Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

18. Re: Out of the Blue Sep 4, 2013, 16:29 Creston
 
1badmf wrote on Sep 4, 2013, 16:16:
man i've always felt the vast majority professional analysts were idiots. here's my chance to prove it. i'm in.

It's not really so much that they're idiots (at least most of them aren't,) but that a straight up pick of "Team A is a better team, ergo, Team A will win," doesn't fill the two fucking hours of time they have to kill during their shitty-ass talk show. So they "analyze" the matchup and come up with some "well, IF this happens, then team B has a chance!" scenario.

And then, in order to make that actually believable, some guys have to pick team B, because otherwise you're just making shit up. (which is exactly what they're doing, but they have to hide that.)

Pretty much everyone who played at Blues last year beat every one of the "experts", simply because we go "Team A better than Team B. Team A wins." for 99% of our picks. I haven't really watched the NFL in about two years, with the exception of the playoffs, so all my picks were done based on which team was good two years ago. And I think I still picked about 75% correct.


An excellent example of this was the 2007 World Series between the Red Sox and the Rockies. The Rockies had caught on fire in their last 20 games of the season, and kept that momentum going all through the NLDS and NLCS. So then came the World Series, and in order to not have everyone write the same article, some writers were told "Come up with some reasons why the Rockies will win the World Series."

Everyone with half a brain saw a great playing Red Sox team with excellent pitching and the most patient lineup in the league versus a "caught fire at the right time" Rockies with pitchers who threw shit and hoped to get hitters swinging at it, and three good players, and knew the Rockies would be lucky to win a single game.

But the writers couldn't all write "Well, it's going to be a massacre. The Red Sox will terminate the Rockies." because nobody would be reading that for a week straight. So they had to sell the idea that the Rockies could win. Oh, how they struggled to come up with those reasons.

Jim Caple was one of the guys who admitted later (in a chat with some fans on ESPN) that he didn't believe the Rockies stood a chance, he was just told to write that.

It's the same for the NFL "analysts." They're not there to provide in-depth analysis of an NFL game. They're there to attract viewers for two hours so ESPN/FOX/CBS can make more advertising money.

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 2013, 16:35.
 
Avatar 15604
 
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

Blue's News logo