Carmichael Dave vs. Jay Bilas

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
Contributor
#2
If you want to call Jay Bilas names, please pick from the list HERE.

My choice:

Jay Bilas is a churlish, boil-brained varlot.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
Contributor
#3
Listening to the interview, Jay Bilas keeps using the phrase "if you choose to be offended" rather than admit he used the wrong word. Dave presents good arguments and Bilas can't handle it. Bilas just cannot handle the kind of discussion Dave, as part of the message forum elite, deals with every day. IMHO Bilas is way too enamored of hearing himself speak ad nauseum. Dave did hit a nerve, however, when he accused Bilas of being "disingenuous." The definition of disingenuous is "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does,' which was pretty dead on. Bilas immediately went full postal, accusing Dave of calling him a liar. Excellent choice of words by Dave, obvious tell by Bilas. If you haven't listened to the interview, you may find it interesting.
 
Last edited:
#5
At least he came on the show but Bills is talking out of his hoo hah. CD basically nailed him early in Twitter when he pointed out the Duke locker room must have been bad since they were 11-17 when Bills was there. Nope....Duke tried to spin his way out of it.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
Contributor
#7
Talk about a guy who refuses to admit he is wrong and Jay has the biggest ego ever. CD needs to invite him back since he said he would come back. You know he does not want too
He almost has to come back since he made such a big deal about how he NEVER refuses a radio invitation unless there's a scheduling conflict or something. I wonder how many of those conflicts Bilas can come up with.

His ego was laughable. His attempt to denigrate the Kings lockerroom were feeble at best. The Kings franchise has a lot of problems. The lockerroom last year wasn't one of them.

Bilas couldn't resist sniping at Dave:


And yours truly couldn't resist a reply

 
#8
A buddy of mine told me about this exchange earlier today and warned me not to listen since it would likely just make me mad. So I haven’t listened.

Having said that, based upon what has been stated here and what I heard elsewhere, Bilas is representative of a majority of the National media that base their opinion on a pre-existing narrative. And that narrative is based upon the Kings track record the past 10+ years and hearsay but not what they actually know.

What would be interesting is if a Kings player or two or more would chime in to tell Bilas that he has no clue what he’s talking about.

Lastly, considering that Bilas is Duke educated, I find it hilarious that he either doesn’t know the meaning of the word ‘dysfunction’ or believes people are dumb enough to buy his backpedal excuse of misinterpretation. We can only go by the words you use, Jay.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
Contributor
#10
A buddy of mine told me about this exchange earlier today and warned me not to listen since it would likely just make me mad. So I haven’t listened.

Having said that, based upon what has been stated here and what I heard elsewhere, Bilas is representative of a majority of the National media that base their opinion on a pre-existing narrative. And that narrative is based upon the Kings track record the past 10+ years and hearsay but not what they actually know.

What would be interesting is if a Kings player or two or more would chime in to tell Bilas that he has no clue what he’s talking about.

Lastly, considering that Bilas is Duke educated, I find it hilarious that he either doesn’t know the meaning of the word ‘dysfunction’ or believes people are dumb enough to buy his backpedal excuse of misinterpretation. We can only go by the words you use, Jay.
You need to listen to it. Bilas sounds like the immature caller and Dave sounds like the voice of reason. :)
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#13
I'm not really a fan of Grant or Dave, and they probably got a little carried away with this, but Bilas' "defense" of his statement was absurd, nonsensical, and intellectually dishonest. I think he knew that his point had no validity and for whatever reason didn't want to admit it.
Yep. All Bilas had to do was say that he misspoke and things probably would've been fine but instead the dude double downed on his statement despite almost every sign pointing the other direction
 
#14
I'm not really a fan of Grant or Dave, and they probably got a little carried away with this, but Bilas' "defense" of his statement was absurd, nonsensical, and intellectually dishonest. I think he knew that his point had no validity and for whatever reason didn't want to admit it.
I thought Carmichael Dave was obviously right about the entire thing but the sad thing is that Bilas came out of it looking like he had won because he used cheap debate tactics left and right to try and make Dave seem stupid and childish for not just accepting his obviously wrong interpretation of the phrase. It's funny to me that Bilas thought he was simply going to come on and have everyone go "oh ok, we get it now!" and have it all just be a big misunderstanding.

About 3 minutes into the conversation, Dave should have just said something like ok cool so to Jay Bilas a dysfunctional locker room simply means that a team has a losing record but for the rest of us who have ever stated, read or heard the phrase before, it actually means that there is turmoil in the locker room involving the players, which the Kings don't have. Are we clear there? Great! So about Marvin Bagley...
 
#16
Well only Bilas really knows what he meant...and if we are going by the meaning of the word (one of the meanings), he actually used it correctly. However, I think most people would immediately think that if someone says dysfunctional locker room, they are specifically referencing internal strife and other off the floor issues . What he gave was a textbook attorney response though, because technically what he said was accurate (not the internal strife part). Now whether that’s what he really meant, who knows. He certainly dug his heels in and got fairly defensive and then in turn condescending. Would be a real shame if he could not just admit that’s he was basing this off of previous Kings locker rooms and was wrong. Now if that is exactly how he meant to use the word, then I can see the reasoning behind his reaction....just not sure if that was the case.
 
