ESPN Needs to Clean House...

[mantonio]

jay is entitled to his opinion. And it's a fair opinion. kentucky and UNC are very good mantonio.

Nobody is saying those teams arent very good, I am simply comparing them to a Syracuse team who has NO LOSSES when they are at full strength.

No other team can say that, & I expect a full analysis from ESPN, supposedly the best sports network...

 

[br801]

I want more in depth analysis than ESPN is providing, & because they are the network most fans watch, they have a responsibility to be the BEST at providing COMPLETE analysis.

Make yourself comfortable because you'll be waiting a long time for that to happen.

 

[NKR1978]

It's the lack of respect that Syracuse seems to get every year, despite their achievements. I have no problem with the fans of other teams downplaying Syracuse, because they should be biased for their programs, but the media should set higher standards for themselves, & do their diligence to get the proper information disseminated to the public.

Looking at all the numbers, Syracuse is slightly better than Kentucky right now. We can't measure them head to head yet, so all we have is the compilation of data from their season performance. I notice the pundits didn't put up the charts for these two teams like they do with the bubble teams, showing SOS, RPI, good wins, bad losses, etc...

They also don't mention the fact that Syracuse's only loss was really not the Syracuse team at full strength. Kentucky lost their game at full strength.

I want more in depth analysis than ESPN is providing, & because they are the network most fans watch, they have a responsibility to be the BEST at providing COMPLETE analysis.

How does one perform due diligence on their own opinion?

UNC has all the pieces to be a great team. They put it together and c***slapped a legit top 10 team in Duke. Taking that into consideration shows a higher level of analysis than simply parroting the records and rankings and saying Team A has more wins and fewer losses, as such they must be better than Team B.

 

[jncuse]

Your going to counter the point based on the RPI. Seriously?

 

[mantonio]

How does one perform due diligence on their own opinion?

UNC has all the pieces to be a great team. They put it together and c***slapped a legit top 10 team in Duke. Taking that into consideration shows a higher level of analysis than simply parroting the records and rankings and saying Team A has more wins and fewer losses, as such they must be better than Team B.

You can't do your diligence if you stating your opinion WITHOUT showing all the facts of the case. It would bee like a prosecutor saying, "the defendant is guilty," without showing any evidence... how will that verdict turn out?

A good analysis would be for them to put out the facts, then say, "according to all the numbers, Syracuse appears to be the best team."

If they want to add their own opinion afterwards, that would be fine, but to simply make an assertion based on insufficient information is irresponsible.

 

[jekelish]

But it's not according to all the facts, because the facts have to include the polls.
Kentucky has been #1 for some time, and their resume has very few holes.
You can't clearly state we are better than they are.
So the door for the top overall spot is rightfully ajar.

 

[NKR1978]

You can't do your diligence if you stating your opinion WITHOUT showing all the facts of the case. It would bee like a prosecutor saying, "the defendant is guilty," without showing any evidence... how will that verdict turn out?

A good analysis would be for them to put out the facts, then say, "according to all the numbers, Syracuse appears to be the best team."

If they want to add their own opinion afterwards, that would be fine, but to simply make an assertion based on insufficient information is irresponsible.

Guilt isn't subjective. Deciding which basketball team is better at a specific moment when they have not played each other is entirely subjective.

 

[mantonio]

In virtually EVERY statistical category, Syracuse has better numbers than UNC & Kentucky.

In addition, the icing on the cake is:

Syracuse is undefeated at full strength

That is a very strong precipitator of who should be #1 right now. Syracuse is CLEARLY the #1 team in America at this point.

If they should lose at MSG, then you can make a strong argument for Kentucky if they win out in the SEC Tourney. If Kentucky loses again, then we are right back to square one.

 

[PoppyHart]

But it's not according to all the facts, because the facts have to include the polls.
Kentucky has been #1 for some time, and their resume has very few holes.
You can't clearly state we are better than they are.
So the door for the top overall spot is rightfully ajar.

My favorite color is orange
My second favorite color is purple
Nothing else rhymes is orange
But I can kind get away with purple nurple.

 

[mantonio]

Guilt isn't subjective. Deciding which basketball team is better at a specific moment when they have not played each other is entirely subjective.

In absence of head to head data, there is a degree of uncertainty, however, we do have other information that can suggest who has the advantage. My argument is, ESPN pundits are not using ANY of the available data to make an informed opinion.

Again, if these commentators feel that Kentucky & UNC are better teams than Syracuse, they are welcome to say it, but if they want any credibility, they MUST present all the facts that would support their argument. Because all the facts actually go against their argument, they are taking the cowardly & dishonest approach when stating their beliefs.

Also, a good reporter presents all information, then lets the viewer decide. I have yet to see any of this complete analysis by ESPN. It's just 2 or 3 guys sitting at a news desk ranting about how talented Kentucky is...

NOT GOOD ENOUGH...

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

Mantonio, were you dropped on your guitar as an adult?

 

[NKR1978]

In absence of head to head data, there is a degree of uncertainty, however, we do have other information that can suggest who has the advantage. My argument is, ESPN pundits are not using ANY of the available data to make an informed opinion.

