(01-10-2017 04:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(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.

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.

If you don't think it's at least partly media-driven, you haven't been listening very closely.

(01-10-2017 04:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(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.

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.

If you don't think it's at least partly media-driven, you haven't been listening very closely.

The media is reflecting reality. It's not making up the fact that the P5 are getting paid magnitudes more in revenue. It's not making up the fact that the P5 get the vast majority of TV viewers. It's not making up the fact that the higher prestige and higher paying bowls have P5 matchups. It's not making up the fact that the CFP has a clear contractual separation between how contract conferences (plus Notre Dame) are treated and the group of other conferences (and other independents) are treated.

It's like telling a movie theater operator that it needs to show some obscure independent film because a tiny minority of people want "fairness" instead of Rogue One or the latest Marvel movie that will actually sell tickets... and then complaining that it's the media's fault that Star Wars movies get more attention than some movie that no one cares about.

News flash: if people outside of a tiny minority of fans really cared, then the media would cover them. Media attention isn't doled out "fairly". Instead, the media's sole purpose is to display what the general public is *actually* interested in (which in this case would be the P5 conferences).

(01-10-2017 04:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(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.

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.

If you don't think it's at least partly media-driven, you haven't been listening very closely.

The media is reflecting reality. It's not making up the fact that the P5 are getting paid magnitudes more in revenue. It's not making up the fact that the P5 get the vast majority of TV viewers. It's not making up the fact that the higher prestige and higher paying bowls have P5 matchups. It's not making up the fact that the CFP has a clear contractual separation between how contract conferences (plus Notre Dame) are treated and the group of other conferences (and other independents) are treated.

It's like telling a movie theater operator that it needs to show some obscure independent film because a tiny minority of people want "fairness" instead of Rogue One or the latest Marvel movie that will actually sell tickets... and then complaining that it's the media's fault that Star Wars movies get more attention than some movie that no one cares about.

News flash: if people outside of a tiny minority of fans really cared, then the media would cover them. Media attention isn't doled out "fairly". Instead, the media's sole purpose is to display what the general public is *actually* interested in (which in this case would be the P5 conferences).

Most people wouldn't care about a school like Michigan either, except the media keeps harping on how great they are and how important the game is, blah, blah, blah. And also that certain conferences get COMPLETELY ignored as if they don't exist. That cannot be by chance or based on interest, considering that ESPN has MULTIPLE channels which they have to somehow fill with programming for 24 hours. And most of it ends up being crappy drivel that everyone can live without. You trying to say they don't have enough air time to mention that certain schools exist?

(01-10-2017 04:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:05 PM)NIU007 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.

If you don't think it's at least partly media-driven, you haven't been listening very closely.

The media is reflecting reality. It's not making up the fact that the P5 are getting paid magnitudes more in revenue. It's not making up the fact that the P5 get the vast majority of TV viewers. It's not making up the fact that the higher prestige and higher paying bowls have P5 matchups. It's not making up the fact that the CFP has a clear contractual separation between how contract conferences (plus Notre Dame) are treated and the group of other conferences (and other independents) are treated.

It's like telling a movie theater operator that it needs to show some obscure independent film because a tiny minority of people want "fairness" instead of Rogue One or the latest Marvel movie that will actually sell tickets... and then complaining that it's the media's fault that Star Wars movies get more attention than some movie that no one cares about.

News flash: if people outside of a tiny minority of fans really cared, then the media would cover them. Media attention isn't doled out "fairly". Instead, the media's sole purpose is to display what the general public is *actually* interested in (which in this case would be the P5 conferences).

Most people wouldn't care about a school like Michigan either, except the media keeps harping on how great they are and how important the game is, blah, blah, blah. And also that certain conferences get COMPLETELY ignored as if they don't exist. That cannot be by chance or based on interest, considering that ESPN has MULTIPLE channels which they have to somehow fill with programming for 24 hours. And most of it ends up being crappy drivel that everyone can live without. You trying to say they don't have enough air time to mention that certain schools exist?

Well since Michigan has been a very successful program for a very long time.

(01-10-2017 04:32 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:05 PM)NIU007 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.

If you don't think it's at least partly media-driven, you haven't been listening very closely.

The media is reflecting reality. It's not making up the fact that the P5 are getting paid magnitudes more in revenue. It's not making up the fact that the P5 get the vast majority of TV viewers. It's not making up the fact that the higher prestige and higher paying bowls have P5 matchups. It's not making up the fact that the CFP has a clear contractual separation between how contract conferences (plus Notre Dame) are treated and the group of other conferences (and other independents) are treated.

It's like telling a movie theater operator that it needs to show some obscure independent film because a tiny minority of people want "fairness" instead of Rogue One or the latest Marvel movie that will actually sell tickets... and then complaining that it's the media's fault that Star Wars movies get more attention than some movie that no one cares about.

News flash: if people outside of a tiny minority of fans really cared, then the media would cover them. Media attention isn't doled out "fairly". Instead, the media's sole purpose is to display what the general public is *actually* interested in (which in this case would be the P5 conferences).

