"kansas has experience in overtime championship games, 1959 triple overtime thriller against North Carolina"

billy packer

I think the fundamental problem with Nantz is the fact he shows so little enthusiasm most of the time that it doesn't do a good enough job of countering Billy Packer's bitterness.

I don't know how CBS continues to employ Packer. He is way too critical of these young athletes most of the time. All he does is criticize and point out the mistakes of the players and coaches. I'm all in favor of being critical at appropriate times, but kids 18-22 do not deserve to that blowhard whining at their every move.

Honestly, I'd rather have a host of other announcing teams than listen to those guys. I believe Packer hurts anyone's watching of the game because of how he conducts himself. Nantz isn't necessarily bad, but he just seems more blah then anything and tries to hard to be stoic. Give me Gus Johnson or even Dick Enberg anyway.

You know, I'm not so certain that the folks at CBS haven't leaned on Nantz to script his ending calls. Look at this clunker he dropped in 2004:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdtvINrDgGc

"And that's gonna do it! The game is over! UConn's the national champion for 2004"

No flair whatsoever, and clearly done on the fly. Go to the next year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_qly9gf-8Y

"There's a new Dean in college basketball!"

I won't link to them directly just to keep from boring everyone, but if you look in the other videos, you'll find 2006 and 2007: "As good as it gets!" and "The Florida Gators take their place amongst history - back to back!"

Personally, I don't mind if Nantz writes an endgame call beforehand, but at least come up with something better than "Rock Chalk Championship."

Yet another issue with Packer, that was completely on display last night, is that 99.9 percent of his calls are reactionary. His analysis has no foresight. He didn't mention at the outset that Kansas might have to go to a box-and-1 or triangle-and-2 on Rose and CDR, or the fact that Memphis had trouble with that early in the year but had worked on it. Or, with about 7 minutes left I sent a text to a friend of mine saying, "Watch how missed free throws keep Kansas in the game." I mean, that was an obvious one but you got nothing from Nantz and Packer to kind of prep everyone who hasn't followed this team of what may be coming down the road.

Packer is all reaction. Someone does something and Packer tells us if it was good or bad, right or wrong. It's insulting, not just because of his tone but because we can see what just happens. But the best color men are the ones who can entertain while predicting and analyzing how the action is going to develop.

I can't believe this criticism of Packer. He points out the things you'd point out if you were watching the game with a buddy.

For instance I recall (though not the exact moments) a blatant travel and a blatant foul that both went uncalled and Packer pointed them out.

I can see some people don't like him being too critical of college athletes (Pollyannas) but he correctly pointed out that Calipari was trying to steal a couple minutes with Pierre Niles. Dick Vitale would have called him a space eater and said what a great player he is, despite the fact that he plays only 2 minutes a game.

Packer offers insights to the game, sorry if that hurts your feelings.

That said, pointing out the 1957 triple OT was a bit absurd.

"He points out the things you'd point out if you were watching the game with a buddy."

As much as this is more than some analysts, I think it's also part of the problem, as he doesn't tell smart people (ie people who comment on AA) something they don't already know.

Imagine the end of regulation with Gus Johnson calling it... actually, I don't think it'd be much different than Nantz, only louder.

I disagree about Packer. I think he compliments the players numerous times...people just focus on the negative because he comes off as a crotchety old curmudgeon.

And I wish Calipari would stop making excuses for his kids. First it was that his team's poor free throw shooting wouldn't hurt his team, and now he is claiming they were trying to foul right before the tying three when it was blatantly obvious they were not.

I believe late in the game, Nantz said something to the effect of "20 years ago tonight, Kansas won the National Championship." He couldn't be more wrong. That game in '88 was on April 4. Then -- after the game ended -- I believe Packer said to Nantz something to the effect of "20 years ago tonight was Danny and the Miracles, right"... and Nantz just said nothing. Interesting, they play an entire game of "can you top this" going from fact to fact... then I believe come up with a crucial factual mistake.

You just know Nantz's favorite color is beige, because whenever he comes out with a remotely creative line (like the one last night), it sounds scripted. And as for Packer, he's the sportcasting equivalent of the old guy in the neighborhood who keeps yelling "you &^%$ kids get off my lawn." He might be tolerable in that role, however, if he had a partner who wasn't so bland and accommodating.

Packer was just plain bad. His calling the UNC v. KU game over with 7:32 to go in the first half was insanity. Last night he was insisting on 3's from KU with two minutes to go - when it clearly wasn't necessary. Then, when Memphis was down late in OT he was criticising them for trying 3's. What? And Nantz is classy (must be from San Diego) but has got to call Packer on some of his crap - especially the "game is over" comment. Tremendous game, all the same. Even I couldn't screw up the call of that one.

my biggest issue with Billy is that at times it seems like he's auditioning to be a head coach.

