IdaGriz01
Well-known member
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.EverettGriz said: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.
I still have to figure it's also, somehow, about the money.