Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
I strongly disagree. When Packer criticizes an official, he does so from complete ignorance. When I criticize Packer, I'm not working out of ignorance. I've studied English, language, public speaking, and debate. He's never studied the rules. I've DONE a good deal speaking both scripted and extemporaneous, and I can tell you that I know at least enough to say that Packer doesn't do a good job. I'm not being a fanboy who just wants to be on the winning side all the time. I'm speaking from experience, study and background. I think a better comparison would be if someone like my commissioner (who's never been an NCAA ref, but has studied and practiced reffing for over 50 years) were to criticize one of the NCAA refs. Yea, Howard's an amateur, but he knows a lot. If he said an NCAA ref was wrong about something, I'd listen. I've never been a national sports announcer, but I can tell you that his mistakes are beginners mistakes, and should not be allowed on national TV. I do have some idea what I'm talking about.
|
WHOA! Sounds like somebody's got their fishnets in a wad!
Actually, I agree with Juulie (as always). Packer is interested in one thing - promoting Billy Packer - not being accurate.
OK, two things - add promoting the ACC.
Mon Mar 28, 2005, 11:56am
Threaded Mode
