OT: Are in-game analysts biased?

Submitted by dieseljr32 on

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. 

 

MGoBoard
Basketball
basketball
announcers
2016 NCAA Tournament

Gr1mlock

March 28th, 2016 at 12:24 PM ^

While there are some national guys (Galloway most comes to mind, but there are others) who are blatantly biased for and against certain teams (typically the teams they played for and rivals thereof), most national analysts try to be pretty down  the middle (i'm exempting the team's local radio/TV crew, they're obviously biased for their team).  But almost universally analysts are biased in favor of a competitive, well played game and/or good television.  There's just way more to talk about and analyze when the game is close and both teams are playing great then when there's a 25 point blowout and you're just trying to scramble for something to fill the airtime with.  This is the same reason they tend to get excited about upsets and underdogs, because it makes for more compelling programming.  I  think that's a lot of why they seemed pro-'Cuse - the game was boring when Virginia was up 15 and cruising, but once Syracuse started the comeback, suddenly there was drama and interest and something to talk about, and they wanted more of that.  

Joined: 12/24/2013

MGoPoints: 6266

M-Dog

March 28th, 2016 at 2:15 PM ^

They are typically rooting for a storyline more than they are rooting for a team.  Their job gets boring, they want something interesting that they can pontificate about and give their own special little hot take.

They can't do that when a #1 seed VA is blowing out a #10 seed Syracuse.  Syracuse beating VA is an interesting storyline.  Of course they are rooting for that. 

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257573

UMfan21

March 28th, 2016 at 2:40 PM ^

announcers job is to make the game exciting. to do this, they usually talk up the underdog, especially if they are keeping the game close or making a comeback. even if the underdog is winning, they may flip and seem to support the favored team. a good announcer will make it feel like the game is always within reach even if down by 15-20.

Joined: 09/28/2009

MGoPoints: 51233

M and M Boys

March 29th, 2016 at 8:36 AM ^

Or any other national prop who simply spit up and out their personal loyalties after the teleprompter is off and unpredictable action evolves....

Bob Ufer's paycheck said "University of Michigan" on it each week and he promoted the team  with every breath he ever took.................

He symbolically led the team into battle each week and vigorously rallied the listening troops as part of a manicured design and strategic plan.

 He was fun.

 He was never, never controversial to a Michigan Fan.

 You knew where he stood before any words (or actions) ever took place.

He was the greatest and he led you to believe that he and Patton and Bo and the Michigan Marching Band led the charge out of the tunnel every week!

Joined: 01/27/2016

MGoPoints: 7033