http://www.bcsn.tv/news_article/show/798473

(05-31-2017 05:53 AM)zurkman Wrote:  http://www.bcsn.tv/news_article/show/798473

David Briggs has wiffed big time on some past articles, but this one is well done.

Great article.

I really enjoyed the article too. But as the saying goes.....Offense wins games, but Defense wins championships!!! Especially when November rolls around.

(05-31-2017 11:00 AM)letsgoblue Wrote:  I really enjoyed the article too. But as the saying goes.....Offense wins games, but will Defense wins championships!!! Especially when November rolls around.

Over the past 3 seasons, the Rockets have played pretty good defense except for the 55 point shellacking by WMU in November going 8-4. 3 of the 4 losses were by a total of 13 points.








u

Love my rockets, but I haven't seen anything in tbe last 10 years that won't get my hopes up early in the season, only to see us melt in November. As stated in another string, our schedule sucks from a date perspective, not a competition perspective.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

(05-31-2017 11:04 PM)emanoh Wrote:  Love my rockets, but I haven't seen anything in tbe last 10 years that won't get my hopes up early in the season, only to see us melt in November. As stated in another string, our schedule sucks from a date perspective, not a competition perspective.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It sure would be nice to once in a while get the NIU/WMU/Ohio games early in the season, as opposed to those dreary November nights every season. The BGSUcks game should be the last game of the season...EVERY YEAR. Stupid MACtion.

(06-02-2017 01:13 AM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 11:04 PM)emanoh Wrote:  Love my rockets, but I haven't seen anything in tbe last 10 years that won't get my hopes up early in the season, only to see us melt in November. As stated in another string, our schedule sucks from a date perspective, not a competition perspective.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It sure would be nice to once in a while get the NIU/WMU/Ohio games early in the season, as opposed to those dreary November nights every season. The BGSUcks game should be the last game of the season...EVERY YEAR. Stupid MACtion.

That won't happen until those teams suck. I bet if EMU rips off 8 or 9 wins this year, We'll be playing them in November next year.

(06-03-2017 07:34 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 01:13 AM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 11:04 PM)emanoh Wrote:  Love my rockets, but I haven't seen anything in tbe last 10 years that won't get my hopes up early in the season, only to see us melt in November. As stated in another string, our schedule sucks from a date perspective, not a competition perspective.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It sure would be nice to once in a while get the NIU/WMU/Ohio games early in the season, as opposed to those dreary November nights every season. The BGSUcks game should be the last game of the season...EVERY YEAR. Stupid MACtion.

That won't happen until those teams suck. I bet if EMU rips off 8 or 9 wins this year, We'll be playing them in November next year.

And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I think the MAC tries to schedule the teams most likely to be playing for the division championship against each other at the end of the season.

(06-03-2017 07:37 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 07:34 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 01:13 AM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 11:04 PM)emanoh Wrote:  Love my rockets, but I haven't seen anything in tbe last 10 years that won't get my hopes up early in the season, only to see us melt in November. As stated in another string, our schedule sucks from a date perspective, not a competition perspective.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It sure would be nice to once in a while get the NIU/WMU/Ohio games early in the season, as opposed to those dreary November nights every season. The BGSUcks game should be the last game of the season...EVERY YEAR. Stupid MACtion.

That won't happen until those teams suck. I bet if EMU rips off 8 or 9 wins this year, We'll be playing them in November next year.

And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I think ESPN tries to schedule the teams most likely to be playing for the division championship against each other at the end of the season.

Corrected it for you

(06-04-2017 09:44 AM)Rocket A Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 07:37 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 07:34 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 01:13 AM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 11:04 PM)emanoh Wrote:  Love my rockets, but I haven't seen anything in tbe last 10 years that won't get my hopes up early in the season, only to see us melt in November. As stated in another string, our schedule sucks from a date perspective, not a competition perspective.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It sure would be nice to once in a while get the NIU/WMU/Ohio games early in the season, as opposed to those dreary November nights every season. The BGSUcks game should be the last game of the season...EVERY YEAR. Stupid MACtion.

