Leave No Rebuke Unspoken: The Billy Packer Story

The bitter, conservative, myopic, nasty epitome of evil dean of bad college-basketball broadcasters.

I have to apologize to some of my more politically oriented readers. The news in the United States has become so unbearably awful that I really can't bring myself to follow most of it. Resultantly, I'm going to make this site's culture, music, and sports games even stronger so that the quality of content does not depreciate despite the absence of some salient, important discussions. Is this a permanent departure? Of course not; it would violate my constitution. But while Schiavo goes out and immaculate-conception theory comes in, I am taking a small respite. My ideological-minority status is starting to take an emotional toll.

The serendipity that shall arise in the wake of this choice is that I am now afforded more time to get some long-standing thoughts out of my system and into the cyberspace. Given that this is NCAA Tournament season, what better place to start than by joining the chorus of Billy Packer polemicists? (For the uninitiated: Billy Packer is the lead analyst for CBS's college basketball coverage.)

Since I can remember, Billy Packer has been calling the most important college basketball games, and for that entire time, he has been a self-important asshole. I am hardly the first person to loathe Packer or voice the opinion. He's been called many things: whiny; satanic; inarticulate. Why is there so much vitriol, so much vituperation? Simply put, Packer is a didactic, picayune, conservative, insufferable know-it-all who is overzealous in his criticism and myopic in his understanding of the game.

A typical broadcast featuring Packer (and his reverent, white-bread, conservative, sent-from-central-casting partner, Jim Nantz) usually devolves into a platform for this small, bitter man's negative harping: That's not the right shot; why would he drive to the basket?; this team is lethargic, Jim; that was a poor possession; not really the pass you want. You get the picture. In Packer's defense, he can, in fact, offer praise; however, he is so biased and so unimaginative that he simply showers plaudits down upon certain programs that are perennial powers and their ballyhooed players. (My own observation is that Packer, a former Wake Forest player, suffers from intra-conference envy and loves Duke, however Packer is such a regular jerk that everyone thinks his or her school is the object of Packer's scorn. Everyone.) This year, for instance, Packer never neglected to figuratively fellate Duke's Shelden Williams, a player that Packer constantly touted for his great defensive timing and post skills. Williams is surely a very good player, and certainly in possession of those traits, however Packer would often discuss them to the exclusion of other important facets of the game he was theoretically enhancing with his "expertise."

As for this supposed insight, Packer is adored by media analysts because he is reputed to really understand basketball. I find that while Packer certainly has cultivated a working knowledge of the sport (and one that is likely better than those of his peers), his analysis is not only mitigated, but actually obscured, by his abhorrent personality and unpleasant critical mode. Furthermore, Packer watches basketball through the lens of tradition, and a stubborn, arrogant belief that he is the only one who really knows what should be done permeates his commentary. As a result, he will often excoriate a player for a "transgression" far less severe than the subsequent rebuke would indicate, or he will focus on ostensibly insignificant components of the game action because he has decided that they are truly important. Packer also sensationalizes the mundane, routinely offering hollow pronouncements and meaningless speculation about "outstanding" catches on the perimeter or timeouts taken too early.

Were Billy Packer not so bad at performing his job, those who dislike him could also find reasonable fodder for their conviction--and I say conviction because Packer is so polarizing--given what seems like an ugly off-camera personality. The ornery and nasty Packer is no stranger to controversy, having gotten into self-aggrandizing dust-ups with Phil Martelli and Dick Vitale (scroll down) and engaged in racist and sexist banter.

For years, I have placed exasperated calls to CBS begging that the station replace such a disdainful presence. He never fails to detract from my enjoyment while watching a game he's broadcasting. Sadly, my impassioned requests have never been honored, but this petition might be a new way to finally rid the college-basketball community of such a cancer.

If you link it, they will read:
- Ay yo, my man, Funkdigi, he got somethin' to say: Metalface posted a great rant today about the mainstream-underground dichotomy in hip-hop and where the culture may be headed. I posted a sloppy, discursive reply, and I encourage others to join the dialogue.

- Even I find this sick, and I am no animal lover (shouts to the Empire).

- At least fast-food companies don't perniciously target urban communities. Yeah, right (spotted by Jay Smooth).

- Jackogate Update: This was the break to which I alluded yesterday. Doesn't Corey Feldman have some repressed memories he wants to share with us? And while we're discussing Michael, why is she still famous? She's rich, her dad took too many drugs, and she married a freak show. Who cares?

- There has to be a pick-up line somewhere in here. Hey baby, I discovered the largest known prime number?

- Women of Afghanistan, rejoice! You, too, could become vapid, boring, smiling zombies.

- Baseball has a steroids problem. Congress has a baseball problem. Fix a real problem!

- Does this mean that Kobe bought Chucky a $4 million ring? It's a nice gesture, especially since neither of them will be seeing any other rings any time soon.