Escape from Elba

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Espnthree

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 31
31
Football / Re: College Football
« on: January 01, 2020, 11:36:54 PM »
And Iím not making an argument, just laying out objective facts, not matters in dispute, I get nostagia for the way things *used to be* but Iím not going to endorse lousy practices...in a bang/bang play, bang you were in and bang you are gone, sfw??

One of my friends had a sister married to a Purdue football player. Preseason his senior year in practice, gets hit while snapping the ball and his neck is broken. Died right on the practice field.
So no body ....
This list of college players killed while playing football does not match your story. Perhaps you have the wrong team? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_football_players_who_died_during_their_careers

32
Football / Re: College Football
« on: January 01, 2020, 08:37:44 PM »
Just another boring Rose Bowl.
LOL

33
Football / Re: College Football
« on: January 01, 2020, 07:53:39 PM »
If you have been lucky enough to attend a Rose Bowl the view of the San Gabriel Mountains right now at about 5 pm PST is worth the trip alone.

34
Football / Re: College Football
« on: January 01, 2020, 05:15:53 PM »
Nothing, but nothing, personifies college football better than the Rose Bowl.

35
Football / Re: College Football
« on: January 01, 2020, 04:19:47 PM »
Looks like the B1G West will be exciting in 2020.

36
Football / Re: College Football
« on: January 01, 2020, 11:44:07 AM »

It is a prophylactic rule.
Iíd hire you in an instant to be the broadcast rulesí expert.
Five words to properly put the targeting rule in context.

37
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 30, 2019, 11:38:26 PM »

Adding playoff teams does not make a lot of economic sense either.
The four preliminary games would be two weeks before the Holiday weekend and upsets could deaden the glow of possible Marquee Matchups.
I agree with you on this.   

I have heard a lot of the younger college football announcers arguing for expanded playoffs and frankly their arguments are less than stellar.  This morning...it was either Danny Kannel or Greg McIroy was arguing that the LSU Oklahoma game was a great argument for an expanded playoff.  His line of thinking was that Oklahoma would have been eliminated earlier and this semi-final would have been a better matchup.

How about... there were three teams this year that deserved a shot and it didn't matter who the 4th placeholder was?
I think the official wisdom this year was right for once: there were three elite teams, everyone else was a clear step below. But you do not build an argument about playoffs on a single season. There have been years where there were good arguments for a fifth team not just to get in, but be a threat to win it all - the first year, for example.
Except playoff increases come in sets of four.
6 is doable.

No

It adds no economic benefits neither in TV money nor a suitable Bowl Game.
DOA


38
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: December 30, 2019, 10:04:12 PM »
2nd that.

Interesting that Obama held MAM status during the first two years of another President's term. 

Former first lady, secretary of state and 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton held the Most Admired Woman title from 2002 to 2017.   Sixteen years.
Howíd that help her Presidential bid?
Same way it will help Trump's.
Well.
Except for the obvious.

The obvious?
Trump has an impressive record of economic improvement.

Hillary has none.

39
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 30, 2019, 09:46:48 PM »

Adding playoff teams does not make a lot of economic sense either.
The four preliminary games would be two weeks before the Holiday weekend and upsets could deaden the glow of possible Marquee Matchups.
I agree with you on this.   

I have heard a lot of the younger college football announcers arguing for expanded playoffs and frankly their arguments are less than stellar.  This morning...it was either Danny Kannel or Greg McIroy was arguing that the LSU Oklahoma game was a great argument for an expanded playoff.  His line of thinking was that Oklahoma would have been eliminated earlier and this semi-final would have been a better matchup.

How about... there were three teams this year that deserved a shot and it didn't matter who the 4th placeholder was?
I think the official wisdom this year was right for once: there were three elite teams, everyone else was a clear step below. But you do not build an argument about playoffs on a single season. There have been years where there were good arguments for a fifth team not just to get in, but be a threat to win it all - the first year, for example.
Except playoff increases come in sets of four.

40
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 30, 2019, 01:42:02 PM »
CFP TV ratings are in and, no surprise, the trend continues; they were good but nowhere near what they would if they were played on New Yearís Day.
LSU/Oklahoma drew about 19 million viewers (for the first quarter and then went down) tOSU/Clemson had 21 million and an exciting conclusion.
The latter game set a record for a semi-final game designated as a NNYDgame (non New Yearís Day)
The combined audiences were approximately 40 million or 28 % lower than the 56 million who watched the first CFP on January 1, 2015.
On Jan 1 2018, the combined audiences were 47 million.

The current TV contracts run to 2026 which has the playoffs running on a 6 bowl/three year rotating schedule.
The only times the games are played on New Yearís are when they match up either Rose and Sugar Bowls.

Judging by the ratings it seems logical to push for a contract revision and move the CFP to the Rose and Sugar permanently. But the problem is the B1G and Pac12 get the 80$ million ESPN pays for broadcast rights in the non playoff years all to themselves.

Adding playoff teams does not make a lot of economic sense either.
The four preliminary games would be two weeks before the Holiday weekend and upsets could deaden the glow of possible Marquee Matchups.

41
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 28, 2019, 05:53:49 PM »
Oregon Ducks would have been better than choke-a-Homa.
Oregon did not quality.

42
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 26, 2019, 07:18:24 PM »
Correct call on targeting.

43
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 21, 2019, 02:01:46 PM »
Nice start yesterday for the MAC. 
Buffalo got its first Bowl win ever by romping over Charlotte.
Underdog Kent State outlasted Utah State 51-41.

Oklahoma lost another defensive player for the Peach Bowl with LSU.

Delarrin Turner-Yell , OU's second-leading tackler, will be out with a broken collarbone.

Tv ratings were up for College Football in 2019 significantly. 
Observers pointed out three possible factors.
1. Joe Burrow and the LSU offense made the SEC more competitive.
2. The CFP race had a good mix of well known teams fighting for the four spots right up to the last week
3. Fox moving key Big Ten matchups to noon.

44
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 18, 2019, 03:01:49 PM »
At least three Oklahoma players, defensive end Ronnie Perkins, running back Rhamondre Stevenson and receiver Trejan Bridges, reportedly have been suspended for the Peach Bowl because they failed drug tests. Perkins would be a big loss since he is the teamís best pass rusher.  The Tigers have allowed a lot of sacks this year.

45
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 14, 2019, 10:14:57 PM »
Well maybe not created. More like a spot/s reserved.
Spot/s reserved for losers ?
Donít think so.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 31