Annual Announcer Kvetch Thread, 2022-23

[tommy]

I don’t know how to break it to you and to the other posters who agreed with you, but I’ll just tell you that, as I contemplated earlier, I went ahead and went all Kedsy on the color commenting for tonight’s game. The results are not at all what you think they are.

For the first five minutes of the first half, I had just written down “good Bilas” and “bad Bilas” and I counted the times he said something favorable to us and the times he said something unfavorable. After 5 minutes there were 7 “good Bilas” ticks and ZERO “bad Bilas” ticks.

I then decided that it might be better to get more detail, and to know if he was treating the two teams any differently. So I wrote down “Duke” and below that, “pro” and “con,” and then I wrote down “Miami” and below that, “pro” and “con.” I also made a separate category called “reffing” and below that I wrote “pro-Duke” and “anti-Duke.” I had to add a “no comment” section, too, which really surprised me (more about that later).

Just a little bit more about the methods: if Jay said anything positive about a player or about a team, I counted it as “pro.” For example, if he said something like, “Proctor has really improved as a game manger” or “Whitehead is the best three-pointer shooter in the ACC over the past 8 games,” or “Duke has really been improving its offense in the latter part of the season,” I put a tick under “pro.” Same for Miami. If he said, on the other hand, something like “They have got to really shore up that defense” or “so-and-so should not have tried to force the ball inside on that play,” I put a tick under “con.”

OK, with that background, here are the results (and I was just as sure as you guys, and have posted many times on this board about his anti-Duke overboard compensating bias):

First half

From the 5-minute mark until halftime, Bilas made 21 comments about Duke or its players; 20 of them were positive. He made, in the same time span, 18 comments about Miami, of which 17 were positive.

Second half

In the second half, Bilas made 33 comments about Duke or its players; 29 of them were positive. In that same time span, he made 28 comments about Miami; 25 of them were positive.

For the game, then, he made 58 comments about Duke or its players; only 5 were negative.

For the game, he made 46 comments about Miami; only 4 were negative.

Hard for me to see any kind of bias in this commentary.


As for the reffing, he was quieter than usual about officiating. I counted it as pro-Duke if he agreed with a call a ref made against Miami, or if he said, for example, that Filipowski made a basket despite “drawing contact,” or “through contact,” even if a foul wasn’t called. I counted a comment as “anti-Duke” if he said that we “got away with a foul” or if he said that a Miami player scored “through contact,” or the like.

For the entirety of the game, he made 10 comments about calls or lack thereof; 4 were pro-Duke and 6 were anti-Duke. Not anywhere near as bad as I thought it would be.

I also had to make a category called “no comment,” because there were two times in which calls that could have been questioned happened and he never said a word. Not even when Shulman commented about it. He just sat there and said absolutely NOTHING. I was shocked! Shocked, I say.


One limitation of the study was that this was not a Duke-UNC game.


However, color me very surprised to come here and see that so many of you thought that he once again called a biased game. These data don’t support that idea at all.

Awesome post. I suspect this type of analysis of most of Jay’s other broadcasts would yield similar results.

[TheDevilMadeMeDoIt]

A little perspective (and confirmation for some of us) on JB in a thread from our "friends" who wear the light blue colored glasses (the 8th comment):

https://247sports.com/college/north-...014313/?page=1

All I ask is that the announcers and color commentators talk about the game. At least on ESPN that is a lost art. So for me, Shulman and Bilas are the best we get for ACC games. I do think Jay bends over backwards to not be biased in Duke/UNC games, which seems to lead Bilas to some UNC love. Still overall I am a fan. I respect Vitale for his passion, but he drives me crazy. Corey is the worst. The announcer who can’t put the accent in the proper place on Blue Devils drives me bat, well you no what. I’m not willing to turn off the sound as I like the crowd noise. I watched some SEC tournament today and would not swap Shulman and Bilas for that crew. I particularly dislike Jimmy Dykes. I watch Bill Walton for comic relief, but can only take about 15 minutes.

I’m much harder on our players when they make boneheaded plays than I am the announcers.

[AtlBluRew]

As for the reffing, he was quieter than usual about officiating. I counted it as pro-Duke if he agreed with a call a ref made against Miami, or if he said, for example, that Filipowski made a basket despite “drawing contact,” or “through contact,” even if a foul wasn’t called. I counted a comment as “anti-Duke” if he said that we “got away with a foul” or if he said that a Miami player scored “through contact,” or the like.

For the entirety of the game, he made 10 comments about calls or lack thereof; 4 were pro-Duke and 6 were anti-Duke. Not anywhere near as bad as I thought it would be.

