Defending the announcers

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

My concern, as I've pointed out in this thread, is that a professional with a huge salary and national standing who is using language for a living should certainly do better than Packer does. His is one case where it speaks (!) to the character, showing that Packer is lazy, arrogant and conceited. He has the chance to make the world a better place, and he chooses instead to make it worse. In other words, he's a low-life, who prefers to wallow in his filth, and tries to convince others to do the same.

Wow.

I heard he doesn't floss after meals too.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by rainmaker
...but it's not an indication of what low-lifes they are.

You sound vaguely like somebody else I've seen lately....Oh yes:

An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him,
The moment he talks he makes some other Englishman despise him.
One common language I'm afraid we'll never get.
Oh, why can't the English learn to set
A good example to people whose English is painful to your ears?
The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears.
There even are places where English completely disappears.
In America, they haven't used it for years!
Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?
Norwegians learn Norwegian; the Greeks are taught their Greek.
In France every Frenchman knows his language from "A" to "Zed"
The French never care what they do, actually, as long as they pronounce it properly.
Arabians learn Arabian with the speed of summer lightning.
And Hebrews learn it backwards, which is absolutely frightening.
But use proper English you're regarded as a freak.
Why can't the English,
Why can't the English learn to speak?

Originally posted by rainmaker
My concern, as I've pointed out in this thread, is that a professional with a huge salary and national standing who is using language for a living should certainly do better than Packer does. His is one case where it speaks (!) to the character, showing that Packer is lazy, arrogant and conceited. He has the chance to make the world a better place, and he chooses instead to make it worse. In other words, he's a low-life, who prefers to wallow in his filth, and tries to convince others to do the same.

Welcome to the free market economy. It seems the broadcast media limit their sense of social responsibility to attempting to influence presidential elections and pointing out pitiful situations where "somebody should do something."

When it comes to sportscasters, it's all about the money, Baby! Packer et. al. will be gracing the airwaves for exactly as long as they make money for their employers, and they will be speaking the way they do for exactly as long as somebody will pay them as they are.

[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Mar 29th, 2005 at 12:01 PM]

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by stmaryrams
I actually heard Jim Nance using the term "ON the back" several times this weekend.

I'm sure many on this board were saying to themselves "You got it right!"

Once again kudos to Gus Johnson - what a fine job of announcing the games!

If I understand you correctly, the term you are using "ON the back", refers to an "over the back" call on the defender? If so, there is no such call. I feel a player can defend over the back as long as the player does not make contact which empede's the opponent to a disadvantage.

I am not too high on Jim Nance as a number one announcer and I think the old fella Verne is a much better announcer than Gus.

Give me some feedback. Thanks.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by johnny1784
If I understand you correctly, the term you are using "ON the back", refers to an "over the back" call on the defender? If so, there is no such call. I feel a player can defend over the back as long as the player does not make contact which empede's the opponent to a disadvantage.

Give me some feedback. Thanks.

The word ON implies contact, which is what Nance was saying and why stmaryrams was applauding him.

To recap:

"ON the back" implies contact
"over the back" does not

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by johnny1784

If I understand you correctly, the term you are using "ON the back", refers to an "over the back" call on the defender? If so, there is no such call. I feel a player can defend over the back as long as the player does not make contact which empede's the opponent to a disadvantage.

I am not too high on Jim Nance as a number one announcer and I think the old fella Verne is a much better announcer than Gus.

Give me some feedback. Thanks.

Nothing wrong with "on the back", more precise than than "over the back". IMO nothing wrong with "over the back" either, it's all just fan-speak the announcers use. And I don't pay too much attention to the announcers, they're all just Billy/Dicky/Verne/Brent/Jim/Whoever to me. Except for Gus Johnson who I really do like.

[canuckrefguy]

[QUOTE]

Originally posted by rainmaker
His is one case where it speaks (!) to the character, showing that Packer is lazy, arrogant and conceited. He has the chance to make the world a better place, and he chooses instead to make it worse. In other words, he's a low-life, who prefers to wallow in his filth, and tries to convince others to do the same.

Well....I think that was both barrels.

Have they tied him to Osama Bin Laden yet?

[Junker]

The local sports radio station around here was having people call in with their least favorite announcer cliches and their favorite ones. I only caught a few minutes, but it was entertaining. It sounds as if most fans are sick of Packer too. I wanted to call and say that my least favorites were over the back and with the reach, but I had to get to work. Of course my favoite would be ONIONS! I can't even type that without laughing.

[rainmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by canuckrefguy

Well....I think that was both barrels.

Have they tied him to Osama Bin Laden yet?

I wouldn't give him nearly that much credit!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Wow.

I heard he doesn't floss after meals too.

Well, see? There ya go...


Seriously, I guess what I wrote was a little harsh. But the arrogance is hard for me to swallow, and I don't understand people who think it's cool. Why is being ignorant, conceited and show-off-y something to be proud of?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker
. Why is being ignorant, conceited and show-off-y something to be proud of?

I dunno, next time I see Donald Trump I'll ask him to get Paris Hilton's take on the subject.

