Rank the Nebraska sports journalists

[Hedley Lamarr]

Biggest Pervert: Sipple

[True2tRA]

Sipple has been a pretty stout defender of all coaches. I suppose it should be expected only being a few blocks from them. I dont think a lot of people realize how much more opportunity Sipple has to get to know these guys on a much more personal basis than the Omaha guys. I'm not saying he shouldnt be able to be more unbiased, but when you step in his shoes, and become much more "friends" than colleagues with these coaches, it really does become much harder to throw them under the bus at the press.

 

It's got to be a tough situation. I can see this side as well, Count.

 

I think I'm pretty hard on Sipple sometimes in my judgment, solely because I really just didn't like Bo or Beck. Sipple catches some of that heat because he was in the position you talk about here. He's in a tough spot. Especially if he genuinely likes these coaches as people.

 

I think Sipple probably defends a little more than he needs to though. I've also not liked the way he talks about the "Monday morning quarterback" type of fans or the message board types as if they're basement dwelling slobs. Which they are.

 

I'd probably enjoy a cold beer and a conversation with Sipple anytime simply because I do think he's a smart guy and I could learn a thing or two from him.

[Kiyoat Husker]

A little off-topic, but since we are on the topic of local sports media, I gotta vent my frustration on the success of Hawkeye homer and sportscaster, Chris Hassel.

 

 

Or, you may know him better as his alter-ego, Cooter Ray Cornhowler:

 

 

Living in the Des Moines Area in 2005-2011, I grew annoyingly accustomed to his overt Husker-hate and ridicule. While I agree that he was funny, I couldn't believe how over-the-top and unprofessional he was allowed to be with his rants. Apparently he is now on the ESPN SportsCenter team. Awesome. And people think Herbsteit hates the Huskers.

 

Well, I just hope the success of Kevin Kugler and Matt Schick will offset the anti-Husker chi of this @ss clown.

[Ric Flair]

Most informative and level headed: McKewon

Most irritatingly positive (loved by some): Sipple

Most irritatingly negative (loved by some): Chatelain

Most entertaining radio: Sharp and Benning

Most annoying radio but with good guests: Unsportsmanlike Conduct

 

Most missed local guy: Kevin Kugler (glad his career is going well)

I think that's about right. Sipple is a complete buffoon. His reflexive defense of all things Pelini was embarrassing. He's as much of a 'journalist' as those dingbats on "The View."

[SouthLincoln Husker]

All depends on whether you like Journal Star or the World Herald! I think Chatelain is a complete idiot that lives on negative reporting and Sipple needs to grow some bxxx. My questions is how many played any competitive sports in college or High School. Did they play or read how the game is played. How can you respect what one writes if they did not experience.

[The Snork]

0.0

 

[Dagerow]

I like Sam McKewon and Tom Shatel the best. There different in style but both very good.

[Count 'Bility]

We can find things wrong with all of our writers. But its a good thing they all have their distinct qualities. You know what toure gonna get from each one regardless the situation.

[ColoradoHusk]

All depends on whether you like Journal Star or the World Herald! I think Chatelain is a complete idiot that lives on negative reporting and Sipple needs to grow some bxxx. My questions is how many played any competitive sports in college or High School. Did they play or read how the game is played. How can you respect what one writes if they did not experience.

I think it'a unfair for you to say "you can't write about it unless you experience it". Most sports journalists do that job because they are huge sports fans, but don't have the athletic ability to play the game. That doesn't mean they can't study the game and observe what makes players/teams successful in that sport. Also, how many former players would make good journalists? I think that number is a very small percentage.

[BigRedBuster]

 

All depends on whether you like Journal Star or the World Herald! I think Chatelain is a complete idiot that lives on negative reporting and Sipple needs to grow some bxxx. My questions is how many played any competitive sports in college or High School. Did they play or read how the game is played. How can you respect what one writes if they did not experience.

I think it'a unfair for you to say "you can't write about it unless you experience it". Most sports journalists do that job because they are huge sports fans, but don't have the athletic ability to play the game. That doesn't mean they can't study the game and observe what makes players/teams successful in that sport. Also, how many former players would make good journalists? I think that number is a very small percentage.

 

I completely agree with this.

 

I'm not saying I'm an expert in HS basketball. But, I know my fair share. I played in middles school but I didn't play at all in HS due to many things. However, I was around the program as much if not more than some of the players. I loved HS basketball and we had a HOF coach at the time. I ended up being student manager but not you typical student manager. I would actually hang out with the coach talking about plays, strategy, the opposing team....etc. I actually paid attention in practice and learned one hell of a lot.

I find it funny because when I now sit in the stands, people who didn't know me then, always think I played. I have just as much knowledge as the guy sitting beside me who did.

 

Now, does everyone who didn't play have that? No, but that doesn't mean someone who didn't play doesn't know the game.

[ColoradoHusk]

What I like about sports journalism, currently, is the ever-expanding use of statistical analysis to review a sport or how a coach is making decisions. Yes, there are those who say that there are lies, and there are statistics, and that you can tailor a statistic to whatever your are trying to prove.

