jotsheet

I’ve been meaning to write this for a long, long time. Then Big Ten Wonk beat me to the punch and put it ever so sweetly: jury duty for Billy Packer would be a gift from the Good Lord above. Of course, disdain for this curmudgeonly old ACC guard is quite common among fans (read the last link).

You see, I’ve been known to complain about commentators from time-to-time. My rant about Dick Vitale got some traction. I’ve whined about Bill Walton. But Billy Packer… oh, Billy Packer, how I despise thee. Let’s be clear: I don’t care that you’re sexist. No, it’s probably possible to boil what’s wrong with Billy Packer down to a single, declarative sentence.

Billy Packer’s commentary has no redeeming value whatsoever.

As you might gather, I’m also no fan of his personality. He is the whiny, annoying kid on the playground who somehow, someway pushed your buttons purely by virtue of his asinine attitude. Almost unwittingly, the cad goaded you into punching him. You were acting on instinct by then. You were submitting to the forces of evolution. Because in truth, over the course of thousands of years, humans developed an innate anti-Packer sense that allows us to weed out Packer-like weenies from the gene pool. Unfortunately, with the recent development of “society” and “laws,” this useful instinct has been suppressed. But alas, fellow college basketball fans, though we may not be at liberty to physically assault Billy Packer, we can create weblogs and bitch on the Internet. That’s what I’m here for.

Let’s delve into this a little more deeply. I don’t know anyone who likes Billy Packer, but I’m also not sure that I’ve heard an insightful or incisive analysis of why he sucks so much. I’m going to give it a shot here.

1. He’s too negative. Whereas Dick Vitale is supremely annoying, he’s not negative—just hyperactive. Bill Raftery is usually positive (and has a great flair for the dramatic). Jay Bilas and Len Elmore are thoughtful. But Packer’s commentary—at least 2/3 of it—consists of complaining about a bad decision here, a silly pass there, an unwise shot there. It wears you down.
2. He’s wrong. A lot. Billy’s got some company here in the color commentator ranks. I wouldn’t say he’s the worst here, but he’s pretty bad. Packer is quite conservative in his approach to the game, which is not inherently bad, but he doesn’t really acknowledge when a more aggressive or unorthodox approach works. He neglects to say anything.

3. He simply refuses to admit when he interprets something incorrectly. Holy shit, this drives me craaazy! Let’s just call it Packervision. It’s perfectly fine for an announcer to improperly think a foul was committed, that a player traveled, that a player stepped out of bounds, etc. given his vantage point, but I have never—and I mean never—seen a guy refuse to go back on his initial, incorrect interpretation even as the slow-motion instant replay clearly shows he’s wrong. It’s un-be-lievable. A six year-old could make the calls that Packer won’t make. It boggles the mind.

   A perfect example of Packervision was his much-talked about commentary on the Duke-Mississippi St. game in this year’s tournament. He continually praised J.J. Redick, in spite of Redick’s 5-13 FG and 5 TO performance, and proclaimed that the game’s refereeing served as “proof that Duke doesn’t get all the calls.” This proclamation stood in stark contract to the embarrassing fact that every time CBS showed a replay, it contradicted his pro-Duke interpretations.

   Steve also documents several examples of classic Packervision from 2003:

   In the Championship game, BP was on fire. He was lighting it up from dumb ass range. Here are a couple verbal miscues from the Syracuse/Kansas match up:

   • Carmello Anthony pump faked a little too much and actually left the ground. Although it was a missed call by the ref, Billy was on top of it and put in his 2 cents by saying, “That was NOT a walk.” Immediately following a commercial, CBS showed a close up proving that Anthony left the ground by a good 4-6 inches. Not to be up staged by visual evidence, Billy retorted by saying it was a mere 1/8th of an inch. Insulting America’s intelligence will take you everywhere.

