PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

Internet article on Nantz, Kellogg and Kerr


#1

Tried to this as a link but it didn’t work so here is the copy/paste:

Jim Nantz & Clark Kellogg Drop the Ball Annoucing the Penn State Game

Posted on March 12, 2011 by Mark Eddinger
Penn State beat Michigan State this evening in the Big Ten semifinals, but if you were listening to Jim Nantz and Clark Kellogg on CBS you probably wouldn’t have known. For being the lead college basketball announcers and the ones that announce the National Championship game they seem like they don’t know anything about basketball or the selection process.

They announced the game without any knowledge of a Penn State team that was on the bubble and talked up Michigan State the whole game. They could not believe that Penn State had a higher (6) strength of schedule than Michigan State (12). They drank the kool-aid that Michigan State “played everybody.” Yes they did play Connecticut, Duke, Washington, Syracuse, and Texas. But they also played Eastern Michigan, Bowling Green, Prairie View A&M, and Chaminade. In addition they played Iowa three times and Indiana once.

Compare that to Penn State who played Iowa and Indiana only once apiece and intentionally scheduled teams that they thought would have good seasons from small conferences so that they would have a strong strength of schedule. Nantz and Kellogg didn’t know this though.
They also didn’t know that college basketball is cracking down on hits to the head by calling them intentional fouls. That happened late in the game when Tim Frazier took a shot to the head going fo a lay up. Then Nantz didn’t know that on and intentional foul that you don’t get to shoot the two other free throws to make it four you only get two and the ball.

Steve Kerr the third announcer with Nantz and Kellogg couldn’t get a word in edgewise for the whole broadcast, so I can’t fault his knowledge of Penn State or the game.

Penn State is IN the tournament after the 13-point win over Michigan State. If they are not it will be highway robbery. Or maybe the committee listened to much to Nantz and Kellogg who said Penn State still needed to beat No. 1 Ohio State to make the Big Dance.

Penn State’s resume is better than any other bubble team out there. They should be in. If they lose to Ohio State tomorrow I can see them being one of the four teams that play in on of the two play-in-games in Dayton. But if they beat Ohio State to get the automatic bid they should probably be a No. 9 seed.

There was a complete lack of respect for Penn State basketball shown by Nantz and Kellogg today and I hope that they correct that tomorrow when they announce the game against Ohio State. There is also a complete lack of respect shown by everyone who has Penn State below Michigan State and Illinois.

Penn State beat Michigan State two out of three times and split with Illinois. Tomorrow they will have better RPI’s and strength of schedules than both of those teams as well. They finished in a four-way tie with Michigan, Michigan State, and Illinois in the Big Ten. They have better numbers than Michigan too but I am okay with Michigan being ahead of Penn State because the Wolverines beat the Nittany Lions twice.

If the Big Ten does not get seven teams it should be Michigan State or Illinois that don’t get in. Not Penn State. Nantz and Kellogg would like you to believe that the selection process is based on the history of the program. That is not the case, it is based solely on this season.

I leave this post by ending with the simple statement that Penn State HAS DONE ENOUGH and ARE IN THE TOURNAMENT no matter what Nantz and Kellogg have to say.

About Mark Eddinger
I am a 23 year old graduate from Penn State and am currently looking for a job in the sports journalism/sports information department and have decided to start a blog so I can keep writing in the meantime.


#2

I totally agree with this kid.

Their broadcast was extremely MSU centric. Having been in the business for over two decades, we are always careful how we balance the coverage on the teams we are reporting on, especially on a national broadcast.

Yes, MSU is the prize program of the conference and the one that Nance and his merry henchmen are most familiar with. But as a national reporter, you should at least do your homework to try your best at balancing the coverage.

From the time the score was 14-4, they were already anointing MSU and Izzo as the Grand Program/Coach of March (which quite honestly they’ve been)…but when PSU came back they were more interested in talking about “what MSU was doing wrong” rather than “what PSU was doing right”. Kerr tried a little bit, but Nance and Kellogg dominated the broadcast with their Sparty speak.

And belittling PSU’s SOS, because it doesn’t have the grand darlings of college basketball peppered across their schedule, was very shallow to say the least. It almost seems that CBS was trying to find ways of excluding PSU from their private party. “Sometimes numbers don’t make sense”, huh…well how does both PSU’s RPI and SOS being better than MSU and Illinois sound. Those numbers make a whole lotta sense, since that’s all the talking heads talk about come Selection Sunday on, OF ALL PLACES…CBS.


#3

Mark is one of my friends. If you need to hire somebody to write about sports…hire Mark.

The End.

That being said, I muted the game


#4

Hit the nail on the head about the SOS. Announcers said that the “system is broke” or some crap like that. There is a reason those numbers are like that. I tweeted this during the game in much fewer words.

Very gentleman like rant by Mark.


