Did nyone else notice the Van Gundy bias last night?

[goz421]

I thought for the most part the announcers were good all series.  Last night I was getting a little disturbed at the Van Gundy favoritism for his brother.

Ragging on Nate, claiming obvious fouls were not fouls,  flagrants were not flagrants.  It seemed last night even espn was once again against Boston.  That bothers me.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I thought for the most part the announcers were good all series.  Last night I was getting a little disturbed at the Van Gundy favoritism for his brother.

Ragging on Nate, claiming obvious fouls were not fouls,  flagrants were not flagrants.  It seemed last night even espn was once again against Boston.  That bothers me.

What? He's been very consistent in his stances as far as fouls and flagrants go.

And what's wrong with what he said about Nate? He said nothing someone hasn't said before... and as Nate continued to get focused as the game went through he changed his stance. His problem was with his dancing when he's been criticized before for being immature and maybe losing perspective of what is going on in the floor.

Seriously, I think you guys just like to look for things where there are none.

[PPTheZodiac]

give me a break. who cares what they say now ! We're going back to the Finals

[jimmehx]

It's natural for him to be looking at the game from the Van Gundy perspective; especially on the 50-50 calls.

The point was that he was not openly critical of the Cs and tried to call it the best way he saw it.

[goz421]

I thought for the most part the announcers were good all series.  Last night I was getting a little disturbed at the Van Gundy favoritism for his brother.

Ragging on Nate, claiming obvious fouls were not fouls,  flagrants were not flagrants.  It seemed last night even espn was once again against Boston.  That bothers me.

I think he has been consistent all series until last night and I was irked.  You might be to young to remember, but Heinson got run out of the networks because of his blatent homerism, but I'm happy he landed were he did.

The foul by Howard on Pierce should of been a flagrant.  Nelson ran a cross body block on Allen and Van Gundy said it wasn't a foul that it was acting.

Now the refs last night were fine, but I sensed Van Gundy was a little upset with how things turned out.

Most of the time I like what he has to say.
What? He's been very consistent in his stances as far as fouls and flagrants go.

And what's wrong with what he said about Nate? He said nothing someone hasn't said before... and as Nate continued to get focused as the game went through he changed his stance. His problem was with his dancing when he's been criticized before for being immature and maybe losing perspective of what is going on in the floor.

Seriously, I think you guys just like to look for things where there are none.

[goz421]

give me a break. who cares what they say now ! We're going back to the Finals

I'm sick of the anti Boston sentiment.  It makes winning all that more satisfying.

I'm just calling it as I saw it.

[hwangjini_1]

I thought for the most part the announcers were good all series.  Last night I was getting a little disturbed at the Van Gundy favoritism for his brother.

Ragging on Nate, claiming obvious fouls were not fouls,  flagrants were not flagrants.  It seemed last night even espn was once again against Boston.  That bothers me.

What? He's been very consistent in his stances as far as fouls and flagrants go.

And what's wrong with what he said about Nate? He said nothing someone hasn't said before... and as Nate continued to get focused as the game went through he changed his stance. His problem was with his dancing when he's been criticized before for being immature and maybe losing perspective of what is going on in the floor.

Seriously, I think you guys just like to look for things where there are none.

good post BC. i think you take on van gundy the announcer was correct. his points on nate were based upon nate's prior behavior. and let's face it, nate can be a jerk.

even last night, doc had to talk to him after a few plays. nate scored, yes. that was good. but did you see him come down the floor for his second 3 pter? he ran down, did not even look at teammates and hoisted a three. he made it, but i have watched in the regular season miss those as well.

nate can be spectacular, but he also can hog the ball and shut down team play.

but all of that is small potatoes now.

go celtics and win the finals!!!

[Frezz]

I like JVG, but his comments on Nate really made me want to slap him. Nate gave the Celtics exactly what they needed, not just his hot shooting but just pure energy. He played his freaking heart out and he let everyone in the arena know about it. How can you possibly get angry about that?

[Birdbrain]

I'm a big fan of both Van Gundy's so neither can do very much wrong in my eyes.  If you noticed preceding every game JVG did the keys to how Boston can win that game.  I thought he did a great job being impartial when it was obvious that anyone would be conflicted.

Be ups to SVG in the post game press conference as well.  He had a lot of great things to say about the C's.  I get the impression he thinks we have a good shot at the Title.

[BudweiserCeltic]

give me a break. who cares what they say now ! We're going back to the Finals

I'm sick of the anti Boston sentiment.  It makes winning all that more satisfying.

I'm just calling it as I saw it.

The anti-Boston sentiment is all in your head. Jeff is not anti-Boston... in fact, he's been quite supportive of the Celtics and very fair in all his assessments.

That you thought those fouls were flagrant doesn't have anything to do with him not thinking they were flagrant because he pretty much never thinks these weak fouls are flagrant... he's coming from an "old-school" perspective.

Didn't he pick the Celtics to win this series?

I think you guys are losing all perspective and context of what he's saying. Just because he says something that we don't like it doesn't mean he's anti-Celtic.

When he was complaining about the way Orlando was playing pretty much all series, even criticizing his brother... was he anti-Magic then?

[CoachBo]

The entire series was like watching the Orlando network on League Pass. You come to expect it.

And as far as the Van Gundy's go, I'd take Jeff on the bench. You could pull 500 people out of the stands every night who'd do a better job than Ron Jeremy - uh, Stan - does.

[goz421]

Some of you need to see a little better.

Every 50-50 call he said should have gone Orlando's way.  That is what irks me.

Also. Nate did exactly what was needed.  Get the crowd into it.

Both fouls by Nelson he complained about.  Nelson running Robinson into the ground was a flagrant.

Running Ray Allen of a shot block attempt was a foul.  These were just a few of the irritable things.

I thought his brother did a good job coaching, but Van Gundy should call plays as they are, not as he wishes they were.

[Roy Hobbs]

A few people took it as bias in the game thread, as well.  I think JVG really does call it as he sees it, though; he was just as willing to say "that's not a foul" when Orlando benefited from borderline calls.

That said, I do think the "that's not a foul" call when Howard manhandled Nate (I think it was Nate; my memory is slipping) was silly.  I don't think it was bias, though.

[CoachBo]

It's been more noticeable in the last couple of games, in my opinion, but who really cares what the announcers say.

I will say this: the ESPN model is to pick a favorite and ride in - in every sport. It's not just the NBA. Their love affair with Mack Brown is beyond sickening.

[Birdbrain]

It's been more noticeable in the last couple of games, in my opinion, but who really cares what the announcers say.

I will say this: the ESPN model is to pick a favorite and ride in - in every sport. It's not just the NBA. Their love affair with Mack Brown is beyond sickening.

I can't be too critical of SVG because of the Ron Jeremy look-a-like concept.  It just makes me smile too much.

You mean Mac Brown isn't a great coach because he has top 5 talent at every position and never has to leave Texas for a recruit?  Thinking critically isn't a big thing at ESPN.