My problem with ESPN is they sometimes act as if they are God's gift to the sporting world, and the only opinion that counts. Have they enhanced the lives of sports fans everywhere? Yes, but in particular with women's basketball recruiting and Charlie Creme's brackets they are given far more significance than their ability deserves.
When a top recruit signs somewhere, most of the media says she was ranked whatever ESPN says, and completely ignores the other rating services. In my opinion Prospect Nation, Blue Star, and ASGR are not just a little better, but far better than ESPN, but because of the ESPN brand and reach their rating is almost always the one quoted as if it was the most accurate, which is sad.
If you compare ratings and one seems way out of line, more often than not it is ESPN that is late to change a rating on a rising talent. They make no attempt to at least ballpark ratings for the best foreign players (a fault of the others as well) and they carry inaccurate information on their listings for long periods before correcting it. Carolyn Ducharme was 5-10 for example for at least a year on their site.
As for Charlie and his brackets, it seems like he and ESPN think the NCAA should just bow to his greatness and accept his brackets as the truth the light and the way. Once again they have succeeded in being the most quoted source on this subject. People everywhere are saying this team is in or out based on one man's opinion, which is no better than most of the posters on the Boneyard. Personally I disagree with Charlie and his brackets not some of the time but most of the time. Do I think the AP Poll, Coaches Poll, and quantitative ratings like Massey and Her Hoops Stats are all better sources than Charlie for creating the tournament brackets? Absolutely!
ESPN does many things well. With their brand and marketing reach, anyone they try to promote as an authority in a fringe sport for them (like women's basketball) will be considered an expert whether the quality of their work deserves it or not. At least in those two categories IMO the quality of the work does not justify the significance they are given because of their market dominance.
When a top recruit signs somewhere, most of the media says she was ranked whatever ESPN says, and completely ignores the other rating services. In my opinion Prospect Nation, Blue Star, and ASGR are not just a little better, but far better than ESPN, but because of the ESPN brand and reach their rating is almost always the one quoted as if it was the most accurate, which is sad.
If you compare ratings and one seems way out of line, more often than not it is ESPN that is late to change a rating on a rising talent. They make no attempt to at least ballpark ratings for the best foreign players (a fault of the others as well) and they carry inaccurate information on their listings for long periods before correcting it. Carolyn Ducharme was 5-10 for example for at least a year on their site.
As for Charlie and his brackets, it seems like he and ESPN think the NCAA should just bow to his greatness and accept his brackets as the truth the light and the way. Once again they have succeeded in being the most quoted source on this subject. People everywhere are saying this team is in or out based on one man's opinion, which is no better than most of the posters on the Boneyard. Personally I disagree with Charlie and his brackets not some of the time but most of the time. Do I think the AP Poll, Coaches Poll, and quantitative ratings like Massey and Her Hoops Stats are all better sources than Charlie for creating the tournament brackets? Absolutely!
ESPN does many things well. With their brand and marketing reach, anyone they try to promote as an authority in a fringe sport for them (like women's basketball) will be considered an expert whether the quality of their work deserves it or not. At least in those two categories IMO the quality of the work does not justify the significance they are given because of their market dominance.
