Hedley Lamarr
All-American
Biggest Pervert: Sipple
It's got to be a tough situation. I can see this side as well, Count.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.
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."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 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.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 completely agree with this.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.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 find stats very interesting too. They just simply weren't available as easily back 20 years ago as they are now.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".
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.I find stats very interesting too. They just simply weren't available as easily back 20 years ago as they are now.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".
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.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.I find stats very interesting too. They just simply weren't available as easily back 20 years ago as they are now.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".