So many people talk about Mike and Mike being terrible homers.  I just don't get that.  When Joel flopped, they called it what it was.  They rated the floppiness of the move (90% I think they said).  When there's a questionable call, they look it over and often admit the call was correct.  If the Blazers are clanking every shot, the Mikes say (some variation of) "the Blazers can't hit the ocean from a boat."

I know they are just as enthusiastic as the rest of us about the Blazers, but I completely disagree that they are inveterate homers.  Rather they balance each other out.  When Barrett is being a homer, Rice will reign him in.  And vice versa.  They are also able to joke about themselves when they are being too homerific.  I think they do a great job for us, and they understand and prepare us for Yao never fouling out when he has five fouls.  But they also show you how Brandon takes advantage when Yao has 2 fouls and doesn't want a third.

When I listen to national commentators, I find they don't really know anything about the teams they are watching, Blazers or otherwise.  In fact, unless the player has a well known name, they don't even exist.  We heard Barkley dismiss Greg's highlight simply because his contribution didn't lead to a huge stat sheet.  The shot TNT showed was pivotal, and we know it, but Barkley hadn't watched the game, so he had no insight into that shot.

So explain to me why Mike and Mike are so horrible.  I don't see it.