South Carolina

[knapplc]

Near as I can recall, ESPN isn't involved directly in the creation of the Big Ten Network. In fact, the BTN and its ilk are direct competitors to ESPN. Not so the SEC Network, which is being created in partnership with ESPN, not in competition against it. The Pac-12, the Big Ten and the ACC aren't in bed with ESPN to the extent the SEC is.

And since the bowl game won't be on the SEC Network - what exactly are you getting at? And the Pac12 just signed a deal worth $2.7 billion. The got in bed with ESPN for $1.86 billion.

I just don't see where you all are going with this one. ESPN IS college football.

It's simple marketing. By pimping the SEC they pimp the brand they are invested in. Same for Texas and the Longhorn Network. It's not just about this bowl season, it's about the overall brand of the SEC.

 

[kchusker_chris]

But they are in bed for billions with every conference. You could make an identical argument for all of them, including the B1G. Here shortly the B1G will set the record and be the latest ESPN deal to top $2 billion.

The Longhorn Network you could certainly argue for - but to say ESPN is going around telling their commentators to pick an SEC team against Nebraska because they only have a $1 billion invested in the B1G is a HUGE STRETCH. It's about ratings - picking SC probably hurts ratings because people enjoy watching NE win.

 

[knapplc]

But they are in bed for billions with every conference. You could make an identical argument for all of them, including the B1G. Here shortly the B1G will set the record and be the latest ESPN deal to top $2 billion.

The Longhorn Network you could certainly argue for - but to say ESPN is going around telling their commentators to pick an SEC team against Nebraska because they only have a $1 billion invested in the B1G is a HUGE STRETCH. It's about ratings - picking SC probably hurts ratings because people enjoy watching NE win.

They have a unique relationship with the SEC that they do not have with any other conference, and with only one other school (Texas). So it's not a huge stretch at all to presume they would promote their investment - in fact, it would be silly not to.

 

[knapplc]

And so we're all clear here, I'm not up in arms about this. It's just something to talk about to pass the time. I don't want anyone to think I have a huge concern about this. I do recognize that the SEC is the best conference in football and has been for years. Just something to talk about.

 

[JJ Husker]

But they are in bed for billions with every conference. You could make an identical argument for all of them, including the B1G. Here shortly the B1G will set the record and be the latest ESPN deal to top $2 billion.

The Longhorn Network you could certainly argue for - but to say ESPN is going around telling their commentators to pick an SEC team against Nebraska because they only have a $1 billion invested in the B1G is a HUGE STRETCH. It's about ratings - picking SC probably hurts ratings because people enjoy watching NE win.

Actually I think a lot of the rest of the country enjoys watching Nebraska lose.

I'm not convinced that ESPN is doing much more than trying to pick the most likely winner of these games. If I'm not a Husker fan, a #22 team vs a #9 team that is favored to win by Vegas, and part of my reputation rests on how many bowl games I pick correctly, I probably also tend to go with the country wide consensus unless I see some matchup advantages (which I really don't see in this game). If I've watched Nebraska underperform all year like I have, I can't even understand what the controversy is.

 

[robsker]

How does one rationalize their thoughts not wanting Alabama in the BCS title game but then aknowledge they're a better team than Okie State? The BCS system is supposed to put the best two teams in the title game. While they don't always get it right, I believe they did get it right this year. I'd say there's a considerable distance between LSU/Bama over the rest of the top teams.

Junior:

Oh, yeah... like you, I realize that Bama and LSU are the top two teams --- but something has to be said about winning your conference... OSU, while I think they would get smoked, did win their conference, they have the same record as Bama --- and really, they deserve a shot at LSU. Again, I think Bama is better... but LSU already beat them... they had their shot. OSU would, were they to play LSu, represent the nation in the "the rest of us" against the SEC. At least that way, there is a chance that a non-SEC team wins.

As it stands, my only interest in the NC game is that LSU loses so that they cannot contend with NU '71 or NU '95 as the greatest of all time. Toward that end, I am glad that Bama is in there ... they have a much better chance than OSU would of toppling LSU.

 

[kchusker_chris]

true. but picking when EVERYONE goes and picks SC people will be less interested because they'll assume its and already decided game. after last years bowl showing I wouldn't blame them. I think it would benefit all if a few people though NE had the chance to win.

SI.com likes Nebraska. Legate even made the top photos of the year w/ this fumble recovery...

