(10-03-2012 08:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The dichotomy I see in the argument is that ESPN's coverage of BE MBB is 180 degrees out from their supposed football position. Every year I hear on SportsCenter how great the conference and how half the league deserves to be in the NCAA tourney. So is the argument that ESPN simultaneously gives directives to neg BE football and hype BE bball?

Regardless, the BE needs ESPN to be at the bid. Is their any indication that if the nBE doesn't re-up with ESPN during the exclusive window, that the Mouse will be their when the league takes its TV contract to the open market? I don't think that Fox, Turner or Comcast get the BE where they want to be.

It just appears that whats good for nBE bball might not be good for nBE football. Nor do I see any motivation for any of the bidders to accept a split of the football and basketball contracts. While I can see Comcast putting a couple of games on USA (they still have WWE Raw) will that plus NBCSN be enough? I'm not sure.

That's ultimately what will likely get the contract to the open market. It's not that ESPN couldnt come up with the money, but Aresco will likely angle for better FB coverage than the ESPN can provide.

Aresco and the Big East #2 have mentioned multiple times that their decision will not be solely based on cash $$$, i.e. won't automatically give the contract to the highest bidder...as for the first time ever in ANY Big East TV Contract, there will be specific/guaranteed deliverables in regards to day of games, time slots, number of games on overair and cable, plus NETWORK PROMOTIONS/PR that the Conf will ask for to help promote the "relaunch" of the conf next year.

Landing a nice chunk of $$$ from say a network (i.e. ESPN) and then seeing most of your games land on ESPN3 internet only coverage...and even your top games are no where to be found on primary networks in key time slots (Sat 3:30 pm or 7pm prime time) does nothing to help the conf grow...and Aresco knows it.

(10-03-2012 08:55 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The dichotomy I see in the argument is that ESPN's coverage of BE MBB is 180 degrees out from their supposed football position. Every year I hear on SportsCenter how great the conference and how half the league deserves to be in the NCAA tourney. So is the argument that ESPN simultaneously gives directives to neg BE football and hype BE bball?

Regardless, the BE needs ESPN to be at the bid. Is their any indication that if the nBE doesn't re-up with ESPN during the exclusive window, that the Mouse will be their when the league takes its TV contract to the open market? I don't think that Fox, Turner or Comcast get the BE where they want to be.

It just appears that whats good for nBE bball might not be good for nBE football. Nor do I see any motivation for any of the bidders to accept a split of the football and basketball contracts. While I can see Comcast putting a couple of games on USA (they still have WWE Raw) will that plus NBCSN be enough? I'm not sure.

That's ultimately what will likely get the contract to the open market. It's not that ESPN couldnt come up with the money, but Aresco will likely angle for better FB coverage than the ESPN can provide.

Aresco and the Big East #2 have mentioned multiple times that their decision will not be solely based on cash $$$, i.e. won't automatically give the contract to the highest bidder...as for the first time ever in ANY Big East TV Contract, there will be specific/guaranteed deliverables in regards to day of games, time slots, number of games on overair and cable, plus NETWORK PROMOTIONS/PR that the Conf will ask for to help promote the "relaunch" of the conf next year.

Landing a nice chunk of $$$ from say a network (i.e. ESPN) and then seeing most of your games land on ESPN3 internet only coverage...and even your top games are no where to be found on primary networks in key time slots (Sat 3:30 pm or 7pm prime time) does nothing to help the conf grow...and Aresco knows it.

I understand trading money for coverage for FB, but does that help bball or is that just something thatis assumed will take care of itself? Is guaranteed fball games on NBC in the fall worth bball being on USA/NBCSN? From the looks of it, maybe Turner is the best option as they have 3 networks in the DirecTV 200 block that can handle both fball and bball without the lengthy negotiations that Comcast is going to have to endure.

(10-03-2012 09:38 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:55 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The dichotomy I see in the argument is that ESPN's coverage of BE MBB is 180 degrees out from their supposed football position. Every year I hear on SportsCenter how great the conference and how half the league deserves to be in the NCAA tourney. So is the argument that ESPN simultaneously gives directives to neg BE football and hype BE bball?

