The Sports Network?

[IdaGriz01]

My guesses:

1). FBS teams have been reluctant to move their season start up a week.

2). While covering a "meaningful" FBS game, ESPN would feel the need to cover the actual action on the field.

3). ESPN is not willing to jeopardize their relationship with any FBS conference by not adequately covering one of their games. Can you imagine the shitstorm the Commissioner of, say, the MWC would have raised if their game had been covered the way the ewoo/Sammy game was last year?!?! He'd STILL be in Bristol cursing a blue streak. Meanwhile Foolerton sings Zippity Do Da out his asshole because he got a BSC team on an ESPN game few watched, and even fewer in the announcer's box commented on.

Not bad guesses, although item 2) is a little weak. We've see plenty of other ESPN coverage of just-below top level teams where they still spent more time on touting some really big upcoming game, or some stupid controversy, than they did the game.

I still have to figure it's also, somehow, about the money.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

My guesses:

1). FBS teams have been reluctant to move their season start up a week.

2). While covering a "meaningful" FBS game, ESPN would feel the need to cover the actual action on the field.

3). ESPN is not willing to jeopardize their relationship with any FBS conference by not adequately covering one of their games. Can you imagine the shitstorm the Commissioner of, say, the MWC would have raised if their game had been covered the way the ewoo/Sammy game was last year?!?! He'd STILL be in Bristol cursing a blue streak. Meanwhile Foolerton sings Zippity Do Da out his asshole because he got a BSC team on an ESPN game few watched, and even fewer in the announcer's box commented on.

Not bad guesses, although item 2) is a little weak. We've see plenty of other ESPN coverage of just-below top level teams where they still spent more time on touting some really big upcoming game, or some stupid controversy, than they did the game.

I still have to figure it's also, somehow, about the money.

4). It's the audience. Might I guess around 200.000 FCS fans nation-wide vs 5,000,000 FBS fans who don't give a crap about either team, they just have to watch for something to do while they wait for real college football to start the next week.

 

[Flatlander Griz(Neb)]

4). It's the audience. Might I guess around 200.000 FCS fans nation-wide vs 5,000,000 FBS fans who don't give a crap about either team, they just have to watch for something to do while they wait for real college football to start the next week.

I see this all the time... Just today a coworker got his panties in a wad "who cares ... that's not real football"

had to ask him if his tampon was cross-threaded!

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

She will now sue you for sexual harassment and your job will go to a gay black woman.

Well done!

 

[statler & waldorf]

Fallback plan if Mussberger & Co. babble endlessly about FBS, tennis, baseball, NFL, or whatever instead of the game at hand and the FCS, then my solution is to turn the audio off and listen to Gurns & Mick while watching the ESPN video feed. :idea:

 

[kemajic]

FCS fans can thank the wonderful NCAA for this terrible coverage of FCS football.

Wrong; you can thank the law of supply and demand.

 

[kemajic]

That is exactly why the powers to be in the FCS

There is such a thing?

 

[Grisly Fan]

That is exactly why the powers to be in the FCS

There is such a thing?

(moved to correct quote below)

 

[Grisly Fan]

FCS fans can thank the wonderful NCAA for this terrible coverage of FCS football.

Wrong; you can thank the law of supply and demand.

Yeah but it has been generally proven that you can enhance demand through marketing and advertising. Clearly the NCAA doesn't do much, if any, of it for FCS. Apparently they believe that there is no demand elasticity and promoting FCS would diminish their FBS brand -- or at least that is a reasonable conclusion based on their behavior.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

FCS fans can thank the wonderful NCAA for this terrible coverage of FCS football.

Wrong; you can thank the law of supply and demand.

Yeah but it has been generally proven that you can enhance demand through marketing and advertising. Clearly the NCAA doesn't do much, if any, of it for FCS. Apparently they believe that there is no demand elasticity and promoting FCS would diminish their FBS brand -- or at least that is a reasonable conclusion based on their behavior.

Doubt they worry promoting FCS will diminish FBS. Actually I don't think they really care, or need, to distinguish between them. They are broadcasting a football game. The only one in the nation. The teams who are playing being in FCS or FBS really does not matter. They've got the only game in town!