That won't happen until those teams suck. I bet if EMU rips off 8 or 9 wins this year, We'll be playing them in November next year.

And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I think ESPN tries to schedule the teams most likely to be playing for the division championship against each other at the end of the season.

Corrected it for you

ESPN: the tail that wags the obedient puppy.

Since ESPN has began its control of the MAC, has the MAC risen in stature? No.

Are our (MAC or UT) teams getting higher rankings? No.

Are our stands fuller? No.

There have to be gains. ESPN permits the non-in-power conferences to tap into at least a portion of our bloated need for force fed entertainment. MAC and similar conferences do not believe the subscription income they could generate from a self-owned streamed content provider could match the meager percent fed to them by ESPN. They may be correct but popular streaming would seem to contradict.

NetFlix now being THE player is probably not a good analogy but HULU, the CW and similar streamers are. Low implementation cost. Driven by advertiser dollars. They are still able to stream their content free or at reasonable costs. They are able to develop their own programming, at first iffy but now quality.

If the puppies want to become dogs, they're going to have to wean themselves sometime.

(06-04-2017 10:27 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 09:44 AM)Rocket A Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 07:37 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 07:34 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 01:13 AM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  It sure would be nice to once in a while get the NIU/WMU/Ohio games early in the season, as opposed to those dreary November nights every season. The BGSUcks game should be the last game of the season...EVERY YEAR. Stupid MACtion.

That won't happen until those teams suck. I bet if EMU rips off 8 or 9 wins this year, We'll be playing them in November next year.

And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I think ESPN tries to schedule the teams most likely to be playing for the division championship against each other at the end of the season.

Corrected it for you

ESPN: the tail that wags the obedient puppy.

Since ESPN has began its control of the MAC, has the MAC risen in stature? No.

Are our (MAC or UT) teams getting higher rankings? No.

Are our stands fuller? No.

There have to be gains. ESPN permits the non-in-power conferences to tap into at least a portion of our bloated need for force fed entertainment. MAC and similar conferences do not believe the subscription income they could generate from a self-owned streamed content provider could match the meager percent fed to them by ESPN. They may be correct but popular streaming would seem to contradict.

NetFlix now being THE player is probably not a good analogy but HULU, the CW and similar streamers are. Low implementation cost. Driven by advertiser dollars. They are still able to stream their content free or at reasonable costs. They are able to develop their own programming, at first iffy but now quality.

If the puppies want to become dogs, they're going to have to wean themselves sometime.

Since the signing of the original deal in 2009, Rockets have won almost 70% of their FB games(9 wins or more, 6 out of the last 7 seasons) and the MAC has sent two teams to the Cotton and Orange Bowls. To be a big dog at UT's level, you must first consistently win everything.

(06-04-2017 11:13 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Since the signing of the original deal in 2009, Rockets have won almost 70% of their FB games(9 wins or more, 6 out of the last 7 seasons) and the MAC has sent two teams to the Cotton and Orange Bowls. To be a big dog at UT's level, you must first consistently win everything.

Two teams that got there by default (weak league competition) and then got destroyed. Yes?

70%, no league titles,...


What matters:
I'm sure there are pros to be made to my cons.
Are you arguing that the league has gained respect since the ESPN deal? Is more powerful? Able to dictate? Enriched? Ultimately better because of the ESPN deal? These would all be fair arguments to debate I think. We are one of the better positioned teams in the conference for marketing and recruiting yet most of our sports haven't seen the gleam of a Championship in decades. How has ESPN been any help in that regard?

I think a conference of municipal universities that ran it's own show, picked it's own schedules has a much better chance of retaining and improving fan (hence, alum and supporter donations) involvement and loyalty. You get a few other of the non-power conferences on-board and you've built a network that can quickly come up to speed on providing streaming services to non-local supporters.

