Espn promoting Power 5 | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Espn promoting Power 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know too much about Bristol or the ESPN location but I wouldn't be against participation in a tailgate of sorts where all present and future members of the Big East are represented. Just to kind of remind them that we are still here and also to present some facts about our league vs the ACC that ESPN has conveniently decided to ignore. They may not broadcast it but if enough news outlets are notified (in all of our markets) quite a few probably would. Their "Big 5" BS needs to be challenged even if our lame front office is incapable of doing so.

Tailgates are fun!
 
Excalibur said:
You guys don't seem to get the importance of public perception. People will still care about Alabama if they aren't coached by Saban anymore. They were on the cover of SI in 2005 when they went 9-3 against a ****ty schedule with a god awful head coach. Why? Because they matter. If Boise or UCF goes 9-3, nobody is going to pay attention.
Expand ...

Yes, this is what I've been trying to say. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking going on. By the way, the opposite is true for hoop. UConn matters more than Alabama, even when we have a bad year. Tennessee has been weak of late, but does anyone think there is even the sligtest chance that any Big East program is considered on par with the Vols? Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neyland_Stadium None of them, including Boise, is even on the same planet, regardless of recent on-field success. College football freaking matters in these places in ways that it never will in New England or New York.
 
Yeah, I don't mind being grouped with Arizona, Baylor, Louisville, North Carolina, and Northwestern. But by what criteria can you place Arizona State, BC, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas State, Maryland, Missouri, Oregon State, Pitt, Purdue, Syracuse, Virginia, and Washington a cut above the "peasants" and in the same class as Arkansas, Michigan State, Oklahoma State, Stanford, and South Carolina?
 
.-.
ConnHuskBask said:
Welp, some guy thinks Boston College and Syracuse are college football "Knights".

Guess it's time to fold up shop fellas.
Expand ...

BCU has to be because of Flutie and the Hail Mary... Ingrained in people's memories?
 
Ivy Light:
north-bc/cuse/nw/navy/army/pitt/duke/wake
south-miami/vandy/rice/smu/tcu/tulane/tulsa/
 
Excalibur said:
Sure, the Big East gets three teams in the top 12, and they will be relevant nationally. The other conferences are relevant regardless of how many teams are in the top 12. FL and TN are still national stories even in down years, if you're paying attention to national media and not just local papers and this site.
Expand ...
I guess I missed all the coverage on Tenn... Can you catch me up on them?
Outside of Pat Summit, the only time the Vol's have been in the national spotlight is:
-Bruce Pearl
-"The Blind Side" which was really an SEC love fest
 
pj said:
Yeah, I don't mind being grouped with Arizona, Baylor, Louisville, North Carolina, and Northwestern. But by what criteria can you place Arizona State, BC, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas State, Maryland, Missouri, Oregon State, Pitt, Purdue, Syracuse, Virginia, and Washington a cut above the "peasants" and in the same class as Arkansas, Michigan State, Oklahoma State, Stanford, and South Carolina?
Expand ...
If anything the pecking order should be a pyramid, with a bigger number of teams in the peasants category. But then that would ratchet up the hate mail a few more notches.
 
pj said:
Yeah, I don't mind being grouped with Arizona, Baylor, Louisville, North Carolina, and Northwestern. But by what criteria can you place Arizona State, BC, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas State, Maryland, Missouri, Oregon State, Pitt, Purdue, Syracuse, Virginia, and Washington a cut above the "peasants" and in the same class as Arkansas, Michigan State, Oklahoma State, Stanford, and South Carolina?
Expand ...

