Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
I didn't watch the playoffs- did you?
Author Message
DefCONNOne Offline
That damn MLS!!

Posts: 11,005
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: UCONN
Location: MLS HQ
Post: #41
RE: I didn't watch the playoffs- did you?
(01-10-2017 01:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I watched the championship game and it was an instant classic. Your loss if you didn't watch it.

The semifinals are more difficult simply because it's New Year's Eve. We had people over at our house and put the games on TV, but they were more in the background (especially since they weren't particularly close). New Year's Eve semifinal games were always (and will always continue to be) a really bad idea.

03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao

[inhales deeply]

03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao

Thanks Frank, I needed that laugh.
01-10-2017 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #42
RE: I didn't watch the playoffs- did you?
(01-10-2017 09:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:17 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:07 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 04:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 02:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I've heard it was a great game. Maybe I missed out, maybe I didn't. I'm trying to take a stand. One person isn't going to do much I know. Maybe a few will join me. I want espn to stop the marginalization of many proud universities by using non-official, non-NCAA labels to destroy our school's athletic teams. That's my purpose for not watching. If I'm alone in this, so be it. I don't think I am. When ESPN stops referring to the highest attendance football and basketball programs (BYU, ECU, Air Force and Navy as examples in football) as "non-power schools" and calling Wake and Rutgers "power schools" and when ESPIN stops referring to top 25 attendence year in and out for decades basketball programs such as Dayton, St Louis, UNLV and New Mexico as "mid-majors" while claiming horrific programs like Northwestern and Oregon St are "majors" I'll watch them again.
Rigged sports media is ruining our sport. There will be more casualties: Kansas St and Iowa St and other Big 12 schools not named OU and Texas: When You think you'll never be called a "mid major" remember what happened to Rice, SMU and Houston; former SWC schools now deemed "mid-majors" by ESPN. ESPN IS COMING for OU & UT and will put them in other "power conferences" leaving you for dead if we don't change things. The effects of being labeled as "non-power" and "mid-major" are absolutely crippling.
Cheers!

To the extent that it's "rigged", it's not ESPN.

It's actually very real as the Power Five (including Notre Dame) are codified in the CFP contract and under the autonomy rules of the NCAA. Now, you might not like it, but it's definitely not arbitrary or media-driven. It's pretty explicit and well-defined.

At the same time, casual fan interest is driven by brand names. To the extent that there was a lack of interest in this year's game, it pretty much had nothing to do with the lack of G5 participation and everything to do with it being a rematch. If it was Alabama vs. Michigan or USC for the championship game, then that would have driven more interest by comparison.

Frank: so the very people who own the media rights don't control the narrative? Hmmm...Say the Big 10 signed a huge media deal that excluded ESPN starting next year, and Illinois was going on an unexpected, undefeated run. A great story right? -every Illini game was on fox, cbs and NBC though, not a single game on an espn station or ABC. Do you honestly believe the espn talking heads would be talking about Illinois and their undefeated run? showing some good highlights of Illinois games broadcast on fox, cbs and NBC and BTN? Or do you think maybe, just maybe the espn talking heads would be generally negative about Illinois and how they were overrated if they even talked about them at all?
Cheers!

The Big East forced ESPN to give them favorable coverage. You can't ignore success.

Glad you brought that up. Please explain ESPN totally ignoring the MWC when they left ESPN. I bet most people don't realize they had years when Utah, TCU and BYU were top 5, top 10 teams in the same season. CUSA had some great teams during that period too. Houston and ECU had some great runs and were ignored by ESPN during those great runs. The MWC and CUSA had great conferences in football and basketball between 2004 and 2012 but no one knew about it because ESPN wouldn't cover them. Please tell me others remember this period of time? Utah, TCU, Louisville and BYU, the A-10 and MV basketball schools were all ignored right up until the moment that were snagged up by espn contracted "power conferences" and out of their "mid major" "non-BCS" "non-power" conferences. Those labels were pushed by espn starting around 1998. Utah made the NCAA finals in hoops in 97, a few years before that some CUSA teams made the final 4...then the labels from espn came telling the casual fan who counted and who didn't.
Cheers!

They did the same thing to a lesser extent to the Pac 10 and Big 12 when they initially signed with Fox a number of years back.
01-10-2017 09:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #43
RE: I didn't watch the playoffs- did you?
(01-10-2017 09:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:17 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:07 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 04:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To the extent that it's "rigged", it's not ESPN.

It's actually very real as the Power Five (including Notre Dame) are codified in the CFP contract and under the autonomy rules of the NCAA. Now, you might not like it, but it's definitely not arbitrary or media-driven. It's pretty explicit and well-defined.