Again, if these commentators feel that Kentucky & UNC are better teams than Syracuse, they are welcome to say it, but if they want any credibility, they MUST present all the facts that would support their argument. Because all the facts actually go against their argument, they are taking the cowardly & dishonest approach when stating their beliefs.

Also, a good reporter presents all information, then lets the viewer decide. I have yet to see any of this complete analysis by ESPN. It's just 2 or 3 guys sitting at a news desk ranting about how talented Kentucky is...

NOT GOOD ENOUGH...

By and large the ESPN personalities are just there to give there opinion. They're not really journalists.

 

[PoppyHart]

In absence of head to head data, there is a degree of uncertainty, however, we do have other information that can suggest who has the advantage. My argument is, ESPN pundits are not using ANY of the available data to make an informed opinion.

Again, if these commentators feel that Kentucky & UNC are better teams than Syracuse, they are welcome to say it, but if they want any credibility, they MUST present all the facts that would support their argument. Because all the facts actually go against their argument, they are taking the cowardly & dishonest approach when stating their beliefs.

Also, a good reporter presents all information, then lets the viewer decide. I have yet to see any of this complete analysis by ESPN. It's just 2 or 3 guys sitting at a news desk ranting about how talented Kentucky is...

NOT GOOD ENOUGH...

If we waited to present all the facts, these halftime "water cooler" topics would take hours. This isn't Matlock.

 

[mantonio]

It takes 5 seconds to put up charts & show the facts.

It takes 10 seconds for EACH commentator to state a fact with clarity. These people are supposedly college educated professionals, & they can't find a way to present a concise analysis within 3 to 5 minutes?

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

Why not mock up some graphs they can use and email them to the cbb desk? Maybe link them to this thread for an explanation ? I think you can impact change here.

 

[memcorsu]

No more rhymes I mean it
Anybody want a peanut?

Signed in just to give you a +1. RIP Andre a true gentle giant.

 

[mantonio]

Signed in just to give you a +1. RIP Andre a true gentle giant.

INCONTHEIVABLE !!!

 

[mantonio]

I just sent a Tweet to Jay Williams & ESPN to straighten them out.

A press conference is forthcoming...

 

[UnderHisOwnPower]

It takes 5 seconds to put up charts & show the facts.

It takes 10 seconds for EACH commentator to state a fact with clarity. These people are supposedly college educated professionals, & they can't find a way to present a concise analysis within 3 to 5 minutes?

Might I suggest the use of the Mute button? You can practice your arpeggios while watching instead of listening to those jock sniffers.

 

[br801]

In virtually EVERY statistical category, Syracuse has better numbers than UNC & Kentucky.

In addition, the icing on the cake is:

Syracuse is undefeated at full strength

That is a very strong precipitator of who should be #1 right now. Syracuse is CLEARLY the #1 team in America at this point.

If they should lose at MSG, then you can make a strong argument for Kentucky if they win out in the SEC Tourney. If Kentucky loses again, then we are right back to square one.

Please, I'm begging you to stop. Why do you care so much about this? It means absolutely nothing. Syracuse and Kentucky will be the top two overall seeds.

 

[mantonio]

I am averse to shoddy journalism.

It's not rocket science. I have already outlined the process which takes the same amount of time & energy they spent vetting the bubble teams...

 

[mantonio]

Please, I'm begging you to stop. Why do you care so much about this? It means absolutely nothing. Syracuse and Kentucky will be the top two overall seeds.

You are incorrect. it means much more than you know.

From a journalistic standpoint, it is amateur hour on ESPN.

From a fairness perspective, their glaring favortism of certain programs, & condescention towards Syracuse must be dragged into the light of day, kicking & screaming. Do you want Syracuse to continue being considered the red headed stepchild of College sports? Syracuse doesn't deserve such a designation, & it's time we put a stop to it.

It's important that we hold these pundits accountable for their obvious bias & lack of attention to detail.

 

[br801]

I am averse to shoddy journalism.

It's not rocket science. I have already outlined the process which takes the same amount of time & energy they spent vetting the bubble teams...

If you're averse to shoddy journalism, your energy would be better spent railing against the coverage of the off-court stories surrounding this team.

 

[jncuse]

KenPom, Sagarin and the Human Poll says Kentucky is well ahead of us. But yet, the RPI rules in your mind - really, the RPI???. What are these statistical categories you speak of in which we are clearly better then UK and UNC?

Just because an analyst makes an observation that UK is the best team right now (which I completely agree with) doesn't mean they are idiots or bad analysts. There is plenty of data out there to support that opinion (both subjective and objective) but its painfully clear you refuse to listen. And yes there is some data that supports Syracuse as well.

At the end of the day we have a chance to prove that we are better on the floor and we are in a good situation entering the tournament. And that is all that matters.

 

[jekelish]

Seriously, it doesn't matter what the pundits say.
All that matters is how we play.
As long as out on the court we get the job done,
We'll end the season as the real number one.