Dan Bonner - best color man on TV?

[killerleft]

I'm sure many will think this is a joke, but I'm serious. He seems to fly beneath the radar. I know he hasn't been a primary ACC announcer this year, but I've always enjoyed his comments. He doesn't polarize people like Elmore or Vitale. Seems to offer comments pertinent to the game, and never goes on tangents pushing some theory or other.

Or is he just too vanilla to cause much reaction pro or con? He certainly shows the best smile of any color man I know.

My theory is that Bonner is very, very good. But people, whether they admit it or not, really want somebody to crab at during the game.

Any thoughts? By the way, he is doing the VA-Miami game right now on Raycom.

[Turtleboy]

Better than Knight? Doubtful.

[mkline09]

I'm sure many will think this is a joke, but I'm serious. He seems to fly beneath the radar. I know he hasn't been a primary ACC announcer this year, but I've always enjoyed his comments. He doesn't polarize people like Elmore or Vitale. Seems to offer comments pertinent to the game, and never goes on tangents pushing some theory or other.

Or is he just too vanilla to cause much reaction pro or con? He certainly shows the best smile of any color man I know.

My theory is that Bonner is very, very good. But people, whether they admit it or not, really want somebody to crab at during the game.

Any thoughts? By the way, he is doing the VA-Miami game right now on Raycom.

It is funny cause I was thinking about this the other day. Not how he is the best, but how he hasn't done any Duke games this season that I can remember and he ususally does a few every year.

I've never liked him all that much but compared to the scattered brain of Patrick, the crumudgeon that is Elmore and the at times inaudible Vitale, Bonner would be a welcome change.

You are right he doesn't do anything over the top or try to force things and that is why I have to admit that my earlier dislike of him was misguided.

[fuse]

Maybe this isnt fair because it could be speech impediment related, but any announcer that continues to mush-mouth Krzyzewski can't be tops in my book. I'd agree he is good but I cringe every time he attempts to pronounce Coach K's last name.

[mkline09]

Maybe this isnt fair because it could be speech impediment related, but any announcer that continues to mush-mouth Krzyzewski can't be tops in my book. I'd agree he is good but I cringe every time he attempts to pronounce Coach K's last name.

At least he tries to get it right. Mike Patrick called Brad Brownell Brad Brownley for the better part of the Duke/Clemson game until probably a producer told him toward the end of the game.

[gw67]

My view is that Dan is the best color man on ACC telecasts (narrowly over Gminski). He understands the game, he knows the ACC and its' history, doesn't take himself too seriously, has a nice sense of humor and doesn't seem to have any bias for or against any teams. He also doesn't shy away from giving an opinion. He did the Ohio State - Wisconsin game recently and was asked who he thought deserved NPOY. He said that he thinks the best player on the best team deserves the award so he would vote for Sullinger. He also works well with Gus Johnson so I don't have to turn off the sound.

Most don't know that Dan coached the Virginia women's team after he graduated. He also coached his daughter's high school team to the state tournament a few years back. Our friends daughter's team played them and our friends gave Dan high marks for getting his team ready and his demeanor on the court.

I'm actually amazed that he is still doing NCAAT games. Many years ago, Duke was playing the Naval Academy and the Admiral (D. Robinson). Dan was doing the game and got off a remark that I thought was funny and probably contained an element of truth (although not PC). While describing the schools prior to tip-off, Dan stated that he figured that it was the first game he had done that year where all 10 starters could spell their majors.

gw67

[mkirsh]

In my opinion Dan Bonner doesn't bring all that much to the table - I've never found his commentary to be really insightful or add a ton of value, nor does he bring energy like a Rafferty - but at the same time he doesn't take much off the table either - he's not negative like Elmore, scattered like Vitale, etc. So on an objective measure he's ok, but unfortunately many of his peers take away more than they add, so by comparison he's one of the better color commentary guys if that makes sense. I'd probably rank him similar to Jimmy Dikes in that regard. To be fair I haven't heard him do a game recently, so I may be basing this off prior experience which may not hold up today.

