• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

ESPN (A bunch of Death-Spiraling maroons)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
jlb1705 said:
It has served its purpose. We achieved MAXIMUM INTERNET when somebody insisted that they could defeat a UFC fighter in unarmed combat just to preserve the point contained in their original post. We have broken free from logic, reality and the original topic of this thread in same way that a butterfly breaks free from its cocoon.
Click to expand...
So in other words it's become a thread from BWI?
 
Upvote 0
I'm not sure why I'm stepping into this strange side discussion, but it seems to me some of you are maybe being a little unfair to WyoBuck. And I realize he brought it upon himself to an extent by speaking in absolutes (and using an admittedly very poor metaphor). But, while he stated it poorly in some instances, it seems to me his basic point is that a "fight" between a man and a woman is so imbalanced and unfair on its face as to be immoral. And that therefore a man has a moral obligation to avoid using offensive force against an unarmed woman regardless of what she may have done to him. To me, whether WyoBuck could win a fight against UFC women's champion (a question I neither have an opinion on nor particularly care about) is largely irrelevant to that proposition.

But for what it's worth, and taking this side discussion back to its origin, I also think that Stephen A. Smith's comments probably could have been stated in a way that would sound a lot more reasonable. But that's not really his job.
 
Upvote 0
Mike80 said:
Oh and after 2 solid weeks of seeing Saban's mug or listening PAC-12 or Big 12 coaches give interviews that would be immediately put on the front page of the CFB subsite on ESPiN, the Big Ten media days are barely even a footnote on the site. I can't wait until the B1G cuts ESPiN loose entirely.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how I don't bother with that website I'll just have to take your word for it.
 
Upvote 0
Mike80 said:
Oh and after 2 solid weeks of seeing Saban's mug or listening PAC-12 or Big 12 coaches give interviews that would be immediately put on the front page of the CFB subsite on ESPiN, the Big Ten media days are barely even a footnote on the site. I can't wait until the B1G cuts ESPiN loose entirely.
Click to expand...
Wait until November when they start in on LeBronie after he gave them the stiff arm on his "I'm coming home" announcement.
 
Upvote 0
NFBuck said:
Wait until November when they start in on LeBronie after he gave them the stiff arm on his "I'm coming home" announcement.
Click to expand...

They were all pissed he was going back to Cleveland to begin with. Don't know how many of those reporters bemoaned how much they wanted him to stay in Miami for *their* careers and whined about how they'd hate having to go to Cleveland. They even tried to soil the deal by harping on the letter (let's just forget that Pat Riley interview where he basically did the same thing)

cincibuck said:
So, bait and switch has taken place?

Anyway, ABC/ESPN networks use a great many Big Ten personalities and I'm wondering: 1. Are there staff meetings where they're told what to push and what to shy away from? 2. Is this reflected in their contracts? 3. By owning the telecast rights to the playoffs it seems that ESPN will have the final voice in all the W/W/W/W and H decisions. 4. It would also seem that
ESPN is in bed with all the bowl site committees (read local C of C).

I've long bitched about the fact that SEC, Texas and Pac 10 teams have a built in home court advantage through the bowl system. If the answers to my questions are what I think they are, then this only increases that advantage and creates something far from a level playing field. Why would Big 10 coaches and administrators agree to such a system?
Click to expand...

As my wife is a director at a tv station, I can definitely confirm that tv personalities are told what angles to push in meetings. The entire show's staff is and a lot more is scripted than might appear on air -- even stuff like somebody "accidentally" tripping has been scripted. The lines they say aren't necessarily scripted... but the topics and the talking points they'll push are always scripted by the directors and producers.
I'm not sure about ESPiN, but a *lot* of tv personalities are not actual employees either -- they're freelance. Even ones who you'd think would be company employees... the face of her tv station in a 1.4mil city is freelance, even though she doesn't accept offers from any other networks -- even for radio. They're usually contracted for a specific show at a specific time slot -- some personalities do take jobs at competing stations in which point they have to ensure the shows won't air during the same time slot.
Again I can't say for certain but I see guys like "Mike and Mike" or Lebetard and what not and they look like stereotypical freelance to me. A lot of the "beat" reporters that double as panelists are probably free lance as well.
The fact that they're mostly freelance is important... it means they don't have much leverage and the network doesn't even have to "fire" them, they could just stop requesting their services if they don't like something. This is even more true if they're not an established host on a regular show where a contract for that show involving them would be involved.
 
Upvote 0
OK then......

580x326
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top