Per this RT article:
http://www.roanoke.com/sports/virginiatech/
ESPN's motive?- I am assuming its $... so I'm guessing ESPN had set up a possible better matchup-
The other teams(s) are not mentioned, but it has a 'slap in the face' kind of offer no matter how you look at it.
It's like a girlfriend giving you the chance to break up with you before she dumps you (not that it's ever happened to me, I mean, I broke up with HER!, just ask anyone). Did we get a 'let's just be friends' line from ESPN. (BTW, I dont want to be friends with Dari ?KnowNuthin' anyway!)
Could this run deeper than one game?- I'm not saying it does, but....
ESPN has milked at Virginia Tech's Thursday night teet for over a decade and now that EVERY night is a college football night, Thursday game matchups have been marginalized, coupled with VT's absence on Thurs, and 1 down season, ESPN has much less use for Blacksburg and the HOKIES. I am sorta just ranting here, but I think there is some element of truth in all this.
Not saying that ESPN has it out for VT, they would still show love if we had 10 wins last year. The media plays the hot ticket and VT's value has faded in the 'IT' catagory. I am ~(completely) speculatuing~ that ESPN had TX A&M lined up for the CFA kickoff game - imagine the ratings...this year. AL is on the verge of imploding and Johnny 8Ball is gone next year. Wonder what the hot matchup will be in 2 years. It's just how things are now with college football. GO HOKIES!
Comments
One problem with your suggestion...the CFA Kickoff wouldn't be a conference game. It's meant to be a premier OOC matchup. So A&M is a no. Word on the street and around the interwebs is/was Louisville.
I get ESPN-they are pure profiteers. (whores)
It's all about the money, baby.
And if they had what they thought was a better matchup ratings-wise, (ie profit) then they would sell their soul TODAY, and do the same tomorrow.
What I have a bigger issue with is how much control ESPN would have in affecting scheduling/match-ups and how the NCAA just allows it. If anyone thought that there is ANY shred of concern for/representation of the 'student-athlete' by ESPN and/or the NCAA, here's your proof otherwise. What a farce.
Great point! - why does a student have to sit out a year for switching programs, but a TV network can switch up a game (that can take years of planning in some cases) and everything's OK. Double standard for sure! GO HOKIES!
Weaver had admitted to playing a large roll in the Thursday night thing, I wouldn't blame ESPN for that.
ESPN is about two things, ratings and money, which really go hand-in-hand. They're always going to follow the "it" teams. That's why they always talk about the Yankees, Lakers, Cowboys, Heat, etc. We can hate them all we want for it, but it's just good for business.
We were offered a buy-out because it benefited CFA and ESPN both if somebody coming off a better season played Bama, it's just more ratings. I'm happy we didn't back out though, we should never back down from anyone.
Who is responsible for scheduling games? ESPN or the colleges? Need some balance between schools and commercial interests. We are going down a path towards for-profit schools. In that scenario the athletes lose. NCAA? Who's that?
This kind of bothered me the first time I saw it too. First, ESPN should be in the business of broadcasting games, not deciding who plays in them. Second, the smugness of ESPN is horrible. Some executive in Bristol (who has probably never watched a VT game) probably saw that we were 7-6 last year and decided that he would help out poor little VT who obviously has no chance of competing with Alabama. They even had another opponent already picked out for us. I'm sure that rematch with Bowling Green on ESPN3 would have been great!
You're right though, ESPN wanted a bigger team to go against the "unbeatable" Alabama to draw in more viewers. I really hope that one day NBC Sports or Fox Sports 1 can get their act together to seriously compete with ESPN.
I very much applaud Coach Beamer for keeping Bama on our schedule.
Greenberg's revenge...
this. this. a million times this.
I actually do not mind that ESPN is trying to get the most out of each game. If we want to be a part of that, we need to win. Pure and simple.
What really angers me is this: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9175735/louisville-cardin...
That's an ESPN insider trying to make it look like VT is thinking about backing out when ESPN was the one who initiated the entire thing.