#5

Even at the start of the second half, they noted what MSU needed to do in the 2nd half…didn’t even mention PSU.


#6

I noted this in another thread…during the game. The broadcasters performance was SHAMEFULL!!


#7

Then again, ESPN Gameday didn’t even show highlights of this game.


#8

[quote=“noobd, post:4, topic:2122”]Hit the nail on the head about the SOS. Announcers said that the “system is broke” or some crap like that. There is a reason those numbers are like that. I tweeted this during the game in much fewer words.

Very gentleman like rant by Mark.[/quote]

Hey noobd, While I usually make a mockery of the entire selection process I would be interested in your thoughts about SOS. Could you please post again!


#9

Well my thoughts were basically what Mark said. When the CBS guys were ripping the SOS, I pulled up RealTimeRPI and I noticed the games MSU played against sub 250+ teams while PSU’s lowest opponent was CCSU (220~). MSU also played Indiana/Iowa x4 whereas PSU only played them twice.

The CBS guys would have been right if they specified OOC SOS (MSU: 17, PSU: 56), but they didn’t. They were basically using some type of eyeball the schedule and assume they had a tougher schedule.


#10

Unfortunately, I’m getting bad vibes from the TV talking heads that “Eyeballs” are getting the nod over “Geeks”.
Bilas basically called the PSU Wisky game as “losses for both teams”. ::slight_smile:

Of course, what would you expect from “Television” employees.

Hopefully, the committee is full of number-crunchers and not beauty pagent judges.


#11

1st rule of thumb when you watch and listen to any paid broadcaster is think about WHO IS PAYING THEIR SALARY. They are employees “on the clock.” They do what and say what they are told!!


#12

Kerr was the one who get going on about the OS rankings didn’t mean anything. I guarantee he is unaware that The Big Ten has an unbalanced schedule. That being said, I think MSU did play a tougher schedule. They played 18 games against the top 50. PSU will have played 15 after today. However, Penn State’s schedule was really tough, so what is the point they are even making.

I think I might have even been more annoyed by the excuse making for MSU. They were basically saying MSU lost because of Lucas’s ankle. The same injured ankle he scored 30 on.


#13

Why does the SOS mean anything between MSU-PSU. We played the “rubber match” yesterday. WE CRUSHED THEM. It (who seeded higher) was settled on the court!!


#14

[quote=“zac1397, post:12, topic:2122”]Kerr was the one who get going on about the OS rankings didn’t mean anything. I guarantee he is unaware that The Big Ten has an unbalanced schedule. That being said, I think MSU did play a tougher schedule. They played 18 games against the top 50. PSU will have played 15 after today. However, Penn State’s schedule was really tough, so what is the point they are even making.

I think I might have even been more annoyed by the excuse making for MSU. They were basically saying MSU lost because of Lucas’s ankle. The same injured ankle he scored 30 on.[/quote]

I think it’s impossible to say which schedule is actually tougher. We get points for our bottom being higher, they get points for their top being higher. “Eyeballs” wise, I am inclined to go with a higher top - MSU’s schedule. But you can make a rational argument that being able to get “up” to play tougher “cupcakes” is more wearing on a team in the long run. Not sure how to choose there.


#15
[quote="zac1397, post:12, topic:2122"]Kerr was the one who get going on about the OS rankings didn't mean anything. I guarantee he is unaware that The Big Ten has an unbalanced schedule. That being said, I think MSU did play a tougher schedule. They played 18 games against the top 50. PSU will have played 15 after today. However, Penn State's schedule was really tough, so what is the point they are even making.

I think I might have even been more annoyed by the excuse making for MSU. They were basically saying MSU lost because of Lucas’s ankle. The same injured ankle he scored 30 on.[/quote]

I think it’s impossible to say which schedule is actually tougher. We get points for our bottom being higher, they get points for their top being higher. “Eyeballs” wise, I am inclined to go with a higher top - MSU’s schedule. But you can make a rational argument that being able to get “up” to play tougher “cupcakes” is more wearing on a team in the long run. Not sure how to choose there.


If I calculated strength of schedule, I would give every sub 150 team the same weight.

#16
[quote="zac1397, post:12, topic:2122"]Kerr was the one who get going on about the OS rankings didn't mean anything. I guarantee he is unaware that The Big Ten has an unbalanced schedule. That being said, I think MSU did play a tougher schedule. They played 18 games against the top 50. PSU will have played 15 after today. However, Penn State's schedule was really tough, so what is the point they are even making.

I think I might have even been more annoyed by the excuse making for MSU. They were basically saying MSU lost because of Lucas’s ankle. The same injured ankle he scored 30 on.[/quote]

I think it’s impossible to say which schedule is actually tougher. We get points for our bottom being higher, they get points for their top being higher. “Eyeballs” wise, I am inclined to go with a higher top - MSU’s schedule. But you can make a rational argument that being able to get “up” to play tougher “cupcakes” is more wearing on a team in the long run. Not sure how to choose there.