At the same time, casual fan interest is driven by brand names. To the extent that there was a lack of interest in this year's game, it pretty much had nothing to do with the lack of G5 participation and everything to do with it being a rematch. If it was Alabama vs. Michigan or USC for the championship game, then that would have driven more interest by comparison.

Frank: so the very people who own the media rights don't control the narrative? Hmmm...Say the Big 10 signed a huge media deal that excluded ESPN starting next year, and Illinois was going on an unexpected, undefeated run. A great story right? -every Illini game was on fox, cbs and NBC though, not a single game on an espn station or ABC. Do you honestly believe the espn talking heads would be talking about Illinois and their undefeated run? showing some good highlights of Illinois games broadcast on fox, cbs and NBC and BTN? Or do you think maybe, just maybe the espn talking heads would be generally negative about Illinois and how they were overrated if they even talked about them at all?
Cheers!

The Big East forced ESPN to give them favorable coverage. You can't ignore success.

Glad you brought that up. Please explain ESPN totally ignoring the MWC when they left ESPN. I bet most people don't realize they had years when Utah, TCU and BYU were top 5, top 10 teams in the same season. CUSA had some great teams during that period too. Houston and ECU had some great runs and were ignored by ESPN during those great runs. The MWC and CUSA had great conferences in football and basketball between 2004 and 2012 but no one knew about it because ESPN wouldn't cover them. Please tell me others remember this period of time? Utah, TCU, Louisville and BYU, the A-10 and MV basketball schools were all ignored right up until the moment that were snagged up by espn contracted "power conferences" and out of their "mid major" "non-BCS" "non-power" conferences. Those labels were pushed by espn starting around 1998. Utah made the NCAA finals in hoops in 97, a few years before that some CUSA teams made the final 4...then the labels from espn came telling the casual fan who counted and who didn't.
Cheers!

They did the same thing to a lesser extent to the Pac 10 and Big 12 when they initially signed with Fox a number of years back.

Yep, in the 90's when the Big 12 and PAC split their rights with ESPN/Fox, ESPN started hating on them. Wonder if ESPIN will treat the Big 10 next year with Fox getting in half the games? I suspect ESPN will be behind the ACC (all rights) and the SEC (all rights but a game a week) Frank the Tank: what do you think?
Cheers!
01-10-2017 10:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1773
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #44
RE: I didn't watch the playoffs- did you?
(01-10-2017 10:04 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:17 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:07 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Frank: so the very people who own the media rights don't control the narrative? Hmmm...Say the Big 10 signed a huge media deal that excluded ESPN starting next year, and Illinois was going on an unexpected, undefeated run. A great story right? -every Illini game was on fox, cbs and NBC though, not a single game on an espn station or ABC. Do you honestly believe the espn talking heads would be talking about Illinois and their undefeated run? showing some good highlights of Illinois games broadcast on fox, cbs and NBC and BTN? Or do you think maybe, just maybe the espn talking heads would be generally negative about Illinois and how they were overrated if they even talked about them at all?
Cheers!

The Big East forced ESPN to give them favorable coverage. You can't ignore success.

Glad you brought that up. Please explain ESPN totally ignoring the MWC when they left ESPN. I bet most people don't realize they had years when Utah, TCU and BYU were top 5, top 10 teams in the same season. CUSA had some great teams during that period too. Houston and ECU had some great runs and were ignored by ESPN during those great runs. The MWC and CUSA had great conferences in football and basketball between 2004 and 2012 but no one knew about it because ESPN wouldn't cover them. Please tell me others remember this period of time? Utah, TCU, Louisville and BYU, the A-10 and MV basketball schools were all ignored right up until the moment that were snagged up by espn contracted "power conferences" and out of their "mid major" "non-BCS" "non-power" conferences. Those labels were pushed by espn starting around 1998. Utah made the NCAA finals in hoops in 97, a few years before that some CUSA teams made the final 4...then the labels from espn came telling the casual fan who counted and who didn't.
Cheers!

They did the same thing to a lesser extent to the Pac 10 and Big 12 when they initially signed with Fox a number of years back.

Yep, in the 90's when the Big 12 and PAC split their rights with ESPN/Fox, ESPN started hating on them. Wonder if ESPIN will treat the Big 10 next year with Fox getting in half the games? I suspect ESPN will be behind the ACC (all rights) and the SEC (all rights but a game a week) Frank the Tank: what do you think?
Cheers!

I legitimately believe ESPN will talk about who will draw the most interest because that is what makes them money. I've actually criticized Big Tens fans that whined about ESPN talking about the SEC more than the Big Ten on my blog and here many times over the years. It's one of the most annoying complaints that I hear from fans. I tell Big Ten fans all of the time that their complaints about supposed ESPN bias are ridiculous. The only "bias" that ESPN is to draw in viewers and it doesn't behoove them to ignore legitimately large fan bases.

