ESPN Conspiracy?

#1
crusse10

crusse10

THIS MAN IS A PERVERT
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
21,345
Likes
2,818
#1
Does ESPN really hate the Vols?
I think only our rivals hate us. I'd have to think that ESPN doesn't hate us at all. Why would they hate one of the largest fan bases in the country? Why would they not LOVE a fan base that boasts so many ratings, especially after they signed the SEC deal? That deal means that almost all of our games will be on their network.
If anything, I think they count their blessings every day for the ratings they'll get from our fan base. At this time, we won't be the top billing every week (still taken by CBS), so we'll be on ESPN weekly. More and more ratings by the week.
ESPN <3's the Vols. I can see it now. It's like sororities' stickers they wear on gameday.
 
Last edited:
#4
#4
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!! This subject needs to be dead in the water. No more mentioning of ESPN bias. It DOES NOT exist.

ESPN bias is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and enlargement pills all wrapped up into one.

EVERYONE... GET THE HELL OVER IT!!!!
 
#5
#5
roswellvol said:
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!! This subject needs to be dead in the water. No more mentioning of ESPN bias. It DOES NOT exist.

ESPN bias is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and enlargement pills all wrapped up into one.

EVERYONE... GET THE HELL OVER IT!!!!
Click to expand...

Looks like someone didn't read the post.
 
#8
#8
crusse10 said:
Looks like someone didn't read the post.
Click to expand...
General construct of the subject over the material. I could care less what it said. The fact remains...

Quit mentioning ESPN bias towards UT. It doesn't exist. I am sick of seeing it here. Every third post mentions it, and it gets a little old.

If you have a relevant opinion or information, then post. Otherwise...
 
#9
#9
I can't wait for the football season to start so some of you guys will have something to start new threads about. This ESPN deal is very old news!
 
#10
#10
roswellvol said:
General construct of the subject over the material. I could care less what it said. The fact remains...

Quit mentioning ESPN bias towards UT. It doesn't exist. I am sick of seeing it here. Every third post mentions it, and it gets a little old.

If you have a relevant opinion or information, then post. Otherwise...
Click to expand...

The reason I made the post was to contradict everyone who thinks ESPN hates UT. It makes me sick that everyone holds a grudge against an entity that has nothing to do with the problem. Peyton didn't win the Heisman. Get over it. It wasn't ESPN's fault. Blame the Heisman winners and the voters from other regions.
I'd like to think that the info I provided in the OP is different from the majority of info that has been discussed on the topic.
 
#11
#11
I don't think that ESPN hates the school per se, but I do think that it (those working up in connecticut) does view everyone in the region (the vol fans) as rednecks and bumpkins and treat the fanbase/ look down upon us as such....
 
Last edited:
#12
#12
ESPN is the ultimate bandwagon rider (Florida, the Red Sox, Tom Brady). They will cover whatever or whomever they feel will appeal to the ignorant masses that look to them to decide who or what to be a fan of. If we win a couple of national titles they will love us and everyone there will talk about how they have always loved and admired Lane Kiffin. "Fairweather Fandom", drives ESPN and always will.
 
#13
#13
crusse10 said:
The reason I made the post was to contradict everyone who thinks ESPN hates UT. It makes me sick that everyone holds a grudge against an entity that has nothing to do with the problem. Peyton didn't win the Heisman. Get over it. It wasn't ESPN's fault. Blame the Heisman winners and the voters from other regions.
I'd like to think that the info I provided in the OP is different from the majority of info that has been discussed on the topic.
Click to expand...
Not an attack on you. Sick of it as well. Just don't start any threads with the words ESPN, conspiracy, or sucks, and I will be sane.:crazy:
 
#14
#14
crusse10 said:
The reason I made the post was to contradict everyone who thinks ESPN hates UT. It makes me sick that everyone holds a grudge against an entity that has nothing to do with the problem. Peyton didn't win the Heisman. Get over it. It wasn't ESPN's fault. Blame the Heisman winners and the voters from other regions.
I'd like to think that the info I provided in the OP is different from the majority of info that has been discussed on the topic.
Click to expand...
I agree its time to drop the espn stuff, But if you think espn had nothing to do with Peyton not winning the heisman trophy you are living in a dream world! They promoted woodson bigtime!
 
#15
#15
Alex Van Pelt actually made some "good" points when talking about the Vols on espnews today. He mentioned he has read "Meat Market". He said he knows this staff is going to recruit some really good football players. They'll start jocking UT when UT starts winning. It won't be long. No worries.
 
#16
#16
ESPN is a business. They are going to build up which ever teams their family of networks are showing that weekend. ESPN is owned by the same company that owns ABC right, when you think of ABC, I at least think PAC Ten, so there is USC being pounded down our throat for example.

I think it is safe to say that the Big Orange has not been as big of a draw ratings wise, nationally, as in the mid to late 90's so they say some bonehead statement they know will create controversy. It's kinda like Rush Limbaugh, either you listen to him because you love him, or for some reason, although you can't stand him, you have to listen to hear what comes out of his mouth next.

I for one, have seen more of UT this off season on ESPN than I ever remember and for the most part it has been positive. If we knock off our first couple of opponents I promise you they will be in Gainesville. And the good Lord willing, Corso won't put on old Smokey's head before kickoff.
 
#17
#17
Return2Power said:
Alex Van Pelt actually made some "good" points when talking about the Vols on espnews today. He mentioned he has read "Meat Market". He said he knows this staff is going to recruit some really good football players. They'll start jocking UT when UT starts winning. It won't be long. No worries.
Click to expand...

Scott?
 
