what I'm interested in. This whole business of dissecting every single comment for any hint of bias quickly becomes tiresome and tends to become a case of always finding exactly what you're looking for, not matter what.

I've always felt the same way about Packer. It's hilarious to read of the varying opinions that different fan bases can have about a single announcer. The problem is that the people (fans) who are analyzing these commentators are inherently biased themselves.

As for Kellogg, I don't think he is biased. My issue with him is that he just doesn't add much analysis to the game, and to me that is by far the most important quality of a commentator.

BD80
03-27-2010, 10:04 AM
That is the rule.

Did the rim move? Nance said it did, but the replay showed it didn't. THE RULE indicates it is basket interference if the rim moves such that it could interfere with the shot. It is NOT an automatic call any time a player touches the net.


... does not mint new words like "physicality." ...

New? Merriam-Webster traces it back to 1660. That is even before my time.


... I think it's fascinating that there are so many fanbases that all believe Packer has it in for them and them alone. Maybe the truth is he just hates everybody. That would actually be balanced. hehe.

How many is so many? Which ones? There are a few that Packer was biased against. Duke was certainly one of them. It may not have been intentional (although I think it was).

While we are talking bias, did your experience in Ohio make you an OSU or Clark Kellogg fan?


We all have different views of whether Kellogg was harping on bad calls in Duke's favor, perpetuating the myth that Duke gets all the calls. I don't think anyone will dispute that he pointed out several calls he thought went in Duke's favor. But, can anyone point to any time in the game when he actually said a call went in Purdue's favor? That's my beef. ...

This is exactly the point. A casual viewer would assume that the calls were going in Duke's favor based on Kellogg's commentary.

How did Kellogg ever get to the top crew? He was absolutely awful when he started. He has improved, but he still hasn't improved enough to be good. He was an incredibly self-centered player in college, as an analyst, I don't think he contributes a thing.


I also believe the Zoub pick was a decent no call. If you slow it down, Z did get his feet set before Kramer took his last step into him. Z's torso was still in motion bracing for the impact. Z did not lower his shoulder to increase the impact (as opponents have done to Duke players with no call). This was as much Kramer's fault for trying to cut into a spot that was open two steps before he got there without heeding the oncoming pick. A football player's move. Kramer got beat by Singler's shuffle cut and he was trying to catch up.

_Gary
03-27-2010, 10:24 AM
IMO, this is exactly the point. I like Clark Kellogg generally, and I don't think anyone has said that he was wrong to point out the missed calls that favored Duke. They were definitely missed, and that was shown clearly in the MANY replays.

The problem is that there were several missed calls that favored Purdue, as well, and those received neither replays nor commentary. Devildownunder, *that* is what people are talking about, I believe.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Look, I don't want to hear a homer announcer on a national stage just talking up Duke. Not in the least. That would do nothing but cause even more anger amongst non-Duke fans. So that's not my issue with Kellogg last night. Oh, and for the record, I've pretty much always enjoyed Clark's analysis in the past.

My gripe is that he absolutely, positively, and without a doubt was one-sided when it came to pointing out when Duke got an advantage with a bad/missed call from the officials. He had no problem letting his feelings be known several times in that area. But he did NOT do the same thing, with the same amount of fervor, when Purdue got the advantage.

Bottom line: I know Duke gets calls that go it's way just like every team does in every game. That's normal. But when announcers only point out those type of calls/plays for Duke and not the other team they are playing it only helps to perpetuate the myth that none of us want to see and hear about. And in my opinion Clark helped perpetuate the myth last night. It wasn't the worst I've ever heard, but it also wasn't a down the middle approach either. As to why he did that? I have no idea. I don't believe he has anything against Duke per se, unlike Packer and Elmore who I do believe have some measure of personal animus. But it did take place, and I wish it would stop.

Kimist
03-27-2010, 10:52 AM
So, instead of Kellogg, would you prefer Billy Packer or Dick Vitale?? :rolleyes:

k

gumbomoop
03-27-2010, 10:53 AM
I want Gus Johnson and Dan Bonner. Unlikely I'll ever get 'em in big games, I guess.

BD80
03-27-2010, 10:55 AM
So, instead of Kellogg, would you prefer Billy Packer or Dick Vitale?? :rolleyes:

k

Marcel Marceau

Oh. He died?


My answer stands.

callaway
03-27-2010, 11:00 AM
Calls were missed. It is Kellogg's, and every announcer's, job to point that out.

Whoa...I have called games on every level since 1962 and I can assure you that the announcer's ONLY duty is to describe what he sees as the game is played. The analyst's job is to give the listener/viewer insight into why - Bobby Knight is currently the best - the game is evolving the way it is. Announcer's are not paid to judge the ref's calls and most have no clue to the way a game should be called.

Vincetaylor
03-27-2010, 11:05 AM
Just curious, which calls didn't Duke get last night? Sorry if this has been mentioned earlier.

westwall
03-27-2010, 11:56 AM
This thread has drifted off the original topic in several directions, but both DevilDownUnder (post #1) and SageGrouse (post #70) correctly view the "bias" and "hater" point, IMHO. (Whether Kellogg, or Packer, or Vitale are "good" announcers is a separate issue.)

I have been a Duke BB fan since prior to the team's 1st ACC title, still bleed Duke blue as well as the best, but find the paranoia of some posters here more than a bit extreme. (Yes, yes, other posters on other boards may be worse!)

TV announcers are far less than perfect (as many point out), but every non-laudatory comment from them does not equate to "hate". They call them as they see them, right or wrong. (Haven't checked the tape, but recall that in the famous Laettner "stomp" on the Kentucky player, one commentator immediately said it was unintentional while the other (Lundquist?) said it was intentional. In fact, it was deliberate, though not intended to harm and did not harm; just Laettner being Laettner. Was the latter a "hater", or simply calling it as it appeared to him??)

Last night, CBS replayed the sequence when a Duke basket was scored although Miles clearly had his hand in the basket's netting. Duke "hate", Duke "getting all the calls" (because the basket was not waived off), or simply reporting the game? I think the latter.


Please, let's keep perspective, as DDU and SageGrouse have correctly counseled.

Westwall

P.S.: I understand that those of you in the Triangle area are exposed to more pro-UNC hype and obnoxious UNC fans, which makes perspective more difficult, but hang in there as best you can.

bulldog44
03-27-2010, 12:18 PM
This thread has drifted off the original topic in several directions, but both DevilDownUnder (post #1) and SageGrouse (post #70) correctly view the "bias" and "hater" point, IMHO. (Whether Kellogg, or Packer, or Vitale are "good" announcers is a separate issue.)

I have been a Duke BB fan since prior to the team's 1st ACC title, still bleed Duke blue as well as the best, but find the paranoia of some posters here more than a bit extreme. (Yes, yes, other posters on other boards may be worse!)

TV announcers are far less than perfect (as many point out), but every non-laudatory comment from them does not equate to "hate". They call them as they see them, right or wrong. (Haven't checked the tape, but recall that in the famous Laettner "stomp" on the Kentucky player, one commentator immediately said it was unintentional while the other (Lundquist?) said it was intentional. In fact, it was deliberate, though not intended to harm and did not harm; just Laettner being Laettner. Was the latter a "hater", or simply calling it as it appeared to him??)

Last night, CBS replayed the sequence when a Duke basket was scored although Miles clearly had his hand in the basket's netting. Duke "hate", Duke "getting all the calls" (because the basket was not waived off), or simply reporting the game? I think the latter.


Please, let's keep perspective, as DDU and SageGrouse have correctly counseled.

Westwall

P.S.: I understand that those of you in the Triangle area are exposed to more pro-UNC hype and obnoxious UNC fans, which makes perspective more difficult, but hang in there as best you can.

First off the CBS replay was of a Purdue MISS and Miles did sway the basket via his grabbing the net and that caused the backboard to move. Secondly I go back to my original post which was

Funny, I was going to start a thread regarding Clark as well however for pretty much exact opposite reasons to yours. I tell you what, if you recorded the game, I would like for you to go back and do a comparison on the thing that REALLY irked me about him. Check the amount of times he said anything regarding Purdue getting away with a call/foul/travel/carry/etc.... and the amount of times he did so with Duke. Granted the Zoubek pick and the goaltend by Miles should have/could have been made, but from the get go, the Smith charge should not have been a charge and many other "missed" calls from the fault of Purdue, were not made. The reason this incenses me so is , yes we did get away with a few, but if only the Duke side is pointed out, it gives ammo to the "Duke gets all the calls" crowd. I hate to see us get away with blatant things, I really do, but I hate just as much for a Hawkeye to be placed on us, and Helen Keller on the opposing team. 9f 9f 9f

The Smith call early on was not a charge. Even though it was replayed there was never any questioning done. There were quite a few over the back calls that could have been made against Purdue and Duke as well however none were pointed out. Now there were at least 3 instances of replayed times where Duke was shown to have gotten away with one, Zoubek pick, Thomas charge, and Plumlee goaltend. Now to those who say that it was called evenly via Kellog, I ask you only to present ONE instance where he said Purdue got away with it and they showed a replay. 3 to none....:eek:

alteran
03-27-2010, 12:35 PM
I've just finished rewatching the game online, and I have to say, even after listening for it as a result of this thread, I am absolutely unable to detect any anti-Duke bias in Clark Kellogg. In fact, were I so inclined, I could post a long list of complementary/positive comments he made about us that were not mandated by the game action at hand.

This isn't aimed at you so much as everyone who keeps talking past each other on bias.

Almost everyone complaining about Kellogg isn't complaining about him being insulting or denigrating of Duke players. They're complaining about him harping on calls that went Duke's way without doing the converse. That's what's annoying many of us.

Aside from that, I actually kind of like Kellogg, and yes, I think he's highly complimentary of Duke players.

I don't think he does it because he hates Duke or is "biased," I think he does it because the meme that "Duke gets all the calls" is pervasive. It's just acceptable to do this with Duke, even though everyone knows bball is incredibly difficult to officiate and will inevitably have calls that should have gone the other way.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 12:38 PM
Did the rim move? Nance said it did, but the replay showed it didn't. THE RULE indicates it is basket interference if the rim moves such that it could interfere with the shot. It is NOT an automatic call any time a player touches the net.



How many is so many? Which ones? There are a few that Packer was biased against. Duke was certainly one of them. It may not have been intentional (although I think it was).

While we are talking bias, did your experience in Ohio make you an OSU or Clark Kellogg fan?


This is exactly the point. A casual viewer would assume that the calls were going in Duke's favor based on Kellogg's commentary.

How did Kellogg ever get to the top crew? He was absolutely awful when he started. He has improved, but he still hasn't improved enough to be good. He was an incredibly self-centered player in college, as an analyst, I don't think he contributes a thing.


I also believe the Zoub pick was a decent no call. If you slow it down, Z did get his feet set before Kramer took his last step into him. Z's torso was still in motion bracing for the impact. Z did not lower his shoulder to increase the impact (as opponents have done to Duke players with no call). This was as much Kramer's fault for trying to cut into a spot that was open two steps before he got there without heeding the oncoming pick. A football player's move. Kramer got beat by Singler's shuffle cut and he was trying to catch up.

1. I'd have to watch the play again to see if the rim moved. But a 6'11" 200+ lb guy grabbed the net from beneath. I suspect it may have budged.

2. Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Clemson, N.C. State, Kentucky and Indiana -- and those are just the ones I know about. Don't believe me, next time you run into anyone from any of those fanbases, ask about Packer.

3. I have no hidden agenda. I stated my purposes at the very top of this thread. My teams are Duke, Syracuse (because I went to school there for a year) and UVa (because Virginia is home. painful times). I am not an Ohio State fan. I lived in Cleveland for nearly 12 years, starting in 1995. LOOOONG after Kellogg was done at Ohio State. Further, during nearly all of my time in the state, OSU was not any good at basketball, so the program wasn't exactly getting a lot of attention. Football is 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the mind of the Ohio sports fan until something else becomes so compelling it forces its way into the spotlight. And I was in Cleveland, where they don't care about anything the Buckeyes do off the gridiron until they get really good at it. So no, I am not a Clark Kellogg homer. I do think Kellogg is a good guy and that he is extremely complimentary of Duke, which is why I'm standing up for him against claims that he's biased against the program. It makes us sound incredibly whiny when we have posts like "I wish Kellogg would shut up", about a guy who praises Duke and K so much that I'm sure fans of other teams think he's in the tank for K. Frankly, I'm embarassed by what I'm reading about him on here.

4. Again, nothing he said gave me that impression. While I was watching the game, I never felt like Kellogg or anyone else was painting a picture of Duke bias among the refs or Duke getting the calls. You are clearly more sensitive to that than I am. Did he second-guess some calls that went against Duke? I remember Z's screen and the goaltending. That's it. I also remember him defending a no-call in Duke's favor that Nantz brought up. But at no time did anything get me thinking he had it in for Duke, or Purdue.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 12:40 PM
This isn't aimed at you so much as everyone who keeps talking past each other on bias.

