I heard a wonderful comment in last night's Syracuse-Notre Dame game from Jay Bilas. He said, "I never have a problem with late whistles, because they are outcome-based. I'd rather have that than an anticipatory whistle anytime."

The announcers get bashed alot here about rules, many times correctly. I thought I'd point out one where they showed a good understanding of a nuance of the game.

Also last night during the Oklahoma -- UCONN game, I heard the phrase "legal guarding position."

You could've blown me over with a Fox40.

Dan Bonner, who works with Raycom and does the tournament for CBS, also has a good working knowledge of the rules. He does color analysis on ACC games and has impressed me with his understanding of situations that have arisen.

Too bad they can't teach Billy "That's a reach, Jim" Packer a thing or two.:D

Talk about short lists.

MD vs UNC Monday
 

I still think I'm dreaming, but did anyone see one of the announcers (he may even be a former coach) brandish the NCAA rulebook on camera and make a proper citation?
The confusion arose about a T for hanging on the rim as to whether it should be allocated as a personal foul in the scorebook. Can someone confirm this?

Thanks

MD and UNC played on Saturday. There were no technical fouls in the game. Must be another game you're thinking of.

Maybe it was the women? :D

Am I the only one that thinks this comment is totally inappropriate?

Whistleone,

You're not the only one that thinks BushRef's comment totally inappropriate. The rhetorical question he asked betrays a level of ignorance beyond that suggested by his screenname. This is not the first time he's made a baldly sexist comment.

Bushref, discounting for the fact that this is a basketball board, I'd like you to consider how often, if the right venue presented itself, you would post questions related to the fact that there's an inordinate amount of bad men's tennis broadcast on cable...or Champions Tour golf...or New Orleans Hornets games.

jb

I'll probably regret jumping in here...but isn't calling these comments "sexist" and attacking a person personally a little strong for what was said. It's not like he's trying to get women's right to vote repealed or saying that women don't belong in the workplace. I believe that the post was a bit of sarcasm because he may not like to watch women's games. Many people don't. Maybe instead of turning a basketball forum into an argument over sexism, you can choose not to like the comment and ignore it. Just my opinion of course.

This reminds me of the piece from the Man Show (when Kimmel/Corrolla still did it) when they set up a table at a fair somewhere to get women to sign a petition calling for an end to women's suffrage. They were getting tons of signatures from these women who had no idea what women's suffrage was, until one (educated) pissed-off woman started yelling at everybody that they were making fools of them and explaining what "suffrage" meant.

Embarassing, and yes taking advantage of people's ignorance; but wicked funny. :D

I miss the original Man Show. Always offensive, yet as Chuck said, wickedly funny.

Re: MD vs UNC Monday
 

It was actually the Oklahoma/ UConn game officiated by Welmer, Burr and Hillary. Great 1st half to watch from an officiating standpoint. Lost of tough calls, a sitch where the officials had to get together and talk about getting the play right (which they did), a T for hanging on the rim, T to the OU coach. Lots of good stuff to watch and see how a veteran crew handles tough situations...

Junker,

In my mind, one of the important questions in the discussion regards how strongly one must feel before they lend voice (in this case a few keystrokes) to thought.

Now, nobody begrudges Bushref his apparent preference for men's over women's basketball. In terms of pure entertainment value, I happen to share the preference. Where we part company is in how this preference is informed by our thoughts on social politics, and how those thoughts lead us to comment publicly on such matters.

My feelings about women's basketball as an institution differ from my feelings about how much I am entertained by watching it. I think that as a moral matter, women should be given opportunities to play basketball on scholarship equal to the opportunities given to men. The entertainment markets aren't equal, but this is one of the many cases in which I do not choose to let the market be my moral compass.

That said, if ESPN's market research people say that some of their money would be optimally invested in televising women's basketball games, then why not? I may not watch as often as I will watch men's ACC or SEC games, but when it comes to sports, I don't expect much from the networks beyond trying to please their audiences.

I think that the sports-viewing public largely agrees with the above sentiment. This is why most people don't spend much time or energy vocalizing complaints about the content areas of programming. This is where I have a problem with Bushref and his ilk, and why I don't hesitate to label his comments as 'sexist.' My educated guess is that he doesn't write letters to Fox lamenting their shlock primetime programming, or their decidedly partisan political coverage masquerading as "news" (if we indeed share this view). If he doesn't like "The OC" or "Temptation Island," my sense is that he spends a lot less energy complaining about those shows publicly than he does consciously not watching them.

Why is it, then, that he can't simply not watch women's basketball? He has to make snide comments that the very broadcasting of such is a waste of time. Why is the case of women's basketball unique relative to other shows that he considers to be garbage? I won't forcefeed you the answer. If Bushref wants to make the case that two plus two does not in this case equal four, then I am sincere when I write that I am eager to read such an argument. Absent such a rebuttal, however, I will continue to characterize such comments (and I expect that the pattern will continue) from him as the sexist drivel they are.

jb