(10-04-2012 09:09 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 08:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My quibble is with the belief that "The Big East is awful" is one of those trending topics. ....but the Big East isn't even 1/1000th on the radar of a trending topics list compared to Tebow, LeBron, A-Rod, Tony Romo interceptions, the Lakers, etc.

The above is a great definition of "fanboy"....excuse, excuse, excuse.

Trending?

Do you think anyone on this board (especially non-fan boys) cares if ESPN or anything else is "trending"?

You do...so props to that...but what you MISSED in seemingly EVERY THREAD that has talked about the CHANGE of ESPN's direction over the years (proven AGAIN by Gottleib and Patrick yesterday), is that many of the talking heads DO receive talking points on what to bring up, WHAT TO BASH, etc...regardless if its "trending" online...as much of it might be what ESPN higher ups are trying to do via the negotiation table.

As Dan and Doug correctly pointed out how ESPN/SportsCenter use to be a proud "sports news organization" yet that philosophy has been thrown out the window, especially over the last 5-10 years or so.

ESPN isn't trending?

That's what your going with today as your excuse?

I'm not quite exactly sure what you're arguing with me about here. I don't mean "trending topics" in the sense of Twitter, but rather exactly what you've said that ESPN has their internal view of what are "trending topics". If you prefer that we call them "popular topics" or "things we want to beat to death into the ground" or anything else to be clearer, then that's fine, too. And what I'm referring is NOT just the niche college football shows, but SportsCenter, PTI, Mike and Mike and other shows that actually DO form impressions among the casual sports fans.

So, if you can get off your wacky personal vendetta against me, I AM ACTUALLY AGREEING WITH YOU. I have said explicitly that ESPN manufactures controversy.

Our disagreement lies within whether ESPN actually cares enough about the Big East that there's actually some type of prime directive to bash it. I just don't think it's that important to them and the comments on this board are more of a reflection of Big East people specifically trying to look for negative comments and make a list of them. I can easily do the same thing about the Big Ten, the Chicago Bears, the Chicago White Sox, and every other sports entity that I care about and piece together quotes over the course of even a 2 week period that make it look like that ESPN is out to get them. The point is that the casual sports fan that just watches ESPN in a "normal" amount isn't going to have any idea of what the people complaining on this board are talking about (whereas it will be very clear to them that ESPN is Tebow-obsessed).

And, since many people here will flatly reject my reasoning above because they want to believe what they want to believe, even if there IS some type of prime directive to bash the Big East, a strong conference shouldn't be worried about some Andre Ware commentary. Jim Delany doesn't give a crap with all of the Big Ten bashing on ESPN over the past couple of weeks. Roger Goodell doesn't give a crap that every single ESPN writer had put him personally through the ringer during the referee lockout. David Stern doesn't give a crap that ESPN constantly insinuates that he fixes the lottery or favors certain teams like the Lakers. You know why? Because they lead organizations that are actually structurally sound with people and members that actually want to be there, so they don't give a crap what ESPN or Dennis Dodd or Comcast or any other entity says on the air. If you're structurally sound off-the-air, then all of the on-the-air stuff has ZERO impact.

On the flip side, Andre Ware or Lou Holtz or Mark May suddenly singing the praises of the Big East doesn't magically mean that casual sports fans will start watching Rutgers football instead of Alabama or Notre Dame or even your random ACC school. The Big East isn't in its position today because of the media. It's in this position because (a) it doesn't have Miami anymore and (b) the claim that the Big East has been better than the ACC in BCS bowls falls on deaf ears because the only school left that actually won one of those games is Louisville. Give the TV viewer a little credit - how much leeway do you actually think they're going to give the Big East when they've recently seen an 8-4 UConn team receive an auto-bid and the most consistent football program (WVU) has just left along with the gold-plated Notre Dame (even if it wasn't a football member)? The TV viewer isn't getting that negative impression just because of ESPN. The Big East did it to itself on-the-field for the past several seasons (and there were a whole lot of C-USA people a year ago that were saying just that who then suddenly changed their tune when they got elevated to the Big East).