Regardless, the BE needs ESPN to be at the bid. Is their any indication that if the nBE doesn't re-up with ESPN during the exclusive window, that the Mouse will be their when the league takes its TV contract to the open market? I don't think that Fox, Turner or Comcast get the BE where they want to be.

It just appears that whats good for nBE bball might not be good for nBE football. Nor do I see any motivation for any of the bidders to accept a split of the football and basketball contracts. While I can see Comcast putting a couple of games on USA (they still have WWE Raw) will that plus NBCSN be enough? I'm not sure.

That's ultimately what will likely get the contract to the open market. It's not that ESPN couldnt come up with the money, but Aresco will likely angle for better FB coverage than the ESPN can provide.

Aresco and the Big East #2 have mentioned multiple times that their decision will not be solely based on cash $$$, i.e. won't automatically give the contract to the highest bidder...as for the first time ever in ANY Big East TV Contract, there will be specific/guaranteed deliverables in regards to day of games, time slots, number of games on overair and cable, plus NETWORK PROMOTIONS/PR that the Conf will ask for to help promote the "relaunch" of the conf next year.

Landing a nice chunk of $$$ from say a network (i.e. ESPN) and then seeing most of your games land on ESPN3 internet only coverage...and even your top games are no where to be found on primary networks in key time slots (Sat 3:30 pm or 7pm prime time) does nothing to help the conf grow...and Aresco knows it.

I understand trading money for coverage for FB, but does that help bball or is that just something thatis assumed will take care of itself? Is guaranteed fball games on NBC in the fall worth bball being on USA/NBCSN? From the looks of it, maybe Turner is the best option as they have 3 networks in the DirecTV 200 block that can handle both fball and bball without the lengthy negotiations that Comcast is going to have to endure.

Same deliverables would be in place for basketball as well (in regards to number of games covered/shown on cable..vs internet only coverage).

Big difference is in football...as thats where most of the $$$$ are...and thats where the biggest benefit the new Big East will be able to sell off of (i.e. going from a tiny 8 team East coast conf to a 14 team national conf in 4 different time zones).

Just look at next week's Big East TV schedule on ESPN. All three games are between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm and will be aired on ESPNU, Big East Network/Other regional sports networks, and ESPN3.com. Big East will at least have more flexibility with the time scheduling with the addition of the Texas and western schools instead of getting all their games stuck in one time slot.

(10-03-2012 09:38 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:55 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The dichotomy I see in the argument is that ESPN's coverage of BE MBB is 180 degrees out from their supposed football position. Every year I hear on SportsCenter how great the conference and how half the league deserves to be in the NCAA tourney. So is the argument that ESPN simultaneously gives directives to neg BE football and hype BE bball?

Regardless, the BE needs ESPN to be at the bid. Is their any indication that if the nBE doesn't re-up with ESPN during the exclusive window, that the Mouse will be their when the league takes its TV contract to the open market? I don't think that Fox, Turner or Comcast get the BE where they want to be.

It just appears that whats good for nBE bball might not be good for nBE football. Nor do I see any motivation for any of the bidders to accept a split of the football and basketball contracts. While I can see Comcast putting a couple of games on USA (they still have WWE Raw) will that plus NBCSN be enough? I'm not sure.

That's ultimately what will likely get the contract to the open market. It's not that ESPN couldnt come up with the money, but Aresco will likely angle for better FB coverage than the ESPN can provide.

Aresco and the Big East #2 have mentioned multiple times that their decision will not be solely based on cash $$$, i.e. won't automatically give the contract to the highest bidder...as for the first time ever in ANY Big East TV Contract, there will be specific/guaranteed deliverables in regards to day of games, time slots, number of games on overair and cable, plus NETWORK PROMOTIONS/PR that the Conf will ask for to help promote the "relaunch" of the conf next year.

Landing a nice chunk of $$$ from say a network (i.e. ESPN) and then seeing most of your games land on ESPN3 internet only coverage...and even your top games are no where to be found on primary networks in key time slots (Sat 3:30 pm or 7pm prime time) does nothing to help the conf grow...and Aresco knows it.