Almost everyone complaining about Kellogg isn't complaining about him being insulting or denigrating of Duke players. They're complaining about him harping on calls that went Duke's way without doing the converse. That's what's annoying many of us.

Aside from that, I actually kind of like Kellogg, and yes, I think he's highly complimentary of Duke players.

I don't think he does it because he hates Duke or is "biased," I think he does it because the meme that "Duke gets all the calls" is pervasive. It's just acceptable to do this with Duke, even though everyone knows bball is incredibly difficult to officiate and will inevitably have calls that should have gone the other way.

Why would anyone with a genuine respect for the program, which CK clearly has, actively contribute to such a meme? I mean, I think what you're accusing him of is worse than just being a duke hater. That's just being an incredibly low individual.

_Gary
03-27-2010, 12:47 PM
Why would anyone with a genuine respect for the program, which CK clearly has, actively contribute to such a meme? I mean, I think what you're accusing him of is worse than just being a duke hater. That's just being an incredibly low individual.

Because it's so pervasive that it just comes naturally to most commentators. I think it's basically subconscious at this point in the game. The "Duke gets all the calls" mantra has been shouted from the rooftop for nearly a decade now by ESPN and others and it's just a part of the culture, so guys like Clark Kellogg that may have no conscious bias or dislike for Duke just end up going there automatically. He's not doing it because he dislikes Duke (at least I don't think he dislikes us). He's doing it because it's a part of his mindset. And it's a part of his mindset because he's heard it for 10 years now. But at some point someone has to recognize this problem and make a conscious effort to point out the "questionable" calls in an evenhanded way in order to stop the myth.

BTW, no one has answered BullDog44's challenge. Oh, and Alteran said it much better than I did. I concur with his conclusions as to why Kellogg emphasized the Duke "calls" and didn't emphasize the Purdue ones.

tele
03-27-2010, 12:53 PM
Because it's so pervasive that it just comes naturally to most commentators. I think it's basically subconscious at this point in the game. The "Duke gets all the calls" mantra has been shouted from the rooftop for nearly a decade now by ESPN and others and it's just a part of the culture, so guys like Clark Kellogg that may have no conscious bias or dislike for Duke just end up going there automatically. He's not doing it because he dislikes Duke (at least I don't think he dislikes us). He's doing it because it's a part of his mindset. And it's a part of his mindset because he's heard it for 10 years now. But at some point someone has to recognize this problem and make a conscious effort to point out the "questionable" calls in an evenhanded way in order to stop the myth.

BTW, no one has answered BullDog44's challenge. Oh, and Alteran said it much better than I did. I concur with his conclusions as to why Kellogg emphasized the Duke "calls" and didn't emphasize the Purdue ones.

That's it exactly. Plus Nance and Kellog are just dull.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 12:54 PM
Because it's so pervasive that it just comes naturally to most commentators. I think it's basically subconscious at this point in the game. The "Duke gets all the calls" mantra has been shouted from the rooftop for nearly a decade now by ESPN and others and it's just a part of the culture, so guys like Clark Kellogg that may have no conscious bias or dislike for Duke just end up going there automatically. He's not doing it because he dislikes Duke (at least I don't think he dislikes us). He's doing it because it's a part of his mindset. And it's a part of his mindset because he's heard it for 10 years now. But at some point someone has to recognize this problem and make a conscious effort to point out the "questionable" calls in an evenhanded way in order to stop the myth.

BTW, no one has answered BullDog44's challenge. Oh, and Alteran said it much better than I did. I concur with his conclusions as to why Kellogg emphasized the Duke "calls" and didn't emphasize the Purdue ones.

Isn't it also possible that it's a part of your mindset to perceive that this is happening, so you find it regardless?

I can't believe I'm going to do this but I just started up the archive of the game. I'll see what I hear.

Duke Mom
03-27-2010, 12:56 PM
Off topic, but I really get such a kick out of how exuberant some announcers get on exciting plays. Some here might not like them, but old timers Lundquist and Enberg sound like they are genuinely jumping out of their seats when something big happens. Kind of nice to hear in contrast to some of the boring attempts at analysis. They actually sound like they are loving the game.

Lid
03-27-2010, 12:58 PM
TV announcers are far less than perfect (as many point out), but every non-laudatory comment from them does not equate to "hate". ...
Last night, CBS replayed the sequence when a Duke basket was scored although Miles clearly had his hand in the basket's netting. Duke "hate", Duke "getting all the calls" (because the basket was not waived off), or simply reporting the game? I think the latter.
I'm not sure why I'm wading into this again, because many people have already made this point, but NO ONE is arguing what you're saying, as far as I've seen. It's ridiculous to mind "non-laudatory" comments, and you'd have to be deaf not to hear all of the complimentary things Kellogg said about Duke. There may be disagreement over how much analysts should second-guess the refs in general, but that is also a separate, more general, issue.

The point others (and I) have tried to make is that replaying certain bad calls several times, while ignoring ones that went the other direction, conveys a message. The fact is, there were missed calls in both directions last night. (Refs are human; that's just part of the game.) We only heard about a non-representative sample of them. That's the only point people are trying to make, and I fail to see why it's such a controversial observation.

It doesn't make Kellogg a bad person, but it is kind of annoying.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 01:06 PM
I'm not sure why I'm wading into this again, because many people have already made this point, but NO ONE is arguing what you're saying, as far as I've seen. It's ridiculous to mind "non-laudatory" comments, and you'd have to be deaf not to hear all of the complimentary things Kellogg said about Duke. There may be disagreement over how much analysts should second-guess the refs in general, but that is also a separate, more general, issue.

The point others (and I) have tried to make is that replaying certain bad calls several times, while ignoring ones that went the other direction, conveys a message. The fact is, there were missed calls in both directions last night. (Refs are human; that's just part of the game.) We only heard about a non-representative sample of them. That's the only point people are trying to make, and I fail to see why it's such a controversial observation.

It doesn't make Kellogg a bad person, but it is kind of annoying.

Because the point has been more than just "oh it happened." What we've heard coming from many directions is that Kellogg is a Duke hater. On the in-game thread and at other times this year.

If you're saying this business with the calls "just happened," that's a different statement. Maybe the debate boils down to just that.

Lid
03-27-2010, 01:17 PM
Because the point has been more than just "oh it happened." What we've heard coming from many directions is that Kellogg is a Duke hater. On the in-game thread and at other times this year.

If you're saying this business with the calls "just happened," that's a different statement. Maybe the debate boils down to just that.
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, since I didn't use the phrase "just happened" anywhere, but if you mean that I don't think Kellogg is a Duke hater, then yes, that's what I've tried to say (apparently unclearly) several times. As have others. And yet, even though I would never use the word "hater" wrt Kellogg, I was irritated slightly last night by the selective nature of calls that were discussed.

That being said, I never go in in-game threads, so I seem to have missed some vitriol there. I save my vitriol for verbal outbursts while I'm watching. :)

I would finally note that just because some people may, in fact, be paranoid, it doesn't mean that *everyone* who was vaguely annoyed by the selectivity last night is off the deep end. Vague annoyance and hate are two different reactions, and it's easy to lose that distinction when responding to internet threads.

Now I'm curious to hear what your rewatching of the game shows -- I'm genuinely wondering if I blocked out the announcers discussing and replaying (x3) calls (or no-calls) that benefited Purdue. I'm certainly capable of selective hearing!

_Gary
03-27-2010, 01:21 PM
Because the point has been more than just "oh it happened." What we've heard coming from many directions is that Kellogg is a Duke hater. On the in-game thread and at other times this year.

Really? There are probably a few that think Kellogg is specifically a Duke hater, but I haven't read very much of that. Maybe you are confusing Kellogg with Elmore? Just a thought, because I haven't read a whole lot of "Kellogg hates Duke" stuff. Again, I think this might be a problem with perception more so than the facts as they have been laid out in this thread.

And if you are going to rewatch the game just for the Kellogg comments, please don't count up the number of times CK said something nice/good about Duke versus bad about them. That's not the issue. The main issue is the calls (especially in the 2nd half) that he specifically used instant replay on to imply or specifically say "Duke got away with one" or something like that. There's zero question in my mind it was easily 3 or 4 (Duke) to none (Purdue) in the second half. And it does perpetuate the myth.

Oh, and please remember that much of what some of us are saying is that there is silence when something questionable goes the other team's way. So just watching for things that were said doesn't encompass the entire problem. Often times it's a combination of what is being said/pointed out and what's not being said/pointed out.

Exiled_Devil
03-27-2010, 02:14 PM
I've just finished rewatching the game online, and I have to say, even after listening for it as a result of this thread, I am absolutely unable to detect any anti-Duke bias in Clark Kellogg. In fact, were I so inclined, I could post a long list of complementary/positive comments he made about us that were not mandated by the game action at hand.

In the first half, the frustrating thing for me about the announcing was that it seemed Kellog's story for the game was going to be about Scheyer's shooting slump.

Every shot he took in the first half elicited a comment of 'the slump continues' and 'that's 38 out of the last 118 shots' or some other comment about shooting woes. When Scheyer hit his first shot, Nantz called out "shooting slump is over'.

Granted, Kellog spoke well of Scheyer late in the scond half, but he was looking to point out 'the slump'.

Part of the issue here is that sports broadcasting is about creating a narrative around an emerging event. Most announcers/analysts have to prepare a story or two ahead of time, and either look for evidence on how that story is supported or go with the "this game is nothing like the story I have in mind" Some broadcasters frame this with the 'keys to the game' up front, but at the end of the day, this fixation can get really frustrating when the story line they have coming into the game is counter to your perspective on watching it.

no_soup
03-27-2010, 02:24 PM
While I didn't really have a specific problem with Kellogg or last night's broadcast, I've long felt that many (most?) broadcasts highlight the "Duke gets all the calls" angle. I'd be curious to hear the opinion of anyone with direct or indirect experience with TV broadcasts on how this works. It seems that this theme has definite entertainment value for many and therefore might get some attention not only from the announcers, but also from the producers and directors "in the truck". After all, don't they select the replays from the multitude of missed and bad calls? How much direction do these announcers get on stuff like that? My apologies if this has already been discussed or if I sound like a nut job.

bluepenguin
03-27-2010, 02:28 PM
So, instead of Kellogg, would you prefer Billy Packer or Dick Vitale?? :rolleyes:

k
No question he is the best out there. Knows that game, explains it well, and calls it like it is. He does waste air space with irrelevant gibberish.

Newton_14
03-27-2010, 02:32 PM
Guys, just a couple of points. Having watched several Duke games that Kellog called in the last couple of years, I have to conclude that he is certainly not a Duke hater. He often speaks favorably of the kids and the program.

But that is not the point I wanted to make. There is a producer for every game and he is in the ear of both broadcasters. The broadcasters do not choose which replays to show, the producer does. With that said it is easy to see the bias when most often in any game the replays are when DUke may have gotten a favorable call.

I think most of you are directing anger at Clark that should be directed at the producer. Same thing with the storyline about Scheyer's slump. The broadcasters are told to follow that storyline and last night Nantz was mentioning Jon's shot way more than Clark was, but again a lot of that is them talking about exactly what the producer is telling them to talk about.

Yes Clark harped on the screen and net pull, but I don't think he had an agenda in doing so. He is certainly not perfect but I enjoy Clark over many of the others out there.

Just my opinion based on watching numerous games over the years that Kellog called..

bulldog44
03-27-2010, 05:13 PM
Did any of those who think Kellogg didn't highlight just Duke getaway calls go back and rewatch the game and if so what is your conclusion? Sadly it seems people are confused on the complaints. Most are irate over the lack of detail on constantly and overly publicizing Duke's no calls and those who seem to be defending Clark are somehow thinking any critique of it is equal to calling him a Duke hater. I personally do not think he hates Duke, however what I have stated from the beginning is his/CBS's laser like focus on the getaway calls for Duke and repetition of such and not one iota as far as I could tell of any analysis towards Purdue.

sagegrouse
03-27-2010, 05:18 PM
I wonder if some of the imbalance in volume of commentary occurs because players are well know to the announcers and the audience. Lets face it: (a) Duke and K and (b) Scheyer, Singler and Smith have been on television for years and years. And Zoubs is a pretty good story.

The story on Purdue is (a) who isn't there -- Robbie Hummel and (b) Chris Kramer. Pretty hard to comment on Robbie Hummel's play. I also imagine it was pretty hard to say much about Purdue's offense, given how it was limited to JaJuan Johnson and some 3-pt shots. I thought Purdue's defense came in for a lot of commentary because of the steals and turnovers in the first half.


sagegrouse
'Zoubs' every movement seemed to be analyzed, although the announcers failed to point out (i) his painful lack of speed and (ii) the resulting disadvantage against Purdue's small but mobile team. It was amazing that Zoubs got 24 minutes before fouling out'

DevilHorns
03-27-2010, 05:41 PM
Isn't it also possible that it's a part of your mindset to perceive that this is happening, so you find it regardless?

I can't believe I'm going to do this but I just started up the archive of the game. I'll see what I hear.

I posted this earlier, but if you went to the "comments" section on the ESPN article you could see that Purdue fans and just basketball fans in general were yapping about how Duke was handed the game due to poor officiating. Its not just in our heads. We notice it, yes, but so does the rest of the U.S.

Mudge
03-27-2010, 06:03 PM
First, count me as one who does not think Kellogg "hates" Duke-- only that he gives the Big 10 more than its due.

However, the OP says (paraphrasing) "where is the evidence of the lack of balance on the calls":

1) The pick which knocked Kremer woozy (not out) was, IMO, not illegal-- Zoubek was planted and didn't move his body/torso into Kremer to deliver a harsher blow... yet CK kept calling it a stone-cold foul.

2) The basket interference, that CK insisted should have been called a made basket has two problems for me: A) I think (but am not a ref), that merely touching the net does not make for basket interference-- it has to cause movement of the rim, or interfere with the ball's movement in some way that interferes with the shot; and B) The net touching occurred before the shot was on the rim, and did not move the rim, therefore I don't think it affected the shot-- the rim clanging sound came from the shot itself, not the net touch.

3) Zoubek WAS called for another foul on a screen he set, earlier in the game (his second or third foul, I believe), which looked even less like an illegal screen than the one which was not called when Kremer got knocked down-- and you could see that Zoubek thought the call was another example of him getting called for an unfair foul simply because of his big body (as he often gets called for traveling on the low blocks, when he makes a low-post move, whether he travels or not-- almost as if the officials expect him to travel-- it's one of those anticipation calls, like over-the-back calls on the outer rebounder, even if they never touch the guy in front of him). Once again, Zoubek had his feet planted, and may have moved his hips a little sideways, but he did not shuffle his feet to pick off the guard, nor did he lean into the defender to deliver a harder blow, but they called him for a foul anyway-- it was clear that Zoubek felt aggrieved by the call, but to his credit, he walked away without beefing about it... there was no discussion by CK of the lack of merit of that call.

4) The absolute worst call against Zoubek, which both Zoubek and K were very unhappy with, was the forcing-out-of-bounds call against Zoubek, when he and Thomas double-teamed a Purdue guard near the sideline-- there was absolutely no evidence that Zoubek edged (which is legal, by the way), pushed, or shoved the guard out, but the ref made a ridiculous call on him anyway-- and again, there was no replay or discussion of it by CK-- though lipreaders will know what K thought of that terrible call. Kellogg doesn't hate Duke-- he just thinks the Big 10 is better than it is.

There are others doing a lot more to pander to the Duke-haters club, including some doofus named Ryan Something on ESPN, who kept asking Steve Lavin, in the pre-Purdue game breakdown (after Lavin highlighted Duke's advantage of both shooting and making far more FTs than its opponents), if there "Is there some other reason for that?"... to which Lavin said "It's because Duke is so well coached, maintains spacing, and spreads the floor so well, and then breaks teams down by driving to the hoop"... to which Basketball PhD Ryan responded "Oh, SO, is that ALL there is to it?"...to which Lavin responded "Coach K is the Mariano Rivera of coaches-- there is nobody better at closing people down at this time of year".

This is (I think) the same Ryan Somebody who was on a panel with Jason Williams at the start of the tournament, with Jason picking the tourney games, and Jason was getting ready to analyze his pick of the Duke region, and Ryan says "So, of course you think Duke deserved its #1 seed, and you're going to have Duke coming out of this region"... to which Jason (at this point clearly tired of the guy having goaded him about Duke several times before this) says "Oh, Come on man, give the Duke thing a rest-- I'm picking them because I think they're the best team in this region, not because I went to Duke." You could tell he was really getting irritated with Ryan PhD, and was tiring of the sniping at him over Duke-- it was definitely not in good fun.

Also, Lavin is not above taking a sideways shot at Duke, or backing his hometown heroes from the West Coast-- He mentioned last night that Duke is following "by far, the easiest path to a Final Four in recent memory".

Sgt. Dingleberry
03-27-2010, 06:36 PM
I have always liked Clark Kellogg...He is fun and has an enthusiasm for the game that I enjoy...Kellogg is openly a Big Ten supporter and it is human nature to pull for the underdog. I have no malice towards him for his good natured slant towards things Purdue last night...

Len Elmore is a completely differnet story...He is an angry, bitter man who doesn't have any good natured bones in his body...When he does a Duke game you can tell he really hates Duke...That bothers me...I still don't understand how the guy has a job...He needs to be canned...

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 06:45 PM
I posted this earlier, but if you went to the "comments" section on the ESPN article you could see that Purdue fans and just basketball fans in general were yapping about how Duke was handed the game due to poor officiating. Its not just in our heads. We notice it, yes, but so does the rest of the U.S.

look, you don't have to tell me that the "Duke gets all the calls" meme exists and is rampant. All I'm saying is that there are Duke fans out there looking for evidence of that mindset just as hard as there are people on the other side looking to prove that Duke gets all the calls.

OldSchool
03-27-2010, 06:52 PM
Not sure what Elmore has against Butler, or for K State, whichever, it was a pain listening to him.

Gus Johnson, on the other hand, is a real pleasure to listen to.

After the game, Elmore interviewing the Butler coach:

Elmore: "How does it feel now that you are heading to Indiana?"

Coach: "Um Len, we were going to Indiana regardless" (Butler is in Indiana)

G man
03-27-2010, 06:54 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=5032985

I find it interesting that she thinks this is the first Duke team to play defense. She apparently has not followed the program for longer than 5 minutes. She even mentioned J.J.'s team that had the defensive player of the year on it!

Eckster
03-27-2010, 06:55 PM
No question he is the best out there. Knows that game, explains it well, and calls it like it is. He does waste air space with irrelevant gibberish.

Yes. Bobby Knight is knowledgeable, reasonable, objective and although not flashy, he's the best. Too bad we see so little of him as a color guy.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 07:06 PM
Really? There are probably a few that think Kellogg is specifically a Duke hater, but I haven't read very much of that. Maybe you are confusing Kellogg with Elmore? Just a thought, because I haven't read a whole lot of "Kellogg hates Duke" stuff. Again, I think this might be a problem with perception more so than the facts as they have been laid out in this thread.

And if you are going to rewatch the game just for the Kellogg comments, please don't count up the number of times CK said something nice/good about Duke versus bad about them. That's not the issue. The main issue is the calls (especially in the 2nd half) that he specifically used instant replay on to imply or specifically say "Duke got away with one" or something like that. There's zero question in my mind it was easily 3 or 4 (Duke) to none (Purdue) in the second half. And it does perpetuate the myth.

Oh, and please remember that much of what some of us are saying is that there is silence when something questionable goes the other team's way. So just watching for things that were said doesn't encompass the entire problem. Often times it's a combination of what is being said/pointed out and what's not being said/pointed out.

No, I'm not confusing Kellogg with Elmore. Just go back and look at the in-game threads for our last two games. Kellogg has worked both of them.

I think "Can someone please shut Clark Kellogg up," and "I got news for Clark K - it's over, moron!" are pretty clear as far as whom they address.

DevilHorns
03-27-2010, 07:15 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=5032985

I find it interesting that she thinks this is the first Duke team to play defense. She apparently has not followed the program for longer than 5 minutes. She even mentioned J.J.'s team that had the defensive player of the year on it!

O'Neill is an idiot. I kill neurons every time I read one of her articles... but I still have to do it since she's talking about Duke. :D

Mudge
03-27-2010, 07:19 PM
If the country could draft an obscure, little known Senator from Illinois to be its President, in a huge upset over several other, much more well-known, more established candidates, who had received much more media attention than him-- mainly because Obama was simply a much better and more dynamic orator than those other candidates-- then why can't America convince CBS to draft the obscure, little-known Gus Johnson to be the play-by-play voice of the big NCAA basketball games (i.e.- the Final Four Games) next weekend, in a sudden whirlwind of acknowledgement that his oratory skills far surpass those of his competitors? Today, even ESPN radio (which has got no stake in CBS, and thus couldn't care less how bad CBS's broadcasters are, and in fact, benefits from CBS's guys being terrible) was doing a funny manufactured spoof of an interview with Gus Johnson, which played up the fact that they think he is, far and away, the best thing going on CBS's NCAA broadcasts.

... and in my perfect world, Bobby Knight and Jay Bilas get to be the analysts on the game, with Bilas doing 70% of the color analysis, leaving Knight to perform the Charles Barkley, call-a-spade-a-spade role, interjecting occasionally, as he sees fit, to cut through the fog of battle, and reveal (Edwards Deming and Warren Buffett-like) what is really going on out there.

basket1544
03-27-2010, 07:19 PM
Did she really call Christian "soft and passive". LOL! Ms. O'Neill obviously hasn't been watching the same team I have for the last 25 years.

devildownunder
03-27-2010, 07:26 PM
And if you are going to rewatch the game just for the Kellogg comments, please don't count up the number of times CK said something nice/good about Duke versus bad about them. That's not the issue. The main issue is the calls (especially in the 2nd half) that he specifically used instant replay on to imply or specifically say "Duke got away with one" or something like that. There's zero question in my mind it was easily 3 or 4 (Duke) to none (Purdue) in the second half. And it does perpetuate the myth.

Oh, and please remember that much of what some of us are saying is that there is silence when something questionable goes the other team's way. So just watching for things that were said doesn't encompass the entire problem. Often times it's a combination of what is being said/pointed out and what's not being said/pointed out.

I started to watch the replay, got about 5 minutes of gameplay in and stopped to go to bed. At that point, neither announcer had made any comments about any fouls or non-fouls. After coming back this morning and reading some of the stuff here, I have decided to just stop. It's a waste of my time. Nothing I find there is going change any minds or any behavior.

Let's see, I think somebody listed three times that Kellogg said Duke got away with something and I can remember one time when he defended a call that went in Duke's favor. So that's 3 to 1 that I can think of. Add that in with all the subtle comments, digs, innuendos and insinuations that various posters have insisted are there in the broadcast if you reeeeaaaaaaalllly look for them, plus all the times when he should've been calling out the refs over something Purdue did and stayed silent, and clearly Kellogg is a culprit in perpetuating the "Duke gets all the calls" meme. That's your perspective and clearly nothing's going to change it, so I'm done. I have tried and failed. I give up. Uncle.

Underdog5
03-27-2010, 07:37 PM
I'm surprised that anybody pays this much attention to what any announcers say. I'm hoping one day for a feed that will just give me the crowd noise and floor squeaks. I usually watch games on soft mute, listen to music and keep a live stat window on my PC to track the game.

Sgt. Dingleberry
03-27-2010, 07:42 PM
Not sure what Elmore has against Butler, or for K State, whichever, it was a pain listening to him.

Gus Johnson, on the other hand, is a real pleasure to listen to.

Elmore is horrid...

With Butler up 7 and 18 seconds left, Ronald Norad steals the ball and has a breakaway layup. He misses the layup and a KSU player touches the ball while it was coming off the rim, so the basket counts...The game was already over at this point....It is now a 9 point lead and there is like 10 seconds left....Gus Johnson is exalting Butler and their great win, the fans are cheering, the players are celebrating....Len Elmore is grovelling about why the heck did the KSU player touch the ball while it was on the rim and how stupid it was...stfu Len...

ajgoodfella7
03-27-2010, 07:44 PM
Really? I think I am the complete opposite. I like announcers who do not get in the way of the actual basketball game. He is just way too loud in my opinion. I have always liked the play by play men who do not tend to overshadow the actual action on the floor. Precisely why I have always loved Al Michaels for football games. As for CBS's announcers, I prefer Jim Nantz to any of their other play by play men.

I would have to agree with you on Bilas. He has more basketball knowledge then just about any other color analyst I can think of.

sagegrouse
03-27-2010, 07:44 PM
Also, Lavin is not above taking a sideways shot at Duke, or backing his hometown heroes from the West Coast-- He mentioned last night that Duke is following "by far, the easiest path to a Final Four in recent memory".

I hope Steve Lavin gets to say, "By far, the easiest path to a national championship in history."

sagegrouse

Sgt. Dingleberry
03-27-2010, 07:46 PM
He is great...His new glasses are great, too!

Listening to him do the KSU-Xavier game on Thursday night was a pleasure...I think he willed in some of the incredible 3's that game with his enthusiasm....

sivartrenrag
03-27-2010, 07:51 PM
Imagine Gus Johnson as play-by-play with Raftery as the color man.

Rise and... hire Gus Johnson to do play-by-play for the Final Four, CBS!

Eternal Outlaw
03-27-2010, 07:58 PM
Really? I think I am the complete opposite. I like announcers who do not get in the way of the actual basketball game. He is just way too loud in my opinion. I have always liked the play by play men who do not tend to overshadow the actual action on the floor. Precisely why I have always loved Al Michaels for football games. As for CBS's announcers, I prefer Jim Nantz to any of their other play by play men.

I would have to agree with you on Bilas. He has more basketball knowledge then just about any other color analyst I can think of.

I agree with this. Couple night ago Gus did a 'RIIIIISE AND FIRE!' less than a minute into the game on a routine jumper. He's way too loud and too often for no reason.

