This has nothing to do with the post, just a thought that was with me yesterday driving home from work and listening to the radio. It's been said in previous posts that Tony Barnhart is the best college football guru around. I really have to disagree with this. He seems to speak about things that he really just doesn't seem to know about first hand from experience. He seems to ascertain information and passes it along with the best of them. My problem however is that he tries to give insight into the information or issue at-hand yet he has no merit to qualify his opinion. He's a reporter. I just notice his role has evolved the last couple years to start giving his takes on games, teams, x's & o's, etc but he has never coached nor played the sport at a meaningful level (that I know of at least). In short, I guess I find it somewhat humorous sometimes when I hear him try and come off like a coach or some person who has been involved in the game at any point. He is best at passing along information he receives from speaking with coaches and other contacts to garner opinions and reactions from games. People seem to really enjoy his takes so I'm clearly in the minority. Just thought I'd throw it out there and see if anyone else thinks similarly.
Charlie Weis is the head coach at Notre Dame. He never even played high school ball, and he's got a Super Bowl ring.
Being able to write about something is a completely different skill set than being able to do something.
By that standard, there would be no reporters at all. So ... if you've never been to the moon, you can't write about NASA? If you've never played the Guitar, you can't write that Hendrix is a bad ass?
The guys who have played sports and comment on it, are most likely to be the most useless at commenting on it. See: Lou Holtz, Craig James, etc.
Buck Belue is useless behind the microphone because he's an idiot.
Barnhart is okay. My problem with him is that he seems to just parrot old information and put a dramatic spin on it that is appealling to a national audience. Referencing Bama's high expectations, or Auburn's Lowder, or Mark Richt's faith, does nothing for me, because I'm already aware of the background and the news by the time he reports or comments on it.
Very true re: Barnhart recycling old info. He rarely brings anything new to the table although he speaks as if it is. I enjoy the comments he passes along from league coaches but other than that I'm not sure what role he really plays outside of run-of-the-mill journalist.
Georgia Sports Blog is an independent site. It is not associated with the University of Georgia, the UGA Athletic Department or any other official entity.
10 comments:
do you sleep?
The time stamps are simply a scheduling tool. I wasn't awake at 4:00 am.
This has nothing to do with the post, just a thought that was with me yesterday driving home from work and listening to the radio. It's been said in previous posts that Tony Barnhart is the best college football guru around. I really have to disagree with this. He seems to speak about things that he really just doesn't seem to know about first hand from experience. He seems to ascertain information and passes it along with the best of them. My problem however is that he tries to give insight into the information or issue at-hand yet he has no merit to qualify his opinion. He's a reporter. I just notice his role has evolved the last couple years to start giving his takes on games, teams,
x's & o's, etc but he has never coached nor played the sport at a meaningful level (that I know of at least). In short, I guess I find it somewhat humorous sometimes when I hear him try and come off like a coach or some person who has been involved in the game at any point. He is best at passing along information he receives from speaking with coaches and other contacts to garner opinions and reactions from games.
People seem to really enjoy his takes so I'm clearly in the minority. Just thought I'd throw it out there and see if anyone else thinks similarly.
Anon,
Charlie Weis is the head coach at Notre Dame. He never even played high school ball, and he's got a Super Bowl ring.
Being able to write about something is a completely different skill set than being able to do something.
By that standard, there would be no reporters at all. So ... if you've never been to the moon, you can't write about NASA? If you've never played the Guitar, you can't write that Hendrix is a bad ass?
The guys who have played sports and comment on it, are most likely to be the most useless at commenting on it. See: Lou Holtz, Craig James, etc.
And Buck Belue also. He is the most useless commentator in the media. Absolutely useless behind a microphone.
Can someone tell me what game the Walker photo is from ?
Buck Belue is useless behind the microphone because he's an idiot.
Barnhart is okay. My problem with him is that he seems to just parrot old information and put a dramatic spin on it that is appealling to a national audience. Referencing Bama's high expectations, or Auburn's Lowder, or Mark Richt's faith, does nothing for me, because I'm already aware of the background and the news by the time he reports or comments on it.
^^ Looks like Vandy to me.
i believe it is the 1981 game vs. California
Very true re: Barnhart recycling old info. He rarely brings anything new to the table although he speaks as if it is. I enjoy the comments he passes along from league coaches but other than that I'm not sure what role he really plays outside of run-of-the-mill journalist.
Post a Comment