• 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
DaddyBigBucks said:
23 years?

wow

Raise your hand if you watched more than 23 years of football before the first down line was a thing

Back in the day, most Ohio State games were available live only on radio. Not internet streaming… hold-the-antenna-at-an-odd-angle-all-game-long AM radio.

Some of us, most games that were on tv we’d see on 19” (or smaller) black & white TVs.

Now we get it in 4K with first down lines and cameras in the first down markers and end-zone pylons and even one hovering over the field. And to say that stat coverage and graphics have improved would be like comparing modern computers to a caveman counting on his fingers.

And while I’m not a fan of all of the changes in the rules, it is unarguable that the game is more complex and interesting than it was, and is played at a higher level by college age players because of the improved coaching at the pop Warner and high-school levels

damn I love this game


Edit: In order to make this post relevant to the thread it’s in: Fuck ESPN

Edit II: And with all the technology at their disposal, ESPN still misses plays while showing you replays of 3 yard runs through the A gap.
Click to expand...
I’m raising my hand. In the early days, it was a bitch when they had to use a chisel to update the stone tablet every time the down changed.
 
Upvote 0
It is striking to consider that the debut of instant replay in the 1963 Army-Navy game is basically the only real technological feat until the late 1990s. Sure, they slowly added more cameras, parabolic mics, better quality audio and sharper pictures, but what that tweet about the 1st and 10 line debuting in 1998 leaves out is that the ever-present game/play clock, score, and down and distance bug debuted just a year earlier in 1997. And a whole lot of the other advances we take for granted today, like sky-cam, mic'ed up players, on-field cameramen close to the huddle, all came out of the XFL in 2001.
 
Upvote 0
DaddyBigBucks said:
23 years?

wow

Raise your hand if you watched more than 23 years of football before the first down line was a thing

Back in the day, most Ohio State games were available live only on radio. Not internet streaming… hold-the-antenna-at-an-odd-angle-all-game-long AM radio.

Some of us, most games that were on tv we’d see on 19” (or smaller) black & white TVs.

Now we get it in 4K with first down lines and cameras in the first down markers and end-zone pylons and even one hovering over the field. And to say that stat coverage and graphics have improved would be like comparing modern computers to a caveman counting on his fingers.

And while I’m not a fan of all of the changes in the rules, it is unarguable that the game is more complex and interesting than it was, and is played at a higher level by college age players because of the improved coaching at the pop Warner and high-school levels

damn I love this game


Edit: In order to make this post relevant to the thread it’s in: Fuck ESPN

Edit II: And with all the technology at their disposal, ESPN still misses plays while showing you replays of 3 yard runs through the A gap.
Click to expand...

I remember watching football more than 10 years before this ↓, and it wasn't on a 85" QLED 4K TV either. Hell, it was just 19" tube TV and wasn't in color.:

dcovmnf_v.jpg


Just sayin': Back in 1970 this ↑ was a really big deal too.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dryden said:
It is striking to consider that the debut of instant replay in the 1963 Army-Navy game is basically the only real technological feat until the late 1990s. Sure, they slowly added more cameras, parabolic mics, better quality audio and sharper pictures, but what that tweet about the 1st and 10 line debuting in 1998 leaves out is that the ever-present game/play clock, score, and down and distance bug debuted just a year earlier in 1997. And a whole lot of the other advances we take for granted today, like sky-cam, mic'ed up players, on-field cameramen close to the huddle, all came out of the XFL in 2001.
Click to expand...

Your constitution towards Super-Slo-Mo is weak.
 
Upvote 0
DaddyBigBucks said:
"Turn out the lights; the party's over"
Click to expand...



Things were sure a lot simpler back then:



Monday Night Football first aired on ABC on September 21, 1970, with a game between the New York Jets and the Browns in Cleveland. Advertisers were charged US$65,000 per minute by ABC during the clash, a cost that proved to be a bargain when the contest collected 33% of the viewing audience. The Browns defeated the Jets, 31–21 in a game which featured a 94-yard kickoff return for a touchdown by the Browns' Homer Jones to open the second half, and was punctuated when Billy Andrews intercepted Joe Namath late in the fourth quarter and returned it 25 yards for the clinching touchdown. However, Cleveland viewers saw different programming on WEWS-TV, because of the NFL's blackout rules of the time.

For Brown fans that don't remember the game, it's worth watching the following video:

 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
You're using "effective" in two different ways. You first say, quote:

"When we get to December and they're using it, successfully, to argue for a Georgia Clemson rematch in CFP ... it'll be very effective."

Then you turn around and say, quote:

"Your expectation is that it's supposed to provide an unbiased and objective data-driven ranking, and therefore it's not effective."

