Two words: self-fulfilling prophecy.
If I wanted to root for Cincinnati's black and red, I would. Our colors are scarlet and gray. I know this is about recruiting. If a recruit doesn't want to pick Ohio State because they don't wear an all-black alternate uniform, then have fun losing at whatever school wears black. Some piss-ant 17 year old should have no influence on a 100+ year university identity. To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, we're rooting for the laundry when we root for sports teams.
There are an unlimited number of ways to make a football uniform look cool or badass without changing the colors of the school. I mean, if the school's colors aren't sacred, then is nothing sacred?!
Alabama, Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas...none of these schools have gone to this gimmick. Nebraska did, and it looked like shit. We are Ohio State. It's scarlet and gray...or the f'ing highway.
Interesting, Tenn. In response, I'd like to refer everyone to @OSUDefender's thread from yesterday, where Buckeye Knight and I broke down how often GameDay has gone to SEC schools over the years, and the disproportionate amount of times they promoted the SEC by hosting their show on their campuses since the mega deal went down in 2008.
This is a feed-forward mechanism, whereby many recruits could be more likely to choose SEC schools simply because of the air time they will get on ESPN. Fowler may just not be aware that their actions directly impact the future landscape?
I love DP show. He's very critical of "the mothership's" narrative, ESPECIALLY when ESPN "breaks" a story citing "sources," when the only source is the DP twitter feed, or is from an interview from the DP show. The only way this could occur is if ESPN has employees sitting there combing the twitterverse with a radio tuned to the DP show, then report on it without citing where they got it if it came from a competing source. DP hates this lack of journalistic integrity. Although he will say "everyone's making a bigger deal out of this than it is," he often finds himself sucked into discussing ESPN's narrative topics at length anyway (Tebow, the Lakers, Jeter, Bellichek etc).
At least it's self deprecating and hilarious. Especially when Fritzy says something stupid.
Leading up to the UCLA game, USC saran-wraps the Tommy Trojan statue with 24 hour student guards rotating in shifts in addition to the campus police patrol.
They can spray paint William Oxley Thompson until the cows come home, but if they somehow fuck with Brutus on the bench in the Ohio Union, they better have the East Lansing fire department on watch up there.
Silver Bullets be like...
Boy you said it! I've got a bad feeling about that game. I'm rooting for Sparty. This year's B1G Champion's chances at making the playoff hinge on 1-loss Brutus meeting 1-loss Sparty under the lights for what will (hopefully) be a top-10 November match-up.
Buckeye luck has to turn around at some point, no? We have to start getting those kinds of games on our schedules, and winning them, right?
Still skeptical. Since the VaTech travesty, where the defense couldn't defend 3rd downs to save their lives, we've played some pretty bad teams. They were still giving up long balls and points as recently as the Maryland game.
There are some noted positive steps, but we'll see what happens when they face Connor Cook again. If they can't get pressure on Cook, will the secondary be up to the task?
Nice. Very telling!
Yeah, I think I mentioned that in there. Or at least the SEC ones.
So I went ahead and added up all the times ESPN College Gameday (started in 1993) went to a school currently in the Power 5 conferences. If a team was in a different conference when they hosted, that number goes to their old conference. It gets tricky with the realignments, so consider this sort of an estimate, since I may have missed a team or two, particularly in the Big East (SPOILER: once you see the SEC number, you'll see that it doesn't really matter).
ACC+Big East: ~38 times if you combine them and count the Chick-Fil-A kickoffs and this year's Cowboy Kickoff.
Big XII: 41 (they got all of Nebraska's, Colorado's, Texas A&M's and Missouri's, minus TCU, plus 5 Red River Rivalries and a KU-Mizzou game in 07, and this year's Cowboy Kickoff).
Pac-10: 25 (Colorado's went to Big XII, Utah's don't count). It's the Pacific Time Zone, so that's mostly why.
Big Ten: 46 (including that weird game at Wrigley and a Cowboy Kickoff)
SEC: 71 (Minus Mizzou, A&M, plus Attell Stadium for UF-UGA, plus the Georgia Dome for the Chick-Fil-A kickoff when they featured SEC teams, and two of the Cowboy Kickoffs). By my count, 28 of which came since 2008, the year that ESPN signed their mega-deal with the SEC. Texas A&M was only visited twice ever before joining the SEC. They've been visited each year since.
I think you'll find that it wouldn't matter. A similar scenario occurred in 2009, when Ohio State beat a top-10 Oregon team (who ESPN said would run up and down the field on OSU, despite Vegas giving a 3-point edge to the Buckeyes) in the Rose Bowl, Iowa (ranked 83rd in total offense, top-10 in defense) beat a top-10 Georgia Tech team in the Orange Bowl, Penn State beat a 13th-ranked LSU team in the Citrus Bowl, and Wisconsin beat a top-15 Miami Hurricanes in the Champs Sports Bowl. All 4 Big Ten teams finished in the top-15, three in the top-10. It did not change the perception in the following years one bit. In fact, it has only gotten worse regarding the preseason rankings. Ohio State beat a top-10 Arkansas team in 2010-2011, and only went up from 6th to 5th in the rankings, despite this being the best bowl win of anyone.
