09-25-2010, 04:17 PM
Wow -- no telling what this team might accomplish playing its best game! Â :D
What a day for Stanford not to bring the A game
readarmy1976
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-25-2010, 04:20 PM
I actually didn\'t think the coverage was biased, other than the usual "habaugh\'s in line for the michigan job" crap. Mayock talked about Stanford and harbaugh non-stop.
That\'s big to handle nd in southbend. This teams has legit Pac-10 and national championship aspirations.
That\'s big to handle nd in southbend. This teams has legit Pac-10 and national championship aspirations.
I actually didn\'t think the coverage was biased, other than the usual "habaugh\'s in line for the michigan job" crap. Mayock talked about Stanford and harbaugh non-stop.
That\'s big to handle nd in southbend. This teams has legit Pac-10 and national championship aspirations.
That\'s big to handle nd in southbend. This teams has legit Pac-10 and national championship aspirations.
09-25-2010, 04:24 PM
Snap a big losing streak in South Bend. Â Great win on the road against a team that is fairly talented. Â Sets up a big, big game next week up here in Oregon.
Snap a big losing streak in South Bend. Â Great win on the road against a team that is fairly talented. Â Sets up a big, big game next week up here in Oregon.
09-25-2010, 04:35 PM
can\'t make those mistakes against Oregon, but the team\'s bound to be focused.
09-25-2010, 06:05 PM
As much as I wanted to see Luck play better on the road, the team was great. Â And it is a team game.
I suspect that Oregon fans likely fear five teams on their schedule. Â OSU, because that\'s the rival. Â USC, because it will be their bowl game. Â Arizona, because they are good. Â Stanford, because they are great. Â And UCLA, because they beat Texas.
Oregon will not lose all 5, but they could lose two of those 5.
Stanford already beat UCLA and has USC, OSU and Arizona at home. Â So I can definitely craft a scenario that has Stanford falling to Oregon and still winning the conference.
But the path is a lot easier with a win in Eugene. Â I sure hope that Stanford brings their A game next weekend.
And as always I am so thankful that Stanford has become so good. Â Thanks to JH 2006 seems like ancient history. Â
I suspect that Oregon fans likely fear five teams on their schedule. Â OSU, because that\'s the rival. Â USC, because it will be their bowl game. Â Arizona, because they are good. Â Stanford, because they are great. Â And UCLA, because they beat Texas.
Oregon will not lose all 5, but they could lose two of those 5.
Stanford already beat UCLA and has USC, OSU and Arizona at home. Â So I can definitely craft a scenario that has Stanford falling to Oregon and still winning the conference.
But the path is a lot easier with a win in Eugene. Â I sure hope that Stanford brings their A game next weekend.
And as always I am so thankful that Stanford has become so good. Â Thanks to JH 2006 seems like ancient history. Â
As much as I wanted to see Luck play better on the road, the team was great. Â And it is a team game.
I suspect that Oregon fans likely fear five teams on their schedule. Â OSU, because that\'s the rival. Â USC, because it will be their bowl game. Â Arizona, because they are good. Â Stanford, because they are great. Â And UCLA, because they beat Texas.
Oregon will not lose all 5, but they could lose two of those 5.
Stanford already beat UCLA and has USC, OSU and Arizona at home. Â So I can definitely craft a scenario that has Stanford falling to Oregon and still winning the conference.
But the path is a lot easier with a win in Eugene. Â I sure hope that Stanford brings their A game next weekend.
And as always I am so thankful that Stanford has become so good. Â Thanks to JH 2006 seems like ancient history. Â
I suspect that Oregon fans likely fear five teams on their schedule. Â OSU, because that\'s the rival. Â USC, because it will be their bowl game. Â Arizona, because they are good. Â Stanford, because they are great. Â And UCLA, because they beat Texas.
Oregon will not lose all 5, but they could lose two of those 5.
Stanford already beat UCLA and has USC, OSU and Arizona at home. Â So I can definitely craft a scenario that has Stanford falling to Oregon and still winning the conference.
But the path is a lot easier with a win in Eugene. Â I sure hope that Stanford brings their A game next weekend.
And as always I am so thankful that Stanford has become so good. Â Thanks to JH 2006 seems like ancient history. Â
09-25-2010, 06:15 PM
Quote:Stanford already beat UCLA and has USC, OSU and Arizona at home.
nice. win those and the last away game, and the last home game, and I\'ll be ecstatic.