#18
#18
crusse10 said:
The reason I made the post was to contradict everyone who thinks ESPN hates UT. It makes me sick that everyone holds a grudge against an entity that has nothing to do with the problem. Peyton didn't win the Heisman. Get over it. It wasn't ESPN's fault. Blame the Heisman winners and the voters from other regions.
I'd like to think that the info I provided in the OP is different from the majority of info that has been discussed on the topic.
Click to expand...

Or blame Charles Woodson for being great, and making the right plays at the right time on the right team.
 
#20
#20
kidbourbon said:
Or blame Charles Woodson for being great, and making the right plays at the right time on the right team.
Click to expand...

Great?? I don't know about that. He was a very good defender, but he made about 4 big plays that year. ESPN showed the same big plays over and over and over again ad nauseum while showing the 4 poor plays Manning made over and over again.

Funny how they didn't show Woodson being owned by the slot receiver for Whisky that year, I mean busted coverage woodson slipped down and let the guy get open by 20 yards. That never showed up but every interception thrown by Manning was hilighted over and over.

Manning made 4 big plays in just the UCLA game alone, it took Woodson all year to make the 4 they kept showing over and over on ESPN.

They did stories on each, one on Woodson a few weeks before the vote about his legs etc, then one on Manning the night of the heistman saying they didn't want to air it early enough effect the voting. So it was OK to air the Woodson story but hold the Manning story.

Champ Bailey was a better DB than Woodson, and so was one of Vanderbilts DB's that year, but I can't remember his name, but if you compared the numbers both of them were better in a better conference.

They later admitted to intentionally hyping Woodson and downplaying Manning but said in their defense that they weren't really trying to change the vote like they did, but were trying to make something they thought was a run away competitive and interesting. Add that to the fact that they owned the contract for the Big 10 and you can see why they wanted to hype their conference and their player at the expense of the SEC and their player.

Their "remorse" still doesn't change the fact that they changed the outcome of a vote because of the things they chose to cover and the way they chose to cover them.

Manning was absolutely robbed.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
Just an example why people think this. I check the recruiting page on Espn from time to time and we did have 4 or 5 espn150 2010 recruits and now it only shows two . Does anyone know why the other ones were downgraded? I am not sure how they determine the list but it seems strange to downgrade a kid before his senior season starts.
 
#22
#22
Big Orange Junky said:
Great?? I don't know about that. He was a very good defender, but he made about 4 big plays that year. ESPN showed the same big plays over and over and over again ad nauseum while showing the 4 poor plays Manning made over and over again.

Funny how they didn't show Woodson being owned by the slot receiver for Whisky that year, I mean busted coverage woodson slipped down and let the guy get open by 20 yards. That never showed up but every interception thrown by Manning was hilighted over and over.

Manning made 4 big plays in just the UCLA game alone, it took Woodson all year to make the 4 they kept showing over and over on ESPN.

They did stories on each, one on Woodson a few weeks before the vote about his legs etc, then one on Manning the night of the heistman saying they didn't want to air it early enough effect the voting. So it was OK to air the Woodson story but hold the Manning story.

Champ Bailey was a better DB than Woodson, and so was one of Vanderbilts DB's that year, but I can't remember his name, but if you compared the numbers both of them were better in a better conference.

They later admitted to intentionally hyping Woodson and downplaying Manning but said in their defense that they weren't really trying to change the vote like they did, but were trying to make something they thought was a run away competitive and interesting. Add that to the fact that they owned the contract for the Big 10 and you can see why they wanted to hype their conference and their player at the expense of the SEC and their player.

Their "remorse" still doesn't change the fact that they changed the outcome of a vote because of the things they chose to cover and the way they chose to cover them.

Manning was absolutely robbed.
Click to expand...

First of all, Charles Woodson was great. I am UT fan just like you, but let's try to be reasonable.

The heisman that year did turn on ESPN hype. I agree. But ESPN doesn't have a self-turning hype machine. There was hype about Woodson because he made game-changing plays in big games. Change two plays that season and Manning wins. If either (a) Manning doesn't throw that egregious pick to [insert Fla player...I forget his name], or (b) Woodson doesn't return that punt against Ohio State, then Manning wins.

But that's how it shook out. Woodson became the hot choice. Was it novelty? Yes. But it was novelty backed by substance. Woodson was a player, and Michigan doesn't win the '97 Nat'l Champ'ship without him.

Now do I think Woodson was the runaway winner? No. But I do think that very reasonable argument can be made for him. In short: I don't believe Manning got screwed. He just got beat.
 
Last edited:
#23
#23
As I remember, it was really Keith Jackson that beat the drum the loudest on this issue. Count me among those who believe that both Woodson and Peyton were great. Michigan beat tOSU and the rest is history.

Peyton, on the other hand is not nearly as scarred by the incident as most Tennessee fans. He can give you about a hundred million reasons why he isn't bitter.
 
#24
#24
See that's where we disagree. Yes he was a very good back, but when you are not even the best at your position then we got a problem tryin to say you were the best over all player in the Nation.

Look up the stats for the Vandy DB as well as Champ Bailey, they were BOTH better and played much, much tougher competition (Michigans schedule was ranked 89th the week we played Auburn caught that in an article about the Auburn game).

4 big plays the entire year VS owning 40 collegate or school records???

As I said before Manning made 4 big plays in just the UCLA game.

It was a no contest blow out if you look objectively, Manning was the clear cut hands down best player in the Nation that year and should have won the heistman by a landslide.

Of course the power of the media was released and many people only saw Woodsons good plays and Peytons bad plays all day every day on ESPN and Woodson won on hype with almost no substance. If you looked at every game that year I would be that Woodson had more busted coverages than Manning had interceptions, the Whisky one was about as bad as I have ever seen a DB beat on a play, and that was one of their slow guys. Seems like it was an 80 something yard pass play.

Sure he was good, no doubt about it, but he wasn't close to Manning level good.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top