I understand trading money for coverage for FB, but does that help bball or is that just something thatis assumed will take care of itself? Is guaranteed fball games on NBC in the fall worth bball being on USA/NBCSN? From the looks of it, maybe Turner is the best option as they have 3 networks in the DirecTV 200 block that can handle both fball and bball without the lengthy negotiations that Comcast is going to have to endure.

That's assuming it will be one encompassing contract, by all accounts, that idea died the day we hired Aresco and Gold. Basketball will have its own contract and may very well end up on a network(s) that doesn't show a single BE football game.

(10-02-2012 11:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:44 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:19 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:11 AM)TripleA Wrote:  At the risk of being labeled naive, I don't think Adelson asks permission from ESPN as to what to publish. I think she just happens to have a different opinion from many of the ESPN talking heads, b/c she follows the BE much closer than they do.

There isn't someone pulling the strings at ESPN telling the talking heads and writers what to say or publish. The slams against the league are based more on the respective analysts's ignorance and incompetence.

I think you are generally among the sharpest knives in this draw, your statement ignores the obvious. ESPN (CBS, NBC, FOX, etc.) all have "talking points" laid out by the network's executive producers. This is true on the sports-side, news-side, etc. of television. Television is a business, and like all businesses, they are executing a business plan 24-7.

The networks absolutely have talking points. There's no doubt about that. However, the suggestion here is that such talking points get into such granular detail as it relates to the Big East/ESPN TV negotiations, which I just think it's patently false. Does ESPN want to manufacture a Jets QB controversy so that they can talk about Tim Tebow and direct all of their radio and TV show hosts to spend time on the subject? Absolutely! Do they analyze every single possibly negative Tweet that LeBron James sends out about Chris Bosh? Of course! Do they need to talk about whether A-Rod or or Tony Romo or Dwight Howard or whoever is the designated target athlete of the day is "clutch" in an overreaction to a bad performance in last night's game? ESPN spends *hours* on that in nauseating fashion. (I'm taking a wild guess that you won't be able to watch more than 5 minutes of ESPN today without hearing a reference to Romo's 5 interceptions last night.) They do the same thing with the designated coach on the hot seat, too. (Look at how much you'll see Rex Ryan on TV this week.)

THOSE are what are meant by talking points and anyone that watches 5 minutes of SportsCenter can tell exactly what they are. What people complain about here is generally stuff that isn't seen by anyone other than hardcore college football fans or noticed by anyone other than those purposely looking for negative comments from ESPN. The only Big East related story in the past year that crossed over into legit talking point territory was Notre Dame leaving the Big East for the ACC, and that's more because Notre Dame is one of every sports media outlet's (not just ESPN's) favorite talking points (along with the Yankees, Red Sox, Lakers, Cowboys, Duke basketball, LeBron, Tim Tebow, etc.) as opposed to anything with the Big East itself.

If you have the casual sports fan off the street that typically watches the main live sporting event of the evening along with SportsCenter (which covers about 90% of people that call themselves sports fans), they will quickly tell you that ESPN spends a lot of time on Tim Tebow, LeBron and Yankees/Red Sox stories. It is VERY clear to them what the ESPN talking points are these days (and it's not as if though ESPN tries to hide it). However, they will have absolutely zero clue about what ESPN thinks about the Big East. None. It's not like the Big East is controversial bully like Texas or an on-the-field juggernaut like the SEC or even "traditional brand names that used to be great but are playing horribly right now so let's make fun of them" like the Big Ten and ACC that get a real reaction (AKA spike in ratings) out of casual sports fans. You're giving ESPN too much credit if you think that they actually took the time to have talking points against the Big East. The reality is that they don't find reason to spend much time on the Big East at all for anyone other than hardcore viewers of college football-specific shows, which is probably what should really p*ss people off a lot more here more than a negative comment from Lou Holtz or Mark May.

