| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Davis4632
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 861
Back to top |
|
huskiemaniac
Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 1049
Location: NE CT
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/26/21 8:36 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
The idea that the location of ESPN has played a significant role in the creation of the UConn WCB dynasty makes me snort my coffee.
Did y'all think so after the '97-98 season, when the LVs won their 3rd straight NC, during the 1st 3 yrs ESPN carried the tournament?
Possibly the dumbest fallout from UConn hate/envy/fatigue.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11140
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/21 9:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| huskiemaniac wrote: |
The idea that the location of ESPN has played a significant role in the creation of the UConn WCB dynasty makes me snort my coffee.
Did y'all think so after the '97-98 season, when the LVs won their 3rd straight NC, during the 1st 3 yrs ESPN carried the tournament?
Possibly the dumbest fallout from UConn hate/envy/fatigue. |
X________
No question. ESPN cares about ratings and ad revenue, not about geography.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Davis4632
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 861
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/21 1:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| huskiemaniac wrote: |
The idea that the location of ESPN has played a significant role in the creation of the UConn WCB dynasty makes me snort my coffee.
Did y'all think so after the '97-98 season, when the LVs won their 3rd straight NC, during the 1st 3 yrs ESPN carried the tournament?
Possibly the dumbest fallout from UConn hate/envy/fatigue. |
Your inherent superiority seeps through your post.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
|
huskiemaniac
Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 1049
Location: NE CT
Back to top |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15734
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/21 4:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't think this proves the point you think it does. If Maryland, Stanford, and Baylor are recognized by these ESPN analysts as the best teams in the country right now, why haven't there been more stories about *these* teams (their individual players/coaches/games/stats/injuries/records/etc)? Yes, they have gotten some coverage and are clearly respected as top programs, but the coverage of all things *UConn* has been more frequent and consistent than the coverage of perhaps all of these teams combined.
(That said, scrolling down the homepage right now, the coverage looks nicely balanced.)
Re: the point people are making about ESPN being a business with a bottom line. No one is arguing with that, and I think we all understand that money informs ESPN's decisions. However, understanding why a bias exists in the first place does not make said bias any less annoying  As Howee said, it's possible to be grateful for any coverage at all but also imagine ways it could be better for the sport as a whole.
|
|
huskiemaniac
Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 1049
Location: NE CT
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/21 6:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| undersized_post wrote: |
I don't think this proves the point you think it does. If Maryland, Stanford, and Baylor are recognized by these ESPN analysts as the best teams in the country right now, why haven't there been more stories about *these* teams (their individual players/coaches/games/stats/injuries/records/etc)? Yes, they have gotten some coverage and are clearly respected as top programs, but the coverage of all things *UConn* has been more frequent and consistent than the coverage of perhaps all of these teams combined.
(That said, scrolling down the homepage right now, the coverage looks nicely balanced.)
Re: the point people are making about ESPN being a business with a bottom line. No one is arguing with that, and I think we all understand that money informs ESPN's decisions. However, understanding why a bias exists in the first place does not make said bias any less annoying As Howee said, it's possible to be grateful for any coverage at all but also imagine ways it could be better for the sport as a whole. |
--I have never maintained ESPN shows no bias toward players/coaches/teams.
--The UConn bias doesn't exist because ESPN and UConn are located within the same state.
--The ESPN vomit-inducing promotion bias only seems to be annoying, here at REBKELLS, when it favors UConn.
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/21 6:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| huskiemaniac wrote: |
--I have never maintained ESPN shows no bias toward players/coaches/teams.
--The UConn bias doesn't exist because ESPN and UConn are located within the same state.
--The ESPN vomit-inducing promotion bias only seems to be annoying, here at REBKELLS, when it favors UConn. |
Not speaking for anyone else here, but I'm on the same page as you with the first two points. The third point--it's more annoying with UConn just because it's more prevalent. I agree with you that it does happen with other programs/players, but in a way that isn't sustained over long periods of time, which makes it slightly less annoying, for me. To take my own program, for example--Caitlin Clark is currently having her "moment," and I love her but I'm sick of the coverage, personally, because it largely ignores the 5v5 nature of the sport. The narrative has been that Caitlin Clark suddenly put Iowa on the map. OK so we're not a perennial powerhouse---but where's the mention of the (relatively) good/great seasons we've had for the last few years? Or the fact that Lisa Bluder was 2019 Naismith Coach of the Year? Anyway, just an example to show you it's not only UConn coverages that's annoying, but it's the most annoying for me because it's the most common.