4. He roots too strongly for the winning team. If the score is 60-54, we’re talking about a two-possession game here. Yet Packer consistently slants his entire commentary, even his entire worldview, in the direction of the team in front.

5. He doesn’t walk the walk. What do I mean? Well, ol’ Billy is quite content to lob verbal bombs from his courtside seat, but when push comes to shove and he takes heat in the wider media for out-of-line comments, he quickly backs away. Need examples? They abound.

   1. After adopting his typically nasal, whiny, negative tone in the Illinois’ victory over Wisconsin in the 2005 Big Ten Tournament, Packer moved out to the court with partner Jim Nantz for the trophy presentation. Once there, he was gushing to Dee Brown and the rest of the Illini team, even after he’d criticized them during the game.
   2. Packer lambasted Phil Martelli’s 2004 St. Joe’s team and said they were undeserving of a #1 seed, then backed away from directly confronting the issue with the coach.
   3. When two Duke students razzed him for media credentials upon entering Cameron Indoor, Packer made condescending, sexist remarks to insult the girls. Then he denied it. Then he “remembered” about it and apologized. Hmm.
   4. The Bald-Headed One recently aroused the ire of similarly domed Kentucky guard Patrick Sparks. After hitting a clutch three-pointer to tie the UK-MSU final and send the game to overtime, Sparks reacted by screamed at Packer, “Take that, motherfucker!” Somehow, Billy doesn’t remember.

   Bottom line: Packer will jab from afar but play Mr. Nice Guy when dealing with the subjects of his commentary.

So what’s the moral of the story here? I honestly think Billy Packer is a terrible commentator. I think he needs to go. I know I’m not alone, because plenty of people have signed the petition urging CBS to kick him to the curb. When you’re done doing that, check out the petitioners’ comments!

More on the Packer

If you’d like a great sampling of opinions about Billy from around the blogosphere, scoot over to the always link-packed ACC BasketBlog: Billy Packer Hatred.

Jason Zengerle recently published an excellent article on our friend entitled “Negative Influence: The Case for Billy Packer” at the New Republic Online (free registration required). It’s a good read and gives the pro-Packer side of the story. To boil the article down, Zengerle casts color commentary in college basketball as fluctuating between two unpalatable extremes: pollyanna Dick Vitale in the regular season (ESPN) and hypercritical, analytical Billy Packer in the tournament (CBS). Zengerle makes the case for Packer. He describes him as a stalwart dissector of the game, a man who stubbornly sticks to his analyses in the face of criticism. Zengerle likes that style; he doesn’t like Vitale and the rah-rah Coach K crap. And guess what? I can buy that. Given the choice between Billy Packer and Dick Vitale, I’d pick the former—despite the lead to this blog post.

Buuuut the story isn’t as simple as Zengerle makes it out to be. CBS and ESPN have more than one color commentator each. It’s not just about Vitale and Packer. It’s about Jay Bilas, Bill Raftery, Len Elmore, Steve Lavin, Clark Kellogg, Rick Majerus, and others. I’d take any of those guys over Packer or Vitale. If you’re looking for style, Raftery’s got it without Dickie V’s over-the-top, dominate-the-broadcast annoyingness. Steve Lavin and Jay Bilas understand the flow of the game well, and Bilas in particular is a master at analyzing situations and matchups and “first-guessing.” Zengerle should look beyond BP for his baskeball analysis.

Just in case you’re not convinced by now that Billy Packer is a jerk—that dickhead is just part of his personality—you need to check out the infamous radio interview with Boers and Bernstein of Chicago’s 670 The Score. They had Billy on during the 2005 NCAA tournament, and wow: what a total asshole. I really don’t know how to put it any other way. The guy is a cantankerous, curmudgeonly, antisocial, graceless, classless, paranoid little man. For someone who sits in the public eye for a living, you’d think this guy would know how to turn on the charm. Well, this interview proves otherwise! Listen to parts one, two, three, and the immediate follow-up with Dick Enberg.

Share This