Agreed, trying to make smoke where there is no smoke. It sounds completely made up, but if it had any element of truth, VT (FB) would never admit to something like that. He didn't even name the team that was proposed to replace AL.
Talk about scrounging for a controversy. lame!
I can understand why ESPN would want a different team in that game. Just look at the pregame build up. Nobody was giving us a chance so most people were just saying Bama was gonna win and probably didn't watch the game. Bad ratings means less money.
ESPN is a business, they're not in the business of making us happy they're in the business of making money. I hate the way they broadcast sports and I don't think they're that good at it, but they're a damn good business that was doing what they had to do in order to get bigger ratings.
ESPN, stay with broadcasting and stay out of manipulating the "playing field"! How much are they paying players to attend top tier schools so that they can hype big game match-ups?
The things that make me curious about this entire conversation are these:
1. I find the timing of CFB bringing this up a bit odd. Was he trying to get a point across to someone?
2. Louisville was reported to have been our replacement, had the deal gone down the way ESPN desired. I find the way that it was reported by the boys from Bristol a bit suspect. I think I posted at the time that I couldn't imagine that Beamer would stand for opting out of a chance at bama. It smelled when it was originally reported, it has only ripened with time.
3. Since we turned down the mother ship on the bama pass, we were apparently relegated to a 5:30 start time, out of prime time. Was this a retaliatory strike? Was Beamer's comment meant to let ESPN know that he wasn't going to let the narrative be written by the sports leader?
4. Who was our pre-arranged bama replacement? A&M? UConn? We'd have to research who was still available in spring, or who could have dropped a game to pick us up. Where would this have been played? Neutral site? Home? Away? ESPN tried to play a shell game, only Beamer wasn't playing.
Well, Louisville played Ohio at Louisville the first weekend. I would have thought a Louisville/Alabama opener would have given us an Ohio game at VT.
This whole deal reeks. Beamer stuck by his guns because we're not Wisconsin.
Yeah. one positive about this and is a given that should not be taken for granted is Beamer's integrity. Needless to say, it was never in question. Just pointing it out. A lot of coaches would've caved in that situation. I heard one analyst just yesterday (ESPN- name eludes me) describe Virginia Tech's D as 'superb' and also the best D that Alabama will likely face all year. Best part is- he was spot on! no question. VT's D is ready for PRIME TIME and Beamer's the man for holding his ground!
That was Trevor Matitch (my new Mormon homeboy) -and saying it on Finebaum's show no less and followed the D being better than anyone statement with "even you, LSU"...
Directional Carolina, look the funk out...
Trevor Matitch-Thanks. I find myself agreeing with just about everything he says and he doesn't mince words ! Likin' him!
Those meddling sons a bitches. I'm glad Frank told them thanks but no thanks. Our team will be better for playing Bama.
Last Thurs, FB was asked how he thought VT would fare against Goliath, Alabama ... he said 'we will be a better football team on Sunday' ~ 2 things: wise Frank couldn't have been more right and Big Bad Bama don't seem so Big and Bad anymore, do they? GO HOKIES
My comment to Mike Barber is that VT turning down a shot at Alabama would have resulted in open rebellion from the Hokie fans and donors. That would never stand, to the point that even suggesting it would be ludicrous (yes even for Jim Weaver). So clearly the idea wasn't VT's.
His story in the Times Dispatch seemed to indicate that the initial question was presented by CFA as a courtesy to Tech. If you read that one way it sounds like "hey, ESPN is pushing CFA for this other option but the CFA Bowl feels it's obligated to let VT make the decision." Which would mean that ESPN thought its better match-up was a fait accompli but they got slapped down by the CFA Bowl organizers doing the right thing.
That explains ESPN floating the story that VT was thinking of pulling out if Logan left, something that VT denies.
I've been developing the opinion that ESPN has grown too big for its britches, ever since they were balls deep in the conference re-alignment mess over the past few years. A "news" organization creating controversy and then reporting on it is too much for me to take. Throw in the Mike Leach nonsense with Craig "Totally could have killed five hookers in Houston" James, the Le Bron "Decision" show, anything Skip Bayless does, etc and I'm so over that network. I'm hoping that FS1 can really make a go at giving them a stalking horse to try and keep them honest.
