ESPN's College Basketball Analysts

Every March, ESPN's college basketball analysts provide incompetent arguments when it comes to which teams should've made the tournament and which shouldn't have. This year most argued that Colorado and Virginia Tech should've been in, while VCU and UAB should've been out.

The selection committee made a clear and consistent statement with these exclusions. Both Colorado and Virginia Tech played weak non-conference schedules. In past years, most analysts, especially Dick Vitale, would condemn a team for playing a weak non-conference schedule. This year, it was a non-factor in Vitale's mind. The inconsistency is bothersome.

Meanwhile, VCU beat UCLA this season. The analysts didn't mentioned it. VCU also beat George Mason and ODU. Somehow these wins were discounted by ESPN's analysts. It's because there's a bias against mid-major schools at ESPN. Colorado and Virginia Tech were constantly being lauded for playing in a tough conference. What is the Colonial, chop liver? Jay Bilas went on the record saying he watched Mason and they're a good team. It was said in a way as if the others hadn't seen Mason play, which was probably true.

The analysts also claimed that these "less-deserving" teams could win in the tournament. That's not what they're saying. They're saying other teams deserve to be in instead, partly based on the eye test. But if the "less-deserving" teams can win in the tournament, isn't that part of the eye test? I think "eye test" is a pseudonym for "school from a power conference."

One analyst argued that RPI should not be a factor. It should be determined by who you play and who you beat. Not by whom you play and who they played and beat. But that's nonsensical. How would you know how good a team that you played is unless you know who they played and beat?

I know! If they're in a power conference, then they're good and if they're a mid-major, then they're bad. Maybe ESPN will hire me now.