09-25-2010, 09:49 PM
Quote:Yeah, objectivity is a crock of fecal matter when you\'re paid you not to be. Thought the whining about Skov\'s sack was a little out of order too: looked like he timed the blitz to me.
They also don\'t recognize a lot of the cool stuff we\'ve been up to--did you see the unbalanced line we ran? Pretty neat (though the play got stuffed). Mayock is pretty good when describing technical stuff but anything requiring favor or bias to Notre Dame he\'s very meh.
The announcers really should just come out as ND employees. Â They are THAT biased. Â Skov\'s sack was perfectly timed, no one wanted to admit it. Â I watched it very carefully on slo mo High Def...it was a fair sack...and the announcer complained about "piling on." Â Piling on what? Â He sacked the QB!
And what about the taunting and punk BS that ND got away with, including that linebacker who ripped Marecic\'s helmet off? Â Just terrible. Â And a Pac 10 officiating crew.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Quote:Yeah, objectivity is a crock of fecal matter when you\'re paid you not to be. Thought the whining about Skov\'s sack was a little out of order too: looked like he timed the blitz to me.
They also don\'t recognize a lot of the cool stuff we\'ve been up to--did you see the unbalanced line we ran? Pretty neat (though the play got stuffed). Mayock is pretty good when describing technical stuff but anything requiring favor or bias to Notre Dame he\'s very meh.
The announcers really should just come out as ND employees. Â They are THAT biased. Â Skov\'s sack was perfectly timed, no one wanted to admit it. Â I watched it very carefully on slo mo High Def...it was a fair sack...and the announcer complained about "piling on." Â Piling on what? Â He sacked the QB!
And what about the taunting and punk BS that ND got away with, including that linebacker who ripped Marecic\'s helmet off? Â Just terrible. Â And a Pac 10 officiating crew.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
09-25-2010, 09:54 PM
I\'m watching the kal game, and Mike Pawlousy is not nearly as much a homer as the ND announcers were.
09-25-2010, 10:26 PM
...i hate to say it, but i\'m gonna have to download this game and watch it. Â missed it for a friend\'s wedding, although i was getting score updates from other friends in the meantime.
sounds like a heckuva game, looking forward to seeing it!
sounds like a heckuva game, looking forward to seeing it!
mark3k
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-26-2010, 05:37 PM
I don\'t know if anyone else perceived the notable SHIFT in what began as an absurd example of announcer bias? Â Mayock was truly embarrassing himself early on (both with the Skov blitz/sack and the replayed short-yardage spot ruling). Â The later example was particularly transparent when he actually questioned if the ball crossed the 30, when even the mid-field camera angle (which he failed to consider when looking at the play relative to the yellow line) clearly showed that it was very close to, if not past, the first down marker. Â The video review process and conclusion exposed him as an obvious amateur Homer. Â
However, several minutes later in the broadcast, he made a point of admitting he was wrong in his call of the Skov play, and seemed to be trying hard to be objective. Â Gotta wonder if some director or producer finally said something to him, cuz I thought the change was dramatic!?!
However, several minutes later in the broadcast, he made a point of admitting he was wrong in his call of the Skov play, and seemed to be trying hard to be objective. Â Gotta wonder if some director or producer finally said something to him, cuz I thought the change was dramatic!?!
I don\'t know if anyone else perceived the notable SHIFT in what began as an absurd example of announcer bias? Â Mayock was truly embarrassing himself early on (both with the Skov blitz/sack and the replayed short-yardage spot ruling). Â The later example was particularly transparent when he actually questioned if the ball crossed the 30, when even the mid-field camera angle (which he failed to consider when looking at the play relative to the yellow line) clearly showed that it was very close to, if not past, the first down marker. Â The video review process and conclusion exposed him as an obvious amateur Homer. Â
However, several minutes later in the broadcast, he made a point of admitting he was wrong in his call of the Skov play, and seemed to be trying hard to be objective. Â Gotta wonder if some director or producer finally said something to him, cuz I thought the change was dramatic!?!
However, several minutes later in the broadcast, he made a point of admitting he was wrong in his call of the Skov play, and seemed to be trying hard to be objective. Â Gotta wonder if some director or producer finally said something to him, cuz I thought the change was dramatic!?!
