ESPN's Myron Medcalf 0/10 in Sweet 16 Predictions
Given ESPN's consistent undervaluing of Michigan this tournament, I thought it would be fun to take a look back at ESPN "analyst" Myron Medcalf's "10 bold predictions for the Sweet 16" published last week. Here we go:
1. "Louisville over Kentucky by double digits"
-Kentucky won 74-69
2. "Johnny Dawkins (Stanford) to the Elite Eight"
-Dayton won 82-72
3. "Cuonzo Marton, too."
-Michigan won 73-71
4. "Dayton-Stanford will be the best game of the weekend."
-Dayton led nearly the entire game and won by double digits.
5. "Naz Long will be the difference in Iowa State-UConn."
-Long had 7 points, 0 assists, and 4 fouls in a loss to UConn
6. "UCLA will push Florida to the brink."
-Florida led the entire second half and won by double digits.
7. "Overtime for San Diego State-Arizona."
-Nope.
8. "Isaiah Austin's big night will power Baylor past Wisconsin."
-Austin scored 12 points on 5-12 shooting in a 17-point loss.
9. "The Vols will go down swinging against Louisville in an Elite Eight thriller."
-Yikes.
10. "Tom Izzo's Final Four streak will end."
-While this technically may still happen, the prediction was that the streak would end from a loss to Virginia. Wrong.
While I'm usually not one to follow the media-bashing trend, this is an epic and hilarious amount of fail. Literally every single prediction has been wrong. Classic ESPN.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
I mean even Skip Bayless gets some predictions right when he flings poo out of his cage at a dartboard
March 29th, 2014 at 12:20 PM ^
March 29th, 2014 at 12:20 PM ^
March 29th, 2014 at 12:21 PM ^
If these people have more insight than the rest of us because of the access they have or the time they've spent around a specific game then there is no indication of it. Clark Kellogg is great example. That guy sounds like a moran compared to Kenny. He has no ability to break anything down and seems as though he has no real understanding of basketball when seated next to the jet. Don't even get me started on the guys who all went to the Jim Rome school of over pronunciation. Either most people are idiots that they have to placate to or they're part of that crowd.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:40 PM ^
Can't get enough of dropping the casual moran, excellent work.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
... is the McDonald's of sports journalism.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
Love love love!!!!
March 29th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
Nope 0/10. In his post he says in the last prediction "So the streak will be over for Izzo as Virginia advances to the Elite Eight."
What a hack.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:25 PM ^
March 29th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^
Oh. He originally said 0/9. I didn't know he changed his post.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^
Didn't catch that. Fixed.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:24 PM ^
March 29th, 2014 at 12:25 PM ^
FIRE ALL THE ANALYSTS!!!
March 29th, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^
The average media person making predictions/doing commentary is a complete idiot. The people who are actually good at predicting this stuff are rarely if ever given a major media platform from which to do so because they aren't an ex-player, coach or major reporter.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^
This is what I don't get. There are people out there who are extremely good at evaluating match ups and predicting outcomes. Would it really be that hard for ESPN to bring in a retired bookmaker or gambling pro to do a little objective analysis, or hire someone like KenPom to work for them? I mean this is just a joke.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^
or hire someone like KenPom to work for them
don't give them any ideas. I like KenPom right where he is, TYVM
March 29th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^
Because the "E" in ESPN stands for Entertainment. Not Enlightment.
But why is crappy analysis and awful prediction entertaining? I know we have an unusually intelligent fan community here, but I think a lot of people would enjoy what we enjoy, which is insightful breakdowns of matchups incorporating a heavy dose of statistical analysis. It's like ESPN thinks they have to pander to the 6th grade sports fan to be successful. There isn't anything entertaining about people being consistently incorrect and misinformed.
It must be to some people. Otherwise, how do you explain Corso?
March 29th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^
Man, thanks a lot. "@Barton1331: Great predictions so far out of @MedcalfByESPN... RT http://t.co/THUFilJ1Ot"
— Myron Medcalf (@MedcalfByESPN) March 29, 2014March 29th, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^
Naz Long was the difference. He sucked and Iowa State lost. Now I would guess the article predicted a different outcome.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^
"Iowa State will advance to the Elite Eight because of what Long, a sophomore from Canada, gives it against the Huskies."
