Espn says we lost out in the realignment

[TAKODA]

LOL at ESPenis and anything they say!

[BigRedBuster]

ESPN is a direct competitor to the Big Ten Network. The Big Ten Network currently poses one of the biggest threats to ESPN's billions of dollars per year college football industry.

 

ESPN rates our move to the Big Ten poorly?

 

Color me surprised.

But on the other hand, we didn't really do anything good to make them rate more favorably.

 

Step back a minute and ask why the list needed to be made in the first place.

 

Careful. If you question ESPN's need to fill airtime with broad self-serving speculation, those same standards apply to everything we do to waste time here on HuskerBoard.

 

If only we made billions for doing what we do here, huh?

And put ourselves out there as objective third parties. Who here claims to not be biased towards Nebraska?

[QMany]

Please tell me outside of visibility what was inaccurate about the assessment of Nebraska's performance in the Big Ten so far.

ESPN says:

 

Nebraska:

Competitive standing: B-

Future outlook: C

 

Missouri:

Competitive standing: B+

Future outlook: B+

 

QMany says:

 

In three years in the BIG TEN, Nebraska went 5-3, 7-1, and 5-3. We won our division once and got blown out in the conference championship. In the past two years, we had the #25 and #17 recruiting classes.

 

In two years in the SEC, Missouri went 2-6 and 7-1. They won their division once and got blown out in the conference championship. In the past two years, they have had the #31 and #41 recruiting classes (despite having the #1 recruit in the country).

 

We have 7 conference losses in three years, while Missouri has 7 conference losses in two years. I would argue that our competitive standing is better or on par with Missouri and our future outlook is better than Missouri. That is why I believe ESPN's assessment is inaccurate.

[TAKODA]

Like Knapp and other have stated, they had some time on hands so they threw out some BS story line.

[Count 'Bility]

ESPN is a direct competitor to the Big Ten Network. The Big Ten Network currently poses one of the biggest threats to ESPN's billions of dollars per year college football industry.

 

ESPN rates our move to the Big Ten poorly?

 

Color me surprised.

But on the other hand, we didn't really do anything good to make them rate more favorably.

 

Step back a minute and ask why the list needed to be made in the first place.

 

Is this to suggest that deep in the bowels of their Connecticut headquarters, several muckety-mucks at Espn were chomping on their cigars, saying:

 

"We've got to get our chokehold back on this tv deal! The B1G network is inching closer!"

 

"Johnson! Give me 500 words on how Nebraska isn't doing that great in the Big Ten! That'll curb the bleeding!"

 

A&M flourishing in the sec is a real thing. Not an Espn fabrication. So is Nebraska struggling.

So what happens next year when A&M goes 5-7 cuz Manziel is gone and they still cant figure out how to hold anyone under 40 points?

[Ratt Mhule]

Texas A&M went 8-4 with one of the worst defenses in the nation. They have JF and that's it. Without him, they would have lost more than four games this season.

 

Missouri got blown out in the CCG. They were also terrible their first year in the new conference.

[NUpolo8]

Mizzou lost by 17 in the sec championship game. They got blown out.

 

There was a multi page thread explaining how Nebraska didn't get blown out by Iowa when they lost by 21.

 

Huskerboard.

[QMany]

14 points seems to be the standard by which everyone has talked about our blowouts. Keep moving goalposts how you see fit.

[NebraskaHarry]

So let me get this straight. We make a whole lot more money in the Big 10 than in the Big 12. We have our own conference tv channel in the Big10 network. We don't have to bow down to Texas. Etc. Etc. And yet our move to the Big10 was a bad one? Riiigghht.

[Haspula]

IMO, 17+ points is a blowout

 

We got blown out by iowa, MSU, and UCLA this season. 25% chance we get blown out when we enter the field. Last year, it was OSU and wisc

[gossamorharpy]

Is this to suggest that deep in the bowels of their Connecticut headquarters, several muckety-mucks at Espn were chomping on their cigars, saying:

 

"We've got to get our chokehold back on this tv deal! The B1G network is inching closer!"

ESPN is likely quite aware of reasons for adding Rutgers and Maryland to the B10.

 

 

Hmmm...let's see, how much coverage does the Big Ten Network get? How much did they spend on Bevo Network? How many people watch that?

 

Hmmmm...you think maybe they would like to take our network down a notch?

 

Yes and that scathing article in the OP is just the first missile. Good freaking God. Espn writing an article accurately saying Nebraska hasn't exactly set the conference on fire when they were picked to win it the first year they joined, or kinda isn't once the program it once was on the whole isn't some sort of grand conspiracy to kill the Big Ten Network. If any was going 11-2 and they wrote that, maybe you'd have something. But all that article is at the moment is accurate.

I'm not sure I'd use "accurately" or "accurate" when referring to ESPN. Ratings and accuracy have different definitions.

 

The dude was referring to ESPN being accurate within the article....

 

Lot of ppl sure are griping on here about this list yet no one can seem to provide justification as to why we should be ranked any higher.

[gossamorharpy]

Texas A&M went 8-4 with one of the worst defenses in the nation. They have JF and that's it. Without him, they would have lost more than four games this season.

 

Missouri got blown out in the CCG. They were also terrible their first year in the new conference.

Yep, they have JF and that's it... nothin but the first freshman heisman winner in history, no biggie. What a sham and mockery, such a scam to have them listed above us.

[Guy Chamberlin]

ESPN is a direct competitor to the Big Ten Network. The Big Ten Network currently poses one of the biggest threats to ESPN's billions of dollars per year college football industry.

 

ESPN rates our move to the Big Ten poorly?

 

Color me surprised.

But on the other hand, we didn't really do anything good to make them rate more favorably.

 

Step back a minute and ask why the list needed to be made in the first place.

 

Careful. If you question ESPN's need to fill airtime with broad self-serving speculation, those same standards apply to everything we do to waste time here on HuskerBoard.

 

If only we made billions for doing what we do here, huh?

 

 

We'd have to aggregate thousands of different fan bases, each one full of sunshine pumpers and self-loathers, and make each one think we secretly had it out for them. Unless we were telling them something they wanted to hear, at which point they'd gleefully link to our expert national coverage.

 

ESPN covers sports. I like sports. I don't consider ESPN the first or last word. Just a pretty good word.

 

And as this thread once again proves, ESPN's assessment of Nebraska football is almost identical to, and perhaps even friendlier than that of our own rabid fan base.

[Redux]

I think SMU's move to the AAC was the real winner when you think about it.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Like some here, I don't see how the visibility has been reduced. More often than not, the team is on ABC/ESPN, even if the times aren't everyone's favorite. That is an order of magnitude better than ppv's or the depths if FOX sports. And the Big Ten channel is a huge plus as well.

 

Nebraska getting gored on national tv, and the program "going stale" (I would say regressing) is only the fault of the man the OP named.

 

And judging by our "outlook" grade, they don't buy the ridiculous "Bo needs more time" excuse.

 

Way to tie it back into the message you've been pouring out the last month or so.

 

WE GET IT!