OT: Are in-game analysts biased?

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."

Well wouldn't you be pulling for an all time upset? A buzzer beater would be even better. The bigger the upset and more surprising the finish the better chance that game lives on in history through replays and the announcers voices go along with it.

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.

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.

This is why I like how they do the Final Four now with the broadcasts that are open with their bias. I get to watch the broadcast where they brownnose the team I'm rooting for, that way I don't waste time getting annoyed with the commentators.

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.  

What difference does it make?

Yeah Idk, they need to be excited when something exciting happens, or else they might as well not be there at all. It would be boring if they spoke in monotone. And then once a team starts sinking a string of lucky fucking shots for 5 minutes (I was rooting for UVA too), that excitement just naturally builds. I think it could actually show that they aren't biased, because they can get excited when a run happens from either team. It just happened to be Cuse.

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.

Why does it matter? It's just people talking over a basketball game.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Without a doubt, yes.

Yes. Next question please

No

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 Madness is the worst when it comes to this. Especially in your early round games were a big upset is possible.

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.

I don't mind when the calls are for one team. When the calls are for one conference, that gets annoying.

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).

 

I sync Terry and Matt with most basketball broadcasts and do the same with Jim and Dan for football. Works like a dream most of the time.

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.

I assume there is some bias for places you used to play/have a connection to, but I also think it is hard to not root for an underdog or the team that is playing best in the moment.

They absolutely love and do not miss the Spurs, but only watch without the volume on.  There is something to be said for it.