So how does this work? He has to sweep all the awards (or be in the top 5 for most awards) to be a consensus 1st teamer right? I know they use The Sporting News, but they don't use NBC Sports or Bleacher Report do they? I know it's kind of weird how they do it. I don't think he's truly an "All-American" until they tally all these awards up.
To be named a Consensus All-American you must be named to the 1st team by the major outlets: Associated Press, United States Basketball Writers Association, The Sporting News and the National Association of Basketball coaches.
The remaining media chosen All-American teams are not considered.
Kilpatrick was named a first teamer by The Sporting News thus far.
don't think that will happen.So essentially, it actually is a BIG deal he was named to that list then? I don't want to get excited now only to find that ESPN makes up a team of 5 freshmen to shaft SK.
So essentially, it actually is a BIG deal he was named to that list then? I don't want to get excited now only to find that ESPN makes up a team of 5 freshmen to shaft SK.
What is the obsession with hating on ESPN by all these UC fans? Kilpatrick has gotten plenty of attention from that network and the University of Cincinnati has been the featured story on their Men's College basketball portion of the website many times. Please stop trying to perpetuate this myth...
They are in the business of attracting viewers. That means hitting the bigger markets and promoting players on teams with the biggest following. That said they have given attention to SK and McDermott.Don't make it sound like it's just UC fans. ESPN has given plenty of credit to SK, but you can't act like they aren't always talking about Parker, Wiggins, and Ennis. They care most about the guys that are the most athletic, fun to watch, and the ones with the most NBA potential.
Don't make it sound like it's just UC fans. ESPN has given plenty of credit to SK, but you can't act like they aren't always talking about Parker, Wiggins, and Ennis. They care most about the guys that are the most athletic, fun to watch, and have the most NBA potential.
The college basketball writers on ESPN actually are not always talking about those specific players. Sure the rest of the network does but that is because those programs/players (also remember a majority of ESPN journalists went to Syracuse or Northwestern) draw the most ratings and viewers.
if they didn't attract viewers they wouldn't be on the air and no one would get mentioned. I guess the point is it is not something that should be complained about constantly. It's business not personal.I get that. But that's also kind of the point. They talk about guys that attract the most viewers, instead of who's playing the best.
if they didn't attract viewers they wouldn't be on the air and no one would get mentioned. I guess the point is it is not something that should be complained about constantly. It's business not personal.
I understand.Which is why it makes sense to me. SK deserves to be talked about more (even though he is talked about a good amount), but it makes sense that he isn't. I think we agree, we're just wording things differently.
The story lines aren't the same. The freshmen are going to be lottery picks after the draft and will continue being big stories after the season. Again it's not personal but business. They broadcast NBA games and the story lines make up a large amount of the talk shows throughout the day.There is a "freshman tracker" on the ESPN Basketball front page. I get how it works, i really do, but every time i see that little segment i get frustrated. Why not put Mcdermmot, Cleanthony Early, Kilpatrick, Napier, and Smith's stats up there as well? They are having better seasons than any freshman, save Jabari Parker.