I never really saw much in the way of Patriots coverage on ESPN until really post-2000. Since 2000, the Patriots have won what, three of the last six? That's half of the Super Bowls played since we dropped the 19. Gee...the Red Sox are consistently in the running for the World Series too as I recall correctly. Most of the teams you complain about them obsessing over actually have a proven history of winning over an extended period of time. I know you're unfamiliar with this concept of "winning over time" and not "fluke seasons" outside of basketball being from Chicago.
However, why *would* ESPN and other sports shows really pay attention to the Midwest when the best the "capital of the Midwest" (i.e. - Chicago, even though it's the eastern end of it) can produce is a football team that'd be better off with 42 defenders on the roster and punting on first down half the time, a baseball team who's fans are better fielders in the playoffs, a basketball team that's only known as "Isn't that where Jordan played?" and a hockey team that's such a non-factor in the league, most people in *Chicago* don't know who they are (Stoke, they're the Blackhawks...
)?
Again, the coasts are generally the ones to bet on over the Midwest (Two-thirds of the country vs. one). Hence, coverage goes to the teams playing there, especially since when you look at their games they win because they're imposing their will on the opponents, not hoping someone falls down on coverage or drops a ball or gets out of their punt return lane. The Bears have yet to sit down and beat a good team on their own. Everything I've seen from them this year has been "We won because the other team screwed up more than we did". Sure, that's a ok plan for the regular season, especially with how pathetic the teams on their schedule were, but in the playoffs most teams play very tight and very well. You can't hope to have the other teams screwing up be the key to victory and win a Super Bowl.