Well I think we should all agree that no one can surpass the awesome enthusiasm and positive outlook for the Raptors, we should obviously hire him as our new announcer, Dave Feschuk! Anyway, another announcer I like is Doug Smith, Steve Kerr (I think), probably others that I don't know their names. I love TNT's Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith half-time report.
Anybody else notice how reasonable Feschuk's writing has been lately? I think Colangelo has a picture of him in a compromising position.
<div class="quote_poster">SkiptoMyLue11 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Anyway, another announcer I like is Doug Smith, Steve Kerr (I think), probably others that I don't know their names. I love TNT's Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith half-time report.</div> Barkley and Smith are alright ... just don't pay attention the substance of anything they say. Listing to those guys contradict themselves every five minutes is too funny. Feschuk writes in the arts&life section of the Toronto star as well as being the first guy to bring up criticism of everything. I wonder if his take on the arts is as pessimistic as raptors basketball.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">Anybody else notice how reasonable Feschuk's writing has been lately? I think Colangelo has a picture of him in a compromising position.</div> Yeah, even the Swirsk was mentioning a friendly conversation he had with the guy.... I don't think he's being nice out of fear (like that picture u just mentioned lol), I think he's had an epiphany of some sort. Maybe the 3 ghosts of Christmas gave him a visit earlier than expected...
He could be suffering from the same problem that a lot of journalists have with the Raps. They're afraid to criticize Colangelo too much because of his great reputation, his results, and the fact that they don't understand his plan or know the player's he's brought in. I remember a combination of those silenced Stephen A. Smith during the draft, when it was obvious that he disagreed with the Bargnani pick.
<div class="quote_poster">dunksworth Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You tend to overvalue a university degree way too much. Take it from someone who's been to both college and university (got my diploma, now getting my degree at UofT), uni grads have no reason at all to look down on college grads. I've met some of the smartest ppl while I was at college, smarter than a lot of UofT students (who just have good work habits, but aren't necessarily smart). I really hope u're not looking down on Smith just because he went to a community college. It's obvious that he's a fairly intelligent guy and it's even more obvious that he has more knowledge than Mr. Swirsky.</div> I'd like to add something. The simple fact that you went to college first implies that while you were in highschool, u got 60-70's average while all the people who went to university first got 80-90's, especially UofT, Waterloo, Queens and McMaster students. Dont hate on University just because you went to college first. In my final highschool year all of my friends went to university, and the people did not choose college as their first option especially how embarassing it looks among their peers. I'm not saying you got 60's or 70's, but that is the general consensus that everyone would assume without saying it. People only seem smarter in college because the work is easier and its easy to get 90's in college. When something is made easy for you, you tend to look good in front of everyone and you gain confidence when the work is easy and you see results. In university, the students dont seem smart because they are handling much harder and more theoretical things (things that challenge their minds), things that had required them to get the 80's - 90's in high school and entering university at a much younger age than you did. College doesnt challenge minds, it just tells you whats there and make you memorize it, so you can sprout it off to others and look smart without actually being it. You will realize that UofT studies probably has no practical ability to do anything compared to the college work that you did. That just proves how much more intelligent it is. Practical work is easier than theoretical. All the people that went to university first could have easily done college, but you cannot say the same thing for college students who didnt make it. In university, they dont teach you anything practical, so you feel like you know nothing when you are done. In college, they teach you all practical things to make you look intelligent, since at your current age, you are unable to handle theoretical abilities like those 80'-90's students. If you are going to university now it means that you are able to handle the theoretical aspects at your current level, but you could not have done this when you were back in highschool (but the ppl that made it were able to do so at their young age). But once again finish university first. Besides, college fosters better work habits because you have assignments due every week, of course you have to work on it! University you only have a midterm, final and a few assignments, so it is very easy to get complacent. This means university is much harder since they dont force you to study, all the people who get weeded out in the first year didnt prioritize their studying, so they usually go to college since they cant handle it, and college forces you to have better habits, THEN if they so choose after, they can enter university with easy college marks and better work habits. The people that got through in university first were able to prioritize more intelligibly at a younger age, while the ppl that start in college usually take longer to realize their theoretical potential since they did not try to prioritize at a young age. If you did university at an older age and notice the ppl dont seem so bright, its because you are now older, and if you were this age entering college now instead, the college students would seem much dumber than the university students at that age. And also, chances are you are going to college because you realize that you cant seem to get much good jobs without that degree. Well you realize this, and you also realize that the university students are much younger than you so they may seem dumber because their priorities are elsewhere. When you were in college your priorities may not be as well tuned as they are now as well.
