Billy Packer's Tyranny Has Ended. That Should Be the Story.

Some classic Packer. Not a sports fan? But you always seem so enthused. Weird.

So let's just come out and say it: Billy Packer will not be missed. He is a crotchety asshole whose basketball broadcasts too often were joyless exercises in petty criticism and fan infuriation. Unquestionably, he understood his subjects, but how sad is the rest of the "analyst" profession that CBS and other media impresarios happily paid such a high price for Packer's basketball ruminations? (To say nothing of the fact that he got plenty of stuff wrong--names, sequences of events, what should have been called, the entire Gerald Henderson fiasco--and never apologized or accepted badgering for it.) And yes, the Bangin' has not been silent on this matter; I am one whose opinion of Packer is firmly established.

I waited a few days to mention this serenditpitous happening because I was interested in how Packer's media brethren would send him off. Agenda-setting outlets and writers usually don't criticize their own as openly as is deserved. And over the years, despite impassioned fan protest to the contrary, many writers had lionized Packer as an avatar in his field. When contrasted with Dick Vitale's substanceless, discursive cheerleading or Digger Phelp's broken English and low-level dimentia, it seemed reasonable enough to acknowledge Packer's superior analytical ability. (Though Packer never served as an observer for Cambodian elections. Tielight that!) But it also always seemed to neglect reality in full, and it never captured the deep loathing common among so many fans.

Thus, reading the mainstream media's sendoff has been somewhat gratifying. As expected, the institutions of record have been disappointingly hunkeydorey in their treatment of Billy's retirement. Reading some of these stories, one gets the impression that college basketball has lost a cherished contributor whose insight and careful consideration of the game far outweighed whatever forgivable shortcomings occasionally presented themselves. Says an apologetic and impressed Michael Wilbon:

I'd gladly put up with all of Packer's agendas and his affiliations because when he sat to call a game he threw himself into it and made the experience better for anybody who cared about the game, if less so the three-ring circus that has come to surround college basketball.

The New York Times' Richard Sandomir brushed over the "occasionally controversial" Packer's missteps and focused on the transactional nature of the news: Packer out, Kellogg in, Anthony waiting. USA Today was more in-depth, though I learned more about Packer's absolutely insane personal life than his legacy as a broadcaster. (A Psychic? No typing or interwebs? Is this Billy Packer or John McCain?) Only Diane Pucin of the LA Times hit us with some truth.

But things got really good when I read more. The local press--writers who likely don't know Packer, don't harbor realistic hopes of one day landing on network television, and don't have the same fealty to media overlords--went to work on Packer. The Philadelphia Daily News; the Cleveland County (NC) Star; the Arkansas Democrat Gazzette. How good does it feel to finally see someone write what so many fans have felt for a long time? Awful Announcing wrote this satisfying summary of Packer's awfulness more than a year ago, and it finally is time for more media folks to accept what had become evident to so many fans who aren't distracted by the milieu of professional journalism and the lure of fame: Packer was boorish and ruined the experience. No amount of technical insight should excuse that stark bottom line.

As King Kaufman noted, "It's hard to think of another sports broadcasting figure of Packer's stature and tenure who's inspired as little affection as he has." Maybe that should have been instructive for CBS and Packer's loyalist long ago. Good riddance to Billy Packer. He will not be missed.