 

[Excel]

Sometimes people pick teams because they think they're going to win...not because they're being paid. Kind of like how sometimes running backs are able to score 38 touchdowns in a season becuase they're good, not because they're on an above average team.....its weird how the real world works out like that.

 

[robsker]

But they are in bed for billions with every conference. You could make an identical argument for all of them, including the B1G. Here shortly the B1G will set the record and be the latest ESPN deal to top $2 billion.

The Longhorn Network you could certainly argue for - but to say ESPN is going around telling their commentators to pick an SEC team against Nebraska because they only have a $1 billion invested in the B1G is a HUGE STRETCH. It's about ratings - picking SC probably hurts ratings because people enjoy watching NE win.

Actually I think a lot of the rest of the country enjoys watching Nebraska lose.

I'm not convinced that ESPN is doing much more than trying to pick the most likely winner of these games. If I'm not a Husker fan, a #22 team vs a #9 team that is favored to win by Vegas, and part of my reputation rests on how many bowl games I pick correctly, I probably also tend to go with the country wide consensus unless I see some matchup advantages (which I really don't see in this game). If I've watched Nebraska underperform all year like I have, I can't even understand what the controversy is.

Agreed. Not picking SC over NU would be really unwarranted... nothing, absolutely nothing --- objectively speaking --- should incline anyone to pick NU. That is not to say that NU cannot pull off a shocker... but... if they do win, it would indeed be a shocker. Everything on paper favors SC.

 

[JJ Husker]

Sometimes people pick teams because they think they're going ot win...not beacause they're being paid. Kind of like how sometimes running backs are able to score 38 touchdowns in a season becuase they're good, not because they're on an above average team.....its weird how the real world works out like that.

You're a little butt hurt about all the Ball-Burkhead discussion aren't you? I don't blame you but you gotta consider this is a Husker site.

 

[Excel]

Sometimes people pick teams because they think they're going to win...not because they're being paid. Kind of like how sometimes running backs are able to score 38 touchdowns in a season becuase they're good, not because they're on an above average team.....its weird how the real world works out like that.

You're a little butt hurt about all the Ball-Burkhead discussion aren't you? I don't blame you but you gotta consider this is a Husker site.

You could never be butt hurt if you've been the places I've been and seen the things I've seen :leghump:

 

[JJ Husker]

Sometimes people pick teams because they think they're going to win...not because they're being paid. Kind of like how sometimes running backs are able to score 38 touchdowns in a season becuase they're good, not because they're on an above average team.....its weird how the real world works out like that.

You're a little butt hurt about all the Ball-Burkhead discussion aren't you? I don't blame you but you gotta consider this is a Husker site.

You could never be butt hurt if you've been the places I've been and seen the things I've seen :leghump:

Just to supply more fodder for the out of context quotes I will offer this; Since you are incapable of being butt hurt, my butt aches for you.

 

[Excel]

Sometimes people pick teams because they think they're going to win...not because they're being paid. Kind of like how sometimes running backs are able to score 38 touchdowns in a season becuase they're good, not because they're on an above average team.....its weird how the real world works out like that.

You're a little butt hurt about all the Ball-Burkhead discussion aren't you? I don't blame you but you gotta consider this is a Husker site.

You could never be butt hurt if you've been the places I've been and seen the things I've seen :leghump:

Just to supply more fodder for the out of context quotes I will offer this; Since you are incapable of being butt hurt, my butt aches for you.

Good to know I'm not the only one around here whose farts don't make noise....

 

[Rocketsocks]

Sometimes people pick teams because they think they're going ot win...not beacause they're being paid. Kind of like how sometimes running backs are able to score 38 touchdowns in a season becuase they're good, not because they're on an above average team.....its weird how the real world works out like that.

You're a little butt hurt about all the Ball-Burkhead discussion aren't you? I don't blame you but you gotta consider this is a Husker site.

Badgerfan has a point. I mean, Reggie Ball is a great representative of Wisconsin Badger Awesomeness.

 

[Excel]

Sometimes people pick teams because they think they're going ot win...not beacause they're being paid. Kind of like how sometimes running backs are able to score 38 touchdowns in a season becuase they're good, not because they're on an above average team.....its weird how the real world works out like that.

You're a little butt hurt about all the Ball-Burkhead discussion aren't you? I don't blame you but you gotta consider this is a Husker site.

Badgerfan has a point. I mean, Reggie Ball is a great representative of Wisconsin Badger Awesomeness.

Go suck a lemon