Stephen Bardo on CBB

One of the best in the business, ESPN's Stephen Bardo joins me to break down Syracuse's mid-season slump and much more.

Fake Trade That Will Never Happen But Should

The NBA's trade deadline is today at 3 pm and I have a deal that I love the more I think about, but it will simply never happen. Why? It makes too much sense. And one of the players involved wouldn't waive his no-trade clauses but it would never get to that point because there's just zero chance of the GM's coming together to make it happen. But it should. Because it would make all three teams better. Holy blockbuster here's the deal and yes, the salaries work:

Lakers get:
G Rajon Rondo (BOS)
F Jeff Green (BOS)
F Lamar Odom (LAC)

Celtics get:
C Dwight Howard (LAL)
G Steve Nash (LAL)
G Eric Bledsoe (LAC)

Clippers get:
F Kevin Garnett (BOS)

That's it. That's the trade. Every name you've heard from these teams in trade rumors (plus Nash and Odom) all for each other and somehow with all the zillions of trade restrictions in the NBA, it actually works. Here are the positives and negatives for all involved.

Lakers

The first and biggest mental hurdle of this trade is the Lakers willingness to trade Howard. They insist they're not. I've long said they should and this deal in particular makes sense for multiple reasons. The reason you keep Howard is he gives you a next superstar after Kobe Bryant retires. By getting Rondo, you get that and you do so at a position of need. While Nash has been alright offensively this year, he's never been a great defensive player. Rondo is better than Nash at both ends at this point in their careers and in the point guard heavy western conference, having a stopper at that position is essential.

Unlike Howard, he has the competitive drive to keep up with Bryant and while "every night Rondo" is different than "national TV Rondo" he never fails to show up for big games and that would resonate with Bryant. Now for the thing you didn't think of.

If the Lakers keep Howard, they have to fire Mike D'Antoni for reasons well documented (they hate each other). D'Antoni's on a multi-year deal. The Lakers are still paying Mike Brown. They'd have to hire a new coach (and would flirt with the uber-expensive Phil Jackson). That's a whole lot of money. So who could possibly run Mikey D's system?

What is needed is a younger Steve Nash. I pass-first point guard with an outstanding handle who looks to pass first but can also score. Also known as Rajon Rondo. Nash was/is a much better shooter than Rondo (understatement) but Rondo puts pressure on a defense much like Nash did which opens the passing angles that pick-and-rolled Nash to two MVP trophies. By also adding Green, the Lakers get younger and more athletic at the four spot. Green's a stretch four too which is essential to D'Antoni's system. Pau Gasol shifts to center. Earl Clark and Green play the four or Green can play some at the three for the most athletic lineup the Lakers have had in years. Bada boom. Bada bing. You don't have to fire D'Antoni and the only financial hell you're in is your luxury tax instead of players and coaches dismembering the Buss family bank account.

Is it a perfect, fool-proof plan? Of course not. Rondo and Bryant could butt heads as to who's the alpha-male much like Rondo has with Pierce. Unlike with Pierce, Rondo would lose this battle and who knows how he would handle it. Rondo could also look at all the other guys who think D'Antoni is clueless, not listen to him and not come close to the production Nash enjoyed in Phoenix. While Rondo can lock in defensively, he likes to gamble much like Bryant which could cause very inconsistent defensive play and Gasol isn't exactly an elite rim protector like Bryant used to have with Bynum/younger Gasol/Odom or Rondo has had in KG.

If my options are "keep malcontent Howard and either have to fire a coach/lose him for nothing this summer" or "guarantee something to build around, not have Russell Westbrook, Tony Parker and Chris Paul dribble in circles around me in the playoffs and get the added bonus of not kill my finances," I'll take the latter. Does it wave the white flag on this season cause Rondo's hurt? Probably, but the Lakers are about titles and if you think this team is winning a title this year, you haven't been paying attention.

Celtics

The Celtics are willing to trade Rondo in part because they realize their window is closing as fast as the Lakers is with Bryant. They weren't very good this year with Rondo and are playing better now without him (hooray ball movement!) but in the playoffs they'll miss him if they don't make a move. Unlike the Lakers who are trying to compete in the point-guard heavy west with the Spurs, Thunder and Clippers, the C's have one opponent in mind: Miami. What's the way everyone thinks is best to beat Miami? Size.

By bringing in Howard, Boston at worst stays neutral or more likely upgrades defensively over KG depending on Dwight's back. Maybe not competing with Green for minutes re-inspires Brandon Bass and you don't wind up missing Green at all and it also creates an interesting backcourt dynamic. Courtney Lee moves to the bench and you start Nash with Avery Bradley. It's a small backcourt but who has two supreme offensive guards? Milwaukee, who's trying to trade one. So no one and it's not a problem. Bradley guards the more explosive offensive guard (Wade, Raymond Felton/JR Smith, Paul George, etc) while Nash can stand in the corner with Ronnie Brewer and Mario Chalmers. I love Mario as a spot up guy, but if the offense is being run through him and not Wade/LeBron, advantage not Miami.

