Unofficial 2019-2020 Announcer Thread

**Billy Dat** · 12-05-2019, 05:40 PM

The comments on Bilas are similar to folks who talk about Duke getting all the calls. It is not about the volume of fouls called, it's all about when they are called, and what was happening in the game at that moment. The anti-Duke crowd will always say that a game could have had equal fouls called, but the calls against the other team will always either kill an inevitable comeback or fuel a Duke comeback. The fouls called on Duke are meaningless yet the ones called on the opponent are game changing.

I think Jay is fine, but I don't really get too worked up about these things.

One guy I really like is Jimmy Dykes. I know he has the Kentucky connections, but I think he's smart and points out interesting stuff about the game. I think about him calling our comeback against Louisville last season and he recognized, pretty early, that the game was far from over and Duke was showing signs of life.

Another guy I like, who is supposedly part of the ACCN, is Dalen Cuff. I heard him doing analysis for secondary and tertiary ESPN games over the years and thought he was great. I think he's an up-and-comer.

**luvdahops** · 12-05-2019, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Billy Dat

The comments on Bilas are similar to folks who talk about Duke getting all the calls. It is not about the volume of fouls called, it's all about when they are called, and what was happening in the game at that moment. The anti-Duke crowd will always say that a game could have had equal fouls called, but the calls against the other team will always either kill an inevitable comeback or fuel a Duke comeback. The fouls called on Duke are meaningless yet the ones called on the opponent are game changing.

I think Jay is fine, but I don't really get too worked up about these things.

One guy I really like is Jimmy Dykes. I know he has the Kentucky connections, but I think he's smart and points out interesting stuff about the game. I think about him calling our comeback against Louisville last season and he recognized, pretty early, that the game was far from over and Duke was showing signs of life.

Another guy I like, who is supposedly part of the ACCN, is Dalen Cuff. I heard him doing analysis for secondary and tertiary ESPN games over the years and thought he was great. I think he's an up-and-comer.

I really like Dykes, too, and wish he did more of our games.

I don't get too worked up about Jay, either, though I do think it's unfortunate that he has let his schtick increasingly define his public persona, as he is definitely still capable of lucid and insightful analysis when so inspired.

Separately, while I tend to agree with Jay philosophically with regard to the NCAA, I find many of the arguments he makes on those issues to be excessive and/or unconvincing. In other words, I would never hire him as a lawyer.

**Troublemaker** · 12-05-2019, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by budwom

It is surely odd behavior...I truly don't think he is anti-Duke per se, but what I assume to be his overcompensation is really over the top as I found out the other night. The mute button still rulz.

Yes, massive overcompensation, to the point that Jay's become a caricature of himself in his predictability, and the overcompensation taints almost everything in his commentary, i.e. not just referee calls/non-calls. For example, when he began talking about years when college basketball is weak at the top, I honestly no-poop would've wagered $20,000 that he would bring up 2010. (And I'm a good bettor -- have I mentioned recently that I am far and away #1 in the Degenerates league right now, including being #1 in both spread bets and over/under bets? I *have* mentioned it already? Oh, whoops.) And then when he started talking about years when college basketball is strong at the top, I honestly would've wagered my 3rd-born son that Jay would stroke 2009 UNC.

The man is just deathly afraid of being perceived as having bias. Maybe because the word "bias" is right there in his surname, maybe??? Psychological issues then? (Remember how Jay obsessive-compulsively started getting into the weeds and arguing with himself about that UNC team's 0-2 start when the entire world just wanted him to focus on Duke-MSU?) Have I hit on a real surname-based psychological condition? I wonder if there's a certain perfume Zooey Deschanel would never wear. Would seeing a certain soup in the grocery aisle cause Neve Campbell to scream?

**OldPhiKap** · 12-05-2019, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by BLPOG

And then I went to law school, and took a law degree /
And ~~counseled all my clients to plead~~ drove all of the Duke fans to near-insanity

That’s a bad example, Mister.

**duke4ever19** · 12-05-2019, 07:32 PM

Wow, folks. Listen:

We really need to focus our efforts on 'scoring' things that actually matter . . . like how many times Jay and Dan mention the fact that they are bald. I propose five main categories for your consideration:

Category 1: Bilas-initiated bald talk

Category 2: Shulman-initiated bald talk

Category 3: Any mention of the baldness of Dick Vitale and Seth Greenberg. [I propose that an one point (+1) be added to Bilas' tally if he initiates the subject. One additional point may be added if it is painfully obvious that Bilas has only broached the subject so that he can segue into yet another self-deprecating joke about his own shiny chrome-dome.]

Category 4: Praise of any basketball player's hairstyle. [+1 if Bilas initiates this follicle praise, as -- once again -- it is merely a thinly-veiled attempt to engage in the aforementioned self-deprecating joke about his own dazzling turtle-waxer.]

Category 5: Any mention of Alex O'Connell's hair, no matter how minor it might be. [Add one-point if Jay makes the comment. Add two-points if he does a hard-right turn into a joke about his own polar ice cap.]

**OldPhiKap** · 12-05-2019, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by duke4ever19

Wow, folks. Listen:

We really need to focus our efforts on 'scoring' things that actually matter . . . like how many times Jay and Dan mention the fact that they are bald. I propose five main categories for your consideration:

Category 1: Bilas-initiated bald talk

Category 2: Shulman-initiated bald talk

Category 3: Any mention of the baldness of Dick Vitale and Seth Greenberg. [I propose that an one point (+1) be added to Bilas' tally if he initiates the subject. One additional point may be added if it is painfully obvious that Bilas has only broached the subject so that he can segue into yet another self-deprecating joke about his own shiny chrome-dome.]

Category 4: Praise of any basketball player's hairstyle. [+1 if Bilas initiates this follicle praise, as -- once again -- it is merely a thinly-veiled attempt to engage in the aforementioned self-deprecating joke about his own dazzling turtle-waxer.]

Category 5: Any mention of Alex O'Connell's hair, no matter how minor it might be. [Add one-point if Jay makes the comment. Add two-points if he does a hard-right turn into a joke about his own polar ice cap.]

No points from me until they discuss their erectile disfunction.

**HereBeforeCoachK** · 12-05-2019, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by duke4ever19

Wow, folks. Listen:

We really need to focus our efforts on 'scoring' things that actually matter . . . like how many times Jay and Dan mention the fact that they are bald. I propose five main categories for your consideration:

Category 1: Bilas-initiated bald talk

Category 2: Shulman-initiated bald talk

Category 3: Any mention of the baldness of Dick Vitale and Seth Greenberg. [I propose that an one point (+1) be added to Bilas' tally if he initiates the subject. One additional point may be added if it is painfully obvious that Bilas has only broached the subject so that he can segue into yet another self-deprecating joke about his own shiny chrome-dome.]

Category 4: Praise of any basketball player's hairstyle. [+1 if Bilas initiates this follicle praise, as -- once again -- it is merely a thinly-veiled attempt to engage in the aforementioned self-deprecating joke about his own dazzling turtle-waxer.]

Category 5: Any mention of Alex O'Connell's hair, no matter how minor it might be. [Add one-point if Jay makes the comment. Add two-points if he does a hard-right turn into a joke about his own polar ice cap.]

Yeah, that is about 20 years past it's sell by date...so, what is your score on the BDI?

**House P** · 12-05-2019, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by OldPhiKap

What's Seth's constituency?

The NIT tournament selection committee? They certainly followed Seth closely when he was the coach at Virginia Tech!

I am personally indifferent about Seth (which, I think, is pretty much your point).

**DukieInKansas** · 12-19-2019, 12:36 AM

I think this Utah Kentucky game is the first game I've watched (mostly listened) when Bill Walton was calling the game. Please, make him stop! He is really annoying in large quantities.

**weezie** · 12-19-2019, 07:55 AM

Agreed DinK. Sometimes, for a few seconds every so often, Walton can be mildly entertaining but large doses are deadening to the senses.

That schtick is shabby.

**robed deity** · 12-19-2019, 12:00 PM

One thing that has confused me about Bilas this year is that on several occasions, he has referenced 2010 as a good comp for this year's parity. I don't remember it that way at all (I think another poster has pointed this out already). That year, Kansas was loaded (cold blooded Farokmanesh 3 took them down), Kentucky had Wall, Cousins and co. and Duke was maybe a bit under the radar but was loved by the computers all year. To me, there were 3 clear cut favorites, and to the public at large, at least 2. Is he thinking more about 2014?

**Hingeknocker** · 12-19-2019, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by robed deity

One thing that has confused me about Bilas this year is that on several occasions, he has referenced 2010 as a good comp for this year's parity. I don't remember it that way at all (I think another poster has pointed this out already). That year, Kansas was loaded (cold blooded Farokmanesh 3 took them down), Kentucky had Wall, Cousins and co. and Duke was maybe a bit under the radar but was loved by the computers all year. To me, there were 3 clear cut favorites, and to the public at large, at least 2. Is he thinking more about 2014?

I also think most of the people who are referring to this as a "down year" or one filled with "parity" are confusing what's actually happening. Just because traditional powers like UNC and Kentucky are having poor seasons, doesn't mean that the teams at the top are "down" or that there's more parity among them. I would expect that the eventual national champion is currently ranked in the Top ~10 of KenPom's ratings. If it so happens that it's a team we don't normally equate with being a national champion contender, does that mean that it's a down year or that it's a year of parity? I don't necessarily buy it.

It's true that, right now, there isn't a clear runaway power at the top of KenPom's ratings. But it's also true that, early in the year, the team (or teams) that eventually ascend to those spots haven't separated from the pack yet. (I think part of this is due to how and when KenPom phases out pre-season projections. Eventually, the teams performing at a high level will rise up the efficiency ratings.)

**Pghdukie** · 12-19-2019, 06:16 PM