If anything, I think it would be interesting brainstorming to consider the scheduling possibilities and practicalities if ESPN's demands were not part of the equation, retaining the rock and hard places of the multiple loyalties of local fan-bases to power players. If no ESPN, could we market in a way that would build better local support and fan base? Ultimately, that's where the money lies both athletically and academically.

(06-04-2017 12:52 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 11:13 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Since the signing of the original deal in 2009, Rockets have won almost 70% of their FB games(9 wins or more, 6 out of the last 7 seasons) and the MAC has sent two teams to the Cotton and Orange Bowls. To be a big dog at UT's level, you must first consistently win everything.

Two teams that got there by default (weak league competition) and then got destroyed. Yes?

70%, no league titles,...


What matters:
I'm sure there are pros to be made to my cons.
Are you arguing that the league has gained respect since the ESPN deal? Is more powerful? Able to dictate? Enriched? Ultimately better because of the ESPN deal? These would all be fair arguments to debate I think. We are one of the better positioned teams in the conference for marketing and recruiting yet most of our sports haven't seen the gleam of a Championship in decades. How has ESPN been any help in that regard?

I think a conference of municipal universities that ran it's own show, picked it's own schedules has a much better chance of retaining and improving fan (hence, alum and supporter donations) involvement and loyalty. You get a few other of the non-power conferences on-board and you've built a network that can quickly come up to speed on providing streaming services to non-local supporters.

If anything, I think it would be interesting brainstorming to consider the scheduling possibilities and practicalities if ESPN's demands were not part of the equation, retaining the rock and hard places of the multiple loyalties of local fan-bases to power players. If no ESPN, could we market in a way that would build better local support and fan base? Ultimately, that's where the money lies both athletically and academically.

I think that the high water mark for the MAC in terms of national reputation was 2003 and they got there winning big games, not TV exposure.

As to the coming season, I will be pleasantly surprised if the 2017 edition is overall as good as the 2015 edition but the "best" team in a league does not always win the championship------championships only determine the champion which is, unlike opinions regarding the "best" team" is never debatable and thus are most highly valued. At this point the MAC West seems to be a bit down going into the 2017 season, so maybe this is the year the Rockets overcome their November curse and really do win the West this year, but even so, I fear Miami may be the MACC this year after all is said and done. Their 2016 year reminded me of the Rocket's 1999 year ----but of even though I personally consider the 2000 Rockets to be the "best" rocket team I have seen, they too failed to win a MACC, so it is all speculation at this point.....just passing time before the season actually starts.

(06-04-2017 12:52 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 11:13 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Since the signing of the original deal in 2009, Rockets have won almost 70% of their FB games(9 wins or more, 6 out of the last 7 seasons) and the MAC has sent two teams to the Cotton and Orange Bowls. To be a big dog at UT's level, you must first consistently win everything.

Two teams that got there by default (weak league competition) and then got destroyed. Yes?

70%, no league titles,...


What matters:
I'm sure there are pros to be made to my cons.
Are you arguing that the league has gained respect since the ESPN deal? Is more powerful? Able to dictate? Enriched? Ultimately better because of the ESPN deal? These would all be fair arguments to debate I think. We are one of the better positioned teams in the conference for marketing and recruiting yet most of our sports haven't seen the gleam of a Championship in decades. How has ESPN been any help in that regard?

I think a conference of municipal universities that ran it's own show, picked it's own schedules has a much better chance of retaining and improving fan (hence, alum and supporter donations) involvement and loyalty. You get a few other of the non-power conferences on-board and you've built a network that can quickly come up to speed on providing streaming services to non-local supporters.

If anything, I think it would be interesting brainstorming to consider the scheduling possibilities and practicalities if ESPN's demands were not part of the equation, retaining the rock and hard places of the multiple loyalties of local fan-bases to power players. If no ESPN, could we market in a way that would build better local support and fan base? Ultimately, that's where the money lies both athletically and academically.