I also had to make a category called “no comment,” because there were two times in which calls that could have been questioned happened and he never said a word. Not even when Shulman commented about it. He just sat there and said absolutely NOTHING. I was shocked! Shocked, I say.


One limitation of the study was that this was not a Duke-UNC game.

I really noticed those two “no comment” moments too. There were pregnant pauses after Shulman spoke, as he was waiting for Bilas to chip in. I thought that Bilas’s lack of response showed that he was distracted and not listening to Shulman. Maybe he was watching Carolina highlights on his phone.

I also noticed that he praised Duke a lot. I don’t think he fails to praise Duke. It’s that he gushes over UNC. Fortunately UNC didn’t play today and so Bilas was tolerable.


Different announcer: I’m now watching Arizona/ASU, and though I find Bill Walton amusing, he contributes very little substance and I’m feeling sorry for his partner, Dave Pasch. Pasch has a tough job.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Stunning to me that any Duke fan's takeaway from watching Duke win last night was "Bilas sucks."

Personally, I enjoyed the victory and am stoked to get to play for a banner tomorrow with a team that is on one of the biggest hot streaks in the country in an opportunity to avenge a "shouldn't have happened" loss.

I swear, it's like going out to an amazing restaurant having a lovely meal and complaining about the font used in the printed menu.

[TruBlu]

Stunning to me that any Duke fan's takeaway from watching Duke win last night was "Bilas sucks."

Personally, I enjoyed the victory and am stoked to get to play for a banner tomorrow with a team that is on one of the biggest hot streaks in the country in an opportunity to avenge a "shouldn't have happened" loss.

I swear, it's like going out to an amazing restaurant having a lovely meal and complaining about the font used in the printed menu.

You be talking about them thar Waffle House menus, ain’t you. And why are they so blurry*? And greasy?

* This might or might not have anything to do with my upcoming cataract surgery.

[brevity]

.I swear, it's like going out to an amazing restaurant having a lovely meal and complaining about the font used in the printed menu.

But it's Papyrus, and the style of cuisine is nowhere near the Mediterranean!

[camion]

But it's Papyrus, and the style of cuisine is nowhere near the Mediterranean!

I know exactly what you mean.

Linky!!

[Phredd3]

However, color me very surprised to come here and see that so many of you thought that he once again called a biased game. These data don’t support that idea at all.

Must spread sporks, but this is impressive work. Thanks for the detailed methods section.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I don’t know how to break it to you and to the other posters who agreed with you, but I’ll just tell you that, as I contemplated earlier, I went ahead and went all Kedsy on the color commenting for tonight’s game. The results are not at all what you think they are.

For the first five minutes of the first half, I had just written down “good Bilas” and “bad Bilas” and I counted the times he said something favorable to us and the times he said something unfavorable. After 5 minutes there were 7 “good Bilas” ticks and ZERO “bad Bilas” ticks.

I then decided that it might be better to get more detail, and to know if he was treating the two teams any differently. So I wrote down “Duke” and below that, “pro” and “con,” and then I wrote down “Miami” and below that, “pro” and “con.” I also made a separate category called “reffing” and below that I wrote “pro-Duke” and “anti-Duke.” I had to add a “no comment” section, too, which really surprised me (more about that later).

Just a little bit more about the methods: if Jay said anything positive about a player or about a team, I counted it as “pro.” For example, if he said something like, “Proctor has really improved as a game manger” or “Whitehead is the best three-pointer shooter in the ACC over the past 8 games,” or “Duke has really been improving its offense in the latter part of the season,” I put a tick under “pro.” Same for Miami. If he said, on the other hand, something like “They have got to really shore up that defense” or “so-and-so should not have tried to force the ball inside on that play,” I put a tick under “con.”

OK, with that background, here are the results (and I was just as sure as you guys, and have posted many times on this board about his anti-Duke overboard compensating bias):

First half

From the 5-minute mark until halftime, Bilas made 21 comments about Duke or its players; 20 of them were positive. He made, in the same time span, 18 comments about Miami, of which 17 were positive.

Second half

In the second half, Bilas made 33 comments about Duke or its players; 29 of them were positive. In that same time span, he made 28 comments about Miami; 25 of them were positive.

For the game, then, he made 58 comments about Duke or its players; only 5 were negative.

For the game, he made 46 comments about Miami; only 4 were negative.

Hard for me to see any kind of bias in this commentary.


As for the reffing, he was quieter than usual about officiating. I counted it as pro-Duke if he agreed with a call a ref made against Miami, or if he said, for example, that Filipowski made a basket despite “drawing contact,” or “through contact,” even if a foul wasn’t called. I counted a comment as “anti-Duke” if he said that we “got away with a foul” or if he said that a Miami player scored “through contact,” or the like.

