PDA

View Full Version : ESPN basketball analysts


tk13
03-13-2006, 04:29 PM
This is the most pointless exercise ever. I mean obviously it's hard to pick the brackets. But every year you see these ESPN analysts predict the first round games and they just all predict the higher seeds across the board. Digger Phelps just broke down half the first round games, and I think he picked two lower seeds to win... one was a 9 seed Wisconsin and the other was 10 seed Seton Hall beating Wichita State. The brackets never hold together that well. Yet he does it every year. Why? Take a chance!

ROYC75
03-13-2006, 04:32 PM
Because experts don't think the smaller schools have a very good chance against the bigger schools.

Rain Man
03-13-2006, 04:33 PM
By definition, shouldn't the higher seed always be expected to win? I know that upsets are common, but if you're an analyst who's playing the odds, it's common sense to pick the higher seed.

Short Leash Hootie
03-13-2006, 04:36 PM
when was the last time Dickie V didn't pick AT LEAST 3 #1 seeds to get to the final four?!

And if all 4 weren't the #1's, you can bank on them being 3's or lower.

I like Jay Bilas, that's about it.

tk13
03-13-2006, 04:41 PM
Digger just did the Oakland bracket. Only upset he had there was 9 seed Bucknell beating Arkansas.

I understand being "safe" but there's gonna be way more than a couple 9 seeds and a 10 seed as the only upsets in the first round.

ROYC75
03-13-2006, 04:42 PM
My bracket only has 1 # 1 team in the Final Four.


Villanova .......

tk13
03-13-2006, 04:45 PM
Now he did the Atlanta bracket... he had UNC Wilmington as the 9 seed as the only upset. So according to Digger, we'll have three 9 seeds and a 10 seed Seton Hall as the only lower seeds advancing. It's almost an insult to my intelligence. What a waste of time. I figure as an "analyst" the job's not to play it safe but to use your basketball knowledge to tell me who is going to advance.

Saulbadguy
03-13-2006, 05:02 PM
Digger is and idiot.

SLAG
03-13-2006, 05:04 PM
My Bracket has No #1 Team in the Final 4

Cochise
03-13-2006, 05:08 PM
Now he did the Atlanta bracket... he had UNC Wilmington as the 9 seed as the only upset. So according to Digger, we'll have three 9 seeds and a 10 seed Seton Hall as the only lower seeds advancing. It's almost an insult to my intelligence. What a waste of time. I figure as an "analyst" the job's not to play it safe but to use your basketball knowledge to tell me who is going to advance.

I agree with your sentiment that there will be upsets, but as far as calling individual upsets, how can you ever bank on one? The definiton of upset is that it's unexpected.

I guess I don't get them picking every game either because there's no way for it to look meaningful. They should just present little capsules on their upset picks, and not go to the trouble of telling us that Duke will have no trouble with NW Bunghole State.

Ceej
03-13-2006, 05:14 PM
For me, I actually have WSU making the sweet 16. *blush*

SLAG
03-13-2006, 05:15 PM
For me, I actually have WSU making the sweet 16. *blush*

I have them making the Eliete Eight

58-4ever
03-13-2006, 05:19 PM
My Bracket has No #1 Team in the Final 4

You are going to lose your money

Saulbadguy
03-13-2006, 05:22 PM
WSU is losing in the first round.

SLAG
03-13-2006, 05:22 PM
You are going to lose your money
I have 3 #4 Seeds and One #2

Ceej
03-13-2006, 05:24 PM
I respect your opinion Saul, I don't agree with it however. :)

lightsout04
03-13-2006, 05:30 PM
Watch for the 5 and 12 seed upset. Pitt may lose first round.

Ceej
03-13-2006, 05:32 PM
I think the only upset pick I chose was UW-Milwaukee over OU.

Bearcat
03-13-2006, 05:46 PM
By definition, shouldn't the higher seed always be expected to win? I know that upsets are common, but if you're an analyst who's playing the odds, it's common sense to pick the higher seed.


By definition, yes.... OTOH, if you're going with history and say, the odds of one 12 advancing over a 5, then you should at least go out on a limb with a 12.... granted, picking all the 5s to advance would be better than picking one 12 and it ends up being the wrong 12, but it's pointless to "analyze" and then come to the conclusion that all but a couple of high seeds will advance. Especially not this year. Not having lots of upsets this year would be incredibly weird, IMO.

lightsout04
03-13-2006, 05:51 PM
I wouldn't pick Syracuse to lose. They are on a roll. I think they will get to the Sweet 16

HolmeZz
03-13-2006, 05:57 PM
Upset Alerts:

Texas A&M over Syracuse
UW-Milwaukee over Oklahoma
South Alabama over Florida
Montana over Nevada
Xavier over Gonzaga

Honestly, I think there can be quite a few upsets. The field is very wide open.

lightsout04
03-13-2006, 06:10 PM
I think their might be a No. 2 upset. I think UCLA might lose to Belmont or Tennessee might lose to Winthrop.

DJay23
03-13-2006, 07:00 PM
Hubert Davis has Kansas in the Championship game.

tk13
03-13-2006, 07:08 PM
Upset Alerts:

Texas A&M over Syracuse
UW-Milwaukee over Oklahoma
South Alabama over Florida
Montana over Nevada
Xavier over Gonzaga

Honestly, I think there can be quite a few upsets. The field is very wide open.
I agree. I haven't really officially filled in any of my brackets yet... but I just look over it and I could see it being a real mess. I think all of the #1 and #2 seeds are vulnerable, and early on in the tournament.

Skip Towne
03-13-2006, 07:23 PM
The analyists are all employed as analyists because they have demonstrated some degree of acumen at some level of college basketball. But none of them can pick winners with any degree af accuracy. If they could they would be gamblers and not have to work for a living. We even have geniouses here on the Planet that try to prognosticate outcomes and I can honestly say I haven't seen a one of them that is any better than any other poster. Both in football and basketball.

banyon
03-13-2006, 07:32 PM
ESPN guys just pick the teams that they cover and watch all of the time.