Last edited by undersized_post on 03/26/21 6:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
robertoclementeforever
Joined: 18 Dec 2020
Posts: 31
Location: Storrs, CT
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/21 6:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| huskiemaniac wrote: |
The idea that the location of ESPN has played a significant role in the creation of the UConn WCB dynasty makes me snort my coffee.
Did y'all think so after the '97-98 season, when the LVs won their 3rd straight NC, during the 1st 3 yrs ESPN carried the tournament?
Possibly the dumbest fallout from UConn hate/envy/fatigue. |
X________
No question. ESPN cares about ratings and ad revenue, not about geography. |
To state that ESPN only cares about ratings and ad revenue is nothing short of the absolute truth. Another simple truth is that ESPN had little if anything to do with to do with the rise and prominence of the UConn Program, Brand and Culture.
Auriemma, an immigrant from Italy, brought a relentless work ethic, vision and commitment to UConn that is now considered a standard in coaching i.e. practices should be harder than the games, etc. His style of play is extremely equitable and fair. Find the open woman. Stars have to pass the ball to open teammates. UConn rarely score points off the bounce. They score off screens and passes. This is a form of Jazz at its best...everyone gets a chance to solo.
While Geno was building a winning Program, the University partnered with Public Television to show all games not televised by a National Outlet. UConn Nation has had the good fortune of being able to see literally every game played during Geno's tenure with very few exceptions. The footprint was expanded further when SNY succeeded Public Television and recently the University signed media contracts expanding their digital National and International footprint with various outlets including Fox Sports.
If there is a relationship between ESPN and UConn, it's a parasitic one. ESPN emerges to put forward inappropriate, superficial and melodramatic narratives that benefits their Corporate, profitmaking agenda at the expense of growing equity in the Game for all.
|
|
Davis4632
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 861
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/21 8:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| huskiemaniac wrote: |
The idea that the location of ESPN has played a significant role in the creation of the UConn WCB dynasty makes me snort my coffee.
Did y'all think so after the '97-98 season, when the LVs won their 3rd straight NC, during the 1st 3 yrs ESPN carried the tournament?
Possibly the dumbest fallout from UConn hate/envy/fatigue. |
I wonder who win the year before ESPN decided to carry the tournament 🤔 and if that was a determing factor in the decision to carry it.
|
|
Conway Gamecock
Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1900
Location: Here
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/26/21 11:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| I'd blame the NCAA. I'm sure they are directing ESPN as to what to post on their website. |
Considering where the NCAA gets their money, and how desperately clutching they are about their money, it would make more sense if it was ESPN that directs the NCAA.....
|
|
PickledGinger
Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 1362
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/21 2:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| huskiemaniac wrote: |
The UConn bias doesn't exist because ESPN and UConn are located within the same state.
|
Privide evidence, please.
_________________
Unspoken expectations are just premeditated resentments.
|
|
Davis4632
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 861
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/21 5:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| DP.
|
|
robertoclementeforever
Joined: 18 Dec 2020
Posts: 31
Location: Storrs, CT
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/21 7:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| I'd blame the NCAA. I'm sure they are directing ESPN as to what to post on their website. |
Considering where the NCAA gets their money, and how desperately clutching they are about their money, it would make more sense if it was ESPN that directs the NCAA..... |
You can't be serious "Gamecock". You buy into that B.S. that Corporate America knows what's best for the "individual"? Privatization of the NCAA? Might as well make indentured servitude legal again.
How about we start with a change of leadership in the NCAA? Let's replace Emmert and Gavitt with women and change the Board of Directors to reflect a more equitable composite of Collegiate athleticism and gender.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19759
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/21 8:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I still don’t understand how people don’t get this.
UConn is the most popular team in the country. Built by Auriemma.