Lee then comes in with Jason Terry who can spark the second unit (again thinking the "new role, stop playing like garbage" theory here) while Lee can be your traditional pressure the ball 94 feet backup point guard.

You miss the leadership of KG but gain a lot of it back in Nash. There's potential tension between Pierce and Howard but if you convince Dwight that Pierce is a billiondy times better version of Hedo Turkoglu whom he took to The Finals in '09 maybe they play nice. Also, Doc Rivers isn't exactly Mike D'Antoni at managing egos. Which is a good thing.

Clippers

If the Clippers make it out of the west and meet Miami in The Finals, do you feel good about their chances? As we saw last year with OKC and really Miami before that, there's a process in the NBA and you have to learn to win. This group of Clippers is just too young and outside of Chris Paul and Chauncey Billups, them coming up short on a big stage wouldn't be shocking. Enter KG.

While it would no doubt still be Paul's team, Garnett would provide some experience amongst the bigs and his presence might do even more in the long-term development of Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan (who I managed to keep in LA doing this deal) than help LA this season. From a basketball standpoint, he also provides them stability in late game situations. Right now you're scared to play Jordan or Blake, nevertheless both, late in games because each is a horrific free throw shooter. Add in the fact that neither is an elite defender and the decision to play Garnett over one of them is easy.

While no one's talking about it, Dwight Howard isn't the only superstar in LA with an expiring contract. Paul's deal is up when the season ends as well and it makes sense that maximizing this year's playoff run maximizes the chances Paul resigns. While you give up uber potential in Bledsoe, you've got plenty of guard depth and he's a backup guard. Is he one of the best backup guards in the league? Yes, but he's a backup guard. This logic also applies to Lamar Odom who might actually be the deal breaker (see below).

Why it doesn't happen

Nash signed in LA this summer so that he could be close to his kids in Phoenix. While he doesn't have a no-trade clause, the Lakers aren't trading him even though this move makes a ton of sense as it would be a horrible look for the organization. That kind of classlessness could set off Kobe too and how the Lakers come off after the passing of Dr. Jerry Buss is important. Garnett does have a no-trade clause and has said he's not going anywhere unless the Celtics trade Pierce, which they wouldn't do because in this scenario they're still going for it this year, just without Garnett.

Odom is the interesting piece. I had to throw him in for salary purposes but that's actually the closest thing to a deal breaker in this whole thing because trading him away takes away such a unique piece of the Clippers bench, their biggest strength and gives more to the Lakers who lack it, making one of your rivals stronger. The argument to do it anyway is Garnett is an upgrade on Odom on both ends, Jordan becomes a bench player because KG takes his starting spot and to hell with the Lakers because you think you're the better team and can beat them.

You could also do this trade subbing Jordan for Odom. The salaries still work and the Clippers keep an experienced piece in Odom while giving up a guy who still has a lot of potential and is definitely getting better in Jordan. You're basically sacrificing future for present. While the thought of another young, athletic piece for the Lakers is exciting if they keep D'Antoni, the chance to re-unite Bryant, Gasol and Odom along with the fact that Odom's on a one-year deal is probably more appealing to the Lakers. Either way, I'd pull the trigger if I'm any of these teams.

The reality is this trade will never ever be discussed nevertheless happen. If it were somehow to make it to the right desks though, who (besides Garnett), says no?

Today's Show (2/15/13)

Today on "The Pulse," we'll look at Miami's dominant win over Oklahoma City last night and where we stand at the NBA's All-Star Break. The LeBron vs Michael Jordan discussion continues but what are we actually asking? Plus how MJ says Kobe over LeBron? We'll continue the "future QB's" discussion I've had on this very site - who do you like: RG3, Luck, Wilson, Kaepernick or Cam Newton?

We'll be joined by Carolina Panthers play-by-play man Mick Mixon (3:30 pm), CBSSports.com's Gary Parrish (4:30 pm) and ESPN's Jay Williams (TBD).

You can listen live to the show on 730 AM in Charlotte or online here.

Boeheim vs Katz

Sometimes coaches do outlandish things in post-game press conferences to take the attention away from their team's struggles. That's exactly what Jim Boeheim did last night, but not on purpose.

If you haven't heard the short version goes like this: Boeheim called ESPN's Andy Katz "an idiot and a very disloyal person" in the post-game press conference after Katz asked him a simple question. "I'll answer anyone's question but yours." Boeheim said.



