HardyBoy

Nice post, strong valid points I actually preferred her doing football to basketball...don't think she talks about the game enough in basketball, but the pace lines up just right with football since nothing happens 90% of the time. I think she tries to sound like Marv Albert, which again might not be one's preference, but what was happening at the start of this thread was backing into a reason not to like her in order to validate and confirm one's initial bias. I agree people complain about announcers all the time, but not in a 9 page thread with over half the post fitting the criteria above. Also, careful with the Goldberg analogy, I totally get your point and it supports your argument, but someone might force your argument on the defensive by saying that the Goldberg move was clearly a publicity stunt, are you saying the same about Mowins?

For me, Greg Gumble asking with 15 seconds before the two minute warning if the team doesn't get out of bounds should they use a timeout (their last for good measure) is so much worse than missing on a name or two a few times. Missing names is a communication issue with her spotter that gets resolved with team building. Gumble asking that earlier in the season shows a complete lack of knowledge of strategy and understanding of the sport he is announcing. Where was the 9 page in a day thread slamming Gumble? Also, Romo gets things wrong all the time, and it's part of the charm (obviously not strategy stuff). Again, as I mentioned earlier, I think people have a problem with her not because she is a woman per se, but because the way she does it is in a stereotypically male way, and it rubs people biases the wrong way. Romo does it in an aw shucks dude next door way that is endearing, Julie Foudie does it in a much more sterotypically feminie way, but Mowins sounds stereotypically male, and that is messing with people's heads...that isn't a her issue though, stop being a sheep that is triggered into a predefined response by the queen of hearts, and think for yourselves.

I think it's the difference in play clock between college and nfl...have heard her do plenty of college football games where flow wasn't an issue. That or shevwas working with an inexperienced color commentator, who I also thought had potential, but needs more practice. If that was his first game though, he did great, and she would have been a huge reason for that...if I was going to do color for a game, Mowins might be my top choice...she's incredibly experienced, ha, plus it looks like no one would even focus on me and just lob insults at Mowins.

It's a fair point, and you can dislike her voice and not be sexist, but what is interesting to me is why is that the go to initial response for so many people here. Would that be the same response if that was a male announcer with essentially the same voice, or would you focus on more concrete and quantitative aspects to use as an example for the issues you have with that announcer? For what it's worth, I initially didn't like Mowins' voice when I heard her to Cuse games, but after a couple games it stopped being an issue/never was an issurle in the first place. I didn't throw a fit saying I would mute the game, like many here. I listened, got used to her, and acknowledged I had a bias which is out of my control, while not allowing myself to be a slave to those biases. I am a human being with the ability to control, supress and understand my body and mind's initial responses. I did so, and realized it was an issue of me adapting to change and once my mind and ears got used to it, I stopped noticing her voice having features that were jarring. So, no you are not sexist for having that initial response, you are fair in saying that people need to chill out and listen to people's opinions that they might now agree with without summoning an angry twitter mob. That said, you are sexist if you do not acknowledge that you might have some preconditioned societal biases that have been ingrained in you, and you shut yourself off from the concept that approaching it with an open mind and fighting past your initial reaction you realize you have a filter over your ears that was placed there by society...it's all about personal growth, and realizing that our intial responses are not who we truly are.

I know we might seem divided on this board, but we all feel the same way about Canada

Women can be biased as well. I genuinely want to see that hypothetical 538 article and the research (I'm going to loom for some papers now), because she really does have an extremely similar cadence to many male announcers. I wonder if it's not that she's a woman to most people, because i genuinely want to believe most people here aren't crazy sexists, but that she is trying to do it in a stereotypically male way. I don't think it is right for there to be stereotypical male way of announcing, especially since women are basically barred from being announcers at a high level, but if you asked me to describe the stereotypical male announcer I could, and I bet it would match with others independent description. Contrast Mowins with Julie Foudie, who is incredibly successful as well as a big time soccer announcer, and I bet you don't give her the tone comment. I know it's a leap with a lot of unexplored variables to make the argument that you dislike Mowins because she tries to do it like a man, but like Foudie because she does it in a more natural/female acceptable way. I am using this example as a thought exercise for introspection, and further discussion and exploration.