 

However, statistical analysis can play a big factor in evaluating sports. There are so many times when a coach should go for it on 4th down, rather than punting or kicking a FG. A coach may be known as a "gambler" because he goes for the 4th down conversions a lot, but in fact, he is being a "smart" coach. In basketball, shooting a "long 2-pointer" is one of the worst shots in the game, while the "corner 3" is one of the most productive shots in basketball. Kyle Korver's shooting over 52% from 3-point range is produces the same scoring as shooting 70% from 2-point range.

 

I am not trying to say athletes are dumb, but being able to use this type of analysis is not usually available to guys who "used to play the game".

[BigRedBuster]

What I like about sports journalism, currently, is the ever-expanding use of statistical analysis to review a sport or how a coach is making decisions. Yes, there are those who say that there are lies, and there are statistics, and that you can tailor a statistic to whatever your are trying to prove.

 

However, statistical analysis can play a big factor in evaluating sports. There are so many times when a coach should go for it on 4th down, rather than punting or kicking a FG. A coach may be known as a "gambler" because he goes for the 4th down conversions a lot, but in fact, he is being a "smart" coach. In basketball, shooting a "long 2-pointer" is one of the worst shots in the game, while the "corner 3" is one of the most productive shots in basketball. Kyle Korver's shooting over 52% from 3-point range is produces the same scoring as shooting 70% from 2-point range.

 

I am not trying to say athletes are dumb, but being able to use this type of analysis is not usually available to guys who "used to play the game".

I find stats very interesting too. They just simply weren't available as easily back 20 years ago as they are now.

[ColoradoHusk]

 

What I like about sports journalism, currently, is the ever-expanding use of statistical analysis to review a sport or how a coach is making decisions. Yes, there are those who say that there are lies, and there are statistics, and that you can tailor a statistic to whatever your are trying to prove.

 

However, statistical analysis can play a big factor in evaluating sports. There are so many times when a coach should go for it on 4th down, rather than punting or kicking a FG. A coach may be known as a "gambler" because he goes for the 4th down conversions a lot, but in fact, he is being a "smart" coach. In basketball, shooting a "long 2-pointer" is one of the worst shots in the game, while the "corner 3" is one of the most productive shots in basketball. Kyle Korver's shooting over 52% from 3-point range is produces the same scoring as shooting 70% from 2-point range.

 

I am not trying to say athletes are dumb, but being able to use this type of analysis is not usually available to guys who "used to play the game".

I find stats very interesting too. They just simply weren't available as easily back 20 years ago as they are now.

It's significantly easier to plow through data and find trends in statistics. I find it mind-numbing when coaches don't use the stats to their advantage. For example, Green Bay probably beats Seattle in the NFC title game, if they turn one of those first quarter FG's into TD's by going for it on 4th and goal from the 1-yard line.

[lilred]

Steven M. Sipple‏@HuskerExtraSip

Those Carl's Jr. breakfast sandwiches look delicious.

6:36 PM - 7 Feb 2015

Steve Sipple.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

What I like about sports journalism, currently, is the ever-expanding use of statistical analysis to review a sport or how a coach is making decisions. Yes, there are those who say that there are lies, and there are statistics, and that you can tailor a statistic to whatever your are trying to prove.

 

However, statistical analysis can play a big factor in evaluating sports. There are so many times when a coach should go for it on 4th down, rather than punting or kicking a FG. A coach may be known as a "gambler" because he goes for the 4th down conversions a lot, but in fact, he is being a "smart" coach. In basketball, shooting a "long 2-pointer" is one of the worst shots in the game, while the "corner 3" is one of the most productive shots in basketball. Kyle Korver's shooting over 52% from 3-point range is produces the same scoring as shooting 70% from 2-point range.

 

I am not trying to say athletes are dumb, but being able to use this type of analysis is not usually available to guys who "used to play the game".

I find stats very interesting too. They just simply weren't available as easily back 20 years ago as they are now.

It's significantly easier to plow through data and find trends in statistics. I find it mind-numbing when coaches don't use the stats to their advantage. For example, Green Bay probably beats Seattle in the NFC title game, if they turn one of those first quarter FG's into TD's by going for it on 4th and goal from the 1-yard line.

 

Actually, I have seen a lot of criticism in particular baseball and basketball where coaches use statists too much. Instead of watching the game and seeing what is happening and what could happen, they turn to some stat and game plan around it.

 

I think the stat above about the 3 point shot from the corner compared to a long 2 pointer is a good example. I see so many teams trying to live off of the three point shot when, in reality, they don't have a Korver on their roster to make it work. So, they would be better off driving to the basket or letting the guy who can make the 10-25 foot jump shot score. Problem is, a kid nowadays, drives in the lane and then instead of attacking the basket and either making the shot or drawing a foul, he dishes it back out to some schmuck standing at the line who the coach thinks he can make a 3. But...hey...analyze the stats and that three pointer is worth more than a two point shot. Problem is, you're not making them.

 

I think this is a major part of why basketball scoring is way down.