Today there has been context provided from the Post-Standard. Boehiem told Bud Poloquin that it stems from a singular incident last season in which Katz tried to make Boeheim answer questions about the Bernie Fine scandal on-camera in a taped interview and the coach refused. This is after he had told Katz he wouldn't. He kept his word. Boeheim told him he'd never talk to him again. He's keeping his word.

So who's right and wrong? As you know by now, I rather enjoy writing and talking about the media so what's the verdict here. It's the same as nearly any problem involving two people. Both think they're right, the other's wrong and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Where Katz is wrong

Television, and specifically national television, gets special perks that us little local media squirts wouldn't get. Katz never gets this one-on-one on-camera interview with Boeheim if ESPN doesn't sign his checks. The interview was supposed to be (according to Boeheim) about the tournament SU was playing in. These types of things are standard. You've seen the cutaway interview with just the coach/player on camera a million times. It starts full screen and then likely goes to a box in the corner to show the action. Most of the time you don't even know who's asking the questions.

If Boeheim told Katz that he wouldn't speak about the Fine case, then that's fine. Katz doesn't have to agree and he gets credit for asking the question everyone wanted answered and Boeheim didn't want asked. Boeheim says Katz was relentless though, asking upwards of 10 times about Fine. Katz says it was "only five or six. You want to know how many is acceptable? One.

The second Boeheim goes "I told you I wouldn't talk about that" in this kind of interview, you move on, especially if keeping a relationship with one of the most significant coaches in college basketball is important to you. This business is about relationships and Katz of all people should know that considering he has relationships all over the country that help him break news. Pissing off a hall of famer isn't exactly good for business just so you can stand on a moral high ground screaming about how you asked the tough question.

Katz is right in that he should get to ask the question and if he didn't agree to any boundaries kudos to him for doing it. However if he told or implied to Boeheim that he wouldn't touch the Fine scandal and did anyway, that's unethical. Some might disagree. Here's my rule on ethics - does it make you a crappy human being? Being dishonest or misleading does. Bad ethically. Simple as that. You don't swap honesty for access.

If those were the terms and Katz didn't like them, he can walk away from the interview. You don't take it and then do what you said you wouldn't. This means that if things went down the way Boeheim said they did, he has every right to be upset. That's of course all if that agreement was in place. From Katz via ESPNPR:

“Nothing of the sort took place. There was never any agreement not to ask Fine-related questions. In fact, that was ESPN’s first chance to speak with Coach Boeheim after the Fine news broke so of course we would ask him about it.  He had just come from a press conference where he addressed it as well.  Separately, later in that tournament, he agreed to talk to me on camera for a post-game interview.”

So there's that.

Where Boeheim is wrong

Being upset and abusing a pulpit to vent your frustrations are two totally different things. Boeheim knows when the cameras are on him and that he can use them to make a statement. He's done it positively this year with his message on gun violence following his 900th win. Boeheim likes to play the "I'm just a little old basketball coach in Syracuse" card but he knows the platform he has.

If Boeheim last night had simply told Katz "I told you I'm not talking to you and a press conference is no different" than there's really no complaining about Boeheim unless you want to call him a grudge holding curmudgeon.

Where Boeheim went wrong is what he said and he even admitted that today to the Post-Standard:

"I probably shouldn't have called him an 'idiot,'" he allowed. "That slipped out. Sometimes that happens after games."

Anytime your behavior could be compared to a 3rd grader, you've probably made a mistake on some level. Coming down to the level of name calling is nothing new for Boeheim unfortunately. Typically it's directed at writers at the Daily Orange or some other local media member. Do we congratulate him for equal opportunity in this case? Not so much.

As a point of contention, Boeheim also had no right to question Katz's loyalty as that implies the ESPN reporter should have some loyalty to Syracuse and Boeheim. Part of Katz's job is objectivity and while there's definitely room for liking a guy on a personal level, loyalty doesn't really enter the equation and Katz has every right to defend that point as he did to the Post-Standard.

Boeheim does have a right to question Katz's honesty though. If he deceived Boeheim into saying "no comment" ten times on camera, then the coach has a point. He didn't make that point though.

In Summary

This is stupid. It's petty. Boeheim routinely chastises reporters in a public manner instead of handling them man-to-man. In this case, the problem wasn't even public so it brought attention to a matter no one knew existed. Maybe that was Boeheim's point? To "out" Katz as a dishonest jerk? But to what endgame? ESPN's not firing him. Public shame? Who knows.

As far as Katz goes, he'll get away largely unscathed. He's got years of good work under his belt and has enough well placed sources that one coach not talking to him isn't going to cause him to lose sleep. He also will get a free pass from many who will simply go "there goes Boeheim" again.

The truth? Both are wrong. To Boeheim's credit, he copped to the name-calling. I wouldn't expect him to change his ways though.

Oh and by the way. Syracuse lost last night and Michael Carter-Williams only had one assist. He's got bigger issues to worry about.