<div class="quote_poster">dunksworth Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You tend to overvalue a university degree way too much. Take it from someone who's been to both college and university (got my diploma, now getting my degree at UofT), uni grads have no reason at all to look down on college grads. I've met some of the smartest ppl while I was at college, smarter than a lot of UofT students (who just have good work habits, but aren't necessarily smart). I really hope u're not looking down on Smith just because he went to a community college. It's obvious that he's a fairly intelligent guy and it's even more obvious that he has more knowledge than Mr. Swirsky.</div> as a freshly minted university graduate, i enjoy belittling community college idiots. nevertheless, i agree- an university education isn't a prerequisite to intelligence but it is an immersion in the culture of intelligence for 4 years. swirsky has culture, eric smith doesn't. all i'm saying is that swirsky is the lesser of two evils; remember ive spent half of this thread bashing swirsky <div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> That last paragraph ignores the reality of the situation. Are you actually suggesting that Swirsky has more complexity in his analysis of the game of basketball than Eric Smith? Swirsky is among the most simplistic I've ever listened to. He frequently falls back on ambiguous concepts like heart, motivation, desire, dedication, class, etc. to describe events during a game and falters when faced with a logical argument (eg: Sherman Hamilton). Smith, in comparison, analyzes coaching decisions, chemistry, playing style, fitness, etc.: tangible concepts that can be observed/disputed. You have it completely reversed: Chuck appeals more to the young, casual, easily excited fans, while Smith appeals more to mature, experienced, and reasonable basketball followers. I get the impression that if you had no knowledge of Smith's educational background, you would be agreeing with me right now.</div> journalistic acumen are the words of the day, two components here: experience and intelligence. smith lacks both. to be perfectly honest- i've never heard eric smith express an original thought, he's usually the set up guy for paul jones or jack armstrong. plus, i'm almost certain smith hasn't had any contact with basketball prior to his gig with the fan. conversely, chucks paid his dues, broadcasting since he left university. in regards to swirsky's simplification of the game- well u and i agree, hes a mlse tool and with that in mind- i believe he has a mandate from peddie to edify the public about the game. the best way to teach is to dumb things down and swirsky is efficient at that. on the other hand- eric smith teaches no one cause he knows nothing.