OldSchool
03-27-2010, 08:09 PM
I agree with this. Couple night ago Gus did a 'RIIIIISE AND FIRE!' less than a minute into the game on a routine jumper. He's way too loud and too often for no reason.

That is standard fare for so many of the play-by-play announcers.

They can make it sound like a big guy who scored a layup just cured cancer or invented the internet. I wish they would save the hyperbole for something really impressive on the basketball court.

njpduke
03-27-2010, 08:13 PM
Imagine Gus Johnson as play-by-play with Raftery as the color man.

Rise and... hire Gus Johnson to do play-by-play for the Final Four, CBS!

You mean like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmY-BXzMc5g

diveonthefloor
03-27-2010, 08:24 PM
Obama would be about the last person to whom I would compare Gus Johnson.

Johnson seems to be even-handed and non-partisan for the most part between the two teams he is calling. And, um, Johnson doesn't, um, need an, um, teleprompter to feed him his lines.

Would have to agree w ya on that one!

A interesting exercise wuld be comparing certain broadcasters to their political personas.

hmmmm

Billy Packer----Dick Cheney?
Digger Phelps----Joe Biden?
Jay Bilas----Barack Obama?
Bill Raftery---George W Bush?
Steve Lavin----John Edwards?

OldSchool
03-27-2010, 08:26 PM
hmmmm

Digger Phelps----Joe Biden?


OMG that one made me laugh out loud! thanks

barjwr
03-27-2010, 08:43 PM
(Haven't checked the tape, but recall that in the famous Laettner "stomp" on the Kentucky player, one commentator immediately said it was unintentional while the other (Lundquist?) said it was intentional. In fact, it was deliberate, though not intended to harm and did not harm; just Laettner being Laettner. Was the latter a "hater", or simply calling it as it appeared to him??)

I watch a tape of that game every year in October to get fired up for the season. Ironically, FWIW, the exchange is as follows:

[color analyst]: "I'm not sure what happened there . . . It looked like a pretty darn nasty situation, and I don't know if he did it on purpose--"

[play-by-play man]: (interrupting) "Yeah, he did."

Play-by-play was Verne Lundquist; color analyst was LEN ELMORE.

Apparently there was a time before his anti-Duke bias. ;)

Devilfam
03-27-2010, 08:57 PM
Don't understand this thread. I like Obama, who is calm and cool.

Gus Johnson sounds like he is trying to be in hysterics (not the funny kind) all the time. A horrible choice by CBS.

OldSchool
03-27-2010, 09:05 PM
Actually the right comparison for Obama is with Len Elmore. Both are Harvard lawyers. Both of them elicit strong feelings for or against (for example, no doubt Maryland fans love Elmore as much as so many on here are not all that impressed).

_Gary
03-27-2010, 09:52 PM
Steve Lavin is truly a jerk! He's taken so many potshots at Duke over the last 24 hours it's crazy. Now he's talking about how WV should have been the 1 seed instead of Duke in the South bracket. I understand there was a lot of second guessing after the brackets came out, but Duke is the only #1 left and he's still talking them down? Give it a break, Steve. :rolleyes:

gumbomoop
03-27-2010, 09:58 PM
hmmmm

Billy Packer----Dick Cheney?
Digger Phelps----Joe Biden?
Jay Bilas----Barack Obama?
Bill Raftery---George W Bush?
Steve Lavin----John Edwards?


Digger = [soon to be ex-] Senator Jim Bunning

alteran
03-27-2010, 10:04 PM
Why would anyone with a genuine respect for the program, which CK clearly has, actively contribute to such a meme? I mean, I think what you're accusing him of is worse than just being a duke hater. That's just being an incredibly low individual.

I'm not accusing. He did it. I don't think it was intentional.

Being wrapped up in a public perception/meme happens all the time in all sorts of circumstances. Doesn't make someone a bad person at all.

Devilsfan
03-27-2010, 10:18 PM
There are an abundance of awful sports announcers. Just like when we all thought the Presidency couldn't get any worse, in sports along comes Hubert to follow Kellog, Elmore, Phelps (even his fellow announcers make fun of him),Rome, the fellow who got kicked out of N.D. for credit card fraud, etc. It seems like Seth, JWill, Bilas, G-man (even with his earings and pumps), and Spinarkle are the cream of the crop. I wonder what they have in common? Maybe they are "alarmingly unathletic" announcers.

BobbyFan
03-27-2010, 10:29 PM
I agree with this. Couple night ago Gus did a 'RIIIIISE AND FIRE!' less than a minute into the game on a routine jumper. He's way too loud and too often for no reason.

I don't dislike Johnson, but I agree that this is his major flaw. His over the top style can sometimes overshadow the game itself. Close games, rooting interest, and crowd noise are enough to get me excited; I don't need a yelling play-by-play guy too.

I prefer Nantz' style, because he delivers the game to me without putting his own stamp on it. His approach also allows for better chemistry with his partner (versus the odd Johnson-Elmore contrast).

Son of Mojo
03-27-2010, 10:32 PM
Basketball announcing is getting to be almost as bad as basketball officiating has become IMO. I don't think Kellogg has a bias against us but when listening to the game I did feel like he was beating a dead horse on some of the no-calls (Z's screens, Miles GT) and was not really up to speed on some of what Purdue was getting away with (handchecks, over the back fouls). He definitely could have done a better job with being balanced on saying some of the things Purdue was doing and not being called with and laid off what he was saying about us by a few notches. But he didn't and that game is now done with. Let's just hope as we (hopefully) continue to win that we will not have to keep hearing similar commentary. If someone didn't watch the game to really see what was going on and just listened to word of mouth of the commentary, it definitely will help continue the garbage of "Duke gets all the calls." That BS really needs to die a quick death but it still just keeps surviving. Give me a team of Gminski & Knight--I think that would work.

sagegrouse
03-27-2010, 10:46 PM
Steve Lavin is truly a jerk! He's taken so many potshots at Duke over the last 24 hours it's crazy. Now he's talking about how WV should have been the 1 seed instead of Duke in the South bracket. I understand there was a lot of second guessing after the brackets came out, but Duke is the only #1 left and he's still talking them down? Give it a break, Steve. :rolleyes:

By the way, this proves what a dope Steve Lavin is. The only point in discussing the brackets and the seeds and the teams left out is to kill time (let me repeat, KILL TIME) until the first-round games started on Thursday, March 18. After the games start, the games and teams are the story, not the seedings.

Uh, Steve.... March 18 was nine days ago. There have been nearly 60 games played so far, plus two exciting ones coming up on Sunday. Why don't you talk about something relevant?

Also, as it turns out, few teams are facing the seeds they were expected to play. Three members of the Elite Eight were not even expected to make the Sweet Sixteen.

sagegrouse

arnie
03-27-2010, 11:08 PM
Digger and Walter Davis's nephew both picked Baylor - Digger said it would be easy.

sivartrenrag
03-27-2010, 11:15 PM
You mean like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmY-BXzMc5g

YES! Thanks for that. Awesome.

Exiled_Devil
03-27-2010, 11:28 PM
Digger and Walter Davis's nephew both picked Baylor - Digger said it would be easy.

And Digger said a reason why is that Baylor is a tough, physical team - as if Duke hadn't faced a team like that (and statistically superior) in the last 24 hours.

I checked kenpom - as of Duke is the #3 defensive team in the nation, Purdue number 4 and Baylor is number 6. Amusingly, Kentucky is 5.

The really sad thing about these 'analysts' is when they don't actually look at data.

bulldog44
03-28-2010, 01:56 AM
I started to watch the replay, got about 5 minutes of gameplay in and stopped to go to bed. At that point, neither announcer had made any comments about any fouls or non-fouls. After coming back this morning and reading some of the stuff here, I have decided to just stop. It's a waste of my time. Nothing I find there is going change any minds or any behavior.

Let's see, I think somebody listed three times that Kellogg said Duke got away with something and I can remember one time when he defended a call that went in Duke's favor. So that's 3 to 1 that I can think of. Add that in with all the subtle comments, digs, innuendos and insinuations that various posters have insisted are there in the broadcast if you reeeeaaaaaaalllly look for them, plus all the times when he should've been calling out the refs over something Purdue did and stayed silent, and clearly Kellogg is a culprit in perpetuating the "Duke gets all the calls" meme. That's your perspective and clearly nothing's going to change it, so I'm done. I have tried and failed. I give up. Uncle.

You are correct, watching anymore to support your theory is a waste of your time. I am not sure what type of firewall you have set up but it seems to be set a bit to high. Now you decided to put forth a bit of math to validate your statements but of course refused to view the entire game and instead relied on memory. Now I don't fault you since I indeed used memory to recite what I saw, which was 3 calls for Duke getting away, oh yeah THAT WERE REPLAYED SEVERAL TIMES , and never could recall ANY from Purdue. However you did remember where he once said something like, "Yep good call." . I personally didn't ask you to devise some mysterious DaVinci code to analyze the game and notice every microbe so as to point out a connection between Stonehenge and Kellogg, I simply wanted you to watch it again and relay back to all of us the comparison chart to pointing out Duke get aways, and Purdue ones. But you refused to do so. I don't mind being wrong, I must be shown to be wrong and have it proven to me. Ignorance is only a temporary excuse. Anyone else care to take the challenge?

ElSid
03-28-2010, 02:21 AM
Actually the right comparison for Obama is with Len Elmore. Both are Harvard lawyers. Both of them elicit strong feelings for or against (for example, no doubt Maryland fans love Elmore as much as so many on here are not all that impressed).

I used to like Elmore. But the problem is he is wont to robotically regurgitate. I guess that's part of "short cuts" in his "job". He doesn't seem to think or offer a nuanced view of things. It's like tired legs explains all of his existential questions.

ElSid
03-28-2010, 02:28 AM
what i want is insight, objectivity, humor, basketball knowledge, personality.

so few commentators deliver. gotta give the current top rating to bilas. and seriously, no bias there. he's the most likely to call it like he sees it, and to provide really interesting insights into the game. hearing him talk during the game actually enhances the experience.

i like rafferty only because he honks and barks a lot of the time and i can't understand what he's saying but the sound is great. he and bilas seem to yuck it up though. so nantz for pbp, bilas for analysis, rafferty for sound effects.
go duke.

slower
03-28-2010, 08:12 AM
Not sure what Elmore has against Butler, or for K State, whichever, it was a pain listening to him.

Gus Johnson, on the other hand, is a real pleasure to listen to.

After the game, Elmore interviewing the Butler coach:

Elmore: "How does it feel now that you are heading to Indiana?"

Coach: "Um Len, we were going to Indiana regardless" (Butler is in Indiana)

We had the same discussion (Gus/Len and KSU/Butler) in another thread

Les Grossman
03-28-2010, 08:56 AM
actually, he's very good. I don't get any anti-Duke bias from him at all. Len Elmore is the one who bugs me, because in recent years he has been a rather vocal proponent of the 'Duke gets all of the calls' meme, which is pathetic and is designed to turn the audience, and refs, against Duke. Too bad, because his knowledge and love for the game are evident and he is otherwise a fine announcer.

Jay Bilas bends over backwards to avoid appearing biased for Duke, perhaps to excess. Nevertheless, he is excellent. Really does his homework, speaks clearly, conveys passion for the game. Quite obviously, he could not be biased against Duke.

I enjoyed hearing G-man and Spanarkle in the early rounds. Two of my favorite Dukies, they both really know and love the game. In fact, if Gman quit his day job and did the NCAA full time, he'd go right to the head of the class. Jay Williams is also classy in the pre-game and half time features he does. Dang, our guys are strong!

ElSid
03-28-2010, 10:48 AM
Dang, our guys are strong!

They have to be. If they weren't they'd get torn up by the haters.

I've seen Jay Williams take another announcer to task for repeatedly saying "of course you think that, Jay, you're a Dukie". It actually got a little testy with Jay saying, "Come off of the Duke stuff, will you?" Jay was trying to do his job and the other guy just appeared juvenile. Maybe that got some viewers excited, but mostly Jay looked like the classier professional.

It's got to get especially annoying as a commentator hearing people like Gottlieb pulling the "you're a Dukie" card all the time.

I agree that some of our Duke alumni in the profession swing a bit far to the other side...seeming a bit anti-Duke. That's fine. I prefer it and I think it's probably a good idea for their reputations.

Who's going to be calling the Duke game in Houston today?

sagegrouse
03-28-2010, 11:00 AM
It's got to get especially annoying as a commentator hearing people like Gottlieb pulling the "you're a Dukie" card all the time.

?

Gottlieb did, however, select Jason Williams as the "player of the decade."

sagegrouse

Devilsfan
03-28-2010, 11:05 AM
Was it a Visa or Master Card? Also some people appear "calm and cool" when they have their blankie, teddy bear or telepromptor. Those people always seem to pull agaist Duke, and pick what they think most people are for, say the heels or this year Kansas.

calltheobvious
03-28-2010, 11:08 AM
Digger and Walter Davis's nephew both picked Baylor - Digger said it would be easy.

Meh, I wouldn't give this a second thought. I didn't see Digger's official prediction, but I listened to him discuss the game on at least two different segments over the 24 hours following the Purdue game. In both instances he downplayed the importance that Hubert placed on our perimeter shooting by saying that we would be very strong on the offensive glass against BU's zone.

Digger only decides from one moment to the next what he thinks about anything. Witness the complete incoherence of his thoughts from sentence to sentence.

Ties matching markers. It's the only reason he still has a television gig.

Indoor66
03-28-2010, 11:12 AM
Ties matching markers. It's the only reason he still has a television gig.

Yeah, a one color meme for a one thought meme.

Devilsfan
03-28-2010, 11:20 AM
He's their comic relief. Their court jester.

Dukeknights
03-28-2010, 11:31 AM
Gus Johnson is the best announcer of this tournament so far.

Indoor66
03-28-2010, 12:08 PM
I think Johnson is a little too full of himself. He seems to want to be the story rather than the reporter. Kind of like the controversial intros at Cameron this year.

Dukeknights
03-28-2010, 12:43 PM
I think Johnson is a little too full of himself. He seems to want to be the story rather than the reporter. Kind of like the controversial intros at Cameron this year.

i think he would be fine just calling the game himself lol..

He was perfect for the K-State-Xavier game. Best game of the tourney, perfect announcer for the game too.

Exiled_Devil
03-28-2010, 01:50 PM
They have to be. If they weren't they'd get torn up by the haters.

I've seen Jay Williams take another announcer to task for repeatedly saying "of course you think that, Jay, you're a Dukie". It actually got a little testy with Jay saying, "Come off of the Duke stuff, will you?" Jay was trying to do his job and the other guy just appeared juvenile. Maybe that got some viewers excited, but mostly Jay looked like the classier professional.

It's got to get especially annoying as a commentator hearing people like Gottlieb pulling the "you're a Dukie" card all the time.

I agree that some of our Duke alumni in the profession swing a bit far to the other side...seeming a bit anti-Duke. That's fine. I prefer it and I think it's probably a good idea for their reputations.

Who's going to be calling the Duke game in Houston today?

I'm not sure this was the same day, but someone ( I think Andy Katz) was commenting on Duke's poor road record going into the ACC tourney as an issue for the Blue Devils. And JWill stopped him and asked 'do you know their neutral court record?" Katz said no, and Jay let him know it was perfect.

IIRC, JWill picked Baylor to come out of our region. Of course, every other prediction that he made was wrong (Kentucky,tOSU, and KState IIRC), so there's that.

pfrduke
03-28-2010, 03:46 PM
College basketball is a lot easier to watch when you grow a thicker skin.

I'm (very) late to this thread, but just wanted to highlight this. There are a lot of people posting here who could use to take this advice.

jdj4duke
03-28-2010, 04:25 PM
Digger and Walter Davis's nephew both picked Baylor - Digger said it would be easy.

Vegas picks Duke; that is far a far more reliable predictor.

Exiled_Devil
03-28-2010, 08:14 PM
For the Record,

Kellog was fine tonight.

But I missed a lot of what he said due to my and my wife screaming.

ElSid
03-28-2010, 08:16 PM
totally acceptable. go duke. great game.

i'm thrilled right now. sky's the limit now.

devildeac
03-28-2010, 08:18 PM
Announcers? I listen to WDNC.:D;)

Delaware
03-28-2010, 08:29 PM
If you listen to him on ESPNNews, you will want to throw a rock at him through you new HDTV (glad I showed some restraint!)

Greg_Newton
03-28-2010, 08:31 PM
Is there seriously a way to complain about Steve Lavin somewhere? I mean, heroic effort tonight... and all he can talk about is how we had the easiest bracket in 25 years and how the charge Zoubek drew was really a blocking foul and was the reason we won the game (multiple replays). That's literally all he talked about, besides rambling about the Duke-gets-all the calls conspiracy for a little while (without debunking it whatsoever).

Effing ridiculous.

Exiled_Devil
03-28-2010, 08:32 PM
If you listen to him on ESPNNews, you will want to throw a rock at him through you new HDTV (glad I showed some restraint!)

true dat.

He is a whiny little #$*^$.

I recall someone saying that they were upset and wanted to call upon UCLA to revoke his right to call himself a 'former coach' from there. I dig that person.

cptnflash
03-28-2010, 08:33 PM
Is there seriously a way to complain about Steve Lavin somewhere? I mean, heroic effort tonight... and all he can talk about is how we had the easiest bracket in 25 years and how the charge Zoubek drew was really a blocking foul and was the reason we won the game (multiple replays). That's literally all he talked about, besides rambling about the Duke-gets-all the calls conspiracy for a little while (without debunking it whatsoever).

Effing ridiculous.

Completely agree. He makes me sick.

arnie
03-28-2010, 08:33 PM
Is there seriously a way to complain about Steve Lavin somewhere? I mean, heroic effort tonight... and all he can talk about is how we had the easiest bracket in 25 years and how the charge Zoubek drew was really a blocking foul and was the reason we won the game (multiple replays). That's literally all he talked about, besides rambling about the Duke-gets-all the calls conspiracy for a little while (without debunking it whatsoever).

Effing ridiculous.

Yea, he starts it to get the other idiot to agree with him - then he lets it fade, but the uninformed watching begin to doubt the game was fair.

Matches
03-28-2010, 08:35 PM
Complaining about him would only convince his bosses he's doing a great job. Best to just ignore him, much like the Pac-10 used to do after about March 1 or so.

Devilsfan
03-28-2010, 08:43 PM
Hey there's a new announcer that is challenging for the worst ever. Jothathan Coachman just said "Duke gets all the calls" and they had the easiest bracket. Who is this ahole and who did his mother know that well to get him the job?

_Gary
03-28-2010, 08:46 PM
Dick Vitale gave a strong, strong rebuke to all the "Duke haters" right after the game on ESPN and there's no doubt in my mind one of the guys he was pointing the finger at was Lavin. I mean this guy is just so over the top with his hatred it's not even funny. And no one will ever convince me that ESPN is populated with Duke haters. Of course it's not everyone. But there are plenty of them there and they just continue to try and fuel this "Duke gets all the calls" crap. I wish Jay would call some of these guys out like Vitale just did. It needs to be done in the worst way. I know he wants to appear nuetral but his fellow commentators and news anchors are NOT being nuetral in their commentary.

NYC Duke Fan
03-28-2010, 09:14 PM
The so-called basketball pundits saying that Duke had the easiest run to the Final Four in the past 25 years. This is what Steve Lavin did say on ESPNNews after the game.

That is sheer nonsense. There is no such thing as an easy run to a Final Four, so let's stop with all that idiocy.

If this post should be in another thread, I have no problem putting it there. I was just disgusted by Lavin 's comments

1Devil
03-28-2010, 09:15 PM
Ditto. If anything, I thought ours was second easiest in this tournament after the Syracuse bracket.

NYDukie
03-28-2010, 09:17 PM
The so-called basketball pundits saying that Duke had the easiest run to the Final Four in the past 25 years. This is what Steve Lavin did say on ESPNNews after the game.

That is sheer nonsense. There is no such thing as an easy run to a Final Four, so let's stop with all that idiocy.

If this post should be in another thread, I have no problem putting it there. I was just disgusted by Lavin 's comments

Let's hear what he has to say if he gets the St. John's job and happens to play Duke and gets whipped again by 20+ both here at the Garden and down at Duke. Let's see how easy that is.

cspan37421
03-28-2010, 09:17 PM
If anyone has run some numbers, I'd like to see them. I can say that when I looked at the top 4 seeds in each region at the start of the tournament, and looked at their ratings in the computer polls, the south was the 2nd toughest of the four regions.

As for the path to the FF, I haven't added that up yet. But the first is all that matters as far as "setting" the field. The haters can take that FACT and dwell on it for awhile.

cptnflash
03-28-2010, 09:18 PM
Lavin already on the record saying WVU will beat Duke on Saturday. Apparently we're not very good against teams that are long and athletic. Thank God we don't have to play Baylor.... oh wait.

ChicagoCrazy84
03-28-2010, 09:18 PM
Yeah, playing Baylor in Houston is an easy one Lavin. Whatever dude, we did what we were given. We can't help what everyone else did. Nova was overrated and lost and we played the #3 and #4 seed in our region, I don't know what is so easy about that. Screw him, Im enjoying this baby!!

cspan37421
03-28-2010, 09:19 PM
Lavin already on the record saying WVU will beat Duke on Saturday. Apparently we're not very good against teams that are long and athletic.

When we get to Indy, we'll be even more athletic than people don't think we are!

ChicagoCrazy84
03-28-2010, 09:20 PM
Lavin already on the record saying WVU will beat Duke on Saturday. Apparently we're not very good against teams that are long and athletic. Thank God we don't have to play Baylor.... oh wait.


Oh yeah baby, bring it!!! This one is officially for you Lavin!!

Vincetaylor
03-28-2010, 09:21 PM
MSU didn't have to beat anyone over a 4 seed to get to the Final Four. Lavin's argument is null and void.

Bluedog
03-28-2010, 09:26 PM
The so-called basketball pundits saying that Duke had the easiest run to the Final Four in the past 25 years. This is what Steve Lavin did say on ESPNNews after the game.

That is sheer nonsense. There is no such thing as an easy run to a Final Four, so let's stop with all that idiocy.

If this post should be in another thread, I have no problem putting it there. I was just disgusted by Lavin 's comments

Honestly, I think our road to the Final Four WAS relatively easy when compared to the past 25 years of tournaments. But so was Butler's and Michigan State's. WVU was a bit harder since they had to beat KY, I'd say...There are NO elite teams this year (Kansas and Kentucky would be debatable, but not even MSU had to beat Kansas), which makes for quite an exciting tournament. The winner this year (whoever it is) would probably be one of the "worst" national championship teams in the last decade. (But being the worst among that group certainly is still really really good.) I think how Lavin phrased his point is stupid, but I think there is a grain of truth to it in that this Duke final four team (as well as this years MSU, Butler, and WVU teams) is not a "vintage" final four team. Just because of a change in the college landscape. All really solid good teams, but not amazing but any stretch of the imagination. In any event, I love this team and certainly think we have the abilities to go all the way! Wahoo!!!

_Gary
03-28-2010, 09:33 PM
The problem is Lavin is engaging in some serious hyperbole to make his point. No way has Duke had the easiest path to the Final Four in 25 years. Their bracket was anything but a cakewalk and Lavin knows it. He's just being an old-fashioned jerk. If he really believes what he's been saying he has zero business being on ESPN and speaking to millions of people. If he doesn't really believe that then he's a hypocrite. Either way he's doing it to undermine this team's accomplishments, plain and simple.

cspan37421
03-28-2010, 09:52 PM
The problem is Lavin is engaging in some serious hyperbole to make his point. No way has Duke had the easiest path to the Final Four in 25 years.

It's very unlikely

a) to be true, and
b) that Lavin looked at the 100 such paths and ranked them based on some objective criteria.

Someone should have challenged him, and said, "How do you know that, Steve?"

Exiled_Devil
03-28-2010, 09:59 PM
Nice to see ESPN highlighting DUke players in the NBA in their game coverage.

Side note - did JJ drop 23 and 8 tonight? Did I hear that right through my drunken haze?

EDIT: Also, ESPN News just highlighted all - no, just many - of the poor calls by their analysts. Including Digger and Lavin calling it for Baylor.

godukerocks
03-28-2010, 10:20 PM
Dick Vitale gave a strong, strong rebuke to all the "Duke haters" right after the game on ESPN and there's no doubt in my mind one of the guys he was pointing the finger at was Lavin.

If anyone finds a video of Vitale soliloquy, please post! Would love to see it.

_Gary
03-28-2010, 10:22 PM
Lavin has used the classic strategy of downing the team you hate so that no matter what happens you are in the "driver's seat", so to speak. If Duke goes on to win the national title Lavin will be able to say they only did it because they had an easy bracket and all the best teams were knocked out earlier so they faced no one of consequence. If they lose he'll say, "See. I told you so." It's a no win situation because he's been allowed to frame the discussion in unfair and unfactual ways and no one has called him on it.

vlove
03-28-2010, 10:24 PM
It's very unlikely

a) to be true, and
b) that Lavin looked at the 100 such paths and ranked them based on some objective criteria.

Someone should have challenged him, and said, "How do you know that, Steve?"

this is the one point that lavin needs to really be called out on by any self respecting studio colleague. based on his convictions as demonstrated by his sheer repetition, this is what i'd like to see him posed with:

"coach lavin, you've indicated that duke's path to the final four is the easiest bracket you've seen in the last 25 years. since you have obviously exerted a lot of time and effort in analyzing every bracket dating back to 1985, i'd like to ask you, prior to duke this year, what team had the easiest bracket over the last 25 years? Also, behind duke 2010, can you please give me your remaining top 10 easiest brackets for a #1 seed during that time frame? finally, can you shed some insight as to the considerable amount of effort that this undertaking has required from you, particularly given your time commitments for the ~5 year stretch you sat on the UCLA sidelines?"

_Gary
03-28-2010, 10:51 PM
Ugh. I was just getting ready to type up a nice post about how Stuart Scott (a well-known Tar Hole) sucked it up and gave a great game summary on Sportscenter and as he finished he had to bring up the "questionable" call and how it potentially changed the game. I know it's probably the producers telling him to say that, but I also thought the anchors helped right their own material. So he has to bear at least a little of the responsibility. And no way he says something similar if it's UNC instead of Duke. I defy anyone to still maintain that ESPN doesn't have at least a slight anti-Duke bias after all the crap we've heard from that network over the last couple of weeks, and especially the last 4 days.

theAlaskanBear
03-28-2010, 10:57 PM
Ugh. I was just getting ready to type up a nice post about how Stuart Scott (a well-known Tar Hole) sucked it up and gave a great game summary on Sportscenter and as he finished he had to bring up the "questionable" call and how it potentially changed the game. I know it's probably the producers telling him to say that, but I also thought the anchors helped right their own material. So he has to bear at least a little of the responsibility. And no way he says something similar if it's UNC instead of Duke. I defy anyone to still maintain that ESPN doesn't have at least a slight anti-Duke bias after all the crap we've heard from that network over the last couple of weeks, and especially the last 4 days.

Yeah I tuned in to watch the highlights right off the 1030 start because I dont have the game recorded, and Scott pulls that BS about the questionable call. Have they said that about any other final four team, EVER?

_Gary
03-28-2010, 11:02 PM
Yeah I tuned in to watch the highlights right off the 1030 start because I dont have the game recorded, and Scott pulls that BS about the questionable call. Have they said that about any other final four team, EVER?

Not to the degree they do with Duke. If it's not an out and out agenda with some of these guys (both in front of and behind the cameras at ESPN) it's at least a mindset that takes them to the same "Duke gets all the calls" spot time and time again. Frankly, I think the guys doing it know they are doing it. What's worse I think they know they are influencing public opinion and are only more than happy to keep the mythical mantra at the forefront of every discussion.

It sickens me and I really wish someone besides Dickie V would do the right thing and respond by pointing out that the facts don't bear out this myth that's being shoved down the viewer's throat at every turn on ESPN.

bluedevil2012
03-28-2010, 11:12 PM
If anyone finds a video of Vitale soliloquy, please post! Would love to see it.

Don't have the video, but this is the quote:


"What is there to hate about a bunch of kids that play hard, play with feeling, play with intensity, play the right way, go to class, get their degrees, do things with integrity? ....What it gets down to is one simple feeling. It starts with J, and it ends with S. And you put all the other letters in it, and it spells JEALOUS"

Vincetaylor
03-28-2010, 11:17 PM
Personally, I hope no one ever puts down Dickie V on this board again. He has stood up for Duke time and time again, not because he is biased, but because he seems to recognize the constant, baseless criticism of Duke and the "Duke gets all the calls" bs.

BD80
03-28-2010, 11:17 PM
Ugh. I was just getting ready to type up a nice post about how Stuart Scott (a well-known Tar Hole) sucked it up and gave a great game summary on Sportscenter and as he finished he had to bring up the "questionable" call and how it potentially changed the game. I know it's probably the producers telling him to say that, but I also thought the anchors helped right their own material. So he has to bear at least a little of the responsibility. And no way he says something similar if it's UNC instead of Duke. I defy anyone to still maintain that ESPN doesn't have at least a slight anti-Duke bias after all the crap we've heard from that network over the last couple of weeks, and especially the last 4 days.

When they highlight this "blown" call, do they include the blown goaltending non-call immediately preceding it? My first thought was "make-up call," there was no way the block/charge would go against us after the refs so badly missed the goaltending.

Vincetaylor
03-28-2010, 11:19 PM
When they highlight this "blown" call, do they include the blown goaltending non-call immediately preceding it? My first thought was "make-up call," there was no way the block/charge would go against us after the refs so badly missed the goaltending.

Or how about the non-shooting foul on Singler, when he was clearly in the act of shooting. A really big play at the time.

Bluedog
03-28-2010, 11:23 PM
Another painful article on CBS. I'll quote the portion that is relevant so you don't waste your mouse click. The title was simply "Smith, Scheyer fuel win (http://tournament-blogger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/view/20091884?tag=pageRow;pageContainer)" so I thought it was harmless.

Drew Franklin at CBS:



Grow a pair, ref.

Baylor had momentum and was looking to stretch its lead to five with 4:37 to go when Quincy Acy was called for an offensive foul. Had it gone the other way (the correct way), the foul would've been on Brian Zoubek, his fifth. The call was terrible and completely changed the game from that point forward. Zoubek remained in the game and momentum swung to Duke's favor. I guess the easiest road to the Final Four wasn't enough for Duke, they needed a few crucial calls, too.

Right, because one call decides the outcome of a 40-minute game. And the "easiest road to the Final Four" is again used as the only reason Duke made it this far. The whole article is from a Baylor point of view really.


REBOUND!

Baylor did an atrocious job of boxing out and grabbing defensive rebounds late in the game.

Right, Duke's players couldn't have possibly been doing a GOOD job of rebounding...like they've done every game for the past two months. Had to be Baylor being pathetic.

Duke Parent 06
03-28-2010, 11:24 PM
Dick Vitale gave a strong, strong rebuke to all the "Duke haters" right after the game on ESPN and there's no doubt in my mind one of the guys he was pointing the finger at was Lavin. I mean this guy is just so over the top with his hatred it's not even funny. And no one will ever convince me that ESPN is populated with Duke haters. Of course it's not everyone. But there are plenty of them there and they just continue to try and fuel this "Duke gets all the calls" crap. I wish Jay would call some of these guys out like Vitale just did. It needs to be done in the worst way. I know he wants to appear nuetral but his fellow commentators and news anchors are NOT being nuetral in their commentary.

As long as ESPN keeps putting 90 percent of the Duke games on my TV in HD they can put Steve Lavin on the air every night.

NashvilleDevil
03-28-2010, 11:24 PM
We all know Lavin is not smart. But he is stuck on ESPN News. I just wish Bilas and Williams would stop being good guys and take some of these knuckleheads to task for their bias.

I cannot imagine any of this happening if The Baddest Man on the Planet was in studio with these numskulls.

jv001
03-28-2010, 11:24 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Lavin the jerk predicted Baylor would beat Duke because they were more athletic than Duke. Well he just said the same thing about WVU. Looks like he'd get some new material. I guess these announcers think white guys can't play a lick. Go Duke!

sagegrouse
03-28-2010, 11:28 PM
[From BlueDog] Right, Duke's players couldn't have possibly been doing a GOOD job of rebounding...like they've done every game for the past two months. Had to be Baylor being pathetic.

I'vb been watching, but no one has said it yet. There were 43 rebounds from missed Duke shots. Duke grabbed 23 and Baylor only got 20.

Baylor completely lost the thread on defense the last four minutes. Maybe the Bears were tired; maybe they choked; maybe Duke played far better than in the first 36 minutes. Doesn't matter. Duke pulled away convincingly at the end.

sagegrouse

weezie
03-28-2010, 11:28 PM
Honestly, I think our road to the Final Four WAS relatively easy when compared to the past 25 years of tournaments.

Not to pick but being there and seeing how scrappy these games were, no one can say our weekend was any easier than any other bracket.

These players are giving it everything, on both sides of every court. The games are NOT easy.

Lavin is a yammering little man who can't settle on a hairstyle. I've never seen a guy so enthralled with how he looks. I mean, it's hair Steve! Knock it off you pinhead!

FerryFor50
03-28-2010, 11:28 PM
Another painful article on CBS. I'll quote the portion that is relevant so you don't waste your mouse click. The title was simply "Smith, Scheyer fuel win (http://tournament-blogger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/view/20091884?tag=pageRow;pageContainer)" so I thought it was harmless.

Drew Franklin at CBS:



Right, because one call decides the outcome of a 40-minute game. And the "easiest road to the Final Four" is again used as the only reason Duke made it this far. The whole article is from a Baylor point of view really.



Right, Duke's players couldn't have possibly been doing a GOOD job of rebounding...like they've done every game for the past two months. Had to be Baylor being pathetic.

One thing I really hate about the internet is how bloggers can pose as actual journalists and get away with it. Having a blog on Yahoo or CBS is just as official as commenting on an internet forum or having a personal blog. There's not accountability for bloggers and they can say any stupid, uninformed thing they want and people will believe it's journalism.

NashvilleDevil
03-28-2010, 11:32 PM
Another painful article on CBS. I'll quote the portion that is relevant so you don't waste your mouse click. The title was simply "Smith, Scheyer fuel win (http://tournament-blogger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/view/20091884?tag=pageRow;pageContainer)" so I thought it was harmless.

I wasted a mouse click and read the 4 comments to his post. Only one person agreed with the Duke gets all the calls nonsense.

Bluedog
03-28-2010, 11:34 PM
One thing I really hate about the internet is how bloggers can pose as actual journalists and get away with it. Having a blog on Yahoo or CBS is just as official as commenting on an internet forum or having a personal blog. There's not accountability for bloggers and they can say any stupid, uninformed thing they want and people will believe it's journalism.

Yeah, agreed but it was linked on the FRONT page of cbssportsline directly under the main image, so I figured it was more "official" as in a blog from somebody reputable. ESPN publishes "blogs" by paid writers, I believe... CBS chose to put it there and it's still there 20 minutes later; so it's not even a rotating link. I wouldn't expect any of our posts to be linked on the front page of ESPN or anything like that.

FerryFor50
03-28-2010, 11:37 PM
Yeah, agreed but it was linked on the FRONT page of cbssportsline directly under the main image, so I figured it was more "official." CBS chose to put it there and it's still there 20 minutes later; so it's not even a rotating link. I wouldn't expect any of our posts to be linked on the front page of ESPN or anything like that.

Yea it's major media cheaping out on actual writers. They fire all of the legit writers and then hire bloggers for little to no cost and then present these hacks as actual journalists. Then if anyone says anything they can hide behind the opinion argument.

Pretty shady overall.

papa whiskey
03-28-2010, 11:40 PM
As long as ESPN keeps putting 90 percent of the Duke games on my TV in HD they can put Steve Lavin on the air every night.

Could not agree more. People hate Duke, Irish football, the Yankees, the Cowboys, and every other team with a national following. Jealousy for men is a stinky fragrance but much easier to tolerate as long as i can watch every game all year in HD.

_Gary
03-28-2010, 11:45 PM
I honestly thought the hatred and irrational "Duke gets all the calls" mantra would dissipate after Duke had, at least by their standards, a down time in terms of the NCAA Tourney in recent years. I thought that maybe, just maybe, all the hatred would die out. But no, no, no. Here it is in full force and Duke hasn't even gotten to the Championship game, much less won it, yet.

Please bear with me. I know deep down it's not a conspiracy or anything. But honestly, it just seems so planned out by these guys and pushed like nobody's business by the networks. I do believe Dickie V was right on calling it for what it is - jealousy. There's just no other viable alternative. But the fact that Duke hasn't won a title in almost a decade I really thought we'd stop hearing this garbage. But right now I swear it's as strong as it was nearly a decade ago when the Twerps and Billy Packer really made it fashionable.

LSanders
03-29-2010, 12:08 AM
Lavin, obviously, is a douche (which, coincidentally, is also where he gets his fine hair products), who is taking THE EASIEST ROAD TO CONTROVERSY IN 25 YEARS by slamming Duke.

Duke's a lightening rod. Slam Duke ... Praise Duke ... It all generates controversy, which is the goal of ESPN and most sports programming in general. Who knows what any of those idiots reallythink.

Personally, I think Duke should "reward" them for their unbiased coverage by signing a contract Fox Sports to televise all their games. ESPN makes SO MUCH MONEY off Duke that's very upsetting when they slam us to boost ratings and chatter.

I agree with the earlier poster about Dickie V ... You may hate him or his style, but he gives his honest opinion - just like Knight.

You also gotta feel sorry for St. John's that they've slipped so badly they're agreeing to talk to Lavin. If he's getting an interview, maybe I should call my kid's T-Ball coach (I could be his agent)!

mehmattski
03-29-2010, 12:11 AM
I honestly thought the hatred and irrational "Duke gets all the calls" mantra would dissipate after Duke had, at least by their standards, a down time in terms of the NCAA Tourney in recent years. I thought that maybe, just maybe, all the hatred would die out. But no, no, no. Here it is in full force and Duke hasn't even gotten to the Championship game, much less won it, yet.

Please bear with me. I know deep down it's not a conspiracy or anything. But honestly, it just seems so planned out by these guys and pushed like nobody's business by the networks. I do believe Dickie V was right on calling it for what it is - jealousy. There's just no other viable alternative. But the fact that Duke hasn't won a title in almost a decade I really thought we'd stop hearing this garbage. But right now I swear it's as strong as it was nearly a decade ago when the Twerps and Billy Packer really made it fashionable.