If you beat them it doesn't matter, and if you lose to them it means they're awesome.
ESPN executives have acknowledged as recently as 2011 that the network is "a walking conflict of interest."
I'm all for coaches to start voicing their opinions on the matter. But so far, the only two I've heard speak out against the apparent bias is Bob Stoops and Bo Pelini. Then on the other side of things, you have Urban Meyer at Ohio State, who is trying to turn his program into the type of programs you find in the SEC (his own words), and challenging the other coaches in the B1G that their recruiting is not up to par. I think you'll find that Meyer would say something to the effect of, "The Big Ten has a lot of strong teams, but the SEC is a lot stronger in the middle." Even at 12-0 in his first season, I'm pretty sure he said repeatedly that the Buckeyes were not on the level with Alabama.
So, ESPN may very well be right in its assessments. But I think the conference that deserves the biggest gripe is not the Big XII or the B1G, it's the Pac-12.
You're looking to make Johnny Utah and Shane Falco jerseys, aren't you?
I think they're a secondary rival. It was sort of a forced association back when the conference had 11 teams, and everyone had to play 2 of the same teams each year. One of Penn State's conditions for joining was that they get Ohio State as one of those teams. So, fine whatever. But as we've gotten to know their fans, I think we've grown to detest them. As a program, right up until the Sandusky scandal, I think most Buckeyes viewed Penn State with a lot of reverence as college football royalty. The ill-will, for me anyway, is more recent. It's how they acted when the shit hit the fan that showed who they really were. The detest is for the fans, not the team itself. I feel a rivalry is measured by how much shit talk you give. Penn State is easily 2nd on that list.
So, I don't generally like to share the term "rival" for anyone except that school where the grass doesn't grow very well. It's special for only 2 major programs I can think of to have 1 true arch rival and virtually no one else, Ohio State and Nebraska (who tragically doesn't play Oklahoma anymore). But I'll call Penn State a secondary rival.
I mean, I've never been to a tailgate where an opposing fan turned these down:
So, I don't know. Maybe Penn State fans like to make them for their own tailgates, too?
Sparty wins for whimsy and ties Herky for, ahem, supporting talent.
Yeah, I completely agree with you. The reason Alabama shot up 4 spots by demolishing Texas A&M is because South Carolina was a top-10 team to start the year. As I type that, the absurdity of that sentence reminds me of Lewis Black's "If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college" bit.
LMAO, so this playoff committee member suddenly found himself in a position to lay on his couch for the next 3 months and do nothing but watch football, and he promptly removes himself from the committee who is already under fire for being made up by people that are unlikely to watch any of the football?
Look, you're going to be ranked based on your record. And you're going to be ranked amongst teams with whom you are tied basically by the record of your opponents (Alabama and Auburn have wins over ranked teams, and losses to only undefeated teams, for example).
So, this is really all a formality.
Call me on the morning of November 9th.
It's not unsubstantiated. You just can't see the forest from the trees.
Fido, you're asking why ESPN has this narrative. I gave you perfectly good reasons why from the perspective of the outside. That doesn't make me a bad Buckeye as your aggressive closing question would suggest, or all the hypothetical fill-in-the-blank thoughts that you're assuming I must believe (this gets you a downvote from me, just so we're clear). I'm an alumnus, and a proud one. That has nothing to do with the +'s and -'s of the football program, big time collegiate athletics, or ESPN. If you don't like my answers, or you already have all the answers, then you should have clarified that your inquisitiveness as rhetorical in nature only. It doesn't seem like you really want to debate Ohio State's national perception at all.
It's not a wild assumption when everyone I know who isn't an Ohio State fan hates Ohio State, and are eager to tell me why.
If it was just the tat-5, no big deal. It disappears, and Ohio State goes about its business with some suspended players (everyone gets suspended for this shit if they get caught). It's that Jim Tressel knowingly withheld information after having written a book called "The Winner's Manual," and saying a whole bunch of comments over the years about "character." Hammer down. It was in writing. It was part of an FBI investigation, just like Clarett's issue was part of a police investigation. It was a lead story on ESPN for months because it lasted months before he resigned (Tat-5 info came out in December, email info was reported in early March, didn't resign until Memorial Day).
They covered the bag man story at Auburn for weeks. That was a HOT topic. But it turned up no evidence. No email. No FBI investigation. No paper trail. No banker coming forward saying, "Cam Newton came in and gave me a bag of money to put into the vault back there." Nothing. Nada. Zilch. In the 6 months that followed, nothing, nada, zilch.
It's just not the same thing. ESPN can't control the fact that there is no paper trail with the SEC. The FBI isn't uncovering any illegal memorabilia sales as part of a drug investigation in Tuscaloosa or Tallahassee.