Sir, with all due respect, you just typed a lot of words disproving your main point.
When the heads speak of the BEAST, 99 times out of 100, they speak of the "dying" BEAST-or something similar. How else do you believe this country-wide common acceptance as fact that the BEAST is finished spreads like wild fire? The average fan hears the the Sports Center talking heads speak of the demise of the BEAST as if it were fact and common knowledge. Thus, the info is accepted as fact, thus perception is reality.
Yes, it IS VERY EASY to recognize talking points.
And when it comes to the BEAST, it's demise is certainly one.
Btw, where do you think the Big6 becoming the Big5,literally overnight, came from?

(10-03-2012 10:14 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 09:38 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:55 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The dichotomy I see in the argument is that ESPN's coverage of BE MBB is 180 degrees out from their supposed football position. Every year I hear on SportsCenter how great the conference and how half the league deserves to be in the NCAA tourney. So is the argument that ESPN simultaneously gives directives to neg BE football and hype BE bball?

Regardless, the BE needs ESPN to be at the bid. Is their any indication that if the nBE doesn't re-up with ESPN during the exclusive window, that the Mouse will be their when the league takes its TV contract to the open market? I don't think that Fox, Turner or Comcast get the BE where they want to be.

It just appears that whats good for nBE bball might not be good for nBE football. Nor do I see any motivation for any of the bidders to accept a split of the football and basketball contracts. While I can see Comcast putting a couple of games on USA (they still have WWE Raw) will that plus NBCSN be enough? I'm not sure.

That's ultimately what will likely get the contract to the open market. It's not that ESPN couldnt come up with the money, but Aresco will likely angle for better FB coverage than the ESPN can provide.

Aresco and the Big East #2 have mentioned multiple times that their decision will not be solely based on cash $$$, i.e. won't automatically give the contract to the highest bidder...as for the first time ever in ANY Big East TV Contract, there will be specific/guaranteed deliverables in regards to day of games, time slots, number of games on overair and cable, plus NETWORK PROMOTIONS/PR that the Conf will ask for to help promote the "relaunch" of the conf next year.

Landing a nice chunk of $$$ from say a network (i.e. ESPN) and then seeing most of your games land on ESPN3 internet only coverage...and even your top games are no where to be found on primary networks in key time slots (Sat 3:30 pm or 7pm prime time) does nothing to help the conf grow...and Aresco knows it.

I understand trading money for coverage for FB, but does that help bball or is that just something thatis assumed will take care of itself? Is guaranteed fball games on NBC in the fall worth bball being on USA/NBCSN? From the looks of it, maybe Turner is the best option as they have 3 networks in the DirecTV 200 block that can handle both fball and bball without the lengthy negotiations that Comcast is going to have to endure.

That's assuming it will be one encompassing contract, by all accounts, that idea died the day we hired Aresco and Gold. Basketball will have its own contract and may very well end up on a network(s) that doesn't show a single BE football game.

But what leverage does the nBE have in negotiating its product in such a manner? If you were running NBC, Turner or FOX, would you accept dealing with a content provider that was demanding that its product be treated so differently than ever one of its competitors(ACC, B1G, SEC)? And when you're asked why they are dictating such terms the answer provided is simply "timing, we're the last property available for the next 8 years".

A lump sum number I can see, I just don't understand where the nBE gets sufficient leverage to split its content.

(10-03-2012 10:41 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 10:14 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 09:38 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:55 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 08:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  That's ultimately what will likely get the contract to the open market. It's not that ESPN couldnt come up with the money, but Aresco will likely angle for better FB coverage than the ESPN can provide.

Aresco and the Big East #2 have mentioned multiple times that their decision will not be solely based on cash $$$, i.e. won't automatically give the contract to the highest bidder...as for the first time ever in ANY Big East TV Contract, there will be specific/guaranteed deliverables in regards to day of games, time slots, number of games on overair and cable, plus NETWORK PROMOTIONS/PR that the Conf will ask for to help promote the "relaunch" of the conf next year.

Landing a nice chunk of $$$ from say a network (i.e. ESPN) and then seeing most of your games land on ESPN3 internet only coverage...and even your top games are no where to be found on primary networks in key time slots (Sat 3:30 pm or 7pm prime time) does nothing to help the conf grow...and Aresco knows it.

