Doesn't ESPN check any facts?

[DobbsRover2]

During the selection show the ESPN announcers noted that a certain group of teams that included Louisville had all been 1-4 seeds last year. Okay, wrong, but who but people with weird brains remembers any of that type of minutia?

But now we get a Beth-Deb-Maria-Brooke show on ESPN about the expected UConn-ND showdown that is a decent enough analysis though ND again seems to be tired of being overshadowed by UConn and failing in the tourney against the Huskies (um, who has won 3 of 4 UConn-ND semis meetings?). And apparently the key for an ND win is just stopping Stewie, and we already know that's impossible, so why even play this tourney?

But the glaring statement that Beth leads off the show with is the one that is either an incomplete irritation or wrong, depending on how it's meant. "A battle of unbeatens in men's or women's history. Two perfect teams playing for a national championship has never happened." Absolutely right that no matchup of two unbeaten teams has occurred in an NC game, and since ESPN is skirting over 5 rounds of the 2014 to make sure they can get their UConn-ND preview in now in case the meeting gets derailed along the way, it might make sense to say the titan battle never happened before in the NC game, where this year it would need to happen.

But of course it is not true that it has never happened that two undefeated teams entered the women's tournament hoping for a national title, and that they played each other. It just happened in a first round game, and in the same year that a #16 seed team beat a #1 seed team when Harvard knocked off Stanford. Back in 1998 a #16 Liberty at 28-0 (gotta be the best ever record for a #16 seed, and the last rated one at that) squared of against #1 seed UTenn at 33-0, and the score was pretty much a 1-16 type at 102-58 for the Vols.

Was Liberty really playing for a national championship as a #16 seed? Well, you gotta have dreams, don't you?

 

[ThisJustIn]

I guess you can get het up about that if you'd like -- but then are you going to berate anyone who looks ahead at possible matchups? It's what folks do!
http://espn.go.com/womens-college-b...connecticut-huskies-notre-dame-fighting-irish
FYI Mechelle addressed the "perfect" thang:

Perfect approach for UConn, ND
Of course, the two undefeated teams in this year's NCAA women's tournament are in opposite halves of the bracket, with the potential for an epic national championship game April 8 in Nashville, Tenn.

There have been seven undefeated champions in women's basketball in the NCAA era, which began in the 1981-82 season. Four of them were UConn teams: 1995, 2002, 2009 and 2010. The others were Texas (1986), Tennessee (1998) and Baylor (2012).

Interestingly enough, though, the only other time there were two unbeaten teams entering NCAA women's tournament play, they actually did meet in the opening round.

 

[DavidK]

To answer your question, no.... At least not for womens basketball

I cant name the exact game or announcer but it was two ACC teams playing and they were talkong about 2006 when three ACC teams (Duke UNC and NC winner maryland) all made the final four and no other confrence has ever done it......

I had to rewind to make sure i heard it right cause just last year it happened with Uconn Notre Dame and Louisville of the Big East.

Dont understand how that gets said by anyone who covers womensbasketball as part of his/her job

 

[DobbsRover2]

To answer your question, no.... At least not for womens basketball

I cant name the exact game or announcer but it was two ACC teams playing and they were talkong about 2006 when three ACC teams (Duke UNC and NC winner maryland) all made the final four and no other confrence has ever done it.

I had to rewind to make sure i heard it right cause just last year it happened with Uconn Notre Dame and Louisville of the Big East.

Dont understand how that gets said by anyone who covers womensbasketball as part of his/her job

It's so easy for ESPN pundits to forget about the Big East, as they did everything they could to bury it. But we are lucky if 50% of what is said on the network makes any sense.

 

[FairView]

What bothers me most about inaccuracies and the overdone hype is when they occur at tournament time when there are more casual viewers. These viewers accept the commentary as accurate and form opinions and impressions from it. Then I find myself in a conversation with people, like my misogynistic brother-in-law, trying telling me I'm wrong because he heard it on ESPN. That conversation eventually ends with his declaration that he doesn't really care anyway because it's women's basketball and he can't believe people actually pay to watch it ….. Holy carp, I'm getting myself worked up just thinking about it….Let's play the games!!!

 

[HoopsFan21]

What bothers me most about inaccuracies and the overdone hype is when they occur at tournament time when there are more casual viewers. These viewers accept the commentary as accurate and form opinions and impressions from it. Then I find myself in a conversation with people, like my misogynistic brother-in-law, trying telling me I'm wrong because he heard it on ESPN. That conversation eventually ends with his declaration that he doesn't really care anyway because it's women's basketball and he can't believe people actually pay to watch it ….. Holy carp, I'm getting myself worked up just thinking about it….Let's play the games!!!

Ah yes. Sounds like your brother in law is the ol' I'm-a-big-sports-junky-that-thinks-watching-women-is-beneath-him-but-I-still-know-everything-about-sports-because-I-watch-SportsCenter-every-day with the bruised ego that can't admit that they are wrong and don't actually know everything. Those types of arguments always end the same with instead of an admission of maybe being wrong, they just end it with "who cares it's women's basketball." My only response to that is "umm apparently you do?"

 

[DobbsRover2]

Well, at least ESPN heaps its misstatements equally on the women and the men. A very unimpressive Bruce Pearl (how does ESPN dig up their commentators) discussing the huge upset of Duke says that the Devils lost despite making 17 three-pointers (Mercer only had 5), an incredible difference in perimeter points. Of course it was 15 instead, still a big gap, but Bruce clearly doesn't check his box scores.

 

[ndmb]

Well, at least ESPN heaps its misstatements equally on the women and the men. A very unimpressive Bruce Pearl (how does ESPN dig up their commentators) discussing the huge upset of Duke says that the Devils lost despite making 17 three-pointers (Mercer only had 5), an incredible difference in perimeter points. Of course it was 15 instead, still a big gap, but Bruce clearly doesn't check his box scores.

Really? If you were speaking on ESPN, you'd never get a number slightly wrong?

EDIT: seems to me like Bruce Pearl did check the box score, used it in his analysis, and slightly misremembered a fact because the slightly inaccurate fact didn't contradict his analysis.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Really? If you were speaking on ESPN, you'd never get a number slightly wrong?

EDIT: seems to me like Bruce Pearl did check the box score, used it in his analysis, and slightly misremembered a fact because the slightly inaccurate fact didn't contradict his analysis.

Um, okay, if you're in to Pearl's banalities, I guess he's your thing. And if the box score plainly says 15 and you sound off with the 17 total, I guess that's also okay, because like who cares about the stats, it's somewhere in the ballpark. Whatever, I guess we all have different standards about accuracy.

I know there are many people who have reading difficulties and screw up even the easiest numbers. I just don't know if they necessarily are the best people to be blathering on national television, especially when they have a rather sordid past at UTenn. But you and of course sawx (who never forgets a number unless he doesn't like it) can indeed put on the Pearls.

 

[alexrgct]

No, but they do check for any email or voice messages.