One and done with it

Nearly everyone hates the one and done rule in college hoops. All year we've heard that it's hurt the quality of play in college basketball because there is very limited top-flight talent. That's true. While there have been an inordinate amount thrilling finishes that can be chalked up to this newfound parity, close games don't equate to good basketball. There is no better example than the 5 OT Louisville vs Notre Dame classic from Saturday night. The first 39 minutes were garbage and the overtimes weren't exactly well played despite the undeniable drama.

Now people are upset with the one and done rule for a different reason after Kentucky freshman Nerlens Noel tore his ACL Tuesday night in Florida. The projected #1 pick is out for the season and his status as the #1 pick is more than up in the air. The result is people saying that the NBA is wrong for not letting Noel and others go straight to the league from high school like they used to be able to. "The NBA is preventing them from making a living." 

First and foremost this statement is patently false. The NBA is preventing players like Noel who think they're ready to make the jump to pro ball from going to the NBA, not from making a living playing basketball. Brandon Jennings didn't want to play college basketball and he went to Italy for a year before entering the NBA Draft. He still was a lottery pick when his time came to shake David Stern's hand.

Secondly, the NBA has every right to do this, just like any other company in any other industry. Chances are if you're reading this you're not an NBA player so think of whatever industry you're in. I'll use my industry for comparison's sake and me as a specific example.

The NBA is a business, just like yours

By the time I was completing my junior year in college, I was ready to be a professional radio host. In fact, I was probably better than at least half of the hosts on stations nationwide. However without my degree, I wasn't deemed ready and in fact I would have been deemed a liability having not yet taken a media law class.

If some station had taken a chance on me, there was super potential. Not being in school and getting reps daily, I could have focused solely on my craft (some would argue I did this anyway and to hell with my schoolwork...hi mom!) and grown at a much faster rate than I was. As long as I avoided getting the station sued, it could have easily been a worthwhile investment. It would have been a risk for me not having a degree to fall back on (although, unlike a basketball player my degree would have been in my industry, not something else) but the general accepted standard of broadcast journalism is you have a degree and are of a certain age before you start working as a professional.

Even now, as I'm on the job hunt again, networks like ESPN and CBS have determined that I'm not ready for that stage yet. I don't have the experience. I'm not old enough. I haven't seen enough.

So why is the NBA, the highest level of professional basketball that exists, any different? It's not. Which is why the one and done rule is stupid. It should be two years, when kids have really had a chance to develop, get some bumps and bruises in the college game (or overseas) and are mature enough to handle the independence of NBA life.

The correct rebuttal against this argument is not "LeBron James was ready for the NBA." The correct rebuttal is "if ESPN thought you were ready, they could hire you while the NBA couldn't hire Nerlens Noel." I understand that and fully acknowledge that many high school players have gone on to great NBA careers. From KG to Kobe to Lebron, the examples are there and of course there are also the examples guys who have been mediocre (Sebastian Telfair) or worse (Ndubi Ebi anyone?).

So why is the rule fair? Sports owners have long proven they can't help themselves when it comes to potential. No matter how a CBA is written, owners will find ways to hand out stupid contracts. Why did NBA owners push so hard for shorter contracts in the last negotiations? Because that way when they handed out stupid contracts, they would only kill their franchises for a half a decade instead of a full one. Hell, they had the amnesty clause so they could get out of a bad contract entirely (at least in terms of the salary cap) because there were so many they had already given out.

The Proof

The more time there is to evaluate a player, the less mistakes you'll make so the one and done rule serves as a safety net for the NBA to make more educated investments. Don't believe me? Here are the #1 overall picks since 2007 when the rule took hold: Greg Oden, Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, John Wall, Kyrie Irving and Anthony Davis. The only bust? Oden who's bust is totally injury related and 1000% magnified by the fact that the guy picked after him was Kevin Durant.

The honest truth is, there have been very few high school guys who have been ready for the NBA. Plenty have had great careers, but with the exception of LeBron, most weren't ready to contribute right away. Making a James go to school for a year and risking they get hurt happens far less than a Kwame Brown coming through where you don't really know what you're getting into.

Want further proof? Fab Melo would have been a top 10 if not top 5 pick purely on potential coming out of school. Scouts needed one year at Syracuse to see he wasn't ready. The same with Dion Waiters whose years under Jim Boeheim helped him come into the NBA ready to contribute and likely on a better career trajectory than if he hadn't been straightened out on the hill. 

Would these two have been better off toiling away on an NBA bench or playing college ball? Unquestionably the latter. While it may have cost them two years of salary, going to school was better for both of their careers and that has nothing to do with their education. This means you can skip the Fab Melo jokes.