For the entirety of the game, he made 10 comments about calls or lack thereof; 4 were pro-Duke and 6 were anti-Duke. Not anywhere near as bad as I thought it would be.

I also had to make a category called “no comment,” because there were two times in which calls that could have been questioned happened and he never said a word. Not even when Shulman commented about it. He just sat there and said absolutely NOTHING. I was shocked! Shocked, I say.


One limitation of the study was that this was not a Duke-UNC game.


However, color me very surprised to come here and see that so many of you thought that he once again called a biased game. These data don’t support that idea at all.

Additionally, there were several calls that absolutely went Duke's way in the last eight minutes. The held ball/foul was fortunate. The subsequent out of bounds call was flat out incorrect.

[clinresga]

However, color me very surprised to come here and see that so many of you thought that he once again called a biased game. These data don’t support that idea at all.

Stunning to me that any Duke fan's takeaway from watching Duke win last night was "Bilas sucks."

I swear, it's like going out to an amazing restaurant having a lovely meal and complaining about the font used in the printed menu.

As a long time Bilas defender, I had always intended to do what rsv did but, of course, never got around to it. Thank goodness someone actually used, um, facts, to defend his opinion. The notion that Bilas somehow harbors a secret crush on the Holes has always been ludicrous. Think back to when Coach K brought Jay in at the beginning of the season to discuss the history and culture to the freshman. Bilas and K were extremely close: it's impossible to question his loyalty to Duke. What it does show is that he's a professional, able to compartmentalize his heart from his job.

A little perspective (and confirmation for some of us) on JB in a thread from our "friends" who wear the light blue colored glasses (the 8th comment):

https://247sports.com/college/north-...014313/?page=1

Jay Bilas lacks integrity. He demonstrated it during the UNC scandal, and I realize that my perception of him since then has been irrevocably tainted. That said, I still felt like he sucked tonight.

Wow

"Bilas slobbers over us on a 24/7 basis. Rarely will you hear him criticize us."

So, they can admit that, but plenty of DBR people can't? Now who's biased?

Perhaps this settles the debate for once and for all. Really, y'all, you're citing the whack jobs at Inside Carolina as a source of reliable opinion If you hear continuous bias when you listen to Bilas, go read up on confirmation bias.

[jv001]

Additionally, there were several calls that absolutely went Duke's way in the last eight minutes. The held ball/foul was fortunate. The subsequent out of bounds call was flat out incorrect.

And I think Flip got away with an offensive foul. TV Teddy has not been bad this season, at least against Duke. Cassell on the other hand.

GoDuke!

[CrazyNotCrazie]

My biggest beef with Bilas last night was when a Duke guy (I think Roach) was waiting to shoot a foul shot, he was going on and on and on about high free throw percentages. I told my son "guarantee he misses it - announcer just jinxed it" and sure enough, he missed.

Otherwise, I find him over-exposed and cliche but he is fine. I once saw the prep sheets that ESPN does for its announcers and Bilas very clearly spends a lot of time absorbing these - I wish he would occasionally give some public credit to the people who support him as he kind of makes it sound like he is doing all of this research when he is likely just using what is given to him (which is what it is there for - not totally blaming him for this). But this is a very minor issue.

[roywhite]

And I think Flip got away with an offensive foul. TV Teddy has not been bad this season, at least against Duke. Cassell on the other hand.

GoDuke!

Certainly could have called it on Flip. But watching the replay, the defender leaned pretty hard into Flip. I don't recall that Jay Bilas took exception to the no-call.

Really pleased to see how effective Flip has been in the lane and around the basket in the first two games of the tourny (of course, he's also been very effective from 3-point). Flip in the lane will be a key matchup vs the Cavs.

[ahughestt]

I actually have a bigger issue with Shulman than I do with Bilas. It’s almost like Shulman watches the game on a delay. And his voice gets way louder and more excited when Duke’s opponent does something positive. Wong will bury a three. Two seconds goes by and then out of nowhere Shulman goes “And WONG HITS THE THREE TO CUT THE LEAD TO TWO!!!” And then on the other end, Proctor responds with a three of his own and he’ll just say “Proctor with the three.” It’s so aggravating.

[OldPhiKap]

I don’t know how to break it to you and to the other posters who agreed with you, but I’ll just tell you that, as I contemplated earlier, I went ahead and went all Kedsy on the color commenting for tonight’s game. The results are not at all what you think they are.

