I thought that show was awful. I'd rather listen to him broadcast Rockets games than his show. That forces him to talk about something other than himself.
Calvin was entertaining when he was here, but I don't know if I'll be able to take all the outrageous comments he makes. As a player he was a HOF, but I don't value his opinion on the game of basketball. Legal issues aside, he still isn't very good as commentator. On-the-otherhand, if the only criteria is color, then I'd say he's colorful enough... I don't see the rockets firing anybody. No way they disrespect a Rockets legend in Clyde and a solid commentator like Matt. Nonetheless, you guys are jumping the gun on this. The OP gives no real information. For what we know he could be a adviser to AB.
He was a bit too arrogant on his show. I enjoyed listening to some of it but most of the time he would just cut everyone else off so he could prove he was right haha OTH, I always did enjoy him as a commentator during the games! BRING BACK CALVIN!!!
humm, can he replace drexler ? drex laughs to much ,to nice, and i like calvins shouting and tell it like it is. really,i havent enjoyed the seasons since hes been gone, i grew up on calvin, makes the game way more entertaining.
I agree, he was better as a color commentator. I never realized how much he stuttered until he had his own show
how dare you talk about the Greatest of All Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmeeee!!! *bell sound* like that?!?!
I'm in the minority here. I thought Calvin was an absolute clown, and he grated my last nerve. I *much* prefer Van Chancellor and Bull. Drexler's as bad or worse than Clyde.
That Chron article didn't sound very promising. Has anyone else heard anything? He didn't specifically mention the Rockets in the article and they haven't mentioned him.
Interesting. That means Murphy was fired. So far, I haven't seen anything concrete in the news that mentions that the Rockets have interest at all.
What a steaming load. Calvin is a good color man with a shtick that can get a little old, but he's an outstanding analyst with a deep understanding of the game.
The judge's instructions are always that they have to be found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." If you read the article here, If you read http://www.click2houston.com/news/3979374/detail.html , it's clear that at least 3 of the jurors were ready to find him guilty, but could not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here's an exerpt: "Holloway said during the first jury vote, three jurors found him guilty while nine voted not guilty. The three guilty votes all came from male jurors. She said ultimately, though, the jurors decided the prosecutors did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. 'A lot of us thought he might have done it, he could have done it, but there was too much doubt,' Holloway said." It's pretty shocking that it seems some on this board don't really care about what he did to his daughters as long as he's an interesting commentator.
What do you expect people to say when a man is tried and not found guilty? Twelve jurors got to hear the details of the case and 9 of them thought he didn't do it....enough to let him go. Should we assume the same of everyone that goes to trial for something? What's the purpose of the court system if that's the case?
But how do you know they made a mistake in his case? Have you seen more evidence then the 12 jurors that made the decision?