Players Play, Owners Own

At the end of the day, it's the owners’ league and they get to make the rules. The players can fight for their rights, but what qualifies you to work is something set by the employer in any industry. It's why the 19-year-old age limit exists and why David Stern wants it upped to 20. Believe it or not, there's a massive jump from playing 20 games against dudes many of whom I could run with in high school to 82 against the best in the world.

Do I feel bad for Noel? Of course. By nearly any account he’s a great kid and there’s a chance he just lost a few million. However this doesn’t make me mad at the NBA for not letting him play. While this overall argument is admittedly up for debate, “who are we made at?” when it comes to Noel shouldn’t be.

We should be mad at the NCAA – the organization that allowed the stanchion Noel ran into to be so close to the court and isn’t paying him a dime. This of course is despite the millions of dollars he’ll make for Kentucky and the “non-profit organization” that they are.

As for Noel, he should quit Kentucky’s team and hire an agent today. There are no rules prohibiting him from rehabbing at Kentucky if he’s not a part of the team and since he’s not going to put on a Wildcat uniform again, he might as well get the best treatment and advice he can. Sound wrong? Feel wrong? If David Stern had his way, that wouldn’t be an option because Noel would be back next year and couldn’t give up his eligibility.

In the end, it's a really dicey issue because athletes have such a limited window for maximizing their earning potential. There's a very strong argument to be made for letting a high school kid make the jump because cutting a year or two off his NBA career means cutting a significant percentage off his max earning potential. Cutting a year off a 10-year career is 10%. That's a lot.

However the NBA is making major investments in these players and they have every right to set the minimum working requirements for their company. It's the elite of the elite. They should have standards.

Now getting mad at the NCAA? I'm all for that.

Friday's Show - What We're Talking About

As previously noted, I'm hosting "The Sports Pulse" from 3-6pm this Friday on ESPN 730 in Charlotte. When you don't do a show every day, you can plan ahead and we've done just that. Here's what's coming up Friday (will be updated throughout the week):

Guests:

3:30 - Mick Mixon, Carolina Panthers play-by-play man

4:30 - Gary Parrish, CBSSports.com College Basketball Writer

TBD - Jay Williams, ESPN College Basketball Analyst

Is there someone you want to hear from or something you'd like to hear discussed? Feel free to tweet suggestions to me on Twitter @craighoffman.

My Next Radio Show

Today I was supposed to do a compilation of funny tweets from the Super Bowl blackout. My apologies. That will have to wait. This is way more important.

Next Friday, February 15th I will be filling in for the afternoon drive show on ESPN 730 in Charlotte. That's all I think I'm allowed to say right now, but to answer your next question - yes it could lead to future more permanent opportunities. For now, it's time to put on the show of my life. I'll post more information in the coming days including how you can listen online. In the meantime, thanks a million for the continued support and I'll post more when I know and am allowed to post more.

Podcast: Super Bowl Recap

Alex Brewer and I break down the Super Bowl, Beyonce's performance and continue the QB's of the future discussion. It's like an hour of radio. Without the radio format. And commercials.

Super Bowl - The Media Column

The Super Bowl is the greatest spectacle in American television and the networks that broadcast it have a great responsibility to treat it as such. It should feel different because it is different and last night's broadcast from CBS certainly attempted to do just that. They opened the broadcast with an open worthy of the occasion. The network unveiled a new score graphic that was sleek and effective. They brought in an excellent array of current NFL players to supplement their pre-game show. This is where the praise all but ends.

The broadcast last night was in a word - pathetic. It was failure by all involved from talent to producers and that was without the disaster that was the power outage. These are supposed to be the best of the best and while we all knew going in that this wasn't CBS's best crew, it is what they deem their 'A-team' and they were awful.

All of my criticisms are intertwined failures of all involved. At any point where a play-by-play man fails to mention something, a producer can get in his ear and help things along and the viewer won't know the difference. All involved are also in the production meetings all week. That said, I'm going to start with Jim Nantz who gets the highest grade out of everyone last night at about a C- and I feel like I'm being nice. The following are all notes I made on my iPhone during the game of nuggets that I thought of that would have enhanced the broadcast. Keep in mind Nantz has called a full season of NFL action, is a multi-year veteran and has been preparing for this game for 2 weeks and has that prep sitting in front of him. I'm an unemployed talk show host who does some play-by-play who was sitting on a friend's couch with no prep in front of me.