I have entirely given up on ESPN for anything but live sports and Gameday. Maybe ATH and PTI (gotta give love to the former WashPost columnists). All my sports-related news comes from SI and Yahoo at this point. Dan Wetzel might be the best sports journalist I read, and he definitely breaks the big stories. I like Stewart Mandel because he is really really knowledgeable but really really presumptuous, and Andy Staples is good and humorous. I stay far away from Scout (by Fox Sports) and ESPN anything. Holly Anderson (SI) did a twitter roundup with Campus Union (I believe this is an SI branch) last year and it was always a riot. She's pretty good. Haven't seen it this year, maybe I'm just missing it.
Second all that. I followed Feldman to CBS after ESPN shot its credibility to hell with the Craig James stuff. Big fan of Holly's work and Spencer Hall at EDSBS. I actually discovered EDSBS by accident while doing a search that lead to their mammoth thread on how ESPN sucked. Staples is great too.
After the Feldman stuff went down I avoid giving ESPN any page views. Dinnich and the rest of their bloggers can't come close to what's available in the real blogosphere in terms of analysis and team focused content (fair enough that they have to cover 15 teams and all, but I want my news Hokie centric dammit). And no one can touch the work that French does on film analysis. I haven't seen that level of coverage on any site, pay or not besides here.
Yep.
I think it's a combination of not understanding their audience and not having staff that understands the game AND that can articulate it.
I could honestly spend the rest of the season reading H. Dininch's (or any ESPN blogger's) columns and not get 1% of the information, breakdown that I get from 1 POST, not even column by TKP staff.
And they are paid 'professionals' ?!
Maybe the majority of the sports consumer wants to see the touchy feelgood stories on game day, but I don't!
I would rather have Gruden breakdown the Tampa 2, or the reads that a QB must make in the Oregon system.
ESPN is in the business of creating false hype and drama and then completely disowning the wreckage they create. (I'm looking at you Craig James and Monti Te'O)
They've jumped the shark like MTV did a decade ago: MTV used to play music, now IMHO they serve to promote some agenda using the vehicle of music. And ESPN........
Mandel was a complete prick back when VT went to the Sugar Bowl against Michigan...kept talking up Boise State and K-State and Baylor....
I stopped following him and Maisel during that period..
Yeah, like I said, he thinks very highly of himself, and I look at him the same way I look at Peter King for his NFL coverage. You're getting the top writer for the sport at (what is probably) the best and longest standing sports publication we've got, they've got the best access and the most experience, you just have wade through the bigheadedness sometimes. I've seen Mandel speak very positively about Virginia Tech (and he never forgets that Beamer is a great coach and university rep). But it's always a mixed bag.
I've been watching Fox Sports 1 a lot more but their version of Gameday sadly doesn't hold a candle to ESPN's game day (despite Herbstreit being Herbstreit). I hope it gets better but until it's just not the same sitting in a studio.
this is why Deadspin is probably my second most visited site (behind TKP of course). They are not afraid to call ESPN on their bullshit and do it quite regularly, and they actually break a lot of stories over there too.
They didn't take it so Beamer had to know the d was special!
Remember the wink during the interview with Samantha Ponder? Frank was talking about the O-line and winked. Was I the only person to see this? I thought he was flirting with Sam at first.
I give Beamer mad props for having the balls to say no to ESPN. His reasonings for saying no was solid. The most important point he made was it gave the staff a chance to truly evaluate how the team stands.
It spurred Beamer to realize he need to go back to the root of Beamerball. It also gave us an idea of what to expect from a suddenly improved offense outside of all the drops.
Playing a pasty doesn't mean a whole lot because everybody in the universe expects Virginia Tech to eat the pasty.
So I'm glad that Beamer told ESPN to fuck off and let them play.
Beamer knows the national exposure is way more valuable than a lopsided win (available only on ESPN3) ... and VT's D suprised alot of people ... Just ask Nick Saban. GO HOKIES!