Something else to think about. Shane Battier after retiring has been announcing NBA games and did real well. Then he did a college game, and it went terrible, like dumpster fire bad. The reason is the difference in the shot clocks. With a 24 second shot clock in the NBA you basically have to fill 10 seconds of time with non-game focused material, and transitioning to a longer shot clock was crazy jaring for him. He actually got a lot better with more practice. Mowins likely needs more games to account for the changes in play clocks from the NCAA to the NFL.

Look at how those other announcers suckiness is described...the tonal quality of their voice, if mentioned at all, is mentioned well after significantly more important qualities, like total lack of knowledge of strategy, lack of understanding of the rules, etc. Mowins might have gotten a few names wrong, but overall, she came across as knowledgeable of the rules, strategy, etc, and added some quality insight that showed she prepared for the game more than just reading national media. I enjoyed her announcing, and hope she continues to have opportunities to do NFL games, including Bills games, because no doubt there are some valid criticisms to her performance in this game, but they were minor (you guys really are nitpicking on most of these things, just looking for anything to back up your gut feeling, which is based on a sexist bias) and from her extensive experience I have no doubt she will continue to get better, especially when paired with a more experienced color commentator.

Counting down the days for fivethirtyeight to write an article talking about how the 'grating' comment is 100% due to her being a woman/her gender, referencing evidence based neuroscience research proving many in here are sexist. Granted, it's initially subconscious uncontrolled bias how you instantly feel, but you control how you respond to those biases. If they do write that article, and reference this board, some people will not come off in a good light, which will shine on all bills fans...thanks.

You cannot base the quality of a choice on the outcome, since the outcome is not knowat the time of the choice. Do this, go to the casino, bet red on roulette every time and tell me what happens. Sure you'll win sometimes, but eventually you lose everytime because of 00. If you tell me you are going to become rich playing that strategy, even if you win the first spin, it's the wrong decision.

Had the bomb to thompson been incomplete with no pi, it's 4th and 6 on your side of the field. Would you rather have 4th and 1 from their 41, or the chance of having a 4th and anything else farther back with less time left? The saints had a very similar situation, but were down 3 and in field goal range Thurs night. They went for it. The odds of picking up 4th and 1 needing one more first down to kick a fg are better than punting and needing a whole bunch of things to end up happening just right with no real upside if even one thing doesn't go as needed. It was a bad call, very, very bad.

How much does he make per game? My guess is this will cost him a bunch of money. Let's say he makes $500k per game...that's already a bit crazy of a fine for what he did, even if what he did was awful. If they could fine him something reasonable and then suspend him for multiple games that makes sense, but at some point missing a game check for each game gets to be excessive...having a system where that has to be taken into account when punishing on field behqvior is messed up too...so a lower paid player would get 2 games or maybe 3 because the fine, which is an appropriate amount of time for his team to lose his services, wouldn't be as crazy.

I'm all for a Csar, but also all for a Tsar. In fact, we really should be hoping for a Csar of Tsars, or would we want a Tsar of Csars...either way the (T/C)sar would need oversight from the (C/T)sar.

Didn't he tear the acl against the bills in the preseason? Remember feeling guilty that happened against the bills cause he was coming off such a great rookie season. So yeah, he's screwed, we're cursed and looks like the central curse vortex has manifested with that trade...the prophecy has come to pass, don't think about marshmallows!

ACLs typically hurt real bad at first, and then stop hurting, and you feel fine, until you need something that requires stability and you fall over. Plus, they swell so much you can't bend your knee, at least the few I've seen happen playing sports. I had a friend who partially tore his acl, dr told him it wasn't anything structural or serious enough to do surgery, and he kept playing on it, and hurt other stuff over a year or so that actually brought him back to the dr, and he got his acl done. That lack of stability caused a chain reaction. When Zay got hurt a few weeks back, the amount of pain he was in, even five minutes after the injury was the one thing that kept me hopeful it was a non-acl. Knees are weird though...Paul Pierce was in so much pain they had to wheel him off in a wheelchair, thinking his career is done, and suddenly he's playing again 20 minutes later. This is crazy though, remind me again why we watch people do this to their bodies for our entertainment?