Agreed. Much like writers were already dusting off their "Yankees buy the World Series" articles as soon as October began, they also fall upon tired cliches for hated Duke. All we can do is try not to let the haterade ruin our enjoyment of a wonderful team making a fantastic run.

LSanders
03-29-2010, 12:16 AM
I do believe Dickie V was right on calling it for what it is - jealousy. There's just no other viable alternative. But the fact that Duke hasn't won a title in almost a decade I really thought we'd stop hearing this garbage. But right now I swear it's as strong as it was nearly a decade ago when the Twerps and Billy Packer really made it fashionable.


Just wait ... If we manage to win the NC ... AND Kyle comes back with an increasingly talented supporting cast ... We could be looking at the possibility of another back-to-back.

Not trying to jinx anything or take anything for granted, but I thought the game today was the hardest game left for us. Believe me, I know WVU, Butler and MSU are all capable of beating us ... BUT ... I think it will take something of a bad game (or a superman game by them) for us to lose. I believe Baylor's better than any of the others.

So ... Just imagine what the talking "headlesses" will be saying then! :cool:

longtimedevil
03-29-2010, 09:11 AM
Every timeout seemed to have a Baylor highlight. There was exactly zero coverage of Duke post game. Is is me or was the telecast a bit biased?

Indoor66
03-29-2010, 09:24 AM
Every timeout seemed to have a Baylor highlight. There was exactly zero coverage of Duke post game. Is is me or was the telecast a bit biased?

I noticed the same thing.

roywhite
03-29-2010, 09:29 AM
Speaking of the CBS coverage, it was quite an adventure following the game for those of us in the Piedmont Triad, with local station WFMY out of Greensboro. There were major interruptions due to coverage of the severe weather. The young lady doing the weekend weather spent the longest time trying to get her various weather gizmos to work with radar shots, etc. while the game action was being carried in a small window. Argghhh.

The game was carried on another CBS cable channel, but this was of no help to someone who has DirecTV, like me. Finally had to go to the computer to get the streaming video.

Lord Ash
03-29-2010, 09:36 AM
They likely didn't spend any time on Duke postgame celebration (which really sucks, IMHO) because they had other shows (60 Minutes, Amazing Race) that were already late.

Devil in the Blue Dress
03-29-2010, 09:36 AM
Speaking of the CBS coverage, it was quite an adventure following the game for those of us in the Piedmont Triad, with local station WFMY out of Greensboro. There were major interruptions due to coverage of the severe weather. The young lady doing the weekend weather spent the longest time trying to get her various weather gizmos to work with radar shots, etc. while the game action was being carried in a small window. Argghhh.

The game was carried on another CBS cable channel, but this was of no help to someone who has DirecTV, like me. Finally had to go to the computer to get the streaming video.

When the weather took over, I tuned in to Bob Harris on the radio. Even when WFMY went to two images on the screen, there was no audio for the game and it was difficult to see the score. While I would have enjoyed seeing more of the game, I loved hearing Bob Harris describe it.

RaineyDevil
03-29-2010, 09:38 AM
Speaking of the CBS coverage, it was quite an adventure following the game for those of us in the Piedmont Triad, with local station WFMY out of Greensboro. There were major interruptions due to coverage of the severe weather. The young lady doing the weekend weather spent the longest time trying to get her various weather gizmos to work with radar shots, etc. while the game action was being carried in a small window. Argghhh.

The game was carried on another CBS cable channel, but this was of no help to someone who has DirecTV, like me. Finally had to go to the computer to get the streaming video.

I was getting so frustrated with that lady and the coverage. I understand there is a severe weather warning, but come on, that was ridiculous.

CDu
03-29-2010, 09:40 AM
Every timeout seemed to have a Baylor highlight. There was exactly zero coverage of Duke post game. Is is me or was the telecast a bit biased?

Well, for most of the game, Baylor had the more exciting highlights. We had a bunch of threes and midrange jumpers/runners, while they had a bunch of exciting dunks. Dunks have become the go-to highlight for replays. Thomas's two big dunks were both shown in replays.

We are CBS's meal ticket at this point. I highly doubt they're biased against us.

alteran
03-29-2010, 01:37 PM
I noticed the same thing.

Yeah I noticed that, too. Of course, the highlight ratio massively favored Baylor-- we allowed a number of uncontested dunks.

But there was also one highlight that featured nothing but Baylor players pumping their fists. I'm pretty sure we did that as well as Baylor.

But I really don't care about any of this-- it's the conspiracy crap that gets on my nerves.

Duke of Nashville
03-29-2010, 02:18 PM
Well, for most of the game, Baylor had the more exciting highlights. We had a bunch of threes and midrange jumpers/runners, while they had a bunch of exciting dunks. Dunks have become the go-to highlight for replays. Thomas's two big dunks were both shown in replays.

We are CBS's meal ticket at this point. I highly doubt they're biased against us.


The one timeout where they showed three seperate clips of Baylor players fist pumping kinda got to me....but the outcome was settling.

moonpie23
03-29-2010, 03:16 PM
Well, for most of the game, Baylor had the more exciting highlights. We had a bunch of threes and midrange jumpers/runners, while they had a bunch of exciting dunks. Dunks have become the go-to highlight for replays. Thomas's two big dunks were both shown in replays.

We are CBS's meal ticket at this point. I highly doubt they're biased against us.

i like that scoreboard highlight....yeah.....i like that one...

jjasper0729
03-29-2010, 04:19 PM
the thing about the baylor game that aggravated me was that they always would show the opposite end camera (from above the backboard i suppose) when we had the ball on offense but NEVER showed that when baylor had the ball.

Spencer's Daddy
03-29-2010, 04:42 PM
the thing about the baylor game that aggravated me was that they always would show the opposite end camera (from above the backboard i suppose) when we had the ball on offense but NEVER showed that when baylor had the ball.

Reminds me of the '88 NLCS when one particular Mets' fan in my dorm would be enraged every time NBC went to the camera behind home plate to show the action. He was convinced that every time they would do that, something bad happened to the Mets. "DON'T SHOW THAT ANNNNNNNGLE!!"

devil84
03-29-2010, 05:31 PM
Every timeout seemed to have a Baylor highlight. There was exactly zero coverage of Duke post game. Is is me or was the telecast a bit biased?

Not quite. I started the game keeping track of all the replays, based on the comments here this season. Got a little distracted in the first half and my data for that is incomplete. I do have a fairly complete second half. I've tried to make three columns, for a visual look at what was shown.


FAVORS BAYLOR [NEUTRAL] FAVORS DUKE
Udoh Dunk x3
Lomer’s 4th foul x2
Miles’ foul on Dunn x3
[Masters Commercial]
[NCAA]

Udoh Dunk
[FF Graphic]
Baylor players woofing
Baylor block (Udoh?)
Dunk x3 (1 slo mo)
Acy? foul on Lance
Dunk & woofing
Baylor basket (should have shown foul against Dunn)
Udoh montage
[no replay at timeout]
Scheyer 3 to tie
Acy charge on Z
[no replay into timeout]
Nolan montage
[montage: Duke pep band x3,
Duke shots x1, Baylor shots x3,
Baylor mascot] Scheyer 3
[Technical x4]
Udoh tip in
Duke montage
So that's 10 replays that favor Baylor, and 7 that favor Duke (8 if you think the technical favors Duke).

That's not too lopsided. Duke didn't "get all the replays" (haha!) until late in the second half, so by the time we were seeing all of the Baylor replays, no amount of Duke replays were going to feel like the score was even.

One thing that was different was that a pro-Baylor replay was much more likely to be shown 3 times, where as few Duke replays were shown more than once, and even then, perhaps twice.

Remember Coach K's line about "since" and "never?" When you're "never," they show a lot of the Cinderella. Be glad we're the "since." While they don't have to treat us like the ugly step-sister, the fact that they aren't showing pro-Duke replays all the time means we're supposed to be here. :)

Billy Dat
03-31-2010, 10:05 AM
This doesn't really belong in thsi thread, but it wasn't worth starting a new thread.

I had no idea Greg Doyel sports a mohawk. It just cracked me up when I saw it this morning in relation to his feud with Jay Marriotti

http://mtimages.cstv.com/postingup/Final4-GreggDoyel.jpg

barjwr
03-31-2010, 11:51 AM
the thing about the baylor game that aggravated me was that they always would show the opposite end camera (from above the backboard i suppose) when we had the ball on offense but NEVER showed that when baylor had the ball.

Hear, hear!

That angle drives me nuts.

BD80
03-31-2010, 12:03 PM
... I had no idea Greg Doyel sports a mohawk. It just cracked me up when I saw it this morning in relation to his feud with Jay Marriotti

http://mtimages.cstv.com/postingup/Final4-GreggDoyel.jpg

I wouldn't say sporting ..

Actually, it wasn't Greggggg's idea. He insulted a 4' 6," 71 lb. eleven year-old girl and she went off on him, giving him a beat down and shaving half of his head.

Son of Mojo
04-02-2010, 10:31 AM
Would it be wrong of us to start a petition to the 4 letter network to demand an on-air and written apology for Coach K from Gottlieb for his comments? It would appear that espn won't press such an issue from him without some form of public outcry and it is simply intolerable to allow him a forum to say what he did. There needs to be some admonishment given to him.

oldnavy
04-02-2010, 12:47 PM
Would it be wrong of us to start a petition to the 4 letter network to demand an on-air and written apology for Coach K from Gottlieb for his comments? It would appear that espn won't press such an issue from him without some form of public outcry and it is simply intolerable to allow him a forum to say what he did. There needs to be some admonishment given to him.

I sent an email to the general account at ESPN. I got the standard, thank you we will make sure to forward as appropriate reply.

I asked if the network had standards or could any on air personality make unsubstantiated claims of bribery and extortion against an esteemed University and the Head of USA Basketball without challenge.

I expect nothing to change...

Gottlieb is an unhappy angry young man. He will soon go the way of Billy Packer, but not soon enough..

NashvilleDevil
04-02-2010, 01:01 PM
I sent an email to the general account at ESPN. I got the standard, thank you we will make sure to forward as appropriate reply.

I asked if the network had standards or could any on air personality make unsubstantiated claims of bribery and extortion against an esteemed University and the Head of USA Basketball without challenge.

I expect nothing to change...

Gottlieb is an unhappy angry young man. He will soon go the way of Billy Packer, but not soon enough..

You should email the complaint to the ombudsman. If he gets enough maybe he writes an article discussing some of the unsubstantiated claims made by ESPN anchors and columnists.

oldnavy
04-02-2010, 01:37 PM
You should email the complaint to the ombudsman. If he gets enough maybe he writes an article discussing some of the unsubstantiated claims made by ESPN anchors and columnists.

The email account I used was the only one I could find on the website. It was the "contact us" link. I would hope that it gets forwarded to the appropriate person, but I doubt that anything will happen even if it does.

What I would love to see is Jason Williams eviscerate Gottlieb the next time they appear on air together. I mean go at him HARD, and demand that he clarify where he got his "facts", how he came up with his "assumptions". Ask him point blank if he is going on the record as claiming that Coach K has made phone calls to officials to determine game assignments as rewards for calls. If J. Will would do this and totally put Gottlieb on the spot and embarrass him on national TV, then, maybe then the idiot would think twice before opening is stupid yap. Can you imagine Gottlieb saying that same thing on a panel with Bobby Knight??

Gottlieb is a sad, bitter soul. I really hope that he can find some joy somewhere in his life soon.

NashvilleDevil
04-02-2010, 01:42 PM
The email account I used was the only one I could find on the website. It was the "contact us" link. I would hope that it gets forwarded to the appropriate person, but I doubt that anything will happen even if it does.

What I would love to see is Jason Williams eviscerate Gottlieb the next time they appear on air together. I mean go at him HARD, and demand that he clarify where he got his "facts", how he came up with his "assumptions". Ask him point blank if he is going on the record as claiming that Coach K has made phone calls to officials to determine game assignments as rewards for calls. If J. Will would do this and totally put Gottlieb on the spot and embarrass him on national TV, then, maybe then the idiot would think twice before opening is stupid yap. Can you imagine Gottlieb saying that same thing on a panel with Bobby Knight??

Gottlieb is a sad, bitter soul. I really hope that he can find some joy somewhere in his life soon.

Don Ohlmeyer is the ombudsman (http://search.espn.go.com/ombudsman/)

I think it needs to be Jay Bilas to take on Gottleib, I think Jay Williams will be good as he grows but he is still a little green. Speaking of Bobby Knight where has he been during the tournament? I do not think any of these memes get much traction if he is in studio crushing fools on their stupidity.

BlueDevilBaby
04-02-2010, 01:51 PM
Don Ohlmeyer is the ombudsman (http://search.espn.go.com/ombudsman/)

I think it needs to be Jay Bilas to take on Gottleib, I think Jay Williams will be good as he grows but he is still a little green. Speaking of Bobby Knight where has he been during the tournament? I do not think any of these memes get much traction if he is in studio crushing fools on their stupidity.

Yeah, sic the lawyer on him.

oldnavy
04-02-2010, 02:44 PM
Yeah, sic the lawyer on him.

