ESPN: Inaccurate and Disrespectful

[Redonkuless1]

Perhaps some of them really are too ignorant, or whatever, to know that the NCAA has had FOOTBALL championship playoffs going on for decades. As I write this, an FCS (Division 1-A) semi-final FOOTBALL championship game...

FYI - FCS is I-AA. FBS is I-A.

Don't take this the wrong way; I share your frustration and I like the fact that you wrote. But the fact that you called their announcers "ignorant" in the same sentence that you mis-labeled the divisions yourself probably gave the ombudsman a good chuckle.

1-AA and I-A no longer exists. They are both division 1, with a FCS designation or FBS.

 

[Grizlaw]

Perhaps some of them really are too ignorant, or whatever, to know that the NCAA has had FOOTBALL championship playoffs going on for decades. As I write this, an FCS (Division 1-A) semi-final FOOTBALL championship game...

FYI - FCS is I-AA. FBS is I-A.

Don't take this the wrong way; I share your frustration and I like the fact that you wrote. But the fact that you called their announcers "ignorant" in the same sentence that you mis-labeled the divisions yourself probably gave the ombudsman a good chuckle.

1-AA and I-A no longer exists. They are both division 1, with a FCS designation or FBS.

Yes I know...but the OP referred to FCS as I-A, which is untrue. That was my point.

 

[SaskGriz]

Does anybody honestly care who wins the FBS national championship? Did Alabama win again? Big deal. It's like watching the NCAA basketball tournament and wondering if Kentuky's group of AAU one and done "student athletes" will beat Louisville's AAU team.
I follow the Griz because this is my school and the state I love! Joke em if they can't take a f**k.

 

[MrTitleist]

I am going to make some assumptions here knowing what That means.

FBS..220 teams approximately. The rest of "college football" meaning FCS, DIV II, DIV III, NAIA, JUCO, and probably a couple more I don't know about have over 500 teams approximately, maybe more..
Therein lies the arrogance of the whole of broadcast media, FCS schools, et al, and the general public. To state that FBS football is "College Football" is ludicrous. I for one get pissed every time I hear the term "College Football." But, in reality what can you expect from idiots in larger metropolitan areas who think we still ride horses and shoot Indians for a living. :evil:

220 teams? I think your math is wrong.

 

[IdaGriz01]

I am going to make some assumptions here knowing what That means.

FBS..220 teams approximately. The rest of "college football" meaning FCS, DIV II, DIV III, NAIA, JUCO, and probably a couple more I don't know about have over 500 teams approximately, maybe more..
Therein lies the arrogance of the whole of broadcast media, FCS schools, et al, and the general public. To state that FBS football is "College Football" is ludicrous. I for one get pissed every time I hear the term "College Football." But, in reality what can you expect from idiots in larger metropolitan areas who think we still ride horses and shoot Indians for a living. :evil:

220 teams? I think your math is wrong.

[Wikipedia, so FWIW]: For the 2012-13 school year, Division I contains 340 of the NCAA's 1,066 member institutions, with 128 in FBS, 122 in FCS, and 98 in NFS (Non-Football schools).

 

[grizman71]

So don't watch ESPN.

Exactly. Some of you act like they should give a crap about every division and give them all equal billing. They have the biggest sports viewership compared to the other TV networks and they don't care about FCS, Division II, and III. That is not where the money is and it will always be that way. So get over it. Be happy they broadcast some of the games.

 

[IdaGriz01]

So don't watch ESPN.

Exactly. Some of you act like they should give a crap about every division and give them all equal billing. They have the biggest sports viewership compared to the other TV networks and they don't care about FCS, Division II, and III. That is not where the money is and it will always be that way. So get over it. Be happy they broadcast some of the games.

Did you bother to read the thread? If so, you would have seen this.

So don't watch ESPN.

Honestly it comes down to this. It is about money. We are lucky to get the games we have on ESPN. We are not exactly highly rated outside of Montana when we play. Unfortunately it is true. It may hurt our feelings, but we are really of no interest to anyone outside of our own little fraternity.

Not sure I get these points.

Did I say anything about wanting more non-FBS games on ESPN? Nope.
Did I say anything bad about the non-FBS coverage they do have? Nope.

I watch football on ESPN because they paid the big bucks to get the rights to broadcast those games. I get all that.

I simply called their attention to a much-used phrase that is not accurate, and one that I (obviously many others) consider disrespectful to a bunch of hard-working football players outside the FBS ranks. I -- or a family member -- might do the same if the announcers consistently mispronounced a player's name.

 

[kemajic]

Unfortunately nobody gives a crap about football below the FBS level. FCS through NAIA is all just small college football to everyone outside of Montana. In western Washington nobody even knows eastern washington has a team.

What the announcers meant was the first college football playoff that anyone cares about. They know their viewership; the small college playoffs viewership is peanuts. It's not unique to college football, the same issue is present in minor league baseball. Who was the champion last year? Unless aligned to one of the little guys, fans want to watch the big leagues.

 

['68griz]

Unfortunately nobody gives a crap about football below the FBS level. FCS through NAIA is all just small college football to everyone outside of Montana. In western Washington nobody even knows eastern washington has a team.

What the announcers meant was the first college football playoff that anyone cares about. They know their viewership; the small college playoffs viewership is peanuts. It's not unique to college football, the same issue is present in minor league baseball. Who was the champion last year? Unless aligned to one of the little guys, fans want to watch the big leagues.