[killerleft]

In my opinion Dan Bonner doesn't bring all that much to the table - I've never found his commentary to be really insightful or add a ton of value, nor does he bring energy like a Rafferty - but at the same time he doesn't take much off the table either - he's not negative like Elmore, scattered like Vitale, etc. So on an objective measure he's ok, but unfortunately many of his peers take away more than they add, so by comparison he's one of the better color commentary guys if that makes sense. I'd probably rank him similar to Jimmy Dikes in that regard. To be fair I haven't heard him do a game recently, so I may be basing this off prior experience which may not hold up today.

From what I've seen and heard today, you're right on the money. I've heard Bonner do much better.

Do we want our color guys to rant and cheer in a situation such as the Miami comeback? Or should they let the game play out with a minimum of interference? Bonner definitely was somewhat muted considering the enormity of Virginia's collapse (and Miami's comeback). Maybe he was as dumbfounded as I was.

[gotoguy]

I'm sure many will think this is a joke, but I'm serious. He seems to fly beneath the radar. I know he hasn't been a primary ACC announcer this year, but I've always enjoyed his comments. He doesn't polarize people like Elmore or Vitale. Seems to offer comments pertinent to the game, and never goes on tangents pushing some theory or other.

Or is he just too vanilla to cause much reaction pro or con? He certainly shows the best smile of any color man I know.

My theory is that Bonner is very, very good. But people, whether they admit it or not, really want somebody to crab at during the game.

Any thoughts? By the way, he is doing the VA-Miami game right now on Raycom.


Dwight Stones (track and field) is the best color man on TV with John McEnroe a close second. For hoops I like Jim Spanarkel but I think he only does the NCAA tourney and usually works the NBA.

[tommy]

I've never liked him all that much but compared to the scattered brain of Patrick, the crumudgeon that is Elmore and the at times inaudible Vitale, Bonner would be a welcome change.

I've heard Dick Vitale called a lot of things over the years. "Inaudible" has never been one of them. :)

[jv001]

I like Bonner as he doesn't put himself up front. It's about the players and the game. I guess to some he's too laid back, but I like that. I never hear him favor one team over another. Not even when Virginia's playing. He's in my top 5 to be sure. Go Duke!

[JasonEvans]

Better than Knight? Doubtful.

Bingo. Everyone else is playing for 2nd place behind Bobby Knight.

You listen to a Knight broadcast and you realize that he has forgotten more about basketball than all the other color guys combined have learned. It ain't even close.

But, Bonner is pretty darn good and I rarely cringe when listening to him. He is at least in the conversation for distant 2nd behind Knight.

--Jason "I would pay good money to have Bobby Knight call all Duke games... seriously" Evans

[gw67]

Bingo. Everyone else is playing for 2nd place behind Bobby Knight.

You listen to a Knight broadcast and you realize that he has forgotten more about basketball than all the other color guys combined have learned. It ain't even close.

But, Bonner is pretty darn good and I rarely cringe when listening to him. He is at least in the conversation for distant 2nd behind Knight.

--Jason "I would pay good money to have Bobby Knight call all Duke games... seriously" Evans

Jason,

Here is my problem with Knight. Sure, we respect him for who he is and his in-depth descriptions of play and strategy are excellent; HOWEVER, he doesn't know when to stop and often continues his explanations well into the next play or even two plays. I'd rather see the game and listen to an excellent color man like Bonner, Gminski, Raftery or Spanarkel than try to figure out what just happened because the announcer kept his mouth shut while the Coach educated us.

Just my preference.

gw67

[killerleft]

It's hard to argue against Knight. He "teaches" us about the nuances of basketball like no one before him. He does have some rough edges as an announcer, and his favoritism toward Duke isn't even debatable. Also important: he still looks like he could kick R. Lee Armey's butt with one hand tied behind his back:p

Bonner would make a great straight man for Knight, but Knight is nobody's straight man but his own.