(10-04-2012 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Big East did it to itself on-the-field for the past several seasons ...

Couldn't disagree more...as the Big East has normally easily outperformed the ACC in football most years...yet once the ACC signed their long-term deal with ESPN...ACC suddenly because a "power conf", even with its embarrassing 2-13 BCS Bowl record.

(10-03-2012 05:34 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  And this was by 2 people who know ESPN very well...and certainly aren't "fans" of Big East Schools...but it was good to hear how they think ESPN "jumped the shark" in regards to covering sports...and covering sports news...vs wanting to BE the news...and protecting/promoting only their properties.

Pretty much sums up the rest of the national "news" media, too.

(10-04-2012 10:05 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Big East did it to itself on-the-field for the past several seasons ...

Couldn't disagree more...as the Big East has normally easily outperformed the ACC in football most years...yet once the ACC signed their long-term deal with ESPN...ACC suddenly because a "power conf", even with its embarrassing 2-13 BCS Bowl record.

I know that "the Big East has easily outperformed the ACC" is something that is taken as faith by many people here, but what exactly do you think the casual sports fan is looking at? Sure, West Virginia pummeled Clemson last year, but WVU is gone. Prior to that, 2010 UConn might have been the worst team that has made any BCS bowl. 2009 Cincinnati had a great regular season, but then got crushed by Florida. 2008 Cincinnati got beaten by ACC champ VT in the Orange Bowl. 2007 was a WVU BCS bowl win (who is gone). I'm sure people want to credit Boise State's victories to the new Big East, but if you're going to do that, then you can't use the 2-13 ACC BCS bowl record and not include Miami's wins.

Now, do I think that the Big East as a whole as constituted this year is better than the ACC on-the-field outside of FSU? Yes. However, there are few people outside of Big East partisans that would say that the conference has done much of anything noteworthy on-the-field since 2006 (and that's exacerbated by the fact that WVU has left). *That* is what has sandbagged the Big East's reputation more than anything that has been said in the media. So, even if you were to say the Big East has been better than the ACC during that timeframe, the loss of WVU specifically mitigates the validity of all of those records.

Look - I don't deny that the ACC has performed like crap on-the-field lately. That is very true. However, I don't understand the flip side where there's this constant denial that the ACC still has quite a bit of national TV appeal, particularly with respect to Florida State and Miami, and *that* is why they are a power conference. When you have national TV draws that get eyeballs whether you win or lose, then you're a power conference that TV networks want to pay for and bowls and the other power conferences want to associate themselves with (and the ACC still has such national TV draws). It is what it is on that front. If Fox had won the ACC TV contract a couple of years ago (which they attempted to do), then they would be promoting the crap out of the ACC, too.

like it or not the big east is full of solid under the radar type teams that have to be almost perfect to get much national buzz. the acc has more programs that have football cred with the casual sports fan period. the be doesn't have a flagship program it can hang its hat on & hasn't had one since miami left.

(10-04-2012 12:18 PM)mj4life Wrote:  like it or not the big east is full of solid under the radar type teams that have to be almost perfect to get much national buzz. the acc has more programs that have football cred with the casual sports fan period. the be doesn't have a flagship program it can hang its hat on & hasn't had one since miami left.

Wow, that's a revelation. Thanks for informing us.

(10-03-2012 05:34 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  it was nice to hear many of the same opinions by 2 professionals that know ESPN much better than we do.

Calling Doug Gottlieb a "professional" is a bit of a stretch. But I get your point.

(10-04-2012 12:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 12:18 PM)mj4life Wrote:  like it or not the big east is full of solid under the radar type teams that have to be almost perfect to get much national buzz. the acc has more programs that have football cred with the casual sports fan period. the be doesn't have a flagship program it can hang its hat on & hasn't had one since miami left.

Wow, that's a revelation. Thanks for informing us.

it should be old news but many on this board seem to be in denial about hard core facts. the acc just makes better strategic alliances that allow it to benefit even with a sub par product.

(10-04-2012 11:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 10:05 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Big East did it to itself on-the-field for the past several seasons ...

Couldn't disagree more...as the Big East has normally easily outperformed the ACC in football most years...yet once the ACC signed their long-term deal with ESPN...ACC suddenly because a "power conf", even with its embarrassing 2-13 BCS Bowl record.

Now, do I think that the Big East as a whole as constituted this year is better than the ACC on-the-field outside of FSU? Yes.

Look - I don't deny that the ACC has performed like crap on-the-field lately. That is very true.

Yet you posted NONE of the above in your previous condescending post but everyone knows why you do it...just that some of us are laughing at you and pointing out the blatant hypocrisy, since you make it sooo easy to do.

(10-04-2012 12:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 05:34 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  it was nice to hear many of the same opinions by 2 professionals that know ESPN much better than we do.

Calling Doug Gottlieb a "professional" is a bit of a stretch. But I get your point.

Fair point...but I do give Gottlieb a lot of credit for expanding his knowledge base, especially non-college basketball topics (NFL, NBA, College Football, MLB, etc...), as he didn't have much outside interest when he launched his initial radio show.

(10-04-2012 01:05 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 12:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 05:34 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  it was nice to hear many of the same opinions by 2 professionals that know ESPN much better than we do.

Calling Doug Gottlieb a "professional" is a bit of a stretch. But I get your point.

Fair point...but I do give Gottlieb a lot of credit for expanding his knowledge base, especially non-college basketball topics (NFL, NBA, College Football, MLB, etc...), as he didn't have much outside interest when he launched his initial radio show.

Nevertheless, he's still a giant bag of dicks.

(10-04-2012 01:24 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 01:05 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 12:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 05:34 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  it was nice to hear many of the same opinions by 2 professionals that know ESPN much better than we do.

Calling Doug Gottlieb a "professional" is a bit of a stretch. But I get your point.

Fair point...but I do give Gottlieb a lot of credit for expanding his knowledge base, especially non-college basketball topics (NFL, NBA, College Football, MLB, etc...), as he didn't have much outside interest when he launched his initial radio show.

Nevertheless, he's still a giant bag of dicks.

Always question why certain guys are so fixated about comparing everything to a *****....(not that there is anything wrong with it).

Just like Colin Cowherd...not a huge fan of his...but he (and Gottlieb) talk more about college sports than almost all the other national hosts do combine which is probably why so many college fans listen to them (vs others that don't).

Weird that some have to LOVE a host to decide to listen to them...vs listening to share different opinions/views...all can be done without "liking" them.

(10-04-2012 01:26 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 01:24 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 01:05 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 12:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 05:34 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  it was nice to hear many of the same opinions by 2 professionals that know ESPN much better than we do.

Calling Doug Gottlieb a "professional" is a bit of a stretch. But I get your point.

Fair point...but I do give Gottlieb a lot of credit for expanding his knowledge base, especially non-college basketball topics (NFL, NBA, College Football, MLB, etc...), as he didn't have much outside interest when he launched his initial radio show.

Nevertheless, he's still a giant bag of dicks.

Always question why certain guys are so fixated about comparing everything to a *****....(not that there is anything wrong with it).

Just like Colin Cowherd...not a huge fan of his...but he (and Gottlieb) talk more about college sports than almost all the other national hosts do combine which is probably why so many college fans listen to them (vs others that don't).

Weird that some have to LOVE a host to decide to listen to them...vs listening to share different opinions/views...all can be done without "liking" them.

I'll put it like this, I can't think of anything more strange than a giant bag of dicks...perhaps a chick blowing a giraffe, but that wouldn't fit in this situation since it's not an insult, it's just strange.

I hate just about anyone I hear on the radio and here's why, they are trolls. Their primary job is to just stir **** up and Gotlube has spent plenty of air time stirring **** up with the Memphis fanbase. I won't listen to him and I won't give him the ratings, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend I'm not annoyed.