09-26-2010, 09:04 PM
I was wondering about that in the car yesterday. When television was available only as a broadcast over the air, it was important that reporting be unbiased. Now that television is not limited by the broadcast spectrum, we instead have multiple biases (MSNBC and FoxNews, for example).
However, sports is not news; it\'s entertainment. Usually, announcers are unbiased to attract fans from both sides. However, NDBC is being paid by an agreement with the school, so the announcers\' job is to entertain those fans. So, if the Pac-12 gets a broadcast network, would the announcers be likely to root for Pac-12 teams when playing out of conference games?
However, sports is not news; it\'s entertainment. Usually, announcers are unbiased to attract fans from both sides. However, NDBC is being paid by an agreement with the school, so the announcers\' job is to entertain those fans. So, if the Pac-12 gets a broadcast network, would the announcers be likely to root for Pac-12 teams when playing out of conference games?
I was wondering about that in the car yesterday. When television was available only as a broadcast over the air, it was important that reporting be unbiased. Now that television is not limited by the broadcast spectrum, we instead have multiple biases (MSNBC and FoxNews, for example).
However, sports is not news; it\'s entertainment. Usually, announcers are unbiased to attract fans from both sides. However, NDBC is being paid by an agreement with the school, so the announcers\' job is to entertain those fans. So, if the Pac-12 gets a broadcast network, would the announcers be likely to root for Pac-12 teams when playing out of conference games?
However, sports is not news; it\'s entertainment. Usually, announcers are unbiased to attract fans from both sides. However, NDBC is being paid by an agreement with the school, so the announcers\' job is to entertain those fans. So, if the Pac-12 gets a broadcast network, would the announcers be likely to root for Pac-12 teams when playing out of conference games?
Think of the broadcast team for your local MLB team.
Do you want them to be truly objective? Give a 50/50 split to the backstory and trends for both teams and their players? I doubt it. You want to hear about your guys and their slumps, hot streaks, milestones, etc plus the impactful stuff happening on the other squad.
On the other hand, you don\'t want an obvious homer who is openly rooting for your team - even if he does see them 162 times a year and may be personally hoping they do well. Homers insult your intelligence.
Football, even Notre Dame/NBC football, isn\'t that much different. It\'s when they\'re over the top in their fandom that they drive the audience away. Subtle bias, at least to this fan, is grudgingly OK even when it\'s a bias against my team.
Do you want them to be truly objective? Give a 50/50 split to the backstory and trends for both teams and their players? I doubt it. You want to hear about your guys and their slumps, hot streaks, milestones, etc plus the impactful stuff happening on the other squad.
On the other hand, you don\'t want an obvious homer who is openly rooting for your team - even if he does see them 162 times a year and may be personally hoping they do well. Homers insult your intelligence.
Football, even Notre Dame/NBC football, isn\'t that much different. It\'s when they\'re over the top in their fandom that they drive the audience away. Subtle bias, at least to this fan, is grudgingly OK even when it\'s a bias against my team.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2010, 09:28 PM by Leftcoast.)
Think of the broadcast team for your local MLB team.
Do you want them to be truly objective? Give a 50/50 split to the backstory and trends for both teams and their players? I doubt it. You want to hear about your guys and their slumps, hot streaks, milestones, etc plus the impactful stuff happening on the other squad.
On the other hand, you don\'t want an obvious homer who is openly rooting for your team - even if he does see them 162 times a year and may be personally hoping they do well. Homers insult your intelligence.
Football, even Notre Dame/NBC football, isn\'t that much different. It\'s when they\'re over the top in their fandom that they drive the audience away. Subtle bias, at least to this fan, is grudgingly OK even when it\'s a bias against my team.
Do you want them to be truly objective? Give a 50/50 split to the backstory and trends for both teams and their players? I doubt it. You want to hear about your guys and their slumps, hot streaks, milestones, etc plus the impactful stuff happening on the other squad.
On the other hand, you don\'t want an obvious homer who is openly rooting for your team - even if he does see them 162 times a year and may be personally hoping they do well. Homers insult your intelligence.
Football, even Notre Dame/NBC football, isn\'t that much different. It\'s when they\'re over the top in their fandom that they drive the audience away. Subtle bias, at least to this fan, is grudgingly OK even when it\'s a bias against my team.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »