RebKell's Junkie Boards

[myrtle]

I know this is probably impractical and not possible - at least in terms of how it works currently, but...

my thought is that game coverage should be determined about 2 weeks before the games, and that only games that seem relevant and competitive be shown.

Bottom dwelling teams need to be told that if they don't improve, they simply ain't gonna be on tv. I'm lookin at you Boston College, Wake Forest, Arizona, Wisconsin, etc... Showing these games just make the women's game look pathetic. I don't mind showing two middle of the pack teams play each other so long as it seems like it will be competitive. And I don't mind occasionally seeing UConn blow somebody out because at least you're showing the best of the best (even though I don't usually watch those either). ESPN showing all these other AAC games is just ridiculous. The fox channels showing all these bottom dweller teams are also ridiculous.

JMO.

_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman

[Ex-Ref]

I don't know if there is a good answer to this problem.

This seems like a rich get richer thing though. Who wouldn't want to go to the schools that they see on TV? The top players are going to be the ones that get the first/most opportunities

[Nixtreefan]

Complaining about coverage is asinine, how about just asking for more coverage.

[summertime blues]

I object like hell to seeing nothing but the "top teams" and especially I am sick of the UConn worship. I *particularly* do not want to watch UConn trample all over the AAC. I would honestly prefer to watch the middle of the big conferences, some mid-majors, and occasionally even DII now and then, than get nothing but a steady diet of Top 25 or whatever. YUK!

_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

[myrtle]

[ArtBest23]

These games are televised through contracts with the various conferences. and I expect the conferences want to share the exposure and showcase all their member schools at least part of the time. I expect there would be an outcry from member schools if only three or four of the teams got all the TV slots.

I watch quite a few middle-of-the-pack ACC games, but admittedly I would not be likely to tune in for more than a few minutes to someting like a this-year Clemson - BC game.

[Shades]

How are these teams going to improve if you put them at a media disadvantage? Are recruits going to want to commit to these teams? That would make parity even worse, which I'm guessing is something you don't like either.

I started making multiple consistent game threads a thing about 6 years ago because it didn't seem these hardcover fans here were even watching very many games other than their personal teams. Now it seems people are spoiled and want great games all the time.

People should be happy to have options like ESPN3, foxsports2go, btn2go, and whatnot. You can pretty much watch any game you want to.

_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned

[Ay Mate]

[Happycappie25]

[summertime blues]

[summertime blues]

[Ay Mate]

[summertime blues]

[linkster]

I love how some expect TV to put on games where 5000 will be watching and they can't sell ad time. Why don't people put those games on TV? The same reason those games draw 500 fans to the arena. You all forget that wcbb has become a business and you need to provide some entertainment value. Many of those mid-pack P5 teams play unwatchable basketball in at least half of their games. And it goes beyond their needing more talent. The execution of many of those teams is pathetic. There's no excuse for unforced errors. Games that have 40+ turnovers and 50+ ft's are not going to draw an audience. Last year I watched the DII & DIII FF's and those games were extremely entertaining despite the fact that none of those teams had any McDAA's. But they executed. They passed the ball well, they ran sophisticated offenses, they played excellent defense and they didn't bounce the ball off their own feet while dribbling or miss layups.

Would you pay to see a play where the actors forgot their lines and stumbled around the stage? Maybe only if you had a relative in the cast.

TV doesn't do this for the good of the game. They pay teams and conferences who will attract fans beyond the 1500 or less who go to most games. They want to sell ad time and mediocrity just doesn't sell.

[myrtle]

I would add to those who think it helps recruiting...as a recruit, if you saw a shitty team being beaten by 50 on tv, would that make that team somehow more attractive? It certainly wouldn't for me...if I had a choice of course. Some of these games I suspect have about 50 viewers and most of them are relatives. JMO of course.

And no, all games are not available online. I find there are often 'good' or interesting games that I can't watch....meanwhile ESPN is showing Tulsa v. Houston.

Yes, I understand that it has to do with whatever contracts are arranged, but just saying that I think it would be better for our sport for that thinking to be changed. But I respect y'all who think differently and prefer to watch those games with 40 other fans Conferences like the B1G who make it subscription only are just shooting themselves in the foot IMO.

And I would add that I actually do watch some games from the minor conferences that stream them online...but again I pick the games that seem interesting for some reason or other.

_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman

[ArtBest23]

[ArtBest23]