Great lets see how they beat up the guest today that did not vote The King for all defensive NBA.

They have never been confrontational with virtually anyone live and in person on the air aside from Whitlock or peon Score employees (e.g., lecturing people about not reporting properly in ways Dan never did himself in similar situations in olden days); there's really just no other side to that coin.

That's not to say that doing so is the right thing to do, as generally it's just not smart. BUT, by the same token, for such vociferously opinionated fellows, it can be somewhat puzzling when, given the chance to offer their criticism firsthand and have a teaching moment, it just never seems to materialize.

This is absolutely true of B&B but could be said about almost any radio show. I know I've heard Mac and Spiegs wait until the call is over to disagree with points a guest made on multiple occasions with Mac sometimes chiding the Meat for not bringing it up during.

But I will say that B&B should be more active with that sort of thing considering that the whole "edgy, controversial, pot-stirrers" thing is their entire gimmick. I understand that attacking guests can turn them off but there are degrees of conversation between kissing someone's assand calling someone an idiot and wishing they would die already. I'd like it if B&B could occasionally venture into spirited debate territory.

It's not like Dan doesn't possess the ability to engage in a legitimate discussion without being a belligerent twat.

*edit* Actually, I think "Belligerent Twat" would be a good name for a band.

They have never been confrontational with virtually anyone live and in person on the air aside from Whitlock or peon Score employees (e.g., lecturing people about not reporting properly in ways Dan never did himself in similar situations in olden days); there's really just no other side to that coin.

That's not to say that doing so is the right thing to do, as generally it's just not smart. BUT, by the same token, for such vociferously opinionated fellows, it can be somewhat puzzling when, given the chance to offer their criticism firsthand and have a teaching moment, it just never seems to materialize.

I'm not really sure that's true though. He doesn't seem capable of disagreeing without being disagreeable. It's probably become habit from the years of bashing idiot callers.

He used to do it all the time, with callers and guests alike, on his solo and weekend shows in the days before B&B. He may have even done it in the early days of B&B before he started to become what he is now.

Great lets see how they beat up the guest today that did not vote The King for all defensive NBA.

Why do B&B get riled up over things like this? I thought awards don't matter.

Did they actually get riled up? I don't recall that happening.

They have never been confrontational with virtually anyone live and in person on the air aside from Whitlock or peon Score employees (e.g., lecturing people about not reporting properly in ways Dan never did himself in similar situations in olden days); there's really just no other side to that coin.

That's not to say that doing so is the right thing to do, as generally it's just not smart. BUT, by the same token, for such vociferously opinionated fellows, it can be somewhat puzzling when, given the chance to offer their criticism firsthand and have a teaching moment, it just never seems to materialize.

This has always baffled me to tell the truth--B & B appear to have alienated a lot of the kind of lighter, grab-ass guests that typically populate sports radio (and have lost the chance to have closer access to the teams those guests play for/work for), so I don't get why they don't just go for it with their bitter smarty pants stance with the guests they do have...after all, they can always cite their pretend inside sources to give them more content to chew on for 5 hours.