[oldnavy]

Honestly beyond Knight, I don't like any of them. It used to be that the game was enough, and the guys calling were background and gave you information to supplement what you were seeing...

Things like the number of team fouls, time outs left (now you can see that on the screen most of the time), background info on players, etc...

Now it seems between the crappy camera work where the morons that produce the telecasts somehow feel it is more important to show everything BUT the ball in play... I mean really, when has it ever been important to show a close up of a player/coach/parent/fan while the ball is in play? I have quite counting the number of times we have missed live action plays (steals, turnover, even baskets) because some dope in a truck wants to show Coach K sitting on the bench or Harrison Barnes run down the court after making a jump shot...

The play by play is basically taken on the same theme, let's talk about everything BUT what is going on in the game. Even when they do decide to talk about the game I am amazed at how often they are wrong with their calls... whistle blows because a guys clearly steps out of bounds and they saw "a foul has been called on...." only to have to correct themselves seconds later.... that drives me crazy too.

In reality, and I do not mean to sound arrogant but, with few exceptions (Knight being primary) these guys do not know anymore about the game than I do or most of you guys - bottom line they bring nothing of value to the game watching experience IMHO.

So, mostly I either watch the game with the mute on, or I turn on Bob Harris and listen to the Duke broadcast despite the lag... at least Bob and the boys let you know how many team fouls, etc....

[Edouble]

Honestly beyond Knight, I don't like any of them. It used to be that the game was enough, and the guys calling were background and gave you information to supplement what you were seeing...

Things like the number of team fouls, time outs left (now you can see that on the screen most of the time), background info on players, etc...

Now it seems between the crappy camera work where the morons that produce the telecasts somehow feel it is more important to show everything BUT the ball in play... I mean really, when has it ever been important to show a close up of a player/coach/parent/fan while the ball is in play? I have quite counting the number of times we have missed live action plays (steals, turnover, even baskets) because some dope in a truck wants to show Coach K sitting on the bench or Harrison Barnes run down the court after making a jump shot...

The play by play is basically taken on the same theme, let's talk about everything BUT what is going on in the game. Even when they do decide to talk about the game I am amazed at how often they are wrong with their calls... whistle blows because a guys clearly steps out of bounds and they saw "a foul has been called on...." only to have to correct themselves seconds later.... that drives me crazy too.

In reality, and I do not mean to sound arrogant but, with few exceptions (Knight being primary) these guys do not know anymore about the game than I do or most of you guys - bottom line they bring nothing of value to the game watching experience IMHO.

So, mostly I either watch the game with the mute on, or I turn on Bob Harris and listen to the Duke broadcast despite the lag... at least Bob and the boys let you know how many team fouls, etc....

Thank you for this post. It makes me feel better to know there are others like me out there.

I am astounded by how many times the announcer errs on what was just called. All you have to do is look at the ref to see if it's a block or a charge being called, yet the announcers (Mike Patrick, especially) continue to get it wrong.

I have actually watched games where they don't correct themselves.

Every so often there's a game where I think one of our guys has picked up a crucial foul, only to find that our guy wasn't actually already in foul trouble... the announcers are just giving us the wrong info. on who was charged with a previous foul.

Oh yeah, and I do think DB is great, but Knight is the best.

[Jarhead]

How about a little love for the G Man. Mike Gminiski is pretty darn good, up there with the best, and better than Bonner by a narrow margin. Bobby Knight is the best, though.

[jv001]

How about a little love for the G Man. Mike Gminiski is pretty darn good, up there with the best, and better than Bonner by a narrow margin. Bobby Knight is the best, though.

After listening for Elmore for a few years, anyone will sound good, lol. 1. Bob Knight, 2. G-Man 3. Dan Bonner, 4. Reece Davis, 5. anyone that stays in touch with the game and not drift off into rants. Go Duke!