1. The first half LaMichael James fumble was caused by Courtney Upshaw. Upshaw is a rookie from Alabama. He was attempting to go back-to-back as a college and pro champion. Both his National Championship Game and Super Bowl were played in the Super Dome.
2. On the fake field goal call (more on that coming), there was ZERO mention that John Harbaugh came up as a special teams coach.
3. That fact also was not mentioned in the game's final seconds as Nantz correctly predicted the Ravens would take a safety. 
4. On that safety, neither Nantz nor Simms explained why you would do that in that situation. For those still wondering: it was a 5 point game meaning San Francisco needed a touchdown to win and a field goal wouldn't help them because there wasn't enough time to score twice. The Ravens were punting from their own end zone meaning a short return could be a touchdown. Instead, the Ravens took the safety, taking extra time off the clock and punting from the 20 yard line. The two points didn't matter because San Francisco still needed a touchdown. That 2nd punt is a free kick so it's not rushed like a regular punt might be, limiting the chance for a bad kick. The result: a very good, deep punt and the need for an 80 yard runback that didn't happen. Time expires. Ravens win.
5. The shuffle of the Ravens offensive line was barely discussed. For those that don't know - the Ravens switched nearly every player on their offensive line at the start of the playoffs. This is unheard of. They introduced one new starter (Bryant McKinnie at left tackle), moved their left tackle Michael Oher (the guy from The Blindside, also not mentioned) to right tackle and switched around their guards for at least the fourth time this season. That's unheard of and it was barely mentioned.
6. During the power outage, nobody from CBS mentioned the down and distance we would be returning to until the players were lined up ready to go. Resetting the stage is as important as it gets as you probably have a few new viewers coming in to check out the power outage.
7. Late in the game Haloti Ngata was hurt. It was mentioned in passing going into a break (a player is down, no specifics and instead of a shot of the player, a replay of a previous play was being shown) and it was mentioned in passing when they came back. Ngata is an integral part of the Ravens defense. Nantz had to (at minimum) ask Simms how significant that was. He didn't even do that.

These were just off the top of my head. Some of them are more on Nantz (the Upshaw nugget, Harbaugh's background) than others (offensive line shuffle) which should have been set up by producers but all in all it was infuriating to watch.

The number one rule of broadcasting is to know your audience and Nantz failed miserably in that regard. A large portion of the Super Bowl's audience is watching their one and only football game of the year. While I give CBS credit for not overplaying the Ray Lewis storyline, it felt like they ignored it. Lewis has a complex legacy thanks to the murder case in 2000 but he's arguably the greatest linebacker to ever play, playing in his last game. He needed to be discussed. The pistol needed more attention. There was just very little context given to anything throughout a broadcast that needs more of it than any other sporting broadcast on earth. A quick but subtle example: on Jacoby Jones's 108 yard kickoff return for a touchdown, Jones was led through the hole by Vontae Leach. Leach is the Ravens all-world fullback who routinely opens holes for Ray Rice and Bernard Pierce. This was not stressed during the replays by Nantz, whose initial call of the kickoff was exceptional or our next victim.

Then there is Nantz's partner, Phil Simms. Everyone last night was lambasting him on Twitter and rightfully so. He was so indecisive and often just doesn't seem to know what in the hell he's talking about. From the late safety to a suggestion that San Francisco should be conservative while down big with possession at the end of the half and the other team getting the ball to start the 2nd, his lack of football acumen was disturbing. 

CBS had at it's disposal over 60 cameras, one of which was the coveted "all 22" angle. This is a high sideline angle that shows all 22 players on the field, allowing the viewer to see how plays develop. It's not used in telecasts and is usually reserved for coaches, players and analysts. CBS had an option to watch the game from this angle online. It was not used at all in the telecast. 

I'm not sure if it was supposed to be an online only thing, but if CBS had that access and didn't use it to break down every big play down, that is a massive failure and I think it's in part to Simms' lack of a clue. Could you imagine what Gruden, Collinsworth or Mayock would do with that? Is film nerd Trent Dilfer available? Jaworski? Beuhler? 

When I read that CBS was going to have the all 22 I was giddy. I never saw it and won't until I see it on NFL Matchup next season.

Then there is the production team who had about as bad of a night as you can have. Obviously losing power is a disaster and during the outage, CBS had limited to no communication with Nantz/Simms and lost all but 11 of its 62 cameras. That withstanding, here are some notes I made during the game:

1. Where is Alex Smith? The 49ers QB switch was one of the stories of the NFL year. The first time we saw him was when he shared a post-game embrace with Ed Reed.
2. The fight. Early in the game there was a scrum in which Ravens DB Carey Williams threw a punch and shoved an official. The replays were horribly limited and CBS as a whole failed here to stress that Williams should have been thrown out. We never really saw what started the fracas. The mission, per CBS's producer, was to not miss anything with the plethora of cameras. Missed that!
3. Why on earth did the director cut away from Jacoby Jones doing Ray Lewis's dance to show Joe Flacco pointing to the sky? Lewis inspiring the Ravens is a story that got little run and here was one of his teammates honoring him after making a historical play and they cut away from it?! Kudos to them for having a solid replay of the dance and Desmond Howard's kickoff return for a touchdown ready to go as well, but cutting away from Jones there was a joke.
4. Lewis's first career sack was on Jim Harbaugh, the then Colts quarterback and current 49ers head coach. CBS told SI's Richard Deitsch that they had that clip. Unless I missed it, it never made the broadcast.
5. As the 49ers came back, there was not enough, if any mention, of the deficit from which they were coming back from. This team was down 28-6 in the 3rd quarter. What was the biggest 3rd quarter deficit ever overcome in a Super Bowl? Would have been a great graphic. Also on Nantz for not bringing up just how improbable this was.