Guess I'm nobody then, because I have FAR less interest in the FBS playoffs than I do in the FCS playoffs.

 

[Grizlaw]

Guess I'm nobody then, because I have FAR less interest in the FBS playoffs than I do in the FCS playoffs.

Me too, but that's only because I'm a Griz fan. Have you ever planned your weekend around making sure you could watch a Div. II playoff game? How about Div. III?

 

[IdaGriz01]

Guess I'm nobody then, because I have FAR less interest in the FBS playoffs than I do in the FCS playoffs.

Me too, but that's only because I'm a Griz fan. Have you ever planned your weekend around making sure you could watch a Div. II playoff game? How about Div. III?

Recheck the title of this thread.

My point was never that ESPN does (they don't) or should (nope, money's not there) give an ishtay about non-FBS football.

In my note to them, I simply took issue with the statement, made repeatedly by their announcers and experts, that they were going to televise "the first ever football championship playoff." Yep, it is the first football playoff "that anyone cares about."

But that "first ever" statement is simply wrong, and should be corrected. Moreover, I consider it disrespectful to simply "blow off" all those other young men who play lower level college football (and therefore risk the same injuries as those at the "big boy" schools). Fans, BTW, are on their own.

I doubt very much if many, or even any, other people sent a note to ESPN about it. And I also doubt very much that ESPN will do anything at all in response. (And I certainly did not expect to get 2 pages of comments. )

 

[IdaGriz01]

YES!

Watching the half-time show of the "Miami Beach Bowl" between BYU and Memphis. Quite a shootout so far, BTW, 28-24 BYU.

Anyway, after the usual highlights of the first half, the "lead" announcer said that after the break they were going to look at some of the upcoming games in "the first ever FBS playoff."

It's just one guy ... but it's a start. :thumb:

 

[Grizlaw]

Guess I'm nobody then, because I have FAR less interest in the FBS playoffs than I do in the FCS playoffs.

Me too, but that's only because I'm a Griz fan. Have you ever planned your weekend around making sure you could watch a Div. II playoff game? How about Div. III?

Recheck the title of this thread.

My point was never that ESPN does (they don't) or should (nope, money's not there) give an ishtay about non-FBS football.

In my note to them, I simply took issue with the statement, made repeatedly by their announcers and experts, that they were going to televise "the first ever football championship playoff." Yep, it is the first football playoff "that anyone cares about."

But that "first ever" statement is simply wrong, and should be corrected. Moreover, I consider it disrespectful to simply "blow off" all those other young men who play lower level college football (and therefore risk the same injuries as those at the "big boy" schools). Fans, BTW, are on their own.

I doubt very much if many, or even any, other people sent a note to ESPN about it. And I also doubt very much that ESPN will do anything at all in response. (And I certainly did not expect to get 2 pages of comments. )

You might find this hard to believe, but the fact that you started this thread does not mean that every single post that appears in it is a direct response to the title of the thread, or to one of your posts.

Please look at my post, and at the post I was quoting when I wrote it, and then explain to me why you think I need to recheck the title of the thread.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... You might find this hard to believe, but the fact that you started this thread does not mean that every single post that appears in it is a direct response to the title of the thread, or to one of your posts.

Please look at my post, and at the post I was quoting when I wrote it, and then explain to me why you think I need to recheck the title of the thread.

You don't of course, and I stand (properly) corrected.

"Side conversation/exchanges" are entirely proper and to be expected. My apologies.

 

[Grizlaw]

... You might find this hard to believe, but the fact that you started this thread does not mean that every single post that appears in it is a direct response to the title of the thread, or to one of your posts.

Please look at my post, and at the post I was quoting when I wrote it, and then explain to me why you think I need to recheck the title of the thread.

You don't of course, and I stand (properly) corrected.

"Side conversation/exchanges" are entirely proper and to be expected. My apologies.

No apology needed. I do appreciate the mature response; it's a refreshing change from the behavior of many on this board when anyone disagrees with them..

 

[AZGrizFan]

... You might find this hard to believe, but the fact that you started this thread does not mean that every single post that appears in it is a direct response to the title of the thread, or to one of your posts.

Please look at my post, and at the post I was quoting when I wrote it, and then explain to me why you think I need to recheck the title of the thread.

You don't of course, and I stand (properly) corrected.

"Side conversation/exchanges" are entirely proper and to be expected. My apologies.

No apology needed. I do appreciate the mature response; it's a refreshing change from the behavior of many on this board when anyone disagrees with them..

Well, you can both go kindly f**k yourselves.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... Well, you can both go kindly f**k yourselves.

? ? ? ?

 

[Grizlaw]

... Well, you can both go kindly f**k yourselves.

? ? ? ?

I think he was being ironical...

 

[CDAGRIZ]

... You might find this hard to believe, but the fact that you started this thread does not mean that every single post that appears in it is a direct response to the title of the thread, or to one of your posts.

Please look at my post, and at the post I was quoting when I wrote it, and then explain to me why you think I need to recheck the title of the thread.

You don't of course, and I stand (properly) corrected.

"Side conversation/exchanges" are entirely proper and to be expected. My apologies.

No apology needed. I do appreciate the mature response; it's a refreshing change from the behavior of many on this board when anyone disagrees with them..

Well, you can both go kindly f**k yourselves.

Kindly? This place really is maturing.

 

[AZGrizFan]

... Well, you can both go kindly f**k yourselves.

? ? ? ?

I think he was being ironical...

If I have to explain myself Ida, then never mind.