Going 13-1 and losing 24-16 in the Cotton Bowl to the Big Ten's West Division Champ isn't exactly getting destroyed. The FSU team NIU played won the National Championship the next season and Jordan Lynch won the Chick Harley Award.

(06-04-2017 02:08 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Going 13-1 and losing 24-16 in the Cotton Bowl to the Big Ten's West Division Champ isn't exactly getting destroyed. The FSU team NIU played won the National Championship the next season and Jordan Lynch won the Chick Harley Award.

I think I had NIUs sting left in my head and the MAC performance in Bowls last season. The Big10 had 7 bowl losses. Probably a good thing they got matched up with the MAC.

But, the topic is ESPN a benefit or a hindrance to conference and university growth or could they provide the service themselves and take back schedule control.

NIU and WMU was as I said, last man standing because of weak conference. Was their schedule really competitive with the teams that lost out on that bowl? Did they build their fan bases significantly because of weeknight/varying night games?

Speculatively, the three draft picks weren't ESPN exposures. We had the Pittsburgh connection through coaches and previous NFL caliber picks. The other two were Ohioans. As was Elliot.

I'm sure there are several that would be hard to replace, again speculatively, who would be our "ESPN" recruits over the last few years? Those who would not have otherwise had exposure either through normal geographical, coaching or alumni channels?

to me it's really a question of structural philosophy.

1) you build a brand and a product that is marketable by the mainstream entertainment system, and define success by having that product be profitable for that system and generate enough value to them that they market you. This is the ESPN model.

2) you build a community based model that is grounded in your university, city and regional networks. you define success by the level of commitment and connection your networks have to you. this is the local university sports model of the past.

to me the answer is #2 but with some updating. everything on sports television is presented the same way. there has been little evolution in to presentation of a college football game other that image quality over the past 50 years. show the game from new angles, use audio in different ways, break from the typical play by play guy yammering away and the "smart" color guy playing expert. let the flow of the game dictate the pace of the event, not the television coverage. i firmly believe that if the entire MAC took this approach, scheduled games on saturdays, directed resources to their communities and made the game experience and media production unique the support would be there and the experience would be special enough to pull in good recruits.

(06-04-2017 02:53 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Speculatively, the three draft picks weren't ESPN exposures. We had the Pittsburgh connection through coaches and previous NFL caliber picks. The other two were Ohioans. As was Elliot.

I'm sure there are several that would be hard to replace, again speculatively, who would be our "ESPN" recruits over the last few years? Those who would not have otherwise had exposure either through normal geographical, coaching or alumni channels?

I would guess 25% of UT's recent recruiting classes are due in part to ESPN
exposure-games, MACTION, Bowl games, etc.

(06-04-2017 03:51 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 02:53 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Speculatively, the three draft picks weren't ESPN exposures. We had the Pittsburgh connection through coaches and previous NFL caliber picks. The other two were Ohioans. As was Elliot.

I'm sure there are several that would be hard to replace, again speculatively, who would be our "ESPN" recruits over the last few years? Those who would not have otherwise had exposure either through normal geographical, coaching or alumni channels?

I would guess 25% of UT's recent recruiting classes are due in part to ESPN
exposure-games, MACTION, Bowl games, etc.

Ahead of you (I think) on the bowl games. I'd already considered that if MAC teams stop being invited to bowl games, an NCAA function, they'd have an anti-trust suit warming up.

MACTION: in another form as I proposed and pono just modeled would still continue, perhaps even less competing with traffic from the dozen other streams at any given time.

"exposure" games? Not sure what you mean. If you mean P-5, again if these stopped being offered, I think that would go to anti-trust. P-5 schools are NCAA first. I can imagine lawyers getting involved if the P-5 refused to schedule teams not in the "ESPN network."