<div class="quote_poster">intrepid1983 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I'd like to add something. The simple fact that you went to college first implies that while you were in highschool, u got 60-70's average while all the people who went to university first got 80-90's, especially UofT, Waterloo, Queens and McMaster students. Dont hate on University just because you went to college first. In my final highschool year all of my friends went to university, and the people did not choose college as their first option especially how embarassing it looks among their peers. I'm not saying you got 60's or 70's, but that is the general consensus that everyone would assume without saying it. People only seem smarter in college because the work is easier and its easy to get 90's in college. When something is made easy for you, you tend to look good in front of everyone and you gain confidence when the work is easy and you see results. In university, the students dont seem smart because they are handling much harder and more theoretical things (things that challenge their minds), things that had required them to get the 80's - 90's in high school and entering university at a much younger age than you did. College doesnt challenge minds, it just tells you whats there and make you memorize it, so you can sprout it off to others and look smart without actually being it. You will realize that UofT studies probably has no practical ability to do anything compared to the college work that you did. That just proves how much more intelligent it is. Practical work is easier than theoretical. All the people that went to university first could have easily done college, but you cannot say the same thing for college students who didnt make it. In university, they dont teach you anything practical, so you feel like you know nothing when you are done. In college, they teach you all practical things to make you look intelligent, since at your current age, you are unable to handle theoretical abilities like those 80'-90's students. If you are going to university now it means that you are able to handle the theoretical aspects at your current level, but you could not have done this when you were back in highschool (but the ppl that made it were able to do so at their young age). But once again finish university first. Besides, college fosters better work habits because you have assignments due every week, of course you have to work on it! University you only have a midterm, final and a few assignments, so it is very easy to get complacent. This means university is much harder since they dont force you to study, all the people who get weeded out in the first year didnt prioritize their studying, so they usually go to college since they cant handle it, and college forces you to have better habits, THEN if they so choose after, they can enter university with easy college marks and better work habits. The people that got through in university first were able to prioritize more intelligibly at a younger age, while the ppl that start in college usually take longer to realize their theoretical potential since they did not try to prioritize at a young age. If you did university at an older age and notice the ppl dont seem so bright, its because you are now older, and if you were this age entering college now instead, the college students would seem much dumber than the university students at that age. And also, chances are you are going to college because you realize that you cant seem to get much good jobs without that degree. Well you realize this, and you also realize that the university students are much younger than you so they may seem dumber because their priorities are elsewhere. When you were in college your priorities may not be as well tuned as they are now as well.</div> hhmmm I'm kinda in awe at how you assume I don't know of the differences b/w college and university after having spent years in both systems. Seriously though, you misinterpreted my comments regarding university students. I fully acknowledge that, in general, they are more intelligent than college students. There's no denying that. I was just disagreeing with deceptions notion that if you graduate from a community college, then you are automatically labelled as somewhat intellectually inferior to the uni grad. Trust me, I know of a lot of very smart people who only have a community college diploma. btw, you can't just assume that the college student is there because he didn't have the smarts to get into university. For me personally, I already had the good grades coming out of high school (mid 80 average, not the 60-70 like u assumed), but chose to go to college first then university instead of vice versa (for reasons I'd rather not get into). Other people I knew who were in college were there b/c they were gifted in something like art and didn't feel the need to spend more money for an extensive education that wasn't required in their field and others just didn't have the luxury (financial and time) to go to university. And these are all people who I know would do quite well if they actually did go to a school like UofT. EDIT: I admit, I only skimmed through your comments the first time I replied. But after actually reading the whole thing, you made a bunch of generalizations about college students that I hope you weren't serious about. I'm letting the personal attacks slide b/c you initially thought I was putting down uni students (which I wasn't) and you assumed I did poorly in high school (fyi, UofT looks at high school grades as well as college grades so it's not likely that I would get accepted with poor high school grades, regardless of my marks in college). But anyways, if you believe I'm judging the intelligence of those college students by the marks they achieved, then you're completely wrong. I was mostly referring to how articulate and insightful they were, both academic and non-academic. In comparison to a lot of the students I've met at UofT (all from various years), there's no question that those college students are more insightful. Again, I know that uni students are generally smarter, but you have to understand that a higher education does not always equate to a higher intelligence.
Well, since everyone else already has … here's my 250 word essay: On the whole University / College topic I really feel that it's generalizing to say Chuck is better than Smith at analysis because he has a university education. In some ways this is fair, having a university education usually means you've applied yourself and are relatively intelligent. What it doesn't guarantee is that you have the type of intelligence necessary to do certain kinds of work. For example, I'm in University studying business / accounting and within my work I run into certain types of people (stereotypical accountants). These people are extremely disciplined and smart, but because of the way they train themselves they can't really analyze things that are dynamic. I wouldn't want someone like this commentating basketball because they aren't going to be able to spot the trends to tell me what I need to know. Now everything I've said above is a generality, but in terms of Swirsky vs. Smith they each have their ups and downs. When you look at the way they each speak and carry themselves, there is no doubt that Chuck is doing a better job. Smith is way too casual and sounds really stupid at times. On the other side of things, I think that Smith generally does bring up better points and understands basketball better than Swirsky. Chuck brings up way too many stupid arguments to claim that he knows what he's talking about. I really don’t think he's doing it for the sake of discussion either, because he argues pretty passionately about things that are blatantly wrong. Did this thread really start as the Net's v. Raps game?
