Jim Nantz audio

[ceaser150]

Here is a link to Jim Nantz getting interviewed on the "Mike and Mike" radio show. Some of his comments are absolutely unbelievable. He argues that the MVC deseved only one bid. He completely rips the Valley throughout, although the host defends UNI which was good to hear. He also said how great Houston was because they won at LSU. The host then asks Nantz what MVC team also won at LSU and he says WICHITA ST! I highly recommend everyonel listens to this if you think Nantz still has an ounce of credibility.

http://wfan.com/chrismikeaudio/

[panther2317]

ALSO...didn't know if anyone saw this last night, but our friend Billy Packer was on the Best Damn Sports Show and said, "I think it's time that we take a look at eliminating automatic bids so we can have the best 64 teams in the tournament and not worry about the winners of conference tournaments."

This guy is seriously delusional. Sounds like he would just like this to be an ACC/Big East/SEC/Big 10/Big 12/Pac 10 play-off and let everyone else play in the NIT. Someone might want to remind Billy they already have a model for that...it's called the BCS and the other bowls. It excludes all division 1 teams except those in the BCS conferences. Can you imagine if they tried to do that in basketball????

[BCPanther]

What the Hell was that??!!! If you look at seeds the MVC and the ACC are not equal. We are not living in a fantasy land that says that the two are equal.

Nantz kept citing how things are supposed to be done in that committee room and never did he mention that TEAMS not LEAGUES are awarded bids!!

[ceaser150]

I would have more respect for the guy if he just would have gone down the list and said these teams should be out and these teams should be in and this is why. He just complained about the Valley having 3 undeserved bids and gave vague answers as to who should be in, like saying "one more ACC team should be in" and not committing to which one. What a jerk.

[Matt Trump]

Natz jumps on the basketball coverage now after not doing a game all year and all of the sudden he's an expert.

[panther2317]

I couldn't even listen to all of it because I got too pissed. CBS should add a Valley Game of the Week to their Sunday lineup during the season between the SEC and Big Ten games and force Packer to cover it. Then, and only then will he be qualified to make any comments about our league.

Nantz was so vehemently against any mid-major league getting more than one bid...it's not even funny. What's comical, is that he tried to argue that his alma mater (Houston) and their league (Conference USA) is better than their 13 rating this season. Isn't Conference USA a mid-major too?

I shut it off when he asseted that past seasons should influence the computer numbers for this year. I really, for a long time, have believed that Nantz was an intelligent guy. Very eloquent and well spoken, but it turns out the guy is a complete moron. It's amazing. How can I get their job???

[ejacobson]

You cannot get thier job 2317 your IQ has to be lower than your pants waist size, and I just don't think it would be very healthy for you to get that fat, just to get that job.

[GeeDell]

That was hilarious.

There should be a fifth team from the ACC. Yes, they play good teams in the ACC, but you have a chance to prove how good you are by playing those types of teams. Sooner or later though...you HAVE to BEAT one of those teams. Maryland and Florida St had their opportunites and blew it.

His argument about Conference USA should get more teams because it had a #1 seed is horrible. The numbers won't skew this one. 8 teams, that's 2/3 of the league, have below .500 records. EIGHT TEAMS. The fifth place team, Central Florida, lost to Florida Atlantic, Sam Houston St, Birmingham Southern, and South Dakota St out of confence. That doesn't make any sense.

Yes, Cincinnati should've made the tournament...over Air Force.

He's upset Houston didn't make it...that's what this is all about.

[MeOW!]

Basically Mr. Nantz is saying that he hates covering NCAA Tournament games involving Mid-Major Teams because he would actually have to do some research before hand and he couldn't go off of the team's past or "aurora" of playing in a major conference.

Basically it makes his job harder and he doesn't like to get his shoes dirty.

My comment to Mr. Nantz is: How are you going to defend yourself on April 3 in Indianapolis when Southern Illinois meets UNI for the 2006 National Title?

[TheMacHouse]

Does anyone notice that Nance always goes back 3 years when he talks about past tourny experience for the Valley. He says they have had 6 teams with only 1 win. He is incorrect since the Valley has had 7 teams in the last 3 years. He doesn't go back 4 years because in 2002 the Valley went 3-2 in the tourny with SIU in the sweet 16 and CU won their first game and SIU was an 11 seed and Creighton a 12. In 2001 the Valley was 1-2 with 13 seed Indiana St winning. So in the last 5 years the Valley is 5-11 with 11 teams in the dance. They have had only 2 single digit seeds during that time which means by seed they should win only 2 games. The 6 first round losses the last 3 years were by a combined 20 points ( 2- 1pt, 1- 2pt, 2- 5pt, and a 6pt).

If he wants to talk about past performance than lets talk about BC. In their last 5 tournys they have played they were seeded 4,6,11,3,5 and have been to the sweet 16 ZERO times.

He does bring up a good point when he talks about UConn's non conference RPI compared to MSU. UConn beat 5 tourny teams and was 13-0 but was 21 in RPI and MSU was 8-1 and was 8. The problem I have is that the RPI is the only source the committee can use since most teams do not play each other. My biggest beef is that the Valley had ONLY 16 games against BCS teams with 7 being state games and 3 being in season tourny games. So only 6 games besides that were scheduled. The Valley did go 7-9 against BCS teams and the top 6 were 5-5. On the other hand the 31st rated conference had 30 games against BCS teams and the 30th rated conference had 44 games against BCS teams. This is what needs to change before anyone can say the BCS teams are so much better and deserve more teams and if it doesn't people like Nance, Packer, and Phelps have nothing to complain about.

This is my 2 cents on the subject that has beaten to death the dead horse 100 times over.

[UNIChippewa]

Based on what I've read above, I think I would like to see Clark Kellogg and Seth Davis, actual analysts as opposed to guys like Nantz and Packer who are underinformed and overopinionated (a big pet peeve of mine) cover all the big games including the national championship game and put those two dimwits behind a studio desk.

Packer's always been an a$$hole, but I used to have respect for Nantz, until now. I would love to see the NCAA try and enact Packer's idea about eliminating the automatic bids. Those smaller conferences would sue so fast (and rightfully so), the NCAA's head would spin. Not only that, but the smaller conferences could also refuse to schedule games with the major conferences, so that all the BCS teams have to play D II games in the non-conference. I wonder if Packer even thought about that.

[DWadle1983]

If the goal of people like Billy Packer and Jim Nantz are to see all "deserving" teams in the tournament, maybe the NCAA needs to consider going to a 128 team field, with a requirement the team have a winning record in order to be in the Tournament. It would only add one level of games to the tournament.

This likely would financially help smaller conferences like the Southland that the Florida State board posters alleged to care about because they would receive a greater percentage of the Tournament dollars than they do currently.

Nantz and Packer can advocate changing the selection process to exclude mid-majors and lower level conferences, but UNI's own Chuck Grassley, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, might be able to talk his good friend Mike DeWine, chairman of the Anti-Trust subcommittee, into holding anti-trust hearings. Committee Members Orrin Hatch, Joe Biden, and Patrick Leahy representing states with only mid-majors might also advocate hearings.

[B.True]

Natz jumps on the basketball coverage now after not doing a game all year and all of the sudden he's an expert.

i can imagine what the conversation was like in a production meeting on Monday.....

producer: "hey jim, what do you think about allen being hurt?"

jim: "when did robert allenby get hurt....why didn't i hear about this?"

producer: "no jim, i'm talking about ray, the point guard, poked in the eye...."

jim: "who in the hell poked ray floyd in the eye....was it chi-chi?"

producer: "what planet are you on? okay, what about the Tiger our of
Louisiana?

jim: "what are you smokin' .... tiger is from california, played collegiately at stanford ... remember."

producer: "great, stanford....were you surprised they didn't do well this year and their bubble burst winding are in the NIT...."

jim: "speaking of bubbles, have you seen John Daly lately.....man, that guy is a bubble."


here's what i'm saying about jim nantz....the guy only cares about the masters.....and it is less than a month away, hence, he hasn't done the research that kellogg, davis, lunardi and others that i like have done....

[Cobra 23]

Bill Raftery should do all big games. The guy is the most fun announcer in the game. He has the enthusiasm of Vitale, with a lot more intelligence than Vitale or Packer, unbiased opinions as he covers the game at hand and doesn't sit and talk about what happend 10 years ago, better one-liners, and is a real legend. I think of him and Keith Jackson as my favorite old time announcers for college sports.

[DWadle1983]

You can tell how misinformed "sports experts" are listening to the link. (There's also an interview with Billy Packer a couple days later, but none of the mid-major or tournament selection issues were brought up.)

Mad Dog had done his homework although he said UNI won at Iowa. Of course, Nantz didn't know that was wrong.

Mike said he thought the Tournament should be changed so that only 8 mid-major at-large bids would be given out, along with expanding the tournament to 68 teams. Even counting the A-10 and C-USA, there weren't more than 8 mid-major at-large bids: WSU, Bradley, UNI, George Mason, Air Force, Utah State, UAB, and George Washington.