Around the Horn mention CBI/BU

[Dallas Brave]

Earlier posts keep throwing out the question of whether a conspiracy exists or not. I don't think any one has said a conspiracy exists. By defination, a conspiracy is an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.

What is happening is that the forces of capitalism have greatly influenced ESPN's coverage of a college sport. ESPN is in the business of making money. But now, rather than just covering the sport, they exert a lot of influence on what is or isn't news-worthy.

 

[BradleyBrave]

Earlier posts keep throwing out the question of whether a conspiracy exists or not. I don't think any one has said a conspiracy exists. By defination, a conspiracy is an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.

What is happening is that the forces of capitalism have greatly influenced ESPN's coverage of a college sport. ESPN is in the business of making money. But now, rather than just covering the sport, they exert a lot of influence on what is or isn't news-worthy.

Ding ding ding ding! Winner!

 

[daPAWW1]

BradleyBrave - actually it's "winner, winner Chicken Dinner"

 

[Scouter]

By reading Jay Bilas' blogs about why the RPI should be eliminated and citing Drake as his example time and again. Then hearing Jay Bilas and most of the Gamenight Crew tear down all of Drake's accomplishments and even going as far as to call them a 'bubble' team up to the conference tournament. That's just this year's example. ESPN and the talking heads don't like mid-majors, especially ones from the midwest. It's been painfully obvious year after year.

I also heard him say two nights ago that Drake was a great basketball team that is one of the best shooting teams in the country and will be one of the toughest teams to face in the tournament. Does that make him a flip-flopper? I'm not a huge Jay Bilas fan, but just because he cites Drake as an example about how the RPI is flawed doesn't make him a mid-major hater.

Earlier posts keep throwing out the question of whether a conspiracy exists or not. I don't think any one has said a conspiracy exists.

Actually, BradleyBrave said ESPN goes out of its way to belittle the MVC. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

 

[beanocookschins]

Honestly..I doubt any internal discussions have gone on at ESPN regarding the Missouri Valley Conference and what to do with them. I laugh when I see people say "ESPN"--as if the entity and entire company sent out a memo to people on things like the Missouri Valley Conference.

It's a huge company with thousands of employees. The company is certainly going to look out for itself and make money--but I don't think there is a company wide conspiracy on anything. I did see the CBI scores on the bottom line last night--just like I see MVC scores on the bottom line.

There are quite a few MVC games on the ESPN family each year now.

 

[Scouter]

Honestly..I doubt any internal discussions have gone on at ESPN regarding the Missouri Valley Conference and what to do with them. I laugh when I see people say "ESPN"--as if the entity and entire company sent out a memo to people on things like the Missouri Valley Conference.

It's a huge company with thousands of employees. The company is certainly going to look out for itself and make money--but I don't think there is a company wide conspiracy on anything. I did see the CBI scores on the bottom line last night--just like I see MVC scores on the bottom line.

There are quite a few MVC games on the ESPN family each year now.

Now THERE is a voice of reason. Heck, the Gameday crew (including Jay Bilas ) was in Carbondale this season.

 

[BradleyBrave]

Actually, BradleyBrave said ESPN goes out of its way to belittle the MVC. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

You can put words in my mouth all you want. After reading Jay Bilas' repeated attacks on Drake (which only stopped recently), and his network's constant belittling of the MVC, I have no doubt that they (ESPN and the BCS) don't want the mid-majors crashing their card-carrying member party. Their actions since the 2006 tournament say as much. Do I think the folks at ESPN sit in a room and come up with new ways to discredit the MVC? No. Do I think that they observe and report on college basketball objectively? No.

 

[Scouter]

You can put words in my mouth all you want. After reading Jay Bilas' repeated attacks on Drake (which only stopped recently), and his network's constant belittling of the MVC, I have no doubt that they (ESPN and the BCS) don't want the mid-majors crashing their card-carrying member party. Their actions since the 2006 tournament say as much. Do I think the folks at ESPN sit in a room and come up with new ways to discredit the MVC? No. Do I think that they observe and report on college basketball objectively? No.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You actually said them.

In any case, I think we can all agree that ESPN (just like every other huge, national media member) is run by money. Do they observe and report on college basketball objectively? I think for the most part they do -- on the schools and conferences they cover 95 percent of the time. Do I blame them for not covering the MVC more? No, because most people don't really give a squat about the MVC. Most of their audience cares about the major conferences. Can I blame them for their coverage? No. It makes dollars and sense (cents).

