From the mailbag:

Am wondering, do you think the rest of the TV audience reacts to Ann Meyers and Nancy Lieberman as if they were fingernails on a chalkboard? I am just astounded that they are still around, much less the premiere commentators for the women's game. Do you have any idea how to get feedback to ESPN?

Oh, Lettie, my friend, you obviously don't read the message boards or subscribe to the listserv. You are probably better for it.

If you want to give feedback to ESPN, you can try this web form; you can mail them at ESPN Plaza, Bristol, CT 06010; or you can call them at (860) 766-2236.

I note that complaints about commentators are not limited to women's basketball. NBA fans complain endlessly about Walton and Smith. Men's college fans complain endlessly about Packer and Vitale. Women's college fans complain endlessly about Annie and Nancy.

Ask the sociological questions: What is it that reproduces this dynamic across different basketball subcultures? Do we as fans just love feeling smarter than the TV experts? Do commentators wear out their welcome after awhile, so we are always praising the new guys (Lawson, Lobo, Van) and trashing the old guys? Do commentators, like refs, simply perform the cultural function of whipping boy?

Or are they really just objectively bad?

Many fans complain about fluff -- too much human interest stuff, not enough real basketball analysis.

I couldn't agree more. At the same time, we also have to recognize that as we get deeper into March, the game draws a bigger audience and more casual fans. We've all heard about Young's mom and Wiggins's dad and Haynie's 4000 calories ten times already, but the new casual fans probably haven't.

And the TV people seem to believe that casual fans like sappy, fluffy, human interest stories. This isn't true just for women's basketball (though it may be worse here -- gender stereotyping the audience, maybe?). It's also true for the Olympics, for the Masters, for the men's Final Four, and so on.