Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcuban
|
I didn't see listed this researcher's qualifications to judge the officiating. However, his genuine belief that the broadcasters on the game are either unbiased or suitably knowledgeable is good reason to doubt his qualifications.
You and we all know that a broadcaster's primary role is to boost ratings. You only need look as far as the failed experiment of putting Earl Strom in the broadcast booth to realize that what drives ratings is not actual rules knowledge or an experienced opinion. What boosts ratings is psuedo-authoritarian (meaning somebody who appears suitably authoritative to the viewer) non-stop sportscaster drivel that makes as much sense to the drunk fans as the sober. Ask yourself, if a controversial call is made, and it's technically correct for reasons that would baffle, or worse bore, viewers, what's your average sportscaster going to do? He's going to bemoan how that was the worst call ever, how it was totally baffling, how the call was made by a rulebook official intent on making himself appear more important than the game. His color commentator will then corroborate his opinion by confessing his complete puzzlement over what just happened. The call will then either fade away into irritating insignificance, or better yet, turn into the kind of controversy that will keep viewers buzzing until the next game. The guy who can keep the viewers buzzing...will be back next season.
While this researcher's data is certainly interesting, and appears to be a genuine attempt at unbiased analysis, it's ultimately just one more opinion from somebody not qualified to give an authoritative evaluation of the officiating.
But thanks for the link, it was interesting reading.