I understand trading money for coverage for FB, but does that help bball or is that just something thatis assumed will take care of itself? Is guaranteed fball games on NBC in the fall worth bball being on USA/NBCSN? From the looks of it, maybe Turner is the best option as they have 3 networks in the DirecTV 200 block that can handle both fball and bball without the lengthy negotiations that Comcast is going to have to endure.

That's assuming it will be one encompassing contract, by all accounts, that idea died the day we hired Aresco and Gold. Basketball will have its own contract and may very well end up on a network(s) that doesn't show a single BE football game.

But what leverage does the nBE have in negotiating its product in such a manner? If you were running NBC, Turner or FOX, would you accept dealing with a content provider that was demanding that its product be treated so differently than ever one of its competitors(ACC, B1G, SEC)? And when you're asked why they are dictating such terms the answer provided is simply "timing, we're the last property available for the next 8 years".

A lump sum number I can see, I just don't understand where the nBE gets sufficient leverage to split its content.

It's not being treated differently though, the Pac12 set the standard and we hired the guys who did the Pac12 negotiations. Heck, the A-10 just spread their content out over three networks and that was just basketball, it's the business model now.

(10-02-2012 05:16 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 04:16 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  ESPN has not been devaluing/weakening/ruining public perception of the Big East so it can get the rights at a lower cost..... So your whole argument after that was pointless.

Sooooo... if they're not ruining the public perception to get the rights at a lower cost (or taint the value of those rights if they move to NBC/Comcast), then ESPN is just destroying the Big East for the sake of destroying the Big East? OK.

Quote:Just curious though....

All those other fan boards out there that all have threads on them about how ESPN is out to get them....

Do you post on their boards and ridicule them about how ridiculous that is?

Or, are we the only ones that get blessed with that privilege?

I have been posting here for about 5 years at this point and long before you (and many other people that seem to have an issue with me) ever came here. Does that in and of itself make me right or better? Of course not. However, I have established over the course of many years that I'm not some random troll, if that's what you're implying.

No one is calling you a troll, sir.
We're just saying,"You're wrong."
Would you consider that?

(10-03-2012 10:31 AM)Pastnerized Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 11:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:44 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:19 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:11 AM)TripleA Wrote:  At the risk of being labeled naive, I don't think Adelson asks permission from ESPN as to what to publish. I think she just happens to have a different opinion from many of the ESPN talking heads, b/c she follows the BE much closer than they do.

There isn't someone pulling the strings at ESPN telling the talking heads and writers what to say or publish. The slams against the league are based more on the respective analysts's ignorance and incompetence.

I think you are generally among the sharpest knives in this draw, your statement ignores the obvious. ESPN (CBS, NBC, FOX, etc.) all have "talking points" laid out by the network's executive producers. This is true on the sports-side, news-side, etc. of television. Television is a business, and like all businesses, they are executing a business plan 24-7.

The networks absolutely have talking points. There's no doubt about that. However, the suggestion here is that such talking points get into such granular detail as it relates to the Big East/ESPN TV negotiations, which I just think it's patently false. Does ESPN want to manufacture a Jets QB controversy so that they can talk about Tim Tebow and direct all of their radio and TV show hosts to spend time on the subject? Absolutely! Do they analyze every single possibly negative Tweet that LeBron James sends out about Chris Bosh? Of course! Do they need to talk about whether A-Rod or or Tony Romo or Dwight Howard or whoever is the designated target athlete of the day is "clutch" in an overreaction to a bad performance in last night's game? ESPN spends *hours* on that in nauseating fashion. (I'm taking a wild guess that you won't be able to watch more than 5 minutes of ESPN today without hearing a reference to Romo's 5 interceptions last night.) They do the same thing with the designated coach on the hot seat, too. (Look at how much you'll see Rex Ryan on TV this week.)