You're kidding I hope. Washington has a huge stadium and following and has had some great success. I'd put them ahead of Arkansas, MSU, OSU, Stanford and South Carolina. In a few years, I expect that they may replace Oregon as the best team in the Pac not named Trojans. K-State is the opposite, historically horrible, but damned good under Snyder. Much better than UConn has ever been. Colorado. National championships mean nothing? Amost all the schools have at least some history of success, which the peasants lack. Oregon State is the one team that stands out to me as a peasant from that list, and UVA is pretty close to it. Annual attendance numbers tell the story. http://blog.philsteele.com/2011/04/06/2010-homeaway-average-attendance/
 
HuskyHawk said:
Yes, this is what I've been trying to say. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking going on. By the way, the opposite is true for hoop. UConn matters more than Alabama, even when we have a bad year. Tennessee has been weak of late, but does anyone think there is even the sligtest chance that any Big East program is considered on par with the Vols? Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neyland_Stadium None of them, including Boise, is even on the same planet, regardless of recent on-field success. College football freaking matters in these places in ways that it never will in New England or New York.
Expand ...
We get it. No one seems to ever work down there. They spend the entire football season moving the tailgating party from 1 game to the next. Your tax dollars at work.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
Upstater is irrationally defensive about Penn State. About 20% of the regular posters jump to ND's defense if anyone says anything remotely negative. And then there is Z, who defends ESPN's relentless and meanspirited trashing of the Big East and UConn. I can get being a long time fan of another school and having trouble giving that up when it comes to UConn, but who roots for a corporation against a school?
Expand ...

You are a piece of work, Nelson. Being called irrational by you is a compliment since it probably means I'm the opposite of what you intend. Is this thread even a discussion about PSU? Or ND? LOL, like what conferences have I defended in the past?

I see no point in defending the current BE. It is bad. In the past I have. In fact, I hate the B10 and think the ACC is cruddy.
 
The BE should have split from the basketball schools many years ago and hired leadership that gave a shit about football.
 
Just a thought. How are the major networks i.e.ESPN going to react to the Sandusky saga. Are they also going to broadcast Penn State's events and perpetuate the notion that football is still supreme. Do they have any moral obligation and show some remorse by banning either State or the Big Ten. I know at some point the whores will come out and say we are contractually obligated without a reference to the victims.
 
pj said:
Yeah, I don't mind being grouped with Arizona, Baylor, Louisville, North Carolina, and Northwestern. But by what criteria can you place Arizona State, BC, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas State, Maryland, Missouri, Oregon State, Pitt, Purdue, Syracuse, Virginia, and Washington a cut above the "peasants" and in the same class as Arkansas, Michigan State, Oklahoma State, Stanford, and South Carolina?
Expand ...

Most of those schools have had a heisman winner or other major bowl wins even if it's been over 30 years for some of them. Virginia, Scar, Pitt, Cuse, Missouri, Maryland, Colorado, Illinois, KSU, and obviously BC, don't belong here. Purdue has had a few NFL QB's. OrSt is a decent program, UW hasn't done much in a long while and is hanging on by my account. If you can't occasionally challenge for your conference title you are peasant, I don't care if USC, Texas, and Florida are in your conference. An FCS team can finish in the bottom third for a decade, I don't care what you won in the 90's.
 
Marty Jackson said:
I'm sorry but that is a stupid comment. Look at Alabama without Saban. Take Urban Meyer away from Florida and look what's happened. Miami hasn't been relevant since Johnson left.
For 10 years, Boise has been one of the winningest programs, and whenever they've been given the shot to play with the 'big boys' they've competed very well. Peterson has had tons of offers and he doesn't appear to be moving.
Alabama sucked before Saban and quite frankly, the country didn't seem to care. Miami sucks, and could be headed for the death penalty. Yet we still manage to get by. Texas has been out of the debate for a couple seasons and they've been pushed to the back-burner.
People want to watch good matchups. And if a good Boise team ranked #2 is playing a top ranked LSU, people are going to watch. I also bet a top 10 ranked Cincy playing a top 10 ranked RU will get some national attention as well.
Expand ...


I am sorry but some of this nonsense is just pure lunacy and idiocy. MiAmi hasn't been relevant since Johnson left? I guess the 2 championships Dennis Ericsson won and the one cocker won was unimportant on the national landscape.

Look at bama without Saban? What their 11 other national championships? You realize they were down for a few years because of probabtion? Actually you probably don't.

Yes a top 10 rutty amd cincy matchup will get SOME national attention, but nothing that compares to a Lsu bama game or frankly to Uga and Florida game.

Do yourself a favor amd look at the rating of bowl games involving the big east to that of ones involving the sec or big 10. People don't just care about matchups they wants the irrelevant programs like Miami and the ones on the back burner like Texas.

You know who else likes these programs? Big time High school recruits that's why they go there and not rutty or Uconn.
 
History matters no matter how old. Just look at the games last season on ESPN of Pitt and Syr. During each game they had one or more segments about great players who had played at each school. Guys like Dorsett, Marino, Fralic, Dikta, etc in the case of Pitt and players like Jim Brown, Ernie Davis, Floyd Little, etc in the case of Syr. OK, none were that recent but all are still names and history does matter.

Put it another way, ask a college football fan to name the three best NFL players who played at Pitt or Syr and most will be able to answer the question. Ask the same question about UCONN and other than UCONN fans it is doubtful that anyone would be able to come up with an answer.
 
.-.
observer said:
History matters no matter how old. Just look at the games last season on ESPN of Pitt and Syr. During each game they had one or more segments about great players who had played at each school. Guys like Dorsett, Marino, Fralic, Dikta, etc in the case of Pitt and players like Jim Brown, Ernie Davis, Floyd Little, etc in the case of Syr. OK, none were that recent but all are still names and history does matter.

Put it another way, ask a college football fan to name the three best NFL players who played at Pitt or Syr and most will be able to answer the question. Ask the same question about UCONN and other than UCONN fans it is doubtful that anyone would be able to come up with an answer.
Expand ...


True. As long as the people you are asking are over 50.
 
observer said:
History matters no matter how old. Just look at the games last season on ESPN of Pitt and Syr. During each game they had one or more segments about great players who had played at each school. Guys like Dorsett, Marino, Fralic, Dikta, etc in the case of Pitt and players like Jim Brown, Ernie Davis, Floyd Little, etc in the case of Syr. OK, none were that recent but all are still names and history does matter.

Put it another way, ask a college football fan to name the three best NFL players who played at Pitt or Syr and most will be able to answer the question. Ask the same question about UCONN and other than UCONN fans it is doubtful that anyone would be able to come up with an answer.
Expand ...

This is the dumbest of arguments and history only appeals to those who are already fans of the school. The fact that McNabb played for the Cuse is a compelling reason for me to watch a Cuse team today? Or maybe it's Jim Brown that is the tipping point? I'm sure discussing Doug Flutie will help ease the pain of watching a moribund BC team. And of course yes, remiscing about Tony Dorsett makes watching a Pitt game so much better.

To fall back on this is, IMO, an admission that the teams in question suck.
 
The Funster said:
To fall back on this is, IMO, an admission that the teams in question suck.
Expand ...

That was my thought exactly! I mean, envoking the name of Floyd Little?? REALLY??? What 18 year old recruit gives a rat's about Floyd Little? I'm sure they all want to be the next Fralic...
 
When a team has no history of course fans will say that history does not matter. Saying that you have to be over 50 to know the names of certain players is just silly. So today's baseball fans who are 12 have never heard of Mantle, Ruth or Gehrig? Or 12 year old NBA fans have never heard of Jerry West, John Havlicek or Oscar Robertson? Or 12 year old football fans have never heard of Joe Namath, Bart Starr, Jim Thorpe, Jim Brown or Mike Ditka?

Now I agree that Pitt, for example, is not going to get a ton of recruits who want to go there solely because guys like Dorsett, Fralic, Marino, Ditka, etc. went there but having guys like that as alums and former players adds to the name value of a school. Or do you want to argue that if UCONN had any household name NFL players from the past that Pasqualoni would never mention them at all to recruits just like Calhoun never mentions to recruits any of the NBA guys who played at UCONN?
 
observer said:
When a team has no history of course fans will say that history does not matter. Saying that you have to be over 50 to know the names of certain players is just silly. So today's baseball fans who are 12 have never heard of Mantle, Ruth or Gehrig? Or 12 year old NBA fans have never heard of Jerry West, John Havlicek or Oscar Robertson? Or 12 year old football fans have never heard of Joe Namath, Bart Starr, Jim Thorpe, Jim Brown or Mike Ditka?
Expand ...

You're really reaching here. It's kind of funny so keep going if you want.

Now I agree that Pitt, for example, is not going to get a ton of recruits who want to go there solely because guys like Dorsett, Fralic, Marino, Ditka, etc. went there but having guys like that as alums and former players adds to the name value of a school. Or do you want to argue that if UCONN had any household name NFL players from the past that Pasqualoni would never mention them at all to recruits just like Calhoun never mentions to recruits any of the NBA guys who played at UCONN?
Expand ...

If you want to talk current players, I'll buy it. If you want to talk names from the past...no way. I'd even argue that bringing up names from the past and not having much currently would actually hurt a program's recruiting.
 
The Funster said:
You're really reaching here. It's kind of funny so keep going if you want.
If you want to talk current players, I'll buy it. If you want to talk names from the past...no way. I'd even argue that bringing up names from the past and not having much currently would actually hurt a program's recruiting.
Expand ...

I'm glad he made a similar argument with baseball and basketball, because it helps drive home my point. Do you think that an 18 year old prospect in either of those sports dreams of being Gehrig or Havlicek??? Outside of having a relative that may have had a disease named Gehrig, they would have no friggin' clue what you were talking about. They want to be LeBron, they want to be Jeter. They may want to be Jordan (because he's larger than life and it wasn't that long ago). But they aren't dreaming of Bill friggin' Russell or Catfish Hunter!!

 
.-.
So then all of the coaches of well established, long time Division 1 Football programs are wasting their time when they show recruits their in house hall of fame and show them the trophies, jerseys, awards, etc. that past players earned? Because unless it happened last year it is all totally irrelevant?

OK, got it, lol.

Only schools without history and with nothing to sell in that regard think that history does not matter.

One example, UCLA. In the past ten years they have had one good FB season. Rest have been around .500.

Say in 2012 UCLA and UCONN both go 9-3. Which one will matter more to college football fans in general? I know, UCONN, how could I be so silly as to think otherwise?

Fans in general may think 'looks the Bruins are back' about UCLA and 'who cares' about UCONN because history matters.

How many good seasons has it taken Boise to get the respect they have and even that respect is less than it would have been had the Boise records been achieved by a UCLA, or a Pitt, or a Syr or any team with actual history?
 
observer said:
Because unless it happened last year it is all totally irrelevant?

OK, got it, lol.
Expand ...

Yeah, last year....or 1965.....I'm glad we're talking about similar time-frames....

FYI: the last year of college for the players you mentioned:

Jim Brown 1956
Ernie Davis 1961
Floyd Little 1966
Tony Dorsett 1976
Bill Fralic 1984

Hey, thanks for throwing in someone that was almost in college for Reagan's second term!! Way to keep it real, Observer! :eek:
 
To be fair, you could have just said people's names like Freeney and Fitzgerald for SyraPitt respectively. And most UConn people would say Tyvon Branch, Orlovsky, and Donald Brown. Did you really have to mention Jim Thorpe??? Good God, man!
 
C'mon, all the kids in my neighborhood want to be Jim Thorpe when they grow up. They have a pentathlon every weekend.

Honest.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,285
Messages
4,561,434
Members
10,455
Latest member
UConnGabby


Top Bottom