OT: Are in-game analysts biased?
I found myself watching the Elite Eight matchup between Syracuse and Virginia last night. The longer the game went on, the more I found myself getting agitated with Reggie Miller. I kept thinking, this man wants Syracuse to win.
But, this led me to wonder...are in-game analysts biased or is it just in our heads?
I'm not talking about the guys who sit in studio, but those who are on the sidelines.
Reggie Miller probably wasn't "rooting" for Syracuse but it sure felt like he was. I wanted Virginia to win. Which, I think in turn made me develop some sort of weird angst towards the announcers not assuring me Virginia wasn't actually blowing a 15 point lead to a 10 seed.
This can be seen across other sports. Take, for instance, the Michigan-Indiana football game. It just seemed as though the announcers were pulling for an upset and disappointed when Michigan eventually prevailed.
When the analysts or announcers are confronted with the question of if they show a rooting interest during a game, they claim to be unbiased.
March 28th, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^
yes.
March 28th, 2016 at 10:28 AM ^
is bias, especially from the top notch guys, but I do wonder if they go into the game expecting something to happen. It would be hard not to. They sit through meetings and interviews all week to prep for the game, and they are aware of records and stats. Take that indiana game, for instance. They knew Michigan had a statistically elite defense, and then Indiana starts shredding them. It could be a case they are surprised they got a "good game," and they are enjoying it.
I also think what you mentioned about rooting interests plays into it. Then, anytime they say something negative about your team, they are "pulling for the other guys."
March 28th, 2016 at 10:29 AM ^
March 28th, 2016 at 10:29 AM ^
I don't understand how people can claim to watch a sporting event and not care who wins. If I'm watching any sport that I care about, I will have a team that I want to win. Otherwise, it's just watching a bunch of people chase a ball...and who wants to watch that?
I think "bias" is too strong a word, though. Who cares what the announcers think? If they want somebody to win other than your favorite team, good for them. Hopefully they go home disappointed. As long as they can say something intelligent about what's going on, I don't see a problem.
it is still just a bunch of people chasing a ball, even if you care which team puts the ball into the metal loop or area of grass more times.
And yet, we care so much...
March 28th, 2016 at 10:29 AM ^
I'd say more overly reliant on cliches than biased....."That's a huge basket." - Dan Bonner -after 1st basket of game that came on 1st possesion..."The key to beating Virginia is to just keep scoring." -Dan Bonner.I don't mean to pick on him but those were 2 I had to rewind to make sure I heard correctly and wrote them down.
March 28th, 2016 at 10:44 AM ^
March 28th, 2016 at 10:31 AM ^
March 28th, 2016 at 10:16 PM ^
March 28th, 2016 at 10:31 AM ^
A little from column A, a little from column B. Of course they are biased. Everyone that has ever called a game has entered with an opinion or preconceived notion about something related to the game. They are professionals and should try an hide that, but is probably impossible to consistently do completely. On the other hand, it is pretty easy for fans to perceive bias when maybe there isn't any.
March 28th, 2016 at 10:32 AM ^
What difference does it make?
March 28th, 2016 at 10:34 AM ^
It doesn't make any difference.
I just find myself getting irrationally annoyed with the commentators. Then they double down and say "no bias here."
March 28th, 2016 at 11:25 AM ^
What you're doing; don't do that.
They are only biased because you are biased too.
Please stop while you're ahead.
Some announcers suck.
It's entertainment.
Move on.
We had one of the most biased announcers EVER before announcers were supposed to be biased in Bob Ufer. Why do people on here care so much if an announcer seems like they want one team to win more?
March 28th, 2016 at 10:36 AM ^
in favor of competitive games.
When Syracuse was down 16, the announcers have to be thinking "It's my job to keep this interesting." Of course, they're going to be happy when the game becomes interesting again on its own.
March 28th, 2016 at 10:38 AM ^
think you can sense any bias with really seasoned announcers. Like, there is no doubt in my mind that Keith Jackson really, really liked Michigan football when he called games, he did a ton of them and was close with Bob Griese, but there was no trace whatsoever of bias during the Miracle at the Big House even when I had heard him call enough games that I knew it was not an event he was pleased with.
Also, with experienced announcers like Dan Dakich (I said experienced, not necessarily good) with a rooting interest, I think they actually try to overcompensate the other way in order to not sound like they have a bias, and sometimes overdo it which is equally frustrating to the watcher and fan of that team.
It is nearly impossible for new in game analysts to hide their bias. I could literally hear Steve Smith's soul leaving his body during the second half of the MMSU v. MTSU game.
March 28th, 2016 at 10:38 AM ^
Why does it matter? It's just people talking over a basketball game.
March 28th, 2016 at 10:43 AM ^
I was going to say "No", and I truly believe that 99% of the time it's "No". Most fans only hear the negative about their team, just like they only see the bad calls that go against them. And everybody's human. Miller may have entered the game down the middle, but the natural progression and storyline of a game is going to leave you telling the tale with some interest in the outcome. Like your Michigan-Indiana example. If that were you or I calling Vanderbilt-Alabama down to the wire in OT, are you saying your voice wouldn't be just a liiiiiiittle bit hopeful of a Vandy 2-pointer to win?