For instance, in the second half Billy made it clear numerous times that he thought Memphis should stop setting screens for Rose. Mentioning it 2 or 3 times is enough, but Nantz and Packer kept bringing it up every time Memphis set a screen for Rose. Yeah, we get it Billy, you disagree with the philosophy there.

This happens a lot during his games and it's terribly annoying. Do I want his insight? absolutely. Is he right sometimes? Absolutely. But the focus of the telecast should not be on Billy Packer's strategies, and all too often it is.

Big props to CBS for the one last shining moment of Mr. Wildcat - UK's Bill Keightley - a manager for Kentucky men's basketball program for 48 years who recently passed away.

For the announcing - Nantz is class - Packer is so self-absorbed he is ridiculous. Packer makes some good commentary - but his "I wouldn't do that" stuff is toooo much.

That was the least crotchety Packer I have ever heard. He actually seemed to be enjoying the game--what a concept. I was pleasantly surprised with call of the game.

These are the two worst annoucners in the game. The whole game it was here is how I would do things better than you. If Packer was such a good coach, he wouldn't be sitting in the press row.

Also, is there any way that Packer and Nantz could have acted more like Memphis was the only team that could win? Give KU some credit. Until OT, you would ahve thought that KU left and hadn't played a game ever!

A couple of things about last night's game.

1) When Dorsey fouled out with under 2 minutes left. Packer: "That was a terrible foul by Dorsey." What was your first clue? a) He stopped the clock; b) He sent Kansas to the line or c) he fouled out. Nice analysis.

2) Jim Nantz, who is supposed to be credible, avoided the Oklahoma State reports like it was some disease. I know that his audio went to the entire dome, but you still have to ask the question. He's no Bonnie Bernstein.

Here's a thought. Mute the sound. Of course, if we did that, we'd have nothing to talk about.

My biggest gripe is Packer and Nantz are always reminiscing about some game in the past. That's fine in a blowout. But with four minutes left in a close national title game, maybe you should focus on the action in front of you -- instead of talking about 1973.

Packer wanted Kansas to start jacking up threes with three minutes left to play. This was after he griped most of the second half that they weren't pounding it inside. I'm glad he's not coaching my team. Worse yet, he took credit for telling them to shoot those threes as the overtime began. If I recall correctly, Kansas took and made two in that stretch--the one in the corner of the steal and the one by Chalmers to tie.

And does he not know that the clock was not running when Rose was letting the ball roll toward half court? At least twice he told us that Rose was wasting too much time by not advancing the ball. The clock wasn't running you bitter, bitter man!

All in all, I thought Packer was better than usual. He did have a few senior moments though.

"For the first time all game, Kansas is in a zone."--they had run zone the previous 3 possessions

"Memphis has to get a 3 here"--down 6 with 30 seconds to go in overtime

I am happy that neither one of them berated Self with the OSU rumors. It would have been a Jim Gray-level disgrace to the event that just took place.

As said above, I think KU's experience in previous championship OT's helped.

Nantz was too busy working on his "spontaneous", awful "Rock Chalk, Championship" to notice that the clock ran for 5 and a half seconds with 18 seconds left, finally stopping with 12.5 left.

He didn't even notice this when CBS showed a replay with the clock taking up half the fucking screen.

Also, continually bringing up "how big was that review of Rose's three...', "How big is that point?" as if they got the call WRONG! How big would if have been if it wasn't reversed, you insufferable prick?!

Long story short, Nantz should stick to golf, tennis and other effeminate country club sports.

Get him the fuck off men's sports such as basketball and football.

I can handle Packer's criticisms (which are often valid) if he didn't consistently beat them into the ground. In the UCLA-Memphis game, Rose was flying by Collison in the first half and Packer correctly pointed out how Rose was too strong for Collison. Perfectly fair. But in the second half, UCLA made adjustments and Rose made very few shots (he shot under 50% for the game). Yet Billy continues to cite how nobody can stay with Rose even as he's missing shot after shot. Last night, as Packer said for the 100th time how Rose was making it too easy for Kansas to guard him, did it occur to him that since he had been sick all day Sunday, maybe Rose was conserving his energy for the second half? And how can you not put together the fact that Rose went off when Kansas went to the box and one on CDR?

Some of you may have missed this gem about two minutes into the game, they were talking about how both teams average right at 80 points a game. Well two minutes in it was 4-1 Memphis, and Billy said see, they are on pace for 80 points there. Huh??? Idiot.

I was listening to the Westwood One radio broadcast at the end of the game. Why did the officials review that 3-point shot for Memphis that was changed to a 2-pointer? Jim Nantz said something to them during the timeout.