If I calculated strength of schedule, I would give every sub 150 team the same weight.

A team in the 150’s is nowhere near as terrible as a team in the 300’s. That makes no sense.


#17

I got the feeling gthat wheh they talked about the stringth of schedules, they assumed MSU’s SOS was better than ours. Then, whent he graphic came up and saw our SOS it was “OMG this cant be right” and started slamming out SOS while that had no idea.

Two things helped. We kept the super cupcakes off our OOC schedule, while other teams had more of them. And you posters reminded me of the impact of us only playing Iowa and Indiana once. That fact gives more credibiity to our 9-9 as compared to the others 9-9/


#18
[quote="zac1397, post:12, topic:2122"]Kerr was the one who get going on about the OS rankings didn't mean anything. I guarantee he is unaware that The Big Ten has an unbalanced schedule. That being said, I think MSU did play a tougher schedule. They played 18 games against the top 50. PSU will have played 15 after today. However, Penn State's schedule was really tough, so what is the point they are even making.

I think I might have even been more annoyed by the excuse making for MSU. They were basically saying MSU lost because of Lucas’s ankle. The same injured ankle he scored 30 on.[/quote]

I think it’s impossible to say which schedule is actually tougher. We get points for our bottom being higher, they get points for their top being higher. “Eyeballs” wise, I am inclined to go with a higher top - MSU’s schedule. But you can make a rational argument that being able to get “up” to play tougher “cupcakes” is more wearing on a team in the long run. Not sure how to choose there.


If I calculated strength of schedule, I would give every sub 150 team the same weight.

A team in the 150’s is nowhere near as terrible as a team in the 300’s. That makes no sense.


Both should be nearly automatic wins for good teams.

#19
[quote="zac1397, post:12, topic:2122"]Kerr was the one who get going on about the OS rankings didn't mean anything. I guarantee he is unaware that The Big Ten has an unbalanced schedule. That being said, I think MSU did play a tougher schedule. They played 18 games against the top 50. PSU will have played 15 after today. However, Penn State's schedule was really tough, so what is the point they are even making.

I think I might have even been more annoyed by the excuse making for MSU. They were basically saying MSU lost because of Lucas’s ankle. The same injured ankle he scored 30 on.[/quote]

I think it’s impossible to say which schedule is actually tougher. We get points for our bottom being higher, they get points for their top being higher. “Eyeballs” wise, I am inclined to go with a higher top - MSU’s schedule. But you can make a rational argument that being able to get “up” to play tougher “cupcakes” is more wearing on a team in the long run. Not sure how to choose there.


If I calculated strength of schedule, I would give every sub 150 team the same weight.

A team in the 150’s is nowhere near as terrible as a team in the 300’s. That makes no sense.


Both should be nearly automatic wins for good teams.

A loss to a team in the mid-100’s happens from time to time, even to good teams. See: The NCAA tournament first round for the last 30 years.

A loss to a team below below 300 should never happen, ever, to a good team. It’s more of a longshot than most 16/1 games in the tournament, even some of those 16 seeds are 150ish sometimes.

Think of it this way - teams in the 150’s are in about the 50th percentile of all D-1 teams. Teams in the 300’s are in the bottom 10-15%. A huge difference there.


#20
[quote="zac1397, post:12, topic:2122"]Kerr was the one who get going on about the OS rankings didn't mean anything. I guarantee he is unaware that The Big Ten has an unbalanced schedule. That being said, I think MSU did play a tougher schedule. They played 18 games against the top 50. PSU will have played 15 after today. However, Penn State's schedule was really tough, so what is the point they are even making.

I think I might have even been more annoyed by the excuse making for MSU. They were basically saying MSU lost because of Lucas’s ankle. The same injured ankle he scored 30 on.[/quote]

I think it’s impossible to say which schedule is actually tougher. We get points for our bottom being higher, they get points for their top being higher. “Eyeballs” wise, I am inclined to go with a higher top - MSU’s schedule. But you can make a rational argument that being able to get “up” to play tougher “cupcakes” is more wearing on a team in the long run. Not sure how to choose there.


If I calculated strength of schedule, I would give every sub 150 team the same weight.

A team in the 150’s is nowhere near as terrible as a team in the 300’s. That makes no sense.


Both should be nearly automatic wins for good teams.

A loss to a team in the mid-100’s happens from time to time, even to good teams. See: The NCAA tournament first round for the last 30 years.

A loss to a team below below 300 should never happen, ever, to a good team. It’s more of a longshot than most 16/1 games in the tournament, even some of those 16 seeds are 150ish sometimes.

Think of it this way - teams in the 150’s are in about the 50th percentile of all D-1 teams. Teams in the 300’s are in the bottom 10-15%. A huge difference there.


I could maybe see saying all below 200 count the same.