When "talking heads" are harshly criticized on the forum, you think:

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Check out the recent Billy Packer thread, "Sick of Billy Packer?" and read some of the responses and suggestions.

As a relative newcomer to the forum, it has stood out to me over the past year that harsh criticisms of someone like Packer seem devoid of an understand that "we are in a glass house" criticizing 'Packer and the like' unless we have some big-time broadcasting experience. I would think the "talking heads" would be treated with a bit more ambivalence by officials - we overlook ignorance everytime we step on the court, so why should we let their ignorance be so inciteful?

Of course, from a rules-based point of view it is amazing that the networks do not see the value of ensuring that sound advice about the rules is not immediately at hand!?! Most of the berating on this forum, though, seems therapeutic without much chance of actually affecting a change; in fact, an outside observer reading the criticisms posted here would most likely think it is best to avoid having the thin-skinned volatility of an official near the broadcast! No one yet seems to admit that the venting is therapeutic, so the venom that gets posted is real?