<div class="quote_poster">dunksworth Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> EDIT: I admit, I only skimmed through your comments the first time I replied. But after actually reading the whole thing, you made a bunch of generalizations about college students that I hope you weren't serious about. I'm letting the personal attacks slide b/c you initially thought I was putting down uni students (which I wasn't) and you assumed I did poorly in high school (fyi, UofT looks at high school grades as well as college grades so it's not likely that I would get accepted with poor high school grades, regardless of my marks in college). But anyways, if you believe I'm judging the intelligence of those college students by the marks they achieved, then you're completely wrong. I was mostly referring to how articulate and insightful they were, both academic and non-academic. In comparison to a lot of the students I've met at UofT (all from various years), there's no question that those college students are more insightful. Again, I know that uni students are generally smarter, but you have to understand that a higher education does not always equate to a higher intelligence.</div> Fair enough, quite correct as well. Even though you did well in highschool regardless, i can understand other issues such as university costing more; it's quite true some ppl choose not to go for financial reasons as well as other personal issues. College students do seem more insightful, I guess their insightfulness is fostered and taught by their college programs. While theoretics are quite different since one would be unable to question them since they are usually at the Masters or PhD level where you would need a high level of research experience to be able to disagree and question theories in themselves. Even though college students are more insightful in that way, it's by my own experience, in a laymens sort of way. They are generally very creative and can solve things that there is a known answer to, but they aren't as good at solving things that require knowledge of the unknown, things that cannot be found on the internet except for scientific and engineering journals where current research is ongoing. Then again i'm not quite sure since it depends on the field of studies, since they are all different as well. As for the statements from before, I dont really think a university education has anything to do with Chuck's analysis either. As far as i'm concerned, even though he is university educated, the statements that he makes on the fan590 sometimes are pretty outlandish, and basketball in itself is not supposed to be academic anyways. But Chuck makes the game much more fun because of his voice and his enthusiasm, even though he says many stupid things sometimes.
<div class="quote_poster">intrepid1983 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Fair enough, quite correct as well. Even though you did well in highschool regardless, i can understand other issues such as university costing more; it's quite true some ppl choose not to go for financial reasons as well as other personal issues. College students do seem more insightful, I guess their insightfulness is fostered and taught by their college programs. While theoretics are quite different since one would be unable to question them since they are usually at the Masters or PhD level where you would need a high level of research experience to be able to disagree and question theories in themselves. Even though college students are more insightful in that way, it's by my own experience, in a laymens sort of way. They are generally very creative and can solve things that there is a known answer to, but they aren't as good at solving things that require knowledge of the unknown, things that cannot be found on the internet except for scientific and engineering journals where current research is ongoing. Then again i'm not quite sure since it depends on the field of studies, since they are all different as well.</div> You're looking way too much into this and you're still thinking in general terms, which is irrelavent. The initial point I made is simple: If person A has a degree and person B only has a community college diploma, that does not necessarily mean that A is more insightful and has better analytical skills than B. A prime example of this would be the Swirksy vs. Smith debate.
man, i hate to be "that guy" but this has gotten WAAAY too far off topic, as we're now debating diploma's vs degrees?? lol sorry guys...its done. if you guys want to have a healthy debate about education, you can start a thread in the raptors lounge or in the off-topic section. for now in this forum...lets focus our attention on tonights game