[Hii]

definitely a good call danref. In this society, loud mouth people who go against authority or conformist norms like not being a slut, not being snotty, and being domesticated (something Hilton does go against) are looked up at. Donald Trump has admitted his ego is huge, yet his show is one of the most watched shows and he is thought of as some business genius, when in reality his show is complete crap and not reality at all. It doesn't reflect the REAL business world. Fans that scream in congregations at officials during a game are much the same...extremely popular to their fellow fans. Officials are the authority figures and very easily get trashed. Packer knows this and he uses it to score points with the fans at home. I will say though that Packer is not like Hilton or Trump. This is because Packer isn't liked by even the fan base lol. Poor Billy.

Also, the language debate is ridiculous. People make mistakes. I don't think we listen to announcers for their knowledge and mastery of the english language. We listen to them for commentary and analysis on bball games (or whatever the sport is). It seems some of you are getting too picky and taking your hate for Billy out on his speaking skills, thus looking for another way to hate on him. The man sucks..but it isn't due to his speaking abilities.

[Edited by Hii on Mar 29th, 2005 at 04:37 PM]

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Seriously, I guess what I wrote was a little harsh. But the arrogance is hard for me to swallow, and I don't understand people who think it's cool. Why is being ignorant, conceited and show-off-y something to be proud of?

Juulie, I think you're starting to lose perspective here, and are now attributing qualities to the man that are not supported by facts. While I find their commentary occasionally infuriating, I do not find Nance or Packer to come off as arrogant, conceited, or show-off-y (is that a word? ).

You're taking this dislike to a whole new level - one that is, judging by what I've been able to glean from this board, beneath you.

Just my $0.02

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy

Juulie, I think you're starting to lose perspective here, and are now attributing qualities to the man that are not supported by facts. While I find their commentary occasionally infuriating, I do not find Nance or Packer to come off as arrogant, conceited, or show-off-y (is that a word? ).

You're taking this dislike to a whole new level - one that is, judging by what I've been able to glean from this board, beneath you.

Just my $0.02

He is deliberately and with intent ignorant of the rules, and he actively resists any efforts to make himself more knowledgeable. Apparently, he feels the say way about the English language. Why should I like someone like that?

[WeekendRef]

Juulie ,
I usually really enjoy reading what you have to write but you are so completely off base here . I think the only reason you have not had more pushback to your posts (and there have been a couple) is because of your usually right on and express yourself in a respectful manner .
For you to take Billy Packer or any other BASKETBALL ANALYST to task for his use of language or mis-pronunciation of words (I do agree they should get players names right or if they can't just call them by their uni number ) is absolutely ridiculous . He was not hired because he speaks proper (according to you) english he was hired and remains employed because he knows the game of basketball (Or so his boss thinks) .
Please understand that 95% of the audience that listens to a basketball broadcast is not concerned with the "basketball analysts" grasp of the English language . He/she is concerned with the game and occasionally wants someone to explain strategy or rules to them.....or in Packers case what the rules aren't . In other words speak to your audience....and while it is probably not intentional Packer is doing just that .
BTW if Packer is on TV I turn down the sound becasue I don't like his analysis .
PLEASE do not take out a red pen and mark me for my many writing errors

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by WeekendRef
Juulie ,
I usually really enjoy reading what you have to write but you are so completely off base here . I think the only reason you have not had more pushback to your posts (and there have been a couple) is because of your usually right on and express yourself in a respectful manner .
For you to take Billy Packer or any other BASKETBALL ANALYST to task for his use of language or mis-pronunciation of words (I do agree they should get players names right or if they can't just call them by their uni number ) is absolutely ridiculous . He was not hired because he speaks proper (according to you) english he was hired and remains employed because he knows the game of basketball (Or so his boss thinks) .
Please understand that 95% of the audience that listens to a basketball broadcast is not concerned with the "basketball analysts" grasp of the English language . He/she is concerned with the game and occasionally wants someone to explain strategy or rules to them.....or in Packers case what the rules aren't . In other words speak to your audience....and while it is probably not intentional Packer is doing just that .
BTW if Packer is on TV I turn down the sound becasue I don't like his analysis .
PLEASE do not take out a red pen and mark me for my many writing errors

Well, I'm sorry that you disagree. I usually appreciate what you say, too, and I don't like disagreeing.

Don't worry about me marking you down for any writing errors. You're not getting paid for your English as Packer is. Yes, he is getting paid for his "baskeball analysis" but that thought process (however flawed!) is conveyed and depicted by his language. He is getting paid for communicating. When he doesn't use communication well, he's putting forward a disrespect for the "game" (ie the rules, structure and boundaries) of language in general. Is it any surprise, then, that he also has such a blatant disregard for the rules of basketball? His flawed thinking about basketball is a metaphor in a way for his flawed thinking about basketball.

You are right that he appeals to the pre-adolescent viewers who like that chip-on-the-shoulder attitude. He confirms their childish desire to put one right in the face of the authorities. CBS pays him for this, because their only value is the bottom line, and they pander to their audience.

I just can't respect or even feel neutral about that. I don't lose a lot of sleep over it, since that whole view of life is so prevalent in our society that it's a nearly hopeless battle. But I can't keep from pointing out, in a thread called, "Defending the ANnouncers" that Packer's whole routine is indefensible.