If the Big Ten or any other conference actually has talk-worthy teams with legitimately large fan bases, then ESPN or other media outlets have a direct financial interest to talk about them. ESPN talks about Notre Dame all of the time despite them being an NBC property. Did ESPN ignore the World Series even though it no longer has postseason MLB rights beyond a Wild Card Game? Is ESPN ignoring the NFL postseason for the rest of this month? Of course not because those are still massive properties that draw widespread interest that ESPN has to cover (regardless of whether a competitor holds the rights) because its viewers care about them. ESPN certainly hasn't ignored Notre Dame football over the years and any league with similarly situated marquee brands (like the Big Ten and the rest of the P5) won't be ignored, either. ESPN talking heads even talk about UFC way too much for my taste (meaning that I find it jarring that they talk about it at all) and that's the one "sport" that they truly have ZERO relationship with... but their data has clearly been showing Millennials and other audience members have been watching more UFC, so it's been pretty noticeable that their talk about it has increased accordingly.

Plus, by your logic, ESPN's interest is to now treat the AAC better than the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 next year since the AAC has a more comprehensive deal with ESPN by comparison. Heck, ESPN even owns more AAC content than it does for the SEC. What are you worried about?
01-11-2017 05:07 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,407
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 173
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #45
I didn't watch the playoffs- did you?
Espn
01-11-2017 06:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Go College Sports Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 314
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 30
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #46
RE: I didn't watch the playoffs- did you?
(01-10-2017 09:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:17 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:07 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 04:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 02:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I've heard it was a great game. Maybe I missed out, maybe I didn't. I'm trying to take a stand. One person isn't going to do much I know. Maybe a few will join me. I want espn to stop the marginalization of many proud universities by using non-official, non-NCAA labels to destroy our school's athletic teams. That's my purpose for not watching. If I'm alone in this, so be it. I don't think I am. When ESPN stops referring to the highest attendance football and basketball programs (BYU, ECU, Air Force and Navy as examples in football) as "non-power schools" and calling Wake and Rutgers "power schools" and when ESPIN stops referring to top 25 attendence year in and out for decades basketball programs such as Dayton, St Louis, UNLV and New Mexico as "mid-majors" while claiming horrific programs like Northwestern and Oregon St are "majors" I'll watch them again.
Rigged sports media is ruining our sport. There will be more casualties: Kansas St and Iowa St and other Big 12 schools not named OU and Texas: When You think you'll never be called a "mid major" remember what happened to Rice, SMU and Houston; former SWC schools now deemed "mid-majors" by ESPN. ESPN IS COMING for OU & UT and will put them in other "power conferences" leaving you for dead if we don't change things. The effects of being labeled as "non-power" and "mid-major" are absolutely crippling.
Cheers!

To the extent that it's "rigged", it's not ESPN.

It's actually very real as the Power Five (including Notre Dame) are codified in the CFP contract and under the autonomy rules of the NCAA. Now, you might not like it, but it's definitely not arbitrary or media-driven. It's pretty explicit and well-defined.

At the same time, casual fan interest is driven by brand names. To the extent that there was a lack of interest in this year's game, it pretty much had nothing to do with the lack of G5 participation and everything to do with it being a rematch. If it was Alabama vs. Michigan or USC for the championship game, then that would have driven more interest by comparison.

Frank: so the very people who own the media rights don't control the narrative? Hmmm...Say the Big 10 signed a huge media deal that excluded ESPN starting next year, and Illinois was going on an unexpected, undefeated run. A great story right? -every Illini game was on fox, cbs and NBC though, not a single game on an espn station or ABC. Do you honestly believe the espn talking heads would be talking about Illinois and their undefeated run? showing some good highlights of Illinois games broadcast on fox, cbs and NBC and BTN? Or do you think maybe, just maybe the espn talking heads would be generally negative about Illinois and how they were overrated if they even talked about them at all?
Cheers!

The Big East forced ESPN to give them favorable coverage. You can't ignore success.

Glad you brought that up. Please explain ESPN totally ignoring the MWC when they left ESPN. I bet most people don't realize they had years when Utah, TCU and BYU were top 5, top 10 teams in the same season. CUSA had some great teams during that period too. Houston and ECU had some great runs and were ignored by ESPN during those great runs. The MWC and CUSA had great conferences in football and basketball between 2004 and 2012 but no one knew about it because ESPN wouldn't cover them. Please tell me others remember this period of time? Utah, TCU, Louisville and BYU, the A-10 and MV basketball schools were all ignored right up until the moment that were snagged up by espn contracted "power conferences" and out of their "mid major" "non-BCS" "non-power" conferences. Those labels were pushed by espn starting around 1998. Utah made the NCAA finals in hoops in 97, a few years before that some CUSA teams made the final 4...then the labels from espn came telling the casual fan who counted and who didn't.
Cheers!