Most people wouldn't care about a school like Michigan either, except the media keeps harping on how great they are and how important the game is, blah, blah, blah. And also that certain conferences get COMPLETELY ignored as if they don't exist. That cannot be by chance or based on interest, considering that ESPN has MULTIPLE channels which they have to somehow fill with programming for 24 hours. And most of it ends up being crappy drivel that everyone can live without. You trying to say they don't have enough air time to mention that certain schools exist?

Well since Michigan has been a very successful program for a very long time.

In the case of Michigan, that's part of it too.

(01-10-2017 04:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:05 PM)NIU007 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.

If you don't think it's at least partly media-driven, you haven't been listening very closely.

The media is reflecting reality. It's not making up the fact that the P5 are getting paid magnitudes more in revenue. It's not making up the fact that the P5 get the vast majority of TV viewers. It's not making up the fact that the higher prestige and higher paying bowls have P5 matchups. It's not making up the fact that the CFP has a clear contractual separation between how contract conferences (plus Notre Dame) are treated and the group of other conferences (and other independents) are treated.

It's like telling a movie theater operator that it needs to show some obscure independent film because a tiny minority of people want "fairness" instead of Rogue One or the latest Marvel movie that will actually sell tickets... and then complaining that it's the media's fault that Star Wars movies get more attention than some movie that no one cares about.

News flash: if people outside of a tiny minority of fans really cared, then the media would cover them. Media attention isn't doled out "fairly". Instead, the media's sole purpose is to display what the general public is *actually* interested in (which in this case would be the P5 conferences).

Most people wouldn't care about a school like Michigan either, except the media keeps harping on how great they are and how important the game is, blah, blah, blah. And also that certain conferences get COMPLETELY ignored as if they don't exist. That cannot be by chance or based on interest, considering that ESPN has MULTIPLE channels which they have to somehow fill with programming for 24 hours. And most of it ends up being crappy drivel that everyone can live without. You trying to say they don't have enough air time to mention that certain schools exist?

Are you kidding me? These days, ESPN and other media outlets know *exactly* when and where people tune in and out with respect to stories with today's analytic tools. They know if people stay watching if they're talking about Alabama or if they're flipping the channel if they're talking about Western Michigan down to the second.

Now, I'm not saying that this is always a good thing. There are stories that people might not want to hear about (e.g. CTE and football, sexual assault on college campuses, academic fraud) that are necessary to report.

However, ESPN isn't talking about Michigan all day because they're irrationally Michigan fans. Instead, ESPN talks about Michigan because their data shows that people *actually watch* stories about Michigan. Same thing with Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Notre Dame or any other high profile school. ESPN has one corporate purpose: maximize value for the shareholders of the Walt Disney Company. That is literally ESPN's fiduciary duty. If that would be achieved by talking about Western Michigan instead of Michigan more, then ESPN would do that... but that's not the reality.

(01-10-2017 04:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(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.

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.

If you don't think it's at least partly media-driven, you haven't been listening very closely.

The media is reflecting reality. It's not making up the fact that the P5 are getting paid magnitudes more in revenue. It's not making up the fact that the P5 get the vast majority of TV viewers. It's not making up the fact that the higher prestige and higher paying bowls have P5 matchups. It's not making up the fact that the CFP has a clear contractual separation between how contract conferences (plus Notre Dame) are treated and the group of other conferences (and other independents) are treated.

It's like telling a movie theater operator that it needs to show some obscure independent film because a tiny minority of people want "fairness" instead of Rogue One or the latest Marvel movie that will actually sell tickets... and then complaining that it's the media's fault that Star Wars movies get more attention than some movie that no one cares about.

News flash: if people outside of a tiny minority of fans really cared, then the media would cover them. Media attention isn't doled out "fairly". Instead, the media's sole purpose is to display what the general public is *actually* interested in (which in this case would be the P5 conferences).

The problem with your movie analogy is that many of the G5 games are just as exciting as P5 games and just as watchable. In fact, many of the G5 bowls were better games than many P5 bowls.

Why do people want to watch P5 vs P5? Because they recognize those teams. The media almost NEVER mentions the G5. If the G5 were given the same coverage or even a respectable amount, awareness of the better G5 programs would rise and more people would want to watch those games.

You mention that the most prestigious bowls feature P5 vs P5. That's because they have contracts to do so.

The gap between the G5 and P5 would be a lot smaller if the media actually talked about the G5. But the P5 basically controls the media and doesn't want more competition, so the media disregards the G5 or calls them "high school teams."

(01-10-2017 04:52 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  The problem with your movie analogy is that many of the G5 games are just as exciting as P5 games and just as watchable. In fact, many of the G5 bowls were better games than many P5 bowls.

I actually think it's perfectly on-point. There are lots of Oscar winning pictures that made a whole lot less money than horrible sequels to franchises despite the disparity in quality. Daniel Day-Lewis is the best and most decorated actor of the past two decades, yet when was the last time you ever saw him on a supermarket magazine as opposed to, say, a Kardashian? He also makes a whole lot less money per movie than George Clooney or Chris Pratt. There might be some correlation between quality and what makes money, but they're definitely not one and the same.