I live in FLL and it's real nice out for sure, but if they win, people will show up. Actually, winning is less important than being interesting down here. Look at what's happening with the Hurricanes...same stadium and it's rocking every weekend.

For what it's worth, they make the same point here (interesting well informed discussion from a national point of view as well):

Unless the spread has that already built in, which it should, so you got a bit of a causality thing happening looking at just the spread. I like the idea of using the spread, but would look for spreads that favored the home team more than a standard prime time game.

Sounds good...10 bonus points if it was on gravel.

There was this Are You Afraid of the Dark episode on Nick at Night back in the day where this girl, who was the worst on her team, wishes she could be the best player on her basketball team. Instead of getting good, everyone else ended up becoming worse, so technically she became the best on her team, but we Oregon Trail millennials learned a life lesson...that is what this game reminded me of.

Both teams played slow, it does not give any insight into either of these teams. Four days is way too soon. Seriously, go outside right now, and just dive 10 times on the ground. Then do it again in 4 days. Good luck.

The Thursday night aspect unfortunately makes this game really difficult to use for predicting anything. Wish week 1 and Thursday night (because of short rest) were the two games on each teams' schedule that are decided by the previous season record.

The hypocrisy abound in work real hard, live the American dream and you are entitled to every shred of what you earn, unless you are an athlete, in which case bow your head in humility, because these owners worked hard and never got a hand out, is astounding. Why are athletes less entitled to the benefits of their hard work than a business man? I genuinely hope that the athletes all just quit to shove your hypocrisy and contradictions in your faces. Call yourselves conservatives, but you're not, the conservative party has been taken over by propogandists. You have no policy comebacks, just phrases you parrot reflexively if you get triggered, because you only want to hear words that make you feel good and don't challenge you. Whiny, mob mentality, snowflake cry babies. Who is John Galt?

And that's exactly my point. If we take as your given that there is absolutely no systemic racism in the system, explain to me how 80% of children in Broward county get free or subsidized meals in school, and here's the key, without being racist or prejudiced in your explanation. Boyst62 is out clearly, but can anyone else please give it a shot. Remove all racism from the equation, from the system and from the explanation and see if you can convince me that when 80% of kids in one of the most affluent counties gets help to eat that a) there is no racism in the current system and more so b) that the current situation was not caused by racism. Remember, this didn't happen overnight. If you make a valid argument I will conceed or counter, but any prejudice or generalization of the few to the many is an instant fail.

Almost 80% of kids in Broward county get free or subsidized lunches (largely minorities), and while it is socio economic, I believe it is a symptom of which the causes are the result of systemic racist practices such as red lining and building highways through middle class urban neighborhoods in the 50s and 60s, as well as preditory lending practices leading up to the great recession that led to people of color to lose a stagering amount more wealth than whites. It's not about money in your bank account, it's about wealth like property and other assets that can be passed down through families, and we as a nation have historically deprived black people access to build wealth. That is a issue that must be measured in generational impact, not in the short term. It's not about being free of overt prejudice that we need to achieve, we have made great strides in that over the last many years, but it's the systemic remains of that prejudice that are so deeply rooted in a lack of wealth accumulation, that even the removal of all racism will not likely resolve on their own, and certainly not in a single generation. We need to step in and help, and forget morality, we cannot survive as a nation without a more balanced number of people being in the middle, and the people currently marginalized are more than capable of not just being in the middle, but driving the coubtry forward from thr middle. As such, I don't think anything changed, I think YouTube and other social media is allowing us to see what is happening. The regualr media sold out for add revenue and their corporate sponsors did not want extreme poverty to dominate the local and national news. It's like the Vietnam war, do you think our war tactics changed significantly (look at what happened in Guantanamo Bay), or do you think the government colluded with the networks to stop showing soldiers and civilians blown to pieces? Nothing's changed except our ability to see it.