There was one point in which they used a graphic of the stats after the blackout when the game seemed to (did) turn. I would have loved to see that graphic a few times, updated as the 49ers continued to drive.

Last but not least, the power outage. I've often told the younger students I talk to that radio is incredibly important even if you want to do TV. Why? Radio builds your adlib skills. What can you do when you're off script? One of the senior hiring managers at ESPN once told me generally speaking they'd rather take someone off radio with limited TV experience for SportsCenter than someone who's only done 2-minutes sports casts their entire career. Why? The radio person can handle a 3-hour SportsCenter shift.

Last night, with no prompter or script, James Brown looked lost and without a clue. His first on-camera appearance during the blackout had him literally looking all over the place as if he couldn't have been less sure what to do. He failed to drive an interesting conversation and that crew sorely missed Boomer Easiason who was in the radio booth calling the game. Easiason's radio background (he co-hosts a daily show on WFAN in New York and is damn good) would have been a savior. Instead you had Bill Cowher saying the 49ers should consider Alex Smith and then say he wasn't really suggesting that. One, that was confusing. Two, one of the primary reasons the 49ers switched to Kaepernick was his big play potential, which down 22 points in the Super Bowl, was needed sorely and almost won them the game.

Overall the broadcast was lacking in nearly every department. There were technical errors beyond the power outage with either bad calls by the director or bad takes by the technical director. The off-field and personal story lines were never developed any deeper than surface level mentions. The football elements of the game were sorely lacking. One last example - Trent Dilfer post-game had a great stat that San Francisco was averaging over eight yards per play out of the pistol. Frank Gore's gashing run that set the 49ers up in the red zone with a chance for the go-ahead score was the last play the 49ers ran out of that formation. Perhaps that's a bit much to ask, but questioning the 49ers playcall down the stretch certainly isn't and it wasn't done.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just an unemployed talk show host armed with a broadcast journalism degree who's done some play-by-play.

Podcast: NFL QB Draft

Colin Kaepernick made the Super Bowl in year one as a starter. He, along with a number of other young quarterbacks have taken the league by storm. Which one of them would you want? I give my list. What's yours? Hit me @craighoffman.

Super Bowl Preview

Chances are you'll be watching the Super Bowl today as over half of America does. It's the most watched show on television and from start to finish it is just that - a show. From the pre-game shows that have already been going for hours (it's 10 am cst as I'm typing) to the game, the big time commercials and the halftime spectacle, we're in for a great day.

I'm going to strictly focus on the game for this post although to say I'm excited for Beyonce at halftime is a major understatement. I said in my last podcast I would have a preview podcast with Kevin Brown. Then he decided to have a life, I worked a 9-hour day yesterday and decided to have a life after and as a result I'm typing my thoughts instead. Kevin and I will entertain you soon. I promise. For real this time. On to the game.

Sometimes teams feel like teams of destiny and that is the reason that many people are picking Baltimore to win. It's not hard to find that storyline as Ray Lewis takes the field for his last hurrah this evening. That feeling of destiny was enhanced last night when Jonathan Ogden was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Ogden was the Ravens first ever draft pick, followed later in the first round by Lewis. Seeing how John Harbaugh’s club got here, it certainly seems like they needed some divine intervention also known as John Fox's idiotic coaching strategy and one horrible play by Broncos safety Rahim Moore that kept them alive in the divisional round.

Over the past few years, there have been a number of teams that got hot late and went on to win the Super Bowl. Most notably the Giants, in both 2007-08 and last season, barely made it into the playoffs and then didn't lose again. The Packers in 2010-11 did the same thing. This year Baltimore is being described as the "hot" team, but I'm not quite sure where that came from which is why I won't be jumping onto their bandwagon.

The Ravens lost 4 of 5 games down the stretch of the regular season. Yes they've won their 3 playoff games, but it's not like they've been dominant. The Giants and Packers in their Super Bowl seasons all won at least 3 of 5 down the stretch before winning their 3 playoff games and eventually the Super Bowl. The 49ers had a bye and thus have only needed to win two games to get here, but they won 3 of 5 down the stretch so who’s really the hotter team?