Quote:Why do people want to watch P5 vs P5? Because they recognize those teams. The media almost NEVER mentions the G5. If the G5 were given the same coverage or even a respectable amount, awareness of the better G5 programs would rise and more people would want to watch those games.

Media coverage isn't some type of right or objective measurement outside of the fact that the media reports on what gets the most eyeballs. To further my example above, there's no real objective reason why the Kardashians sell so many magazines to this day and draw higher TV ratings compared to people with actual talent like Daniel Day-Lewis, but the shareholders of media companies only care about having more magazines sold and higher TV ratings... so more Kardashians for everyone!

Quote:You mention that the most prestigious bowls feature P5 vs P5. That's because they have contracts to do so.

Yes, and I've explained that this isn't random. The P5 schools make more money FOR their media and bowl partners... and the prestigious bowls happen to also like making more money.

Quote:The gap between the G5 and P5 would be a lot smaller if the media actually talked about the G5. But the P5 basically controls the media and doesn't want more competition, so the media disregards the G5 or calls them "high school teams."

Where does the P5 "control" the media? Once again, the media's job is to get the most viewers and readers. If that's achieved by reporting on the P5, then that's what they'll do. If G5 stories would garner more attention, then the media would do that, but that's been proven otherwise again and again.

Probably didn't watch more than 5-10 minutes of the semi-finals. Got bored last night and flipped around a lot. Probably saw a little over half, including Clemson's last two TD drives. Watched a little less than half of Orange, Sugar and Rose. Only a few minutes of the Cotton.

Other than the Liberty Bowl, saw very little of any of the other bowls. Too many 6-6 or bad 7-5 teams.

(01-10-2017 05:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:52 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  The problem with your movie analogy is that many of the G5 games are just as exciting as P5 games and just as watchable. In fact, many of the G5 bowls were better games than many P5 bowls.

I actually think it's perfectly on-point. There are lots of Oscar winning pictures that made a whole lot less money than horrible sequels to franchises despite the disparity in quality. Daniel Day-Lewis is the best and most decorated actor of the past two decades, yet when was the last time you ever saw him on a supermarket magazine as opposed to, say, a Kardashian? He also makes a whole lot less money per movie than George Clooney or Chris Pratt. There might be some correlation between quality and what makes money, but they're definitely not one and the same.

Quote:Why do people want to watch P5 vs P5? Because they recognize those teams. The media almost NEVER mentions the G5. If the G5 were given the same coverage or even a respectable amount, awareness of the better G5 programs would rise and more people would want to watch those games.

Media coverage isn't some type of right or objective measurement outside of the fact that the media reports on what gets the most eyeballs. To further my example above, there's no real objective reason why the Kardashians sell so many magazines to this day and draw higher TV ratings compared to people with actual talent like Daniel Day-Lewis, but the shareholders of media companies only care about having more magazines sold and higher TV ratings... so more Kardashians for everyone!

Quote:You mention that the most prestigious bowls feature P5 vs P5. That's because they have contracts to do so.

Yes, and I've explained that this isn't random. The P5 schools make more money... and the prestigious bowls happen to also like making more money.

Quote:The gap between the G5 and P5 would be a lot smaller if the media actually talked about the G5. But the P5 basically controls the media and doesn't want more competition, so the media disregards the G5 or calls them "high school teams."

Where does the P5 "control" the media? Once again, the media's job is to get the most viewers and readers. If that's achieved by reporting on the P5, then that's what they'll do. If G5 stories would garner more attention, then the media would do that, but that's been proven otherwise again and again.

I'm not sure how they can even tell whether talking about G5 schools makes any difference since they spend at least 95% of the time talking about P5. Not sure how they could even split that out.

For me it's more about ESPN and the big conferences elemenating any and all chances of half of college football teams from a chance to play for a NC
And there almost there
When ESPN & co. Move to an 8 team playoff is when the final separation will take place IMO
Now their throwing out the idea of a playoff for the rest of the FBS 5 conferences
This is OK by me as long as it's still FBS in every way, I think give enough time that reuiting will balance out and the two FBS divisions will become more even
I know that ESPN & co. Want to keep all recruits for them selves anyway they can and another way they might try to do this is to pay money to the recruits for their 5 conferences ONLY, if this happens, we'll then we all know it's rigged

It's rigged now anyway...

You missed out on a great championship game, then. The first half was a little boring, but the second half was some incredible football.

I saw some good replays today on another channel and yes it looked awesome

(01-10-2017 03:17 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Iam all in with billybobby
No I did not watch the game

There's a few of us...
Cheers!

(01-10-2017 06:44 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  It's rigged now anyway...

News Flash it has always been rigged.

(01-10-2017 04:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(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.

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!

(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:  

(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.

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.

(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.

Yep. I watched about a quarter or so of the first game on NYE, then went out. Same thing the prior year.

Last night I caught two series in the 2nd quarter...it was terrible, sloppy football and the commercial breaks were long and frequent. I came back with about 8 minutes left in the game and watched the rest. That was quality football and little to no commercials.

I can safely say I didn't miss anything of all 3 games.

(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:  

(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.

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!