So overall, 99% of the time, No, but kinda naturally yeah.
(But once in a while, you get a Michigan @ Minnesota hockey game where they B1G Network uses local guys for the broadcast who know nothing about the Wolverines and spend every break talking about the Gophers season, Don Lucia's job, and how awesome Hudson Fasching is. And they conclude the game after a Minnesota OT winner by shouting "GOODNIGHT MICHIGAN!!!" So I guess that also happens.)
March 28th, 2016 at 11:27 AM ^
I would qualify this: they aren't normally rooting for a particular team coming into the broadcast, but they do root (consciously or not) for a close game. You can hear this in their voice. This can mean pulling for the underdog, but if the favorite is down big, they'll pull for them to catch up, too.
March 28th, 2016 at 12:17 PM ^
Adding to this, you can conversely hear the disappointment and disconnect in most crews when games get out of control too. During some woefully lopsided football and basketball games, I have noticed that the sidebars and general "back in my day" stories tend to get a little longer. As a few in the thread have pointed out though, they are human like the rest of us and I think most would be prone to at least somewhat checking out of an uninteresting game. Sometimes, a little bias comes out in these moments, especially when the team with which someone on the crew is associated is down, but by then it doesn't really matter all that much in such games.
on spectators such as Katherine Webb.
March 28th, 2016 at 10:47 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 28th, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^
is SEC bias. It is not really bias as much as an expectation that the SEC is going to roll. I have to say, though, I did not notice it in the Citrus Bowl. It was an astoundingly bad broadcast but I did not feel any Florida favoritism.
March 28th, 2016 at 11:37 AM ^
March 28th, 2016 at 11:50 AM ^
was bad. Really bad. It was not just the broadcasting crew, the camera work was horrible, the color even seemed off. I loved the outcome but it was otherwise a very tough watch.
March 28th, 2016 at 10:47 AM ^
Analysts are human. Humans are always biased. It's like if you watch a game and you don't care about either team. You'll always end up pulling for one team a little more. Good analysts are just better at pretending to be neutral.
A perfect example is Kirk Herbstreit. You can't tell me he doesn't always want OSU to win, but you never get that impression from listening to him.
March 28th, 2016 at 10:49 AM ^
This doesn't really bother me, with one exception. I don't like it when guys with a clear connection to a program call that program's game. For a non-local broadcast, you shouldn't have Dakich calling Michigan games, Steve Smith calling MSU games, etc. Even when those guys handle their jobs professionally - and I think many of them do - it's just too annoying as an opposing fan.
March 28th, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^
I think it's a proven fact they are biased as Hell. What I cant figure out is how they manage to ALWAYS pick announcers who obviously favor whatever team Michigan (or anybody I'm rooting for) is playing.
Same thing with the refs. It's absolutely uncanny how they always pick those bastards who hate my team every GodDamn time.
March 28th, 2016 at 11:00 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 28th, 2016 at 10:56 AM ^
March 28th, 2016 at 10:56 AM ^
March 28th, 2016 at 11:00 AM ^
Of course they're biased. Sometimes it's as simple as that's who they predicted would win and they want to be right, like any fan. Doesn't really matter.
March 28th, 2016 at 11:06 AM ^
Just a thought.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 28th, 2016 at 11:07 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 28th, 2016 at 11:09 AM ^
You can blatantly tell on most occasions they are pulling for the underdog.
I am too but I also I'm not getting paid to be an analyst.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 28th, 2016 at 11:21 AM ^
March 28th, 2016 at 11:35 AM ^
The play-by-play guy for Westwood One got caught up in the moment and jizzed all over the mic with every Syracuse shot, rebound, turnover in the last eight minutes. It was an amazing comeback, so I get it. And I believe that if the roles were reversed, he would've done the same thing for UVa.
To answer the complaint about broadcasters going crazy for the underdog in the early rounds of the tournament (or any football game against us): A lot of print and broadcast journalists make the same mistake these days. Instead of letting a story develop organically and report on what transpired, they try to force a narrative that does not exist. So instead of saying a #2 seed is beating a #15 seed by 15 points at the half (factual). It's the #15 seed hitting six three pointers to stay within striking distance with an entire half to play (historically wishful thinking).
March 28th, 2016 at 12:01 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 28th, 2016 at 12:02 PM ^
It's not difficult to hear a pro-Duke bias when you listen to Jay Bilas. It really comes out during the Duke/UNC games. When Duke isn't around, he'll give overt props to the ACC bluebloods like UNC or UVA. I have a mute button.
I also agree upthread about Herbie - he's a good listen and doesn't shine too hard for OSU. Speilman is improving.
It's all about audience... nobody from around these parts when Griese called games his son played in.
This is a stupid original post. OT is only going to get worse come May and June.
March 28th, 2016 at 12:10 PM ^
March 28th, 2016 at 12:17 PM ^
They absolutely love and do not miss the Spurs, but only watch without the volume on. There is something to be said for it.