So which is it?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you missed kuji's point...which is that it's "effective" because it achieves the goal ESPN wants of getting as many SEC + Clemson teams into the CFP as possible.
 
Upvote 0
ScriptOhio said:
Click to expand...


ABC needed this contract, no matter the cost. It was a gamble, but at that time as the 60s drew to a close, ABC had successfully produced a grand total of one TV show that was a multi-year Top 10 hit for the entire decade of the 60s, Bewitched. They'd been the slowest adopter of color TV and were lagging badly.

When MNF debuted, CBS's Monday night primetime block was Gunsmoke, Lucy, Mayberry RFD, Doris Day, and Carol Burnett.
 
Upvote 0
1. ESPN went from trashing Ohio State at every turn to trashing the Pedsters, especially after the Auburn game, and scUM. They haven't hit Iowa yet but they will eventually.

2. ESPN is absolutely courting Ntre Ame. They want to entice Ntre Ame to join the ACC. They might NEED Ntre Ame to join the ACC because with Clemson returning to its historical norm and FSU being dogshit plus Cryami still broken from 2002, there is literally nothing else going for that conference in football right now.

3. They will absolutely strike back against the alliance in some way or manner. It might even show up as early as this year with how the first CFP rankings are presented. Let's just hope that the agreement within the alliance has more cohesion than just game scheduling.
 
Upvote 0
Mike80 said:
1. ESPN went from trashing Ohio State at every turn to trashing the Pedsters, especially after the Auburn game, and scUM. They haven't hit Iowa yet but they will eventually.

2. ESPN is absolutely courting Ntre Ame. They want to entice Ntre Ame to join the ACC. They might NEED Ntre Ame to join the ACC because with Clemson returning to its historical norm and FSU being dogshit plus Cryami still broken from 2002, there is literally nothing else going for that conference in football right now.

3. They will absolutely strike back against the alliance in some way or manner. It might even show up as early as this year with how the first CFP rankings are presented. Let's just hope that the agreement within the alliance has more cohesion than just game scheduling.
Click to expand...

Three points:

1) As long as they can get into the CFPs as an independent there is no real incentive and/or benefit (i.e. in competing for a National Championship) for Notre Dame to join a conference.

2) The more "shit schools" that the ACC has; it's less likely that Notre Dame football would actually join it. It would be step down for the Notre Dame football program to join a "lesser" conference.

3) Notre Dame's TV contract with NBC currently runs through 2025. Reportedly Notre Dame is currently getting $15M per year from NBC and a few more million from the ACC. The big question as we get close to 2026 will be: Will NBC pay Notre Dame more for their TV rights than they could otherwise get as a member of a conference? Here is what some guy lists as the TV deals:

Entire article: https://footballscoop.com/news/acc-sec-big-ten-getting-richer-with-billion-dollar-tv-revenues

The ACC has a shit TV deal through 2036. There is no way that Notre Dame would be fit for the SEC. If Notre Dame (i.e. football) decided to join a conference it would be the B1G. But for them to even consider it; at least 2 things would probably have to happen, a) they get squeezed out of the CFPs as an independent, and b) Notre Dame would have to get a whole lot more money from the B1G TV deals than they would get from a TV deal with NBC (or another network).
 
Upvote 0
ScriptOhio said:
Three points:

1) As long as they can get into the CFPs as an independent there is no real incentive and/or benefit (i.e. in competing for a National Championship) for Notre Dame to join a conference.

2) The more "shit schools" that the ACC has; it's less likely that Notre Dame football would actually join it. It would be step down for the Notre Dame football program to join a "lesser" conference.

3) Notre Dame's TV contract with NBC currently runs through 2025. Reportedly Notre Dame is currently getting $15M per year from NBC and a few more million from the ACC. The big question as we get close to 2026 will be: Will NBC pay Notre Dame more for their TV rights than they could otherwise get as a member of a conference? Here is what some guy lists as the TV deals:

Entire article: https://footballscoop.com/news/acc-sec-big-ten-getting-richer-with-billion-dollar-tv-revenues

The ACC has a shit TV deal through 2036. There is no way that Notre Dame would be fit for the SEC. If Notre Dame (i.e. football) decided to join a conference it would be the B1G. But for them to even consider it; at least 2 things would probably have to happen, a) they get squeezed out of the CFPs as an independent, and b) Notre Dame would have to get a whole lot more money from the B1G TV deals than they would get from a TV deal with NBC (or another network).
Click to expand...


That's great and all...

I didn't say it made or makes any sense. I did say, however, that ESPN is absolutely courting them and they are. Watch the tone of their coverage of Ntre Ame. It really started last year too but it's heightened quite a bit this year.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top