That would be brutal... after the way Bilas made Dan Leotard [sic] look after his ridiculous assertations about Hansblah and race I can only imagine what JB would do to a wind bag like Gottlieb... would love to see it!!

slower
04-02-2010, 02:46 PM
That would be brutal... after the way Bilas made Dan Leotard [sic] look after his ridiculous assertations about Hansblah and race I can only imagine what JB would do to a wind bag like Gottlieb... would love to see it!!


I'd MUCH rather see The General reduce Gottlieb to a quivering mass. Jay Williams is either too nice or not yet confident enough to put Gottlieb in his place. Bilas, I fear, wouldn't bring quite enough emotion to the task, though I'm sure he could clinically dissect him rather well.

oldnavy
04-02-2010, 03:00 PM
I'd MUCH rather see The General reduce Gottlieb to a quivering mass. Jay Williams is either too nice or not yet confident enough to put Gottlieb in his place. Bilas, I fear, wouldn't bring quite enough emotion to the task, though I'm sure he could clinically dissect him rather well.

Gottlieb would soil himself!

_Gary
04-02-2010, 03:18 PM
I'd pay good money to see either Jay or the General take apart Gott's stupid comments. I agree with others that it's not Jay William's time to go at something like this. But Mr. Bilas or Mr. Knight would be great!

Gary

weezie
04-02-2010, 05:52 PM
One more, one more: on Sirius today the old wheezing whoopie-cushion was kissing up to Cal, saying Cal was the brightest basketball mind of the modern era in figuring out how to recruit one and dones so artfully.:D
And in the next segment, Timothy Comb-over then declared Huggins the smartest coach in the Final Four.
We roared with laughter :cool:

roywhite
04-03-2010, 10:15 AM
Just listened to Digger on morning Sportscenter previewing the Duke--WV game. The man has absolutely nothing interesting to say!

Predictably, he goes back to his wealth of Final Four experience, which consisted of a game against Duke 32 years ago and how his players responded. He then brings up how Duke was not able to stop NCState in January, and how WV has won several games in a row. Digger, get some new material or hang it up. Please.

4decadedukie
04-03-2010, 04:49 PM
Like every other Dukie, I have spent a great deal of time over last days reading and listening to Final Four pundits. Although I am in my sixties, I believe I have retained whatever (barely adequate) faculties with which I was blessed.

I was astounded, therefore, at Coach Phelps' latest gross inconsistency, and I wonder if any of you were similarly shocked? Earlier today on ESPN, to my great surprise and delight, Digger (normally, rather anti-Duke) indicated that he felt Duke would be this year's NCAA Division I Champion. Not an hour later and on the same program, he said WVU would defeat us in the National Semifinal. How in the world can a "broadcasting professional" be so illogical and self-contradictory? Does he assume no one will remember what he states within a few minutes? Phelps' inconsistencies have been discussed on BDR before, but here is a current, flagrant example.

Indoor66
04-03-2010, 04:51 PM
Like every other Dukie, I have spent a great deal of time over last days reading and listening to Final Four pundits. Although I am in my sixties, I believe I have retained whatever (barely adequate) faculties with which I was blessed.

I was astounded, therefore, at Coach Phelps' latest gross inconsistency, and I wonder if any of you were similarly shocked? Earlier today on ESPN, to my great surprise and delight, Digger (normally, rather anti-Duke) indicated that he felt Duke would be this year's NCAA Division I Champion. Not an hour later and on the same program, he said WVU would defeat us in the National Semifinal. How in the world can a "broadcasting professional" be so illogical and self-contradictory? Does he assume no one will remember what he states within a few minutes? Phelps' inconsistencies have been discussed on BDR before, but here is a current, flagrant example.

His enfeebled mind thought of 1978 and you got the results!

Welcome2DaSlopes
04-03-2010, 04:51 PM
I guess win or lose, he wants to say that he called the game correctly.

CBDUKE
04-03-2010, 04:55 PM
Digger was just talking about when Duke lost to N.C. State, Duke, and Georgetown. Yep, he said we lost to Duke!

roywhite
04-03-2010, 05:01 PM
They're holding a room for Digger at the Billy Packer Home for bitter, confused ex-announcers.

Vincetaylor
04-03-2010, 05:03 PM
We need more Bob Knight and less Digger. This should be Digger's last year if anyone at ESPN has noticed his apparent dementia.

mgtr
04-03-2010, 05:03 PM
I hope that when I begin to lose it that someone will pull me aside and tell me to shut up!

BD80
04-03-2010, 05:16 PM
I hope that when I begin to lose it that someone will pull me aside and tell me to shut up!

I tell my sons to smother me with a pillow when I get that bad.



They immediately offer to grab a pillow ...



Come on guys, he seems happy and is no danger to anyone else or to himself. Well, I think he has started to suck on his markers, but it is cool when his tongue matches his tie!

SCMatt33
04-03-2010, 05:34 PM
Digger has picked against Duke at every somewhat legit opportunity this year, and it has worked well for us so far. I wouldn't want him to start picking us now.

Merlindevildog91
04-03-2010, 06:11 PM
In the last ESPN pregame, Digger picked West Virginia; Hubert and Dickie V picked Duke. I'm not sure I would want Digger picking us; I'm afraid it would be the kiss of death.

Go Duke.

Son of Mojo
04-04-2010, 09:33 AM
Our special friend Israel Gutierrez is on Sports Reporters now...........oh if only there were a call-in for that show..........

weezie
04-04-2010, 09:59 AM
Our special friend Israel Gutierrez is on Sports Reporters now...........oh if only there were a call-in for that show..........

Continuing with the theme of guys who yap when they can't do, Izzy looks like the kind of guy I would enjoy hoisting by the seat of his pants and hanging from a coat hook while he flails around crying for his mommy.

jkidd31
04-04-2010, 01:08 PM
Pretty good read here. I still don't know however people keep saying we had an easy road. That Baylor team was scary good.

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/Duke-proves-to-West-Virginia-it%27s-no-longer-soft

MChambers
04-04-2010, 05:30 PM
My son and I listened to the game on the radio last night, as we were in a state park on the Delmarva peninsula. The announcers were John Thompson, Bill Raftery, and someone named Kevin Kugler. They agreed it was a well-officiated game and said how good Duke was. Thompson said that Duke seems to be improving. He also was extremely complimentary of Singler, saying how "flexible" Singler was (I think he meant essentially that Singler is versatile) and how "agile" Duke's big men are (take that, Gottlieb).

At halftime, Bill Walton also waxed eloquent about Duke, and the big three in particular.

blueprofessor
04-04-2010, 06:08 PM
Pretty good read here. I still don't know however people keep saying we had an easy road. That Baylor team was scary good.

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/Duke-proves-to-West-Virginia-it%27s-no-longer-soft

In this year's tourney, Duke has played the #6 rated team (Baylor), the #8 rated team (UWV), the #15 rated team (Cal), and the #16 rated team (Purdue).
Moreover, Duke plays the #12 rated team, Butler, Monday night.

Don't sportswriters peruse Pomeroy's ratings occasionally?

Best regards.
Blueprofessor:)

weezie
04-04-2010, 10:50 PM
Don't sportswriters peruse Pomeroy's ratings occasionally?

Ha! Good one...they're too busy gazing into their navels and contemplating their literary place (non-existent) in history.

devildownunder
04-05-2010, 03:31 AM
not in the least because he actually raises an interesting question. I'd like to hear how a lot of people answer the question "when did duke become the bad guy". He still manages to take swipes at the program, while at the same time admitting it's taking the safe, easy way out, though. Anyway, this one's worth a read, I think.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13158096/where-were-you-when-duke-became-the-bad-guy?tag=headlines;other

Olympic Fan
04-05-2010, 10:31 AM
We all remember early this season when he labeled Duke's big men as "alarmingly unathletic" ... now he's touting Duke's frontcourt depth as one of its strengths.

A week ago, before the Baylor game, he went on ESPN and delivered a scouting report on Duke, supposedly from an unnamed coach who had played both teams.

His big "ah-ha" moment as to why Baylor would beat Duke was because Duke's weak link was Kyle Singler's defense and he confidently predicted that Baylor would exploit that flaw because they were athletic at all five positions and whoever Singler guarded would attack him.

Well, we all know what happened -- K starts Kyle on Dunn, Baylor's best offensive weapon. Even after he gets two quick fouls, Kyle continues to guard the explosive 6-2 Dunn. K later said that the idea was to take away the 3-point shot. Kyle did that -- he limited Dunn to 2-of-8 from 3 (and one of those came in the closing seconds and was meaingless).

Saturday night, K assigns his "weak defensive link" to Da'Sean Butler, WVU's best offensive weapon. Singler dogs him into a 2-for-8 shooting perfomance (before he goes down with an injury).

I guess Gottlieb has come to realize that his earlier take on Singler's defense was idiotic because today he's got a new theory.

He was talking about the matchup problems that Gordon Hayward is going to present Duke. And, for once, he's right -- at least in the fact that the 6-8 forward with an ability to drive, shoot the 3 and score inside (sound like another 6-8 forward we know??) is a matchup problem for most teams, just as Kyle is for most Duke opponents.

At least Gottlieb can see the obvious -- that Singler (no longer the weak link defensively) is a good defensive matchup for Duke.

But -- ah hah! -- here's Duke's problem (in Gottlieb's mind). Singler is Duke's 3 and Hayward is (gasp!) a 4. If Duke has Singler guard Hayward, then that could mean that Lance Thomas has to guard a perimeter player!!!!

Horror of horrors.

That's stupid in so many mays. Let me count three:

-- We all know that K is the least position-oriented coach in college basketball. He'll play four guards, three small forwards ... almost any combination of players. He's the opposite of Dean Smith and his 1-2-3-4-5 BS. Heck, we were just talking about Kyle guarding Dunn, a physically explosive 6-2 player (which put Scheyer on a 6-9 forward). The idea that matching Singler on Hayward is a problem because one's a 3 and the pother is a 4 is simply ridiculous.

-- The idea that he thinks Lance would have a problem guarding a perimeter player demonstrates his inability to watch and observe a team. There have been times in his career when Lance has been physically overpowered by bigger, stronger players, but freed from playing the center spot this year, he's blossomed as a defender. The reason that he made the All-ACC defensive team (both the coaches and the writers picked him). Was his defensive versatility. He's guarded guards before -- a year ago, he was the player than saved Duke against Miami when he finally slowed down Jack McClinton. The idea that assigning Lance to a guard is scary ... that's just stupid.

Besides, I'm not sure Lance won't start on Hayward anyway. Both are 6-8, Lance is longer and quicker. That might be the best matchup for Duke and -- memo to Mr. Gottlieb -- that would technically be 4 vs. 4.

-- Finally, Gottlieb suggested that the fallout of having Singler on Hayward could lead to Zoubek or the Plumlees having the guard perimeter players. In a way, he's right -- after Hayward and Matt Howard, almost the only thing that Butler has are perimeter players -- at least perimeter sized players.

But what Gottlieb fails to take into account is that none of these guys is a real scoring threat. It's not like Stukes -- Howard's backup in the middle -- is going to take Zoubek outside and light him up.

All and all, a ridiculous performance by Mr. Gottlieb, continuing his great tradition this season. It's right up there with Steve Lavin, who picked Duke to lose every game from California to Purdue to Baylor ... then when Duke won all three, he declared that Duke had the easiest path to the Final Four in 25 years!

Look, don't get me wrong. Butler might win and Hayward might have a great game. But if that happens, it won't be because he caused matchup problems for Duke -- it will be because he individual beats two players (Singler and Thomas) who are well-suited to match up with him.

weezie
04-05-2010, 10:33 AM
And he gets paid so much to be stupid!
Really, he's developed it into an art form...I wish we had a clapping smiley.

moonpie23
04-05-2010, 10:38 AM
look, y'all.....it's a grudge......plain and simple....he hates k, he HATES having jason williams' ring glaring him in the face every night.....he NEEDS to somehow work it against duke....

that's ok......all the talking heads were wrong, wrong wrong...

with this much back peddling, there should be enough energy to power a monorail high speed train from ny to la....

Merlindevildog91
04-05-2010, 10:43 AM
On Mike and Mike last week (the day Jim Boeheim took him to task for his inane "Krzyzewski Effect" dicta), Gottlieb stated that he really wanted to go to Duke but wasn't recruited because we'd gotten a point guard (Bobby Hurley? I can't remember) in the class before his and he knew Duke wouldn't look for another PG in the next class.

He said he understood that, and it was no big deal to him, but it sounded like (to borrow a phrase from my late grandfather) the crackle of Confederate money.

Go DUKE!

scheyeronfire
04-05-2010, 10:45 AM
Brent Musberger is the absolute worst

TampaDukie
04-05-2010, 10:50 AM
On Mike and Mike last week (the day Jim Boeheim took him to task for his inane "Krzyzewski Effect" dicta), Gottlieb stated that he really wanted to go to Duke but wasn't recruited because we'd gotten a point guard (Bobby Hurley? I can't remember) in the class before his and he knew Duke wouldn't look for another PG in the next class.
Wojo.