#17
I thought Carmichael Dave was obviously right about the entire thing but the sad thing is that Bilas came out of it looking like he had won because he used cheap debate tactics left and right to try and make Dave seem stupid and childish for not just accepting his obviously wrong interpretation of the phrase. It's funny to me that Bilas thought he was simply going to come on and have everyone go "oh ok, we get it now!" and have it all just be a big misunderstanding.

About 3 minutes into the conversation, Dave should have just said something like ok cool so to Jay Bilas a dysfunctional locker room simply means that a team has a losing record but for the rest of us who have ever stated, read or heard the phrase before, it actually means that there is turmoil in the locker room involving the players, which the Kings don't have. Are we clear there? Great! So about Marvin Bagley...
Yeah not an impressive debate, but at least Dave's points were grounded in reality.
 
#18
Unless you turned off your radio/app immediately after the interview, and have had it off ever since, chances are high that Jay Bilas doesn't even have the biggest ego you heard on KHTK today.
Well I did only listen to the interview. I rarely listen to the show sometimes for interviews but I get sick of hearing the same thing all the time on Grants show. I would listen more if Doug just did the show. I get tired of only hearing what he wants to hear and honestly the defending his take on everything and if you don't agree you're a moron. I also don't like the constant dissing of Webber and Cousins
 
#19
Well only Bilas really knows what he meant...and if we are going by the meaning of the word (one of the meanings), he actually used it correctly. However, I think most people would immediately think that if someone says dysfunctional locker room, they are specifically referencing internal strife and other off the floor issues . What he gave was a textbook attorney response though, because technically what he said was accurate (not the internal strife part). Now whether that’s what he really meant, who knows. He certainly dug his heels in and got fairly defensive and then in turn condescending. Would be a real shame if he could not just admit that’s he was basing this off of previous Kings locker rooms and was wrong. Now if that is exactly how he meant to use the word, then I can see the reasoning behind his reaction....just not sure if that was the case.
Even if he is taken at his word his argument is really really bad. To suggest that losing record=dysfunctional locker room is nonsense. It's possible that they can be related but to equate every losing record to a dysfunctional locker room is nonsense. A team can lose for reasons other than a dysfunctional locker room, especially in the tanking age.
 
#22
Even if he is taken at his word his argument is really really bad. To suggest that losing record=dysfunctional locker room is nonsense. It's possible that they can be related but to equate every losing record to a dysfunctional locker room is nonsense. A team can lose for reasons other than a dysfunctional locker room, especially in the tanking age.
Agreed. My guess is that he was still
Speaking of previous kings team locker rooms, not knowing things had changed. He probably was also speaking about dysfunction in the losing sense as well. But I think he got called out on the locker room comment and decided to dig in rather than admit he was wrong. Just my guess.
 
#25
Even if he is taken at his word his argument is really really bad. To suggest that losing record=dysfunctional locker room is nonsense. It's possible that they can be related but to equate every losing record to a dysfunctional locker room is nonsense. A team can lose for reasons other than a dysfunctional locker room, especially in the tanking age.
Back in the 70s, the Oakland A's would routinely get into fights with each other in the dougout during game (the very definition of dysfunction). That didn't stop them from winning several World Series. More recently, the Lakers had Kobe and Shaq going at each other but still won the Championship.
 
#27
Back in the 70s, the Oakland A's would routinely get into fights with each other in the dougout during game (the very definition of dysfunction). That didn't stop them from winning several World Series. More recently, the Lakers had Kobe and Shaq going at each other but still won the Championship.
Lol. I guess it goes both ways. Winning doesn't mean the locker room isn't dysfunctional either.
 

Capt. Factorial

Cantry Member
Staff member
#28
A buddy of mine told me about this exchange earlier today and warned me not to listen since it would likely just make me mad. So I haven’t listened.
I'm going to counter VF21's suggestion and say *don't* listen to it. It's basically 20 torturous minutes of Bilas burning every shred of respectability he had left. Honestly I will probably never look at the guy the same again.

Everybody knows what it means when you say "dysfunctional locker room" and it DOESN'T mean "losing a lot of games". And I'm quite confident Jay Bilas too knows what it means when you say that. I think he said it carelessly based on a presumption he made from simply knowing the national narrative about the team, and that when he got called on it instead of saying "Yeah, I really meant to say 'losing team' and my comment had unintended consequences", which everybody would have just accepted at face value (even though, as I said, I think he meant it - it's OK, fake an apology and we'll let you off the hook), he doubled down and tripled down and quadrupled down about how *he* knows the dictionary definition of an "SAT word" and how everybody else is at fault for interpreting a common metaphor in the way that metaphor is commonly interpreted.

What Bilas did is the equivalent (linguistic, not moral, lest someone like Bilas might try to "dictionary definition" me here) of saying that female sports reporter X "slept her way to the top" and then, when getting called on it, saying he really only meant that she had once taken a nap on an elevator. I mean, he's a lawyer, he knows the dictionary definition of "sleep" and "top". I swear the more I harp on it the less I'm talking myself into forgiving him. Saying it is one thing. Pretending that's not what you said is another. What a scummy interview.
 
Last edited:
#30
Everybody knows what it means when you say "dysfunctional locker room" and it DOESN'T mean "losing a lot of games"...
Well, I understand why you'd discourage a listen, but, hear me out here, the fact that Jay Bilas just on national radio admitted that Mike Krzyzewski ran a "dysfunctional locker room" SOLELY to build on his own wrong interpretation of the word "Dysfunctional" is quite a satisfaction.