ESPN 30 for 30 on 90s Huskers....

[Enhance]

The cultural climate surrounding sports is also much different now than it was 20 years ago, and we didn't have social media. For example, if the LP situation in '95 were to happen today, I believe it'd be a much larger and more significant PR storm.

[teachercd]

2 hours ago, NM11046 said:

And lets' be honest ... Scotty Baldwin's incidents, and eventual paralysis/cop incident, the guns hidden by coaches in the FB offices, all of Lawrence's baggage, Peters' assault - those are just some of the big ones, and all of those would be all be considered big now.  

 

We (speaking generally here) seem to remember the Tommy runs and the Blackshirts from that time, and of course the wins fondly, and we should - but the problems on those teams were significant.

Agreed, back then (I sound old) college football was super regional.  Now that is not the case and every little thing is such a big deal.  So you can imagine how HUGE the LP stuff would have been.  

[Fru]

Bummer. I was looking forward to it. If you're gonna own the good, you gotta own the bad as well. 

[JJ Husker]

31 minutes ago, Fru said:

Bummer. I was looking forward to it. If you're gonna own the good, you gotta own the bad as well. 

Oh I agree. I'm disappointed if it is in fact off the table. I understand the difficulty they may be having getting people to talk about it. Good chance it would go overboard with the negative stuff and too many won't consider how different the climate was 20 years ago.

[Fru]

2 hours ago, El Diaco said:

Oh I agree. I'm disappointed if it is in fact off the table. I understand the difficulty they may be having getting people to talk about it. Good chance it would go overboard with the negative stuff and too many won't consider how different the climate was 20 years ago.

 

Was there any indication that it was going to be a hit job, or was that just a general fear of yours? 

[JJ Husker]

2 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

Was there any indication that it was going to be a hit job, or was that just a general fear of yours? 

It's no "fear" of mine but I think it logical to assume that TO and some of the players would not want that time portrayed in a negative light which is basically unavoidable now. Personally, I think ESPN would be more even-handed than many suspect and do it in much the same fashion as the Miami shows. I don't see how they don't do this show. It's a story that needs to be told. They may scrap it short term but I think it ends up getting made at some point.

[Dotheshowstopbeingwussies]

Im new to this thing, how do I write comments?

[desertshox]

3 hours ago, Dotheshowstopbeingwussies said:

Im new to this thing, how do I write comments?

 

pen and paper, typewriter or even you keyboard.

[Enhance]

The guys on Unsportsmanlike Conduct said Tuesday that their producer reached out to this 30 for 30's director/producer and asked him for a status update. USC's producer was directed to ESPN's PR department who then said that the 30 for 30 is not on the production schedule. USC asked a follow up question related to when the director told WOWT the film was "in the final stages of production." ESPN said that was never the case but that they'd try to track down some sort of official statement on the status of the project.

 

[whateveritis1224]

All this talk about ancient history and holding different standards then to what we have now is BS.  Its been 22 years, not 2,000.  The stuff that happened was crappy then and it is still crappy now.

[Enhance]

Hmm, I see what you're saying, but I don't think there's any denying our society pays more attention to (and makes a bigger deal out of) certain criminalistic issues now versus even 10 years ago. That's more of the conversational vibe I'm picking up. Societal shifts and social media have played a significant role.

 

I do agree with your point conceptually, though. Perspectives and information change, but something that sucked then is still sucky now.

[JJ Husker]

15 minutes ago, whateveritis1224 said:

All this talk about ancient history and holding different standards then to what we have now is BS.  Its been 22 years, not 2,000.  The stuff that happened was crappy then and it is still crappy now.

I don't believe there's been any talk about "ancient" history. However, if you don't think the landscape of CFB has changed in the last 20 years....well, I have some nice swamp land you'd probably like to buy

[whateveritis1224]

On 8/21/2017 at 10:34 AM, Husker_Bohunk said:

One thing I try to never do is to judge people from the past based on our standards today. A good example of this is in ancient warfare (and up to at least the Roman Empire) when you went to war with your neighbor and when you were done issuing your beat-down you either killed or enslaved (or some of both) those you beat. Caesar once said after his campaign in Gaul that there were a million dead and a million more enslaved. I don't think we should do that today, but back then it was SOP.

 

1 minute ago, El Diaco said:

I don't believe there's been any talk about "ancient" history. However, if you don't think the landscape of CFB has changed in the last 20 years....well, I have some nice swamp land you'd probably like to buy

Not a lot, but it was there.

 

Absolutely agree that the landscape of CFB has changed in the last 20 years, but the 30 for 30 would probably talk about issues that were crappy then that would be even more of an issue now (definitely Phillips and maybe Peters).

[Guy Chamberlin]

Social media allows you to cultivate more outrage a lot faster, but sports scandals have managed to make huge splashy stories for at least a century.

 

This isn't exactly revisionist history, either. Nebraska fans were downright gleeful when the negative spotlight was on Oklahoma, Miami or SMU. By those terms, the Phillips story was not overblown, and Phillips wasn't the only troubled soul on that team. Nebraska was hardly the only team where criminal behavior was shielded to protect the college football money machine, but nobody pretended it was. It just stings when it's your team.

 

Even then, the Nebraska football dynasty of the mid-90s is remembered mostly for the quality of its football. Not just by us, but by the national sports media. A 30 for 30 would tilt that a bit: reminding everyone of the controversies from that '95 season. It wouldn't be ESPN's fault for going there: there isn't much audience for stories that have no conflict. 

[JJ Husker]

3 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Social media allows you to cultivate more outrage a lot faster, but sports scandals have managed to make huge splashy stories for at least a century.

 

This isn't exactly revisionist history, either. Nebraska fans were downright gleeful when the negative spotlight was on Oklahoma, Miami or SMU. By those terms, the Phillips story was not overblown, and Phillips wasn't the only troubled soul on that team. Nebraska was hardly the only team where criminal behavior was shielded to protect the college football money machine, but nobody pretended it was. It just stings when it's your team.

 

Even then, the Nebraska football dynasty of the mid-90s is remembered mostly for the quality of its football. Not just by us, but by the national sports media. A 30 for 30 would tilt that a bit: reminding everyone of the controversies from that '95 season. It wouldn't be ESPN's fault for going there: there isn't much audience for stories that have no conflict. 

Exactly.