For the first five minutes of the first half, I had just written down “good Bilas” and “bad Bilas” and I counted the times he said something favorable to us and the times he said something unfavorable. After 5 minutes there were 7 “good Bilas” ticks and ZERO “bad Bilas” ticks.

I then decided that it might be better to get more detail, and to know if he was treating the two teams any differently. So I wrote down “Duke” and below that, “pro” and “con,” and then I wrote down “Miami” and below that, “pro” and “con.” I also made a separate category called “reffing” and below that I wrote “pro-Duke” and “anti-Duke.” I had to add a “no comment” section, too, which really surprised me (more about that later).

Just a little bit more about the methods: if Jay said anything positive about a player or about a team, I counted it as “pro.” For example, if he said something like, “Proctor has really improved as a game manger” or “Whitehead is the best three-pointer shooter in the ACC over the past 8 games,” or “Duke has really been improving its offense in the latter part of the season,” I put a tick under “pro.” Same for Miami. If he said, on the other hand, something like “They have got to really shore up that defense” or “so-and-so should not have tried to force the ball inside on that play,” I put a tick under “con.”

OK, with that background, here are the results (and I was just as sure as you guys, and have posted many times on this board about his anti-Duke overboard compensating bias):

First half

From the 5-minute mark until halftime, Bilas made 21 comments about Duke or its players; 20 of them were positive. He made, in the same time span, 18 comments about Miami, of which 17 were positive.

Second half

In the second half, Bilas made 33 comments about Duke or its players; 29 of them were positive. In that same time span, he made 28 comments about Miami; 25 of them were positive.

For the game, then, he made 58 comments about Duke or its players; only 5 were negative.

For the game, he made 46 comments about Miami; only 4 were negative.

Hard for me to see any kind of bias in this commentary.


As for the reffing, he was quieter than usual about officiating. I counted it as pro-Duke if he agreed with a call a ref made against Miami, or if he said, for example, that Filipowski made a basket despite “drawing contact,” or “through contact,” even if a foul wasn’t called. I counted a comment as “anti-Duke” if he said that we “got away with a foul” or if he said that a Miami player scored “through contact,” or the like.

For the entirety of the game, he made 10 comments about calls or lack thereof; 4 were pro-Duke and 6 were anti-Duke. Not anywhere near as bad as I thought it would be.

I also had to make a category called “no comment,” because there were two times in which calls that could have been questioned happened and he never said a word. Not even when Shulman commented about it. He just sat there and said absolutely NOTHING. I was shocked! Shocked, I say.


One limitation of the study was that this was not a Duke-UNC game.


However, color me very surprised to come here and see that so many of you thought that he once again called a biased game. These data don’t support that idea at all.

Thanks for the Kedsey-esque validation of my “eye test” impression.

[DoubleBlue]

Its more than just the words Bilas uses, its the tone and timing. He obviously over-compensates to appear unbiased towards Duke and perhaps many here on DBR are super-sensitive to that. To suggest that he is not biased is simply wrong and the analysis by rsvman is basically an attempt to gaslight this group. I'm not buying it. This debate can never be settled and there's nothing wrong with using this thread as an outlet for those who want to vent.

[OldPhiKap]

Perhaps this settles the debate for once and for all. Really, y'all, you're citing the whack jobs at Inside Carolina as a source of reliable opinion If you hear continuous bias when you listen to Bilas, go read up on confirmation bias.

I’m told that’s a “flex” but I still don’t know why.

Agree 100%.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Its more than just the words Bilas uses, its the tone and timing. He obviously over-compensates to appear unbiased towards Duke and perhaps those here on DBR are super-sensitive to that. To suggest that he is not biased is simply wrong and the analysis by rsvman is basically an attempt to gaslight this group. I'm not buying it. This debate can never be settled and there's nothing wrong with using this thread as an outlet for those who want to vent.

Wow buddy. I don't think anyone is gaslighting anyone, and it's very strange to suggest as such.

You can retort with your own analysis if you want, but effectively calling rsvman a liar and accusing him of being intentionally misleading is pretty harsh.

I personally don't understand why Duke fans would choose to obsess over perceived slights from commentators when we are on a March winning streak - but that's your call. I don't think it is okay to lob accusations at other DBR posters tho.

[ahughestt]

Yeah that analysis doesn't particularly make me think any differently of Bilas whatsoever. Did anyone pick up on when Roach hit a three, how disgusted Bilas sounded because Roach looked at the Miami bench, insinuating he was showboating and it was really wrong?

[OldPhiKap]

I swear, it's like going out to an amazing restaurant having a lovely meal and complaining about the font used in the printed menu.

Do you really trust a restaurant that uses helvetica to follow proper food safety standards?