 

[tornado]

Do I think that they observe and report on college basketball objectively? No.

I will give a case in point........actually a few...

Last night NC-Asheville vs. Ohio State.....
>75% of the chatter (about the teams & players) was lapping up to the talent on the Ohio State squad and lengthy, drawn out talk about how their season has been and how tough their league is, how remarkable that they bounced back from losing 3 NBA picks, etc...
Maybe at best 20-25% touched lightly on some NC-Asheville topics, although the vast majority was talk about Kenny George, but not all that complimentary...
more along the line of touching on the oddity of him being the tallest college player...kinda like talking about someone's cute, tho homely puppy.

In the end, NC-A played credibly, although were beaten by a better opponent, but the outcome was certainly not beyond doubt until the latter part of the 2nd half.
But the overall tone of the narration was to hype Ohio State for the next round or two, and to portray NC-Asheville as a "one hit wonder", and just a tune up for the next round.

The same was somewhat the case at Arizona State, and in the 2nd half, the Alabama State Hornets came back from oblivion to make the game uncomfortably close for Arizona State....8 points within the last 3 minutes, closer than Creighton was at that point and Creighton went on to win!
If anyone actually saw the game, then I challenge you to try to tell me the name of the Alabama State head coach or what he looked like, since just as the camera panned to Thad Matta 98% of the time during time outs, they also went right to ASU's Herb Sendek almost every time, and virtually NEVER to the Alabama State bench.

The design FROM THE START was clear....promote the team that's likeliest to win, right from the outset, and just don't bother even talking about the guys who are going to lose.

 

[Chuck885]

Ncaa

Ncaa

You can put words in my mouth all you want. After reading Jay Bilas' repeated attacks on Drake (which only stopped recently), and his network's constant belittling of the MVC, I have no doubt that they (ESPN and the BCS) don't want the mid-majors crashing their card-carrying member party. Their actions since the 2006 tournament say as much. Do I think the folks at ESPN sit in a room and come up with new ways to discredit the MVC? No. Do I think that they observe and report on college basketball objectively? No.

I don't thing ESPN has a lot to do with the NCAA selection. The BCS obviously wants teams from their conferences and have some influence since I'm sure a number of them sit on the selection committee. ESPN can only write about teams and I don't think that carry much weight. I do think CBS has worked behind the scenes to reduce the number of mid-majors that are selected and it's not because they can't compete. Every since 2006, when Billy Packer and Jim Nance came out and bashed the committee for selecting a large number of mid-majors, the number chosen has fallen dramatically. Recall, that a number of mid-majors, including Bradley, Wichita State and George Mason made it to the sweet 16, but from the networks perspective, this does not appeal the broader audience. Viewership would have been much higher if Kansas was playing Memphis, instead of Bradley. Although it appeals to the Bradley faithful and can be a "cinderalla story", the big names facing off is what brings in the viewership. Funny how they always talked about the cinderalla stories but then keep limiting the chance of that occuring by inviting BCS teams that are 18-13.

 

[BradleyBrave]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You actually said them.

In any case, I think we can all agree that ESPN (just like every other huge, national media member) is run by money. Do they observe and report on college basketball objectively? I think for the most part they do -- on the schools and conferences they cover 95 percent of the time. Do I blame them for not covering the MVC more? No, because most people don't really give a squat about the MVC. Most of their audience cares about the major conferences. Can I blame them for their coverage? No. It makes dollars and sense (cents).

I didn't say it was a conspiracy in any point in this conversation. I just said their coverage isn't objective. I can understand why they cover and report (operative words) on the BCS volume-wise. What I don't like is how they pander to the BCS and try to shape public opinion and perception.

 

[TheAsianSensation]

You people have the right idea, but it's not a conspiracy theory.

It's business. They do what gives them the best chance to make more $$$$$. Every decision is part of that mantra.

It just so happens to hurt the mid majors. They're not going out of their way to hurt them - they just happen to when they go after the $$$$$.