ESPN doesn’t give a shit about women’s sports. But they host the NCAA tournament. So yes, they could put a ton of effort into trying to market other teams to help those teams become more popular...but the truth is, they’re lazy..and they’d rather just mooch off of what is already there.
Paige Bueckers is already popular. UConn is already popular. They’ll market that - and continue to market that..because it’s the easiest way to increase ratings.
Now, when Griner and Diggins were the two most popular teams in college basketball, it was all about them.
It’s not anymore, Bueckers is the player to see. So that’s what we are going to hear about - likely for the next 4 to 5 years.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7822
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/21 10:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I still don’t understand how people don’t get this.
UConn is the most popular team in the country. Built by Auriemma.
ESPN doesn’t give a shit about women’s sports. But they host the NCAA tournament. So yes, they could put a ton of effort into trying to market other teams to help those teams become more popular...but the truth is, they’re lazy..and they’d rather just mooch off of what is already there.
Paige Bueckers is already popular. UConn is already popular. They’ll market that - and continue to market that..because it’s the easiest way to increase ratings.
Now, when Griner and Diggins were the two most popular teams in college basketball, it was all about them.
It’s not anymore, Bueckers is the player to see. So that’s what we are going to hear about - likely for the next 4 to 5 years. |
Probably the most insular, entitled post I've read yet. I've refrained from commenting on this thread because there are certain people who have repeatedly accused me of being a hater, which I'm not. But this is tunnel vision at its finest.
_________________
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
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19759
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/21 12:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I still don’t understand how people don’t get this.
UConn is the most popular team in the country. Built by Auriemma.
ESPN doesn’t give a shit about women’s sports. But they host the NCAA tournament. So yes, they could put a ton of effort into trying to market other teams to help those teams become more popular...but the truth is, they’re lazy..and they’d rather just mooch off of what is already there.
Paige Bueckers is already popular. UConn is already popular. They’ll market that - and continue to market that..because it’s the easiest way to increase ratings.
Now, when Griner and Diggins were the two most popular teams in college basketball, it was all about them.
It’s not anymore, Bueckers is the player to see. So that’s what we are going to hear about - likely for the next 4 to 5 years. |
Probably the most insular, entitled post I've read yet. I've refrained from commenting on this thread because there are certain people who have repeatedly accused me of being a hater, which I'm not. But this is tunnel vision at its finest. |
Lol, this thread and the other team’s fans whining has to be the most entitled thing I’ve seen from WCBB fans
“My team doesn’t have the historical success, ratings, fans, and popular players as UConn, but they should totes get the same media treatment as UConn.” Please step back into reality.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7822
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/21 1:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I still don’t understand how people don’t get this.
UConn is the most popular team in the country. Built by Auriemma.
ESPN doesn’t give a shit about women’s sports. But they host the NCAA tournament. So yes, they could put a ton of effort into trying to market other teams to help those teams become more popular...but the truth is, they’re lazy..and they’d rather just mooch off of what is already there.
Paige Bueckers is already popular. UConn is already popular. They’ll market that - and continue to market that..because it’s the easiest way to increase ratings.
Now, when Griner and Diggins were the two most popular teams in college basketball, it was all about them.
It’s not anymore, Bueckers is the player to see. So that’s what we are going to hear about - likely for the next 4 to 5 years. |
Probably the most insular, entitled post I've read yet. I've refrained from commenting on this thread because there are certain people who have repeatedly accused me of being a hater, which I'm not. But this is tunnel vision at its finest. |
Lol, this thread and the other team’s fans whining has to be the most entitled thing I’ve seen from WCBB fans
“My team doesn’t have the historical success, ratings, fans, and popular players as UConn, but they should totes get the same media treatment as UConn.” Please step back into reality. |
I suggest you are the one who ought to do so. I am leaving this conversation before it degenerates further.
_________________
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
|
|
Davis4632
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 861
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/21 2:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I still don’t understand how people don’t get this.
UConn is the most popular team in the country. Built by Auriemma.
ESPN doesn’t give a shit about women’s sports. But they host the NCAA tournament. So yes, they could put a ton of effort into trying to market other teams to help those teams become more popular...but the truth is, they’re lazy..and they’d rather just mooch off of what is already there.
Paige Bueckers is already popular. UConn is already popular. They’ll market that - and continue to market that..because it’s the easiest way to increase ratings.
Now, when Griner and Diggins were the two most popular teams in college basketball, it was all about them.
It’s not anymore, Bueckers is the player to see. So that’s what we are going to hear about - likely for the next 4 to 5 years. |
Probably the most insular, entitled post I've read yet. I've refrained from commenting on this thread because there are certain people who have repeatedly accused me of being a hater, which I'm not. But this is tunnel vision at its finest. |
Lol, this thread and the other team’s fans whining has to be the most entitled thing I’ve seen from WCBB fans
“My team doesn’t have the historical success, ratings, fans, and popular players as UConn, but they should totes get the same media treatment as UConn.” Please step back into reality. |
I suggest you are the one who ought to do so. I am leaving this conversation before it degenerates further. |
Sometimes (not here as of yet) this back and forth with UConn fans on social media can escalate to threats of physical violence and it's not worth it in the end. Here it's just at the personal insults and patronizing stage of the debate.
Agree to disagree because there's nothing that can be said to change an opinion at least when it comes to me.
|
|
Milks26
Joined: 25 Mar 2021
Posts: 830
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/27/21 8:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
OP: This sh*t isn't new. No matter how had others are balling out there they always come back to uconn.
They do the same in the WNBA. Come back to Taurasi, Stewart and Bird.
_________________
~College WBB & the "W' need other tv networks covering the important stuff...Espn is beyond tired~
|
|
huskiemaniac
Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 1049
Location: NE CT
Back to top |
|
huskiemaniac
Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 1049
Location: NE CT
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/28/21 6:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
MEA CULPA!!
The UCONN MEDIA BIAS CONSPIRACY IS REAL! AND IT'S SPREADING!
While watching the men's Creighton-Gonzaga game this afternoon, on CBS, there was an in-game promo for the women's tournament- the same as we see during women's games for the men's tournament-er, excuse me, for March Madness- and then they cut to an off-camera sideline report regarding the Zags' Jalen Suggs' friendship with "freshman superstar Paige Bueckers of UConn", and on the screen there was shown a selfie of the pair! OMG!!!
Clearly, CBS is in on the fix. As you may know, CBS is located in the NYC metro area, which includes Fairfield County, CONNECTICUT, where TV Execs are known to reside.
We're doomed.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/28/21 11:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
WBB has only ever gotten niche media coverage, even now. Over the years, this trivial coverage of WBB has naturally focused on whatever team or player was hottest (and almost nothing else): e.g., for a few years, Immaculata, ODU with Lady Magic and Anne Donovan, Montclair State with Carol Blazejowski, LaTech, Texas with Clarissa Davis, USC with Cheryl Miller, etc.
Then Pat Summitt built a dynasty and gobbled up decades of the small slices media coverage.
Then UConn did the same thing: The most national championships, the winning streaks, all the AA's and Olympians, the ultra-winning coach. Then an exceptional freshman, by all historical standards, dazzles at UConn in 2021. It's perfectly understandable that the media's narrow beam of WBB light focuses on her, and I suppose (since I don't participate in it) the now omnipresent social media trends-up on her too.
If all the dynastic things that have happened at Tennessee and UConn had happened instead at the real UM, the real UM would have gotten the same attention as those two dynasties. It makes no difference what state the school is in or what state the media company is incorporated in.
The media have no corporate, profit or shareholder interest in "growing" a niche sport at cost of ignoring much more popular and lucrative sports. They aren't charities or distributors of socialist welfare. Time slots are a zero sum game, and no private business is in business to commit hara-kiri. Thus, the media's limited resource devoted to WBB will always focus on whatever seems hottest in that sport -- what is likely to attract the most viewers, readers, clicks and cash.
If you want to read an article about some unknown player at Average University, write it yourself. Then submit it to a publisher and see what happens. Or video it and put it up on YouTube, and then see how many views and comments and YouTube bucks you get. When you don't get much, imagine how motivated you will be to use up more of your zero sum life time to produce another such article or video.
Why are you stopping; don't you want to grow interest in WBB at Average U? |
|
|
|
)
(That's the Bad 
)