In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 187
Online now 164 Record: 4649 (2/27/2012)
The place for inside information on the Iowa Hawkeyes
The place to discuss general topics outside of Iowa
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Marty and his son Thom Brenneman are great. Also love Mayock and McDonough. Jay Bilas is pretty damn good as well.
True, although it'd be interesting to see if Barkley would be able to focus on the game, rather than go off on tangents at the worst possible time. But there would definitely be a number of hilarious moments.
Curious for your thoughts on Jeff Brantley. To me, it doesn't get any better than Marty. Marty has set the bar extremely high, but Brantley isn't anywhere close to that level. It's puzzling to me why WLW gives so much air time to Brantley.
I don't think either of them could concentrate on the game, that's why it would be so funny. 5 minutes into the game they'd be arguing with each other what's the best way to tie a shoe lace or who makes the best donuts. I can analyze the game myself, give me some laughs.
I'm not a big fan of Van Gundy. I actually get a bit upset when I find out he's doing a game.
"A good burn is like good sex. It's simple, to the point, and leaves your victim totally destroyed."--Kenny Drebsen
I was kind of the same way at first, but he's grown on me and now I love him. I'm the same with Bill Walton. I used to hate him, but once you realize he just makes fun of everybody, I think he's great.
Very true, it'd definitely be entertaining. It just gets frustrating sometimes when there's a confusing call/ruling on the floor and the announcers don't explain it. Those two would almost certainly have that program.
Jon Miller and Joe Morgan. Loved Sunday night baseball with these guys. Very nostalgic for me.
I get annoyed with him at times, too, but I'd much prefer him instead of Hubie Brown. While it makes sense financially, it's very frustrating from a diehard sports fan's perspective that most major sports on TV cater purely to the casual fan, rather than legitimately trying to get the best guy for the job.
Glad you brought up Walton. No doubt, he says some hilarious things from time to time, and his general demeanor on air is always pretty funny (quick sidebar, Frank Caliendo's impersonation of Bill Walton is legendary). That said, I think his actual basketball analysis is awful for a guy with his experience in the game. One of the dumbest comments I ever heard from him was about 6-8 years ago during a Celtics game, and he said that Paul Pierce was at best a third or fourth scorer on a title contending team.
That's kind of why I like Bob Knight so much as a commentator. Unlike Walton, he doesn't pretend to know the players or the teams. I love the fact that Knight just shows up and talks about the game that he's watching at that time. It's refreshing to me to not have the talk about the back stories or their draft status.
Granted, Knight could at least pretend like he cares sometimes, but I'll take the insight of a great bball mind like his any day.
I don't dislike Brantley, but you're right that he isn't in the same league as Marty.
Not sure if you've noticed this, but possibly my biggest gripe with Brantley is that he'll go extremely long stretches without saying the inning or the score. When you're on the radio, most of your listeners are only listening for a short time span (30 minutes or less), so it can be pretty frustrating to always have to wait until the inning ends for him to say the inning and the score. There are even times where Brantley doesn't say the score at the end of an inning. Marty generally does a much better job of that.
Good point. That definitely shows that Knight knows the game in general when he just weighs in on what he sees, rather than having any pre-planned talking points.
I've noticed that too and it's my least favorite thing about him.
Watching the Lakers/Spurs game and they were talking about Popovich and how many playoff wins he has. They put up the top 5 coaches with playoff wins and Phil Jackson had quite a bit more than everyone else. Van Gundy says "we won't talk about Jackson. He had Jordan. He just sat back and watched".
That's why I love a guy with no filter.
His voice and knowledge just fits better than any other announcer for his respective sport and it isn't even close
Totally agree Twib
I've never called a game myself, but I would assume that's one of the first things you're taught when you go into radio broadcasting - give the time/score on a fairly regular basis.
One thing to keep in mind is that the playoffs expanded significantly from the days when Red Auerbach was coaching until Jackson's era, so there were a lot more games available for Jackson to win. So a stat like that is extremely misleading for them to even post on the broadcast. I think the more telling stat for Popovich is that he won three titles. That right there puts him in elite company in the NBA coaching ranks.
And I agree with Van Gundy about Jackson to a certain extent. He was obviously a very good - if not better - coach. But if you conducted a private poll among every NBA head coach from the last 30 years, I bet most of them feel they could've had similar success with Jordan/Pippen and Kobe/Shaq/Gasol.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports