AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Im done with espn
- Thread starter gobuffs58
- Start date
Ringer
Well-Known Member
The ESPN website is giving the Buffs a lot of love. Check out the latest PAC 12 Power Rankings. Guess who is #1?
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post...gs-title-game-set-between-colorado-washington
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post...gs-title-game-set-between-colorado-washington
That was the worst pronounciation of KO's name I've heard in a long time
Ringer
Well-Known Member
At least they are trying. They don't love him like we do.
Media perception will change if rankings change.
Could CU jump Oklahoma by beating a ranked team while they were idle? Absolutely. Last week they said the difference was negligible.
Could Michigan drop quite a bit for losing for the 2nd time in 3 games? Absolutely.
Maybe CU is 7th this week.
Maybe CU is 6th with the PSU win over a 3-9 team (after beating a 2-10 team the previous week) tipping the scales on strength of schedule.
Could CU jump Oklahoma by beating a ranked team while they were idle? Absolutely. Last week they said the difference was negligible.
Could Michigan drop quite a bit for losing for the 2nd time in 3 games? Absolutely.
Maybe CU is 7th this week.
Maybe CU is 6th with the PSU win over a 3-9 team (after beating a 2-10 team the previous week) tipping the scales on strength of schedule.
As long as ESPN doesn't have a financial piece of PAC12 Network like they do with the SEC and the LNH and the B1G and as long as our primary prime time slots mostly go to Fox instead of ESPN/ABC they aren't going to spend much time on us. They are in the business of promoting their own content.
When the NHL wouldn't basically give them the broadcast rights for free they mostly stopped covering it. NASCAR coverage is tied to who is broadcasting it. ABC, the parent of ESPN, was a huge promoter of NASCAR right up until they lost rights, then it became an afterthought. When PAC football was a mainstay of the ABC then later ESPN schedule they couldn't say enough good things about it. Now it might as well be the MWC.
Want more coverage, watch Fox Sports programs, they have the interest.
When the NHL wouldn't basically give them the broadcast rights for free they mostly stopped covering it. NASCAR coverage is tied to who is broadcasting it. ABC, the parent of ESPN, was a huge promoter of NASCAR right up until they lost rights, then it became an afterthought. When PAC football was a mainstay of the ABC then later ESPN schedule they couldn't say enough good things about it. Now it might as well be the MWC.
Want more coverage, watch Fox Sports programs, they have the interest.
But when the dialogue is that the Pac-12 is terrible while they've just shown a graphic that the Pac-12 has 6 of the 25 ranked teams (half the damn conference)...
jumped ship
Well-Known Member
The purple nubs aren't going to be happy with their arbitrary #3 power ranking.
Hah ... that's hilarious! But you'd think that since it's their family of networks that's broadcasting the ACC CG that they'd at least get the teams right on the background. They'll probably just blame an intern.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
I stopped watching ESPN years ago with the only exception being games that I was interested in watching that weren't broadcast on any alternative channel. They're the world wide leader in suck.
I think there's some major cost cutting at ESPN that goes way past what things we see such as friggin' Danny Kanell all of a sudden being one of their main guys.
Truth.
Saw the same show. They did a blind resume segment and I was really annoyed that they didn't include CU in one of the comparisons. I would have really liked to have seen a comparison between CU and Penn St. They really seem to be pushing a "CU has no shot if they win" narrative. Though ironically they also seem to be pushing our game as the most likely potential upset.
FWIW, George Schroeder mentioned on his podcast today that he thought we were the one potential candidate no one was talking about and that Colorado shouldn't be being discussed just due to the novelty of our turnaround season and that if we won next week we'd have a very competitive resume.
FWIW, George Schroeder mentioned on his podcast today that he thought we were the one potential candidate no one was talking about and that Colorado shouldn't be being discussed just due to the novelty of our turnaround season and that if we won next week we'd have a very competitive resume.
Last edited:
agree
That was weird. Here's what our card looks like and how it stacks up on our strength of schedule & record versus teams in last week's CFP Top 11 (Alabama thru Oklahoma State):
Record = 10-2
W/L Strength = #6 (6th best)
SOS = #23 (3rd best)
Record v Top 25 = 2-1 (assuming they're going by when game was played - could be 3-1 if they count ASU)
That would have looked better than their other 2-loss teams. (Also, CU is 8th in "Game Control" which would be good for 6th best.)
There is a lot of justification to rank CU at #6 or #7 tomorrow night.
b3buffs
Well-Known Member
LeBron's Twitter response to a swim meet is more important than any actual sports going on, didn't you get the memo?
I hear ya Bonger
jumped ship
Well-Known Member
I'm confused by that record vs the top 25, no matter which way you spin it. Aren't we 2-2 against current top 25 (+/- 1 depending on the poll), and 3-1 when the game was played?...or 3-2 against last weeks CFP?
Regardless, I'll never forgive ESPN for what they did to Grantland, let alone their current neglect of the Buffs.
Regardless, I'll never forgive ESPN for what they did to Grantland, let alone their current neglect of the Buffs.
bigskybuff
Well-Known Member
This is what gets you to quit ESPN? They've sucked for the last ten years and have a bunch of morons babbling on and on. At least they've given up any pretense of being a serious sports network. With their budget cuts recently, it only makes things worse.
ESPN sucks.
cu3x
Well-Known Member
keep in mind, espn is owned by disney, so maybe everything is not meant to be realistic.
A bit off toplc, but espn's headline regarding today's osu knife attacks:
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...football-players-safe-accounted-campus-attack
A bit off toplc, but espn's headline regarding today's osu knife attacks:
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...football-players-safe-accounted-campus-attack
I remember when ESPN started (IIRC, 1979 or so) ... you know, when I was still young and dinosaurs ruled the earth. And to be fair, it was a bold gamble to start a sports network to compete against the three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) who had a had a virtual monopoly over the primary sports of football baseball, hockey, and basketball. Thus, the new network was tabbed the "Entertainment and Sports Network," aka, ESPN, as a possible dodge against not being able to survive only by broadcasting actual sports.
And they had to scramble for things to cover, since they started out with no contract affiliations with either the major pro leagues or the NCAA for football and basketball, including some very obscure events that even before the aforementioned age of the dinosaurs was covered on ABC's weekly program "The Wide World of Sports" (remember "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat?).
Then IIRC ... circa 1982 the SEC, the University of Alabama, and possibly another major conference and school, won an anti-trust suit against the NCAA, which had previously had exclusive control over TV access rights, and had severely limited the number of games available for broadcast on any given Saturday. Can you even believe that prior to that SCOTUS decision, there was almost always only ONE CFB GAME broadcast nationally on a Saturday?!?
After that decision, the floodgates were open, and there was a bidding war for TV contracts. And eventually, ESPN reached agreements with various conferences and provided a actual sports programming to a vastly expanded market, which continues to this day. And then the NFL, the NHL, MLB, and the NBA eventually reached agreements with ESPN as well.
Of course, in recent years it seems that the "entertainment" facet of the network has achieved a more dominant place in ESPN's priority programming, as opposed to actual objective sports reporting. But isn't that the case with all networks, whether they purport to program entertainment, news, or sports? So-called "reality shows" are the ultimate result of this kind of thinking.
And they had to scramble for things to cover, since they started out with no contract affiliations with either the major pro leagues or the NCAA for football and basketball, including some very obscure events that even before the aforementioned age of the dinosaurs was covered on ABC's weekly program "The Wide World of Sports" (remember "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat?).
Then IIRC ... circa 1982 the SEC, the University of Alabama, and possibly another major conference and school, won an anti-trust suit against the NCAA, which had previously had exclusive control over TV access rights, and had severely limited the number of games available for broadcast on any given Saturday. Can you even believe that prior to that SCOTUS decision, there was almost always only ONE CFB GAME broadcast nationally on a Saturday?!?
After that decision, the floodgates were open, and there was a bidding war for TV contracts. And eventually, ESPN reached agreements with various conferences and provided a actual sports programming to a vastly expanded market, which continues to this day. And then the NFL, the NHL, MLB, and the NBA eventually reached agreements with ESPN as well.
Of course, in recent years it seems that the "entertainment" facet of the network has achieved a more dominant place in ESPN's priority programming, as opposed to actual objective sports reporting. But isn't that the case with all networks, whether they purport to program entertainment, news, or sports? So-called "reality shows" are the ultimate result of this kind of thinking.
ESPN and the Big East kind of made each other. It was a perfect match for each.
Early years they had all kinds of things on. Denver's own Irv Brown used to call arm wrestling contest and body building events.
They were the pioneers in a lot of different things. They went to the NFL with the idea of covering the draft. The NFL thought they were nuts but eventually they did it. Now we have wall to wall draft coverage. They put poker on TV as a time filler and people watched it and still do.
Problem now is that there are so many different sports outlets that they can't just throw some talking heads on dominate for viewers. They have had to cut back and they don't seem to know how. They have also become to entangled with some of the leagues and events they cover to be objective.
They've mentioned CU quite a bit on the shows I've seen ... but mostly as a significant player in effecting other teams' chances, not as a serious CFP contender ourselves. Not sure that's wrong ... at least not yet.
I'm just ecstatic to hear us involved in the discussion at this late point in the season.