As an example if they matched up Marshall, No. Michigan, Louisiana Monroe, U Mass, Georgia Southern, Florida Atlantic, Colorado State, or Army nobody is going to think "Hey, these teams are FBS, the same division as Alabama, Oregon, Texas, Florida State!" The average viewer is only going to care if the game is competitive or entertaining. Unless told otherwise during the broadcast, that same average viewer won't have a clue that Montana or North Dakota is not in the same division.

Meanwhile ESPN is going to do what they'd do regardless of who is playing... They are going to hype the hell out of the coverage of the upcoming season, and the wonders of wonders of finding a true National Champion on the field (as if that concept were actually new). So don't worry about it. Just be grateful that our Grizzlies will be playing on this stage and hope we shock the buffs and their very large (get it?) fan base. :ugeek:

 

[bgbigdog]

Mussberger

Why disparage a proud Montanan who will likely get in as many homer quips as he can.

From the tone of the conversation here it sounds like it was a mistake to pick Montana because so few are as excited as I am that they get to be the only game in or out of town that weekend. F$&k all this negativity around ESPN, econ 101, infomercials and whether or not it's demeaning for an FBS team to play a week earlier. Football kicks off in Montana this year, let's hope they (ESPN ) has a reason to visit Zootown again real soon.

 

[statler & waldorf]

It's a fallback plan. If he doesn't produce, I tune him out.

 

[SACCAT66]

Even the website rats are jumping off the sinking FCS ship.

Just like ESPN, right?

One game, and if it's anything like last year, you won't even hear "FCS".

Look, it's cool we're playing in that game and all. But if you expect it to be much more than a 3 hour commercial for FBS games on the network, you'll likely be disappointed. FCS has always been a very, very distant second fiddle, and that gap gets wider and wider every year.

Funny...They said that about my girlfriend in High school

 

[Sundown]

Direct link to STATS NCAA Football page. Doesn't look like they have a dedicated FCS page (Yet?).

 

[IdaGriz01]

Direct link to STATS NCAA Football page. Doesn't look like they have a dedicated FCS page (Yet?).

No, but it looks like they might have a "target date" -- based on this statement in an earlier online press release.

In the coming weeks, STATS will announce initial watch lists for its [FCS] Offensive and Defensive Player of the Year awards, details around its new FCS website and plans for its postseason awards. The company is scheduled to release its preseason Top 25 poll on Aug. 10, with the FCS Kickoff set for Saturday, Aug. 29 – when four-time defending champion North Dakota State takes on Montana.

Of course, they could just release the Top-25 poll as a press release. But I would think they'd want to have a web page ready to display it when it's out.

We'll see. (I am more encouraged now that I've seen their "hosted" sports page. Lot's and lot's of information there.)

 

[IdaGriz01]

Hmmm. Had a minute, so I took an off chance that August 1 might be a deadline of some sort and spent time on the STATS.com site. They do have a ton of information -- including a lot on college football. As of now, they do not have a separate item for FCS football. However, their NCAA football tabs (Scoreboard,Standings, Teams, Leaders, Polls) take you to screens that all have tags or drop-downs for an FCS subset of the information (including by conference). So a click and a drop-down from the NCAA Football page gets you to statistical Leaders in the Big Sky: http://hosted.stats.com/cfb/leaders.asp?conf=13

Right now, of course, they're showing data from last season. The only oddity I see is that they only show one defensive stat -- interceptions. There, the leader was Hermanson, who led the Big Sky with 6 INTs. If they have team-level leader stats, I haven't found them yet.

Hopefully, they'll organize things so news releases are also sub-setted for FCS. Otherwise, news about FCS will be swamped by releases for FBS. Again, we'll see. (In some ways, their site is organized a lot like ESPN's -- but, for some reason, the STATS site looks a bit "cleaner.")

 

[IdaGriz01]

More hmmm.

Been keeping an eye on STATS.com ... and discovered something interesting. In scanning their NCAA Football headlines, I noticed one about an new AD at Austin Peay. So I clicked on it ... not very interesting. But they may be using a "smart" response to that expression of interest because now I get a whole block of FCS-related headlines:

• Fordham tabbed Patriot favorite again
• Morgan State now has MEAC's attention
• Jacksonville playing for Pioneer pride
• Charleston So. could shake up Big South
• McNeese, Viator looking for fresh start
• Strong CAA loaded with star quarterbacks
• NDSU, Illinois St. set to renew rivalry
• Bryant finds itself the favorite in NEC
• W. Carolina looks to build on momentum

Now this could just be coincidence. Still, it is the first time I've seen some FCS news on their site.