THOSE are what are meant by talking points and anyone that watches 5 minutes of SportsCenter can tell exactly what they are. What people complain about here is generally stuff that isn't seen by anyone other than hardcore college football fans or noticed by anyone other than those purposely looking for negative comments from ESPN. The only Big East related story in the past year that crossed over into legit talking point territory was Notre Dame leaving the Big East for the ACC, and that's more because Notre Dame is one of every sports media outlet's (not just ESPN's) favorite talking points (along with the Yankees, Red Sox, Lakers, Cowboys, Duke basketball, LeBron, Tim Tebow, etc.) as opposed to anything with the Big East itself.

If you have the casual sports fan off the street that typically watches the main live sporting event of the evening along with SportsCenter (which covers about 90% of people that call themselves sports fans), they will quickly tell you that ESPN spends a lot of time on Tim Tebow, LeBron and Yankees/Red Sox stories. It is VERY clear to them what the ESPN talking points are these days (and it's not as if though ESPN tries to hide it). However, they will have absolutely zero clue about what ESPN thinks about the Big East. None. It's not like the Big East is controversial bully like Texas or an on-the-field juggernaut like the SEC or even "traditional brand names that used to be great but are playing horribly right now so let's make fun of them" like the Big Ten and ACC that get a real reaction (AKA spike in ratings) out of casual sports fans. You're giving ESPN too much credit if you think that they actually took the time to have talking points against the Big East. The reality is that they don't find reason to spend much time on the Big East at all for anyone other than hardcore viewers of college football-specific shows, which is probably what should really p*ss people off a lot more here more than a negative comment from Lou Holtz or Mark May.

Sir, with all due respect, you just typed a lot of words disproving your main point.
When the heads speak of the BEAST, 99 times out of 100, they speak of the "dying" BEAST-or something similar. How else do you believe this country-wide common acceptance as fact that the BEAST is finished spreads like wild fire? The average fan hears the the Sports Center talking heads speak of the demise of the BEAST as if it were fact and common knowledge. Thus, the info is accepted as fact, thus perception is reality.
Yes, it IS VERY EASY to recognize talking points.
And when it comes to the BEAST, it's demise is certainly one.
Btw, where do you think the Big6 becoming the Big5,literally overnight, came from?

If ESPN has had it in for us, why do they cover our basketball so glowingly?

(10-03-2012 12:56 PM)fresco Wrote:  If ESPN has had it in for us, why do they cover our basketball so glowingly?

Did you even watch a little of last years basketball coverage and Sports Center???

Every day they were talking about how the Big East had been down for the last couple years and how the Big East was arguably the number 3 or 4 conference. I mean seriously, did you even pay attention. I did. It made me sick to watch them spread their BS at every opportunity. Heck they even stated that Syracuse would benefit form the ACC recruiting because they simply did not have as strong a team as years past and that was due to the lack of recruits wanting to play in the Big East.

For all you ESpin promoters and apologists, please STFU!!!!! ESpin has the most slanted coverage of any organization I've ever seen and that includes Electoral Coverage.

(10-03-2012 04:17 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 12:56 PM)fresco Wrote:  If ESPN has had it in for us, why do they cover our basketball so glowingly?

Did you even watch a little of last years basketball coverage and Sports Center???

Every day they were talking about how the Big East had been down for the last couple years and how the Big East was arguably the number 3 or 4 conference. I mean seriously, did you even pay attention. I did. It made me sick to watch them spread their BS at every opportunity. Heck they even stated that Syracuse would benefit form the ACC recruiting because they simply did not have as strong a team as years past and that was due to the lack of recruits wanting to play in the Big East.

For all you ESpin promoters and apologists, please STFU!!!!! ESpin has the most slanted coverage of any organization I've ever seen and that includes Electoral Coverage.

I watch college basketball constantly, particularly Big East ball, and you are out to lunch. ESPN hypes Big East basketball, and provide us with prime time slots for our games.

(10-03-2012 10:04 PM)fresco Wrote:  I watch college basketball constantly, particularly Big East ball, and you are out to lunch. ESPN hypes Big East basketball, and provide us with prime time slots for our games.

Like I said earlier. You haven't watched squat these past couple years. You're totally off base here. Even the other networks are coming out and saying how slanted ESpin has been in "All" it's coverage. So, go peddle your ESpin wagon elsewhere.