It's quite alright, of course, as there is another team with a sophomore from Canada who has been instrumental in their team's advancement to the Elite Eight, the sole difference being that this team is in fact in the Elite Eight.
To be fair, if Medcalf has a bracket which is now a tire fire, I can definitely sympathize. I've simply stopped making bold predictions off of mine, that's all.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
Well, technically, Naz Long was the difference as he didn't do anything, leading to his team losing...
March 29th, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^
He did worse than your average broken clock, which is right at least twice a day...
(unless you're in the military)
March 29th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
March 29th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
Brilliant. You have to be impressed that he could be that completely wrong - odds are you get 1 in 10 right based on pure chance.
He shot the moon.
March 29th, 2014 at 11:59 PM ^
-26 to the rest of the world?
March 29th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
March 29th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^
Best Jobs - a weather man only has to be right most of the time, a great baseball player succeeds at the plate only 30% of the time, and an ESPN "analyst" only has to be right 10% of the time.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^
Considering they keep Joe Lunardi employed despite being one of the worst at actually predicting the composition of the brackets, I'm not surprised.
It's not lunardi's job to be right. It's lunardi's job to be lunardi, which he is actually quite good at.
His brand is what "sells" or creates stories. That's all that matters (to ESPN).
Cowherd has said he is not paid to be right. He is paid to be interesting. "Interesting" seems to be ESPN's mantra. God knows accurate is not.
I recognize this, but the fact he is consistently bad at it will ultimately hurt his brand. I don't see why he can't be "right" and still create controversy - if he had kept pushing, I don't know, BYU over some other prominent team, that would have pushed the envelope as well.
I get that Lunardi's job is to create a buzz; it is sad that ESPN, the purported "news" of sports, has to do that instead of, I don't know, reporting the news.
March 29th, 2014 at 10:15 PM ^
Yeah, but only 0.1% of the population knows or cares that Lunardi isn't good. He'll keep changing his bracket right up until they are released. And that will be the bracket he/espn uses to say he's so accurate, even though at that point everyone knows 95% of the teams/rankings.
So, for all intents and purposes, his brand will stay where it is at now: whatever ESPN wants it to be.
Luckily, as is the case with many people/news sources, the Internet gives us more freedom of information that we don't have to rely on it.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^
My bracket is pathetic but I still had Florida beating UCLA.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:51 PM ^
I have a feeling the powers that be at ESPN told Medcalf to write an article on "BOLD' predictions that contradict what the other media-types were writing/reporting, regardless of whether he thought that's what was actually going to happen. I take it with a grain of salt. They all seemed to be predictions WAY out in left field. If the goal outcome was to stir up some discussion and bring attention to the article/ESPN, then he did his job.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^
Left field? Half of them were just straight up "who's going to win?" And even if ESPN is intentionally publishing articles with bad predictions, I'm not sure that makes them look any better.
March 29th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^
On the other hand, odd to see Dick V. pick all 3 Big Ten teams to advance and go 6 out 8 in his picks.
http://espn.go.com/espn/dickvitale/story/_/id/10676557/dick-vitale-swee…
Please predict Kentucky to win by double-digits
They were "bold" predictions, which are less likely to come to fruition than just "predictions." Still, you'd think he'd get least one right by chance.
-Picking Tennessee over Michigan (2 of the 3 CBS analysts did just that before tipoff).
-Picking another media darling (Baylor) to beat Wisconsin.
-Picking a 10 seed (Stanford) to beat an 11 seed (dayton). WOW REALLY BOLD, MY FRIEND
-Picking a player on a 3 seed to be the difference in a win over a 7 seed. I'M FALLING OVER FROM THE SHOCK OF THE BOLDNESS HERE
-Picking a 4 seed to be in a close game with a 1 seed. NO WAY?!?! 4 SEEDS PLAY GOOD! OMG.
-Picking a 1 seed to beat a 4 seed. IM JUST SIMPLY OVERWHELMED WITH BOLDNESS NOW.
That's more than HALF of his "bold" predictions. The only approximately "bold" predictions he had were picking Louisville to win by double digits (which isn't all that bold, really), picking a game to go to overtime (OK, that's kinda bold, because even in close games it takes a bit of luck to be tied at the end), and picking Tennessee to get to the final four by beating Louisville.