Jim Nantz vs. Gus Johnson: The Great College Basketball Broadcaster Debate

As the echo of the March Madness finale dies down, the monitoring of the afterglow has always been a fun practice for those of us who love the sports of college basketball. Social media has only provided more avenues for fans to speak their minds as the page turns in the sports seasons.

One of the hottest topics, however, has to do with the gentleman who, for the majority of recent history, has been charged with guiding the millions of TV viewers through the NCAA men's championship game, Jim Nantz, and his approach to calling one of the most dramatic events in American sport.

While some praise Jim's voice and smooth delivery, others decry a lack of passion and excitement.  The latter have since comprised a groundswell effort to get Gus Johnson, one of CBS' other top talents, to call the championship game for CBS instead.  Gus' energetic vernacular and choice vocabulary certainly make him one of the more entertaining broadcasters to listen to.

What emerges in the Nantz vs. Johnson debate is the meeting of two schools of sports broadcasting, that each has its passionate supporters and advocates.  Each one has its benefits and drawbacks, and allow me to describe each one so that you, dear reader, can perhaps add to the conversation.

The Minimalist School

In the 1998 NCAA Final Four program, there was an article written on Frank Fallon, who was, for the 21st and final year, serving as the public address announcer at the Final Four.  He mentioned in the article how if nobody had realized he was there, he had done his job.  At first, I thought that was odd, seeing as how he was being listened to by 41,000+ and millions on television as back then, the PA announcer's introduction of the starting lineups was the one used by television, but in a way, it makes a lot of sense.

The Minimalist School would attest that in a basketball game, the 10 players on the floor are the show, and it's merely the announcer's job to guide the audience through the show.  While details and description are important, the announcer must remember that he sees and hears everything the fan sees and hears, and that extemporaneous chatter can only get in the way of the fan experiencing the game.  

Nantz subscribes to this school, but two other broadcasters of note, Vin Scully (longtime Dodgers broadcaster) and Al Michaels (NBC) do as well.  From an early stage in his career, Vin was taught by mentor Red Barber to use crowd noise to help tell the story of the game, which is why he hardly screams at moments of high drama.  Al's call of the 1980 Miracle On Ice may often be remembered for the "Do You Believe in Miracles?" line, but it is also memorable for the fact that he let over two minutes of dead air pass as the cameras panned around the Olympic Center capturing shots of the team and fans.  He ended the silence with a fitting line, "No words, just pictures."

The "Bring the Hammer" Approach

Lets face it, sports broadcasting is an ultra-competitive, difficult business to get into, much less stay in.  Very few people get to make their livings as sports broadcasters, so those who want into the field or want a better place in it are always looking for ways to stand out.

As a result, certain broadcasters feel they need to deliver high-energy, well-worded calls in order to make sound bytes that will become part of the Sportscenter highlight reel.  So when a big moment occurs in a game, these broadcasters may very well yell, scream, and bellow what they think is a clever, snappy line into the microphone to match the excitement and drama of the moment.  In short, they "Bring the Hammer."

The many times Gus has done this are so eloquently summarized on this soundboard , and also in his calling of the drama-filled battle between UCLA and Gonzaga in their 2006 regional semifinal game.  For a time as well, Matt Vasgersian embodied this approach as the Padres TV announcer, as does Chargers radio man Josh Lewin.  

So which approach is the right one?

While I like some of the lines Gus has delivered in the past, I find myself favoring the minimalist approach more.  However, today's sports fan, thanks to endless television and Internet coverage available, may need the ummph of a hammer-esque broadcaster to help bring out the excitement (especially with that experience becoming more prevalent than actually attending a game, where the minimalist approach prevails more often the way most public address announcers work).  The debate of Nantz vs. Johnson embodies the clash between these approaches, which is why this has been one of the hot topics in the aftermath of Monday's thrilling NCAA championship game.