Digger Phelps = Worst Analyst Ever

[Montana Gym Rat]

Wow. His absolute close mindedness really showed up today. Whenever they talk about any mid-major team who deserves some at-large consideration, he slams them non-stop. I don't know what his problem is with teams from the Colonial or Missouri Valley, but he dislikes them for some reason.

His arguments have no credibility because he's unwilling to actually consider that some of these teams might be in the top 35 - 40 in the nation. I'm ready for ESPN to can his hideous ties and pompous waving highlighter.

Analysts should be unbiased and give insightful perspectives. If it was up to Digger, any team that got 6 wins in the ACC, Big East or Big Ten would automatically be in. What a friggin' homer.

 

[Montana Gym Rat]

Here are two teams who are being considered for at-large bids:


Team 1:
RPI - 19
SOS - 46
OOC RPI - 6
Record vs Top 50: 4-8
Best Wins: @23, 27, 36, 40, @52
Worst Losses: @45, @40, @36
Best Non-Conf Win: @52


Team 2:
RPI - 48
SOS - 61
OOC RPI - 78
Record vs Top 50: 3-5
Best Wins: @30, 38, 47, @55
Worst Losses: @156, @84, 84
Best Non-Conf Win: 38


I'd like for somebody to argue how Team 2 is somehow actually better than Team 1. It's impossible to do. But Digger would cry blashpemy if you seeded Team 1 ahead of Team 2.

Why?

Team 1 is Missouri State and Team 2 is North Carolina State.

 

[Montana Gym Rat]

Example 2:

Team 3:
RPI - 29
SOS - 129
OOC RPI - 62
Record vs Top 50: 3-2
Best Wins: 25, 26, 26, @69
Worst Losses: @221, @95, @90, @82
Best Non-Conf Win: @105


Team 4:
RPI - 56
SOS - 70
OOC RPI - 127
Record vs Top 50: 3-4
Best Wins: 12, @20, 32, @37
Worst Losses: @304, 180, 175, 89
Best Non-Conf Win: 57

This one is actually pretty tough between both teams. But you could easily argue that both teams are pretty similar. They both have strengths and weaknesses on their resumes.

The point is that both deserve the same amount of respect and at-large consideration. Team 3 is Hofstra and Team 4 is California.

Cal's a lock, and Hofstra shouldn't even be mentioned according to Digger.

 

[Unwrittengriz]

MGR you just have to take everything the guy says w/a grain of salt. Before the Big East tourney started all he could he talk about was how Notre Dame was gonna take the tourney one game at a time & would be in the final. Give me a break.

 

[CerealCityGriz]

I have never been big onb Digger. I love watching Tom Brennan and Doug Gottlieb. Brennan know what its like to be a small school and has more insight than Digger in my opinion.

 

[griz8791]

Wow. His absolute close mindedness really showed up today. Whenever they talk about any mid-major team who deserves some at-large consideration, he slams them non-stop. . . . If it was up to Digger, any team that got 6 wins in the ACC, Big East or Big Ten would automatically be in. What a friggin' homer.

It's not just Digger Phelps, it's the whole industry. They think it's a joke the NCAA extends autobids to podunk conferences like the Big Sky.

It would be interesting to see a survey of a statistically valid sample of average Americans about when they quit paying attention to the NCAA tournament. I imagine close to half only pay attention to the first two rounds to see whether Cinderellas knock off the kinds of teams Digger Phelps thinks are the only teams that should be invited at all.

 

[CatzWillRise]

I watch for upsets, and maybe a few marquee matchups here and there, and I catch the final about half the time maybe.

 

[pburggrizz]

Wow. His absolute close mindedness really showed up today. Whenever they talk about any mid-major team who deserves some at-large consideration, he slams them non-stop. . . . If it was up to Digger, any team that got 6 wins in the ACC, Big East or Big Ten would automatically be in. What a friggin' homer.

It's not just Digger Phelps, it's the whole industry. They think it's a joke the NCAA extends autobids to podunk conferences like the Big Sky.

It would be interesting to see a survey of a statistically valid sample of average Americans about when they quit paying attention to the NCAA tournament. I imagine close to half only pay attention to the first two rounds to see whether Cinderellas knock off the kinds of teams Digger Phelps thinks are the only teams that should be invited at all.

I agree with you. Did anyone hear Dickie V during the ACC semis today saying that teams in the ACC and the Big East that win at least 6 confernence games deserve a place in the big dance. Its a bunch of bull crap. The Big Sky don't stand a chance in the tourney. They are usually a #16 seed and always play the #1 team in the tourney. No wonder the Big Sky's record in the NCAA tourny is so bad. But then again I guess you might as well play the best team. I hope we get the Zags because I don't think we match up with UCLA very well.

 

[grizband]

Here are two teams who are being considered for at-large bids:


Team 1:
RPI - 19
SOS - 46
OOC RPI - 6
Record vs Top 50: 4-8
Best Wins: @23, 27, 36, 40, @52
Worst Losses: @45, @40, @36
Best Non-Conf Win: @52


Team 2:
RPI - 48
SOS - 61
OOC RPI - 78
Record vs Top 50: 3-5
Best Wins: @30, 38, 47, @55
Worst Losses: @156, @84, 84
Best Non-Conf Win: 38


I'd like for somebody to argue how Team 2 is somehow actually better than Team 1. It's impossible to do. But Digger would cry blashpemy if you seeded Team 1 ahead of Team 2.

Why?

Team 1 is Missouri State and Team 2 is North Carolina State.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the at-large selections were done this way? Keep the auto-bids, but then when selecting the at-larges, only look at their ratings, not their names.