Well they cant constantly talk about Zion Williamson if they aren't constantly talking about the ACCJust in general I thought ESPN's coverage last night was sub par. They really didn't do a lot of analysis or dark horse talk. It was all about the 1's and 2's and that's it.
Well they do have 3 #1 seeds. I'm certain 70% of their viewers are on the East Coast.
Wth should they be talking about? 10 seed Minnesota? 9 seed Oklahoma? the piss poor Pac 12?
Hell, the best Big 12 team is 3 seed Texas Tech, from big ol Lubbock.
Individual game anylasis would be nice... not much to ask imo
Just in general I thought ESPN's coverage last night was sub par. They really didn't do a lot of analysis or dark horse talk. It was all about the 1's and 2's and that's it.
It doesn't, but it's the day after the brackets are released, they're gonna be talking about the top teams. Hard to sit there and talk up a lower seeded team when there's a decent chance they don't make it out of the first round.How often does the tournament go chalk? That's the main point...
Well they do have 3 #1 seeds. I'm certain 70% of their viewers are on the East Coast.
Wth should they be talking about? 10 seed Minnesota? 9 seed Oklahoma? the piss poor Pac 12?
Hell, the best Big 12 team is 3 seed Texas Tech, from big ol Lubbock.
Ok... so you're saying that espn should talk more about Big 12 because of this stat?The tournament isn't just about the top seeded teams nor is a conference just it's top few members.
Sure, the acc is elite at the top, but not as deep as the big 12. 80% of the big 12 is in the kenpom top 50. Only 60% for the ACC. 20% of the ACC is sub-100, 0% of the big 12.
Welcome to ESPN’s (and CBS’s) Bracketology coverage every year, where the 1s and 2s (along with a stray 3 here and there) are projected into the Elite 8, an ACC team or Kentucky is projected to win the title, where they spend a half hour segment polishing Calipari’s knob, and where hot take upsets in the first two rounds that don’t affect their chosen favorites reign supreme. Where Bilas (whose opinion I actually respect a ton for a Dookie) and other “name” analysts anticipate ISU to be the most dangerous team in the Midwest, and then the “no-name” analysts that take over the show after the first hour, pick OSU to upset ISU without second thought other than “they had a terrible February”, completely choosing to not acknowledge how they ran the Big 12 out of KC in March.
I learned a long time ago that if you use any of these programs to help make your picks you’re doing it wrong, and I really only watch lately just to see how stupid the analysts are going to be this year.
How often does the tournament go chalk? That's the main point...
You're not wrong. But if there's a year where chalk can be expected, it's this year. Haven't the 1s and 2s been decided for a really long time? Isn't there really a lot of separation between them and the rest of the field for once?How often does the tournament go chalk? That's the main point...