The reason I'm picking the 49ers though is simply because I think they're better. They definitely have more talent. The Ravens roster is excellent. The 49ers is arguably the best in the league. The Ravens offensive line has been spectacular since a re-shuffle in the playoffs that included bringing Bryant McKinnie in to start at left tackle and sliding Michael Oher over to the right side. That said, I think Aldon Smith at the very least gets some pressure and likely ends his 5 game sack drought. The pressure could make Flacco make his first mistake of the playoffs (8 td's, 0 int's) and Baltimore will need to score to keep up with San Francisco.

The 49ers offensive attack is still evolving and unlike the Ravens who are likely to just line up and play, San Fran will undoubtedly have some new wrinkles out of the pistol formation to confuse the Ravens defense. I've watched a ton of coverage this week and no one seems to have a good answer as to how to defend this thing and there's good reason why. It’s damn near impossible.

Some very smart defensive people have suggested "hit the quarterback on every play" when discussing the read option part of San Fran’s attack. Small problem with that – the 49ers don't run the read option every play.

The first of many problems when defending the read option is you don't know when it's coming. A defensive player has instincts he goes on and the option plays against those instincts. If a defensive end is used to firing off the ball to get after the quarterback, the offensive lineman will let that player do just that. The quarterback, in this case Colin Kaepernick, will read that guy coming at him and hand the ball off to the running back who will run right by him into a giant hole for a giant gain. 

Now the defensive lineman adjusts. He doesn't come firing off the ball, staying disciplined to the dive handoff (up the middle). If he guesses right and the play is a read option, Kaepernick keeps the ball and you're now in a foot race with one of the fastest players in the league to the outside. Ask the Packers how that went.

It's worth noting at this point that all read options are not the same. Sometimes the quarterback goes inside with the keeper. Sometimes the inside read means a handoff to the running back. When the ball is at the mesh point (when it's in both the QB's and RB's hands), the defense has to determine who's going where as it's impossible to tell pre-snap. We got all that? Good. Because now that we've covered both of those guys, San Fran will add a pitch man as a 3rd option and you're totally screwed. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see one of the new wrinkles we haven't seen much of yet to be Frank Gore and LaMichael James in the backfield together. The 49ers also often use a lead blocker on this play that you have to deal with. Remember too that the defense has to read all of this as it happens in no time at all while the offensive players all know what they’re doing before the ball is snapped putting them at least a step ahead.

So now that we've run through all these iterations of one play here's the fun part: they might not run that play.

Just because Colin Kaepernick lines up in the pistol doesn't mean he's running the option. He could go with a straight drop back and throw. Remember that defensive lineman who's no longer shooting off the ball? He's getting no pressure. The laser armed QB has all day to throw. That's if you're lucky because if he drops straight back, your entire defense can read pass. If Kaepernick goes to the mesh point, pulls the ball and then drops back off play-action, you're really screwed. Chances are your safeties bit on the run fake and your poor linebacker assigned to cover Vernon Davis is now staring at the 85 on the back of his jersey as he runs down the field with his 4.3 speed. The safety that was supposed to help him deep is being run by too thanks to the play-action fake and all Kaepernick has to do is hit a wide open 6'3" target.

Hitting the quarterback is a great strategy to defend the read option. The problem is, you don't know it's coming. 

As for the other side of the ball, the 49ers defense has to be tired of hearing how they are vulnerable to the big play and how good Baltimore is at making them. I expect the Ravens to hit one or two deep shots, but the 49ers get a stop when it matters and my official prediction is 35-28 San Francisco over Baltimore.

One last note - if the game comes down to the kickers, the Ravens statistically have an enormous advantage. David Akers has been atrocious this year while Justin Tucker has barely missed. Tucker is an undrafted rookie and Akers is a 14-year veteran who played in a Super Bowl with the Eagles. That said, one has been money and one shtoinked one off the upright last week in Atlanta so hard he looked visibly shaken. If there's a chance for Jim Harbaugh to go for it on 4th down and avoid a kick, I'd expect him to do it.

Enjoy the game and there will be a review podcast early this week. Also free plug for my Z89 boys who will be live postgame on Call It a Wrap. The Super Bowl shows were easily two of my favorites while I was there so show Fitz and Corey some love by tuning in here.

Podcast: Celtics lose Rondo

Brian Robb from CelticsHub.com joins me to explore what Rajon Rondo's injury means for Boston's plans, both present and future.



UPDATE (6:30 pm EST) - It was announced this afternoon that Jared Sullinger is out for the season. The rookie forward from Ohio State had back surgery Friday. If the season wasn't toast after Rondo went down, it is now as Sullinger has been a pleasant surprise for the Celtics. In the podcast, Brian mentions that General Manager Danny Ainge wanted to see how the young pieces played without Rondo. Some of the young bigs, potentially including former Syracuse center Fab Melo, will now have more minutes available as Sullinger had already worked his way into the starting lineup.