 

[Toyota12]

As i stated before the only way to recognized is win on a consistent basis and you will be in their conversations!! SIU has been in the tourney quite a fews times in the last 6 years,and when the talking heads discuss them all they talk about is how hard they play defense and win ugly...I think because thay have been consistent they have reputation that they are the team you do not want to play from the valley...So if you build a reputation of a mid major winner then you are always going to be discussed for all kinds of tourney bids..I speak for all mid major teams not just the valley...

 

[basketball nut]

What I don't like is how they pander to the BCS and try to shape public opinion and perception.

That is the number 1 problem as I see it. Why does everyone want to talk about the major or BCS schools? It is because that is what is talked about on TV all the time. It really comes down to money and the big boys put up the money so that is what we talk about.
I can see the day (probably not that far off) when they divide the D-1 schools into 2 divisions the BCS schools and the rest of the schools and hold tournaments accordingly.
Is the tournament fair today? Not really because there are conferences that the winner of the conference gets in the NCAA and more then likely couldn't keep out of the play-in game in the Valley or other mid-major tournaments. The same thing can be said for some of the BCS schools compared to the MVC, etc but not as much. Look at thow many quality non-conference wins the BCS schools in the tournament had. BU had a much tougher non-conference schedule then many of those schools had. If we had played the same non-conf schedule as Miami we would have probably had 8 more wins.
My point is that many of these schools get into the tournament only because they are from certain conf. (BCS) and not because they are especially deserving.

 

[brocks]

I'm sure if Duke were 13-18 and got invited, there would be no problem with that.

As to the wisdom of accxepting this bid, I wouldn't want to be the one to tell Jeremy and Daniel that they're finished . . . hang 'em up.

If you get a post-season chance to play, then you play.

 

[tornado]

I'm sure if Duke were 13-18 and got invited, there would be no problem with that.

As to the wisdom of accxepting this bid, I wouldn't want to be the one to tell Jeremy and Daniel that they're finished . . . hang 'em up.

If you get a post-season chance to play, then you play.

Question...when was the last time a mid-major team got an invitation (not an auto-bid) to a post season tournament when they had a losing (sub-.500) record?
I know it has happened in recent years with Louisville They declined the NIT bid) and other majors in the NIT and has now just happened with Cincy in the CBI.

Bradley received an invitation to the 1955 NCAA with an overall record of 7-19, because it was the routine to invite the two teams who reached the final game the year before (BU lost to LaSalle in 1954 NCAA Title Game).
BU then promptly won their first two games and finished in the Elite Eight on 1955!!
Final record was 9-20....but Bradley was probably considered a "major" back then!

 

[basketball nut]

I know this is a new tournament but I really like the format of reseading the final 4 and also playing a best of 2 out of 3 format. This almost reminds me of when the ABA started the 3 point shot and everyone thought it was nuts until it finally caught on and now look how it has reshaped basketball. This format may eventually becaome the norm and not the exception. I for one am excited to see how it turns out and wish this tournament many years of success.
PS: anyone notice how evenly matched the teams were last night?

 

[BradleyBrave]

If you get a post-season chance to play, then you play.

Exactly.

 

[JBinPeoria]

Back to the original point on PTI...I wasn't fond of Tony's comments on the CBI or the general consensus on Around the Horn that nobody cared about the CBI. Obviously, we all do.

One thing Tony DID mention on PTI was that he felt that midmajors were intentionally snubbed by the NCAA committee and purposely matched against each other so that they will all just GO AWAY. I agree with him on this point completely. Given these general feelings, I was surprised that he was not a little more sympathetic to the CBI.

 

[BUBraves2006]

I really like PTI and try to listen/watch it on a daily basis (as long as that buffoon Dan LeBatard isn't subbing in...). That being said, I can understand why the guys were skeptical from an outsider's perspective. I guess what we need to understand is that this is just an invitational. Is this really the top 97-113 teams in the country? No, but it's who they picked to participate (and who wanted to be a part of it). I correlate the CBI similarly to something like Great Alaska Shootout during the season. Nobody thinks that it is the most important tournament or is trying to stack up with the bigger ones (like the preseason NIT), but it can still provide fun, competitive basketball for a bunch of schools.

And you're right, both PTI guys said that it's a joke how the mids got seeded against one another. I'd love to be seeing Gonzaga or Butler having a shot to smack down Arizona in the first round rather than them playing another major conference school. But of course, they were seeded there for just that reason - so they could justify a loss to a team like West Virginia.