ESPN did Game Day for Utah-TCU in back to back years when both were good, even though the games were on CBS Sports. It did TCU-BYU three weeks before one of those games. Seems like there would have been easier ways to ignore the non-power conferences that they didn't have media rights to.
01-11-2017 08:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #47
RE: I didn't watch the playoffs- did you?
(01-11-2017 05:07 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 10:04 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 09:17 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  The Big East forced ESPN to give them favorable coverage. You can't ignore success.

Glad you brought that up. Please explain ESPN totally ignoring the MWC when they left ESPN. I bet most people don't realize they had years when Utah, TCU and BYU were top 5, top 10 teams in the same season. CUSA had some great teams during that period too. Houston and ECU had some great runs and were ignored by ESPN during those great runs. The MWC and CUSA had great conferences in football and basketball between 2004 and 2012 but no one knew about it because ESPN wouldn't cover them. Please tell me others remember this period of time? Utah, TCU, Louisville and BYU, the A-10 and MV basketball schools were all ignored right up until the moment that were snagged up by espn contracted "power conferences" and out of their "mid major" "non-BCS" "non-power" conferences. Those labels were pushed by espn starting around 1998. Utah made the NCAA finals in hoops in 97, a few years before that some CUSA teams made the final 4...then the labels from espn came telling the casual fan who counted and who didn't.
Cheers!

They did the same thing to a lesser extent to the Pac 10 and Big 12 when they initially signed with Fox a number of years back.

Yep, in the 90's when the Big 12 and PAC split their rights with ESPN/Fox, ESPN started hating on them. Wonder if ESPIN will treat the Big 10 next year with Fox getting in half the games? I suspect ESPN will be behind the ACC (all rights) and the SEC (all rights but a game a week) Frank the Tank: what do you think?
Cheers!

I legitimately believe ESPN will talk about who will draw the most interest because that is what makes them money. I've actually criticized Big Tens fans that whined about ESPN talking about the SEC more than the Big Ten on my blog and here many times over the years. It's one of the most annoying complaints that I hear from fans. I tell Big Ten fans all of the time that their complaints about supposed ESPN bias are ridiculous. The only "bias" that ESPN is to draw in viewers and it doesn't behoove them to ignore legitimately large fan bases.

If the Big Ten or any other conference actually has talk-worthy teams with legitimately large fan bases, then ESPN or other media outlets have a direct financial interest to talk about them. ESPN talks about Notre Dame all of the time despite them being an NBC property. Did ESPN ignore the World Series even though it no longer has postseason MLB rights beyond a Wild Card Game? Is ESPN ignoring the NFL postseason for the rest of this month? Of course not because those are still massive properties that draw widespread interest that ESPN has to cover (regardless of whether a competitor holds the rights) because its viewers care about them. ESPN certainly hasn't ignored Notre Dame football over the years and any league with similarly situated marquee brands (like the Big Ten and the rest of the P5) won't be ignored, either. ESPN talking heads even talk about UFC way too much for my taste (meaning that I find it jarring that they talk about it at all) and that's the one "sport" that they truly have ZERO relationship with... but their data has clearly been showing Millennials and other audience members have been watching more UFC, so it's been pretty noticeable that their talk about it has increased accordingly.

Plus, by your logic, ESPN's interest is to now treat the AAC better than the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 next year since the AAC has a more comprehensive deal with ESPN by comparison. Heck, ESPN even owns more AAC content than it does for the SEC. What are you worried about?

-The AAC isn't in the "P5", so your logic about my logic goes out the window.
-The UFC doesn't have a P5 group of fighters and a "mid-major" group of fighters. Once ESPIN buys into the sport, you'll see which fighters get talked about more.
-MLB doesn't have an espn designated "mid-major" team that could squeak into the wildcard game that ESPIN shows. Not really relevant, is it?
-Why didn't you use the NHL as one of your examples of ESPN losing the rights to something, but still covering it OR not covering it. Just curious why you omitted the NHL?
We obviously disagree on espn, I think they are an evil cancer. You like them.
Cheers!
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2017 11:30 AM by billybobby777.)
01-11-2017 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #48
RE: I didn't watch the playoffs- did you?
Frank: to my point about ESPN and the NHL. Do you think ESPN changed how it covered the NHL after losing broadcast rights to the NHL? You are an NHL fan, curious on your opinion on this particular topic.
Cheers!
01-11-2017 09:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.