(10-04-2012 12:18 PM)mj4life Wrote:  like it or not the big east is full of solid under the radar type teams that have to be almost perfect to get much national buzz. the acc has more programs that have football cred with the casual sports fan period. the be doesn't have a flagship program it can hang its hat on & hasn't had one since miami left.

The Big East has also been a marriage of convenience since the 1991 expansion; there's always been somebody unhappy over the makeup of the league. The only conference comparable to this is the Big 12.

Guess which conferences have lost teams?

The national powerhouses developed in the Big East (WVU and VT, Miami was a powerhouse when they came in) move on to greener pastures. If there was slighly more cohesion, perhaps Pitt and Syracuse don't leave, then things look different.

As far as the strength of the football conference, we produce a clunker of a champion every 6 years or so. Stuff happens.

(10-04-2012 01:24 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 01:05 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 12:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 05:34 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  it was nice to hear many of the same opinions by 2 professionals that know ESPN much better than we do.

Calling Doug Gottlieb a "professional" is a bit of a stretch. But I get your point.

Fair point...but I do give Gottlieb a lot of credit for expanding his knowledge base, especially non-college basketball topics (NFL, NBA, College Football, MLB, etc...), as he didn't have much outside interest when he launched his initial radio show.

Nevertheless, he's still a giant bag of dicks.

I think he likes bags of dicks too....

If Duke and Wake were all of a sudden the "power boys" of the ACC, there wouldn't be a national clamoring to see their games on TV. So what is different about Rutgers or Cincy or Louisville or USF or, beginning next year, Boise State. In football, each likely has more of a national profile than all the ACC teams with the exception of FSU, Miami, VA Tech, Clemson and UNC. So what is my point. The ACC, at best, is equal to the Big East in on-the field performance and not much ahead of the Big East in national interest and appeal. So why is it a "power conference" and the Big East, at least in the eyes of robotic ESPN minions, is not.

(10-04-2012 06:18 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  If Duke and Wake were all of a sudden the "power boys" of the ACC, there wouldn't be a national clamoring to see their games on TV. So what is different about Rutgers or Cincy or Louisville or USF or, beginning next year, Boise State. In football, each likely has more of a national profile than all the ACC teams with the exception of FSU, Miami, VA Tech, Clemson and UNC. So what is my point. The ACC, at best, is equal to the Big East in on-the field performance and not much ahead of the Big East in national interest and appeal. So why is it a "power conference" and the Big East, at least in the eyes of robotic ESPN minions, is not.

Because they signed a 15 year long-term contract with ESPN as their sole TV network.

That's why.

(10-04-2012 06:18 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  If Duke and Wake were all of a sudden the "power boys" of the ACC, there wouldn't be a national clamoring to see their games on TV. So what is different about Rutgers or Cincy or Louisville or USF or, beginning next year, Boise State. In football, each likely has more of a national profile than all the ACC teams with the exception of FSU, Miami, VA Tech, Clemson and UNC. So what is my point. The ACC, at best, is equal to the Big East in on-the field performance and not much ahead of the Big East in national interest and appeal. So why is it a "power conference" and the Big East, at least in the eyes of robotic ESPN minions, is not.

you could say the same for ole miss,vanderbilt,northwestern or purdue. they all benefit from the big dogs at the top of their conference. in case you didn't know FSU & Miami dominated the BCS early on & FSU finished 14 years in a row as a consensus top 5 team. no team much less a big east one has even come close to duplicating this

(10-05-2012 08:34 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 06:18 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  If Duke and Wake were all of a sudden the "power boys" of the ACC, there wouldn't be a national clamoring to see their games on TV. So what is different about Rutgers or Cincy or Louisville or USF or, beginning next year, Boise State. In football, each likely has more of a national profile than all the ACC teams with the exception of FSU, Miami, VA Tech, Clemson and UNC. So what is my point. The ACC, at best, is equal to the Big East in on-the field performance and not much ahead of the Big East in national interest and appeal. So why is it a "power conference" and the Big East, at least in the eyes of robotic ESPN minions, is not.

Because they signed a 15 year long-term contract with ESPN as their sole TV network.

That's why.

+3 BAM