No Bump, BTW

#126
#126
LawVol13 said:
Yes, with the vast majority coming on ESPN, which coincides with the $2 billion ESPN contract signed with the SEC. Pearl increased the number of TV games, but that contract is also responsible for Tennessee getting increased exposure.
Click to expand...

When was that contract signed?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#128
#128
I'm not going to get into it on here and start being called a pearlophile. If some of you believe ut was already relevant on the national stage before, or that the contract is the reason why and all teams and coaches are in the same boat, or that lucky shots are reasons for wins, or that playing tx, uconn, ks, nova, pitt and others on national tv was natural progression for the program due to contracts and any coach would have had us on the national stage, thats your option. It's really just denial and discussing it leads nowhere.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#129
#129
pl3 said:
I'm not going to get into it on here and start being called a pearlophile. If some of you believe ut was already relevant on the national stage before, or that the contract is the reason why and all teams and coaches are in the same boat, or that lucky shots are reasons for wins, or that playing tx, uconn, ks, nova, pitt and others on national tv was natural progression for the program due to contracts and any coach would have had us on the national stage, thats your option. It's really just denial and discussing it leads nowhere.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Of course, no one has said this. I was just mentioning that a multi-billion dollar conference television deal also might have some impact on teams in that conference getting more exposure. No one said that Pearl had no hand in getting us more attention because that would be ludicrous, but it's just as ludicrous to say, "Man, Bruce sure had us on TV more than Ray Mears and Don DeVoe." It's slightly different now.
 
#130
#130
LawVol13 said:
Of course, no one has said this. I was just mentioning that a multi-billion dollar conference television deal also might have some impact on teams in that conference getting more exposure. No one said that Pearl had no hand in getting us more attention because that would be ludicrous, but it's just as ludicrous to say, "Man, Bruce sure had us on TV more than Ray Mears and Don DeVoe." It's slightly different now.
Click to expand...

Then what happened with all the sec teams I mentioned above? They have the same contract.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#132
#132
BasketvolsFan said:
KY has always and will always be the premier team in the conference. Florida was simply a blimp in a short time frame.
Click to expand...

Except Fla was the premier time during the Pearl era and he owned them. You were comparing Mears' accomplishments to the premier program and I was comparing Pearl's accomplishments to the premier program. Pearl's teams had a much more favorable head-to-head record than Mears did against Ky.

That's not a knock against Mears, it's just that Pearl owned Donovan and Florida. Donovan's teams didn't play a lot of defense and never gave Pearl's teams fits. The teams that played great defense always gave Pearl's teams fits usually.
 
Last edited:
#133
#133
LawVol13 said:
They're on TV more often. Not that difficult to grasp.
Click to expand...

Right. People in California, ny, tx and pa saw just as many lsu, ole miss, ark, miss st, auburn and Alabama nationally televised games as they did tn games over the past 7 years. Whatever you say.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#134
#134
VolsSportsFan said:
Florida isn't the "premier" team in the SEC, nor are they our biggest basketball rival. They aren't even #2, that belongs to Vandy. And Pearl sucked against Kentucky, even when they were down his first couple of season. Their worst season in years under Billy Clyde, where they didn't even make the NCAAT, UK embarrassed UT twice.
Click to expand...

They aren't overall but during the Pearl era they sure as hell were. What other team in the SEC won two national titles? Hell, Ky didn't get to a Final 4 until this year for the first time in a long time.
 
#135
#135
pl3 said:
I'm not going to get into it on here and start being called a pearlophile. If some of you believe ut was already relevant on the national stage before, or that the contract is the reason why and all teams and coaches are in the same boat, or that lucky shots are reasons for wins, or that playing tx, uconn, ks, nova, pitt and others on national tv was natural progression for the program due to contracts and any coach would have had us on the national stage, thats your option. It's really just denial and discussing it leads nowhere.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

UT has never been relevant consistently on the national stage. Have they been fairly relevant consistently in the SEC? Yes, at one time we were 2nd in just about everything behind Ky until Houston came in and burned the program to the ground. Of course, until the 70's most SEC schools viewed basketball as an intramural sport and no one gave a damn about it except Ky.


It took awhile to get back after the Houston debacle, but we finally did. Not until Pearl arrived did we even win somewhat consistently in the NCAA's.
 
#136
#136
pl3 said:
Right. People in California, ny, tx and pa saw just as many lsu, ole miss, ark, miss st, auburn and Alabama nationally televised games as they did tn games over the past 7 years. Whatever you say.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Who said that? You clearly don't have the ability to discuss things rationally. No one said that they were on tv as much as Tennessee. But, go on pretending that that little $2 billion tv contract is just insignificant and things are just the same for those other programs as before it was signed.
 
#137
#137
LawVol13 said:
Who said that? You clearly don't have the ability to discuss things rationally. No one said that they were on tv as much as Tennessee. But, go on pretending that that little $2 billion tv contract is just insignificant and things are just the same for those other programs as before it was signed.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. If the contract is the reason why ut had more national exposure, as you state, then why were those other schools not on tv as much for the nation to see, which is what you just admitted as well. Why was ut seen more on national tv when compared to other sec schools under the same contract? You know the answer. You are just incapable of being objective about it. Its always about luck, or a down sec, or tv contracts, or whatever else you can come up with.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#138
#138
pl3 said:
You don't get it. If the contract is the reason why ut had more national exposure, as you state, then why were those other schools not on tv as much for the nation to see, which is what you just admitted as well. Why was ut seen more on national tv when compared to other sec schools under the same contract? You know the answer. You are just incapable of being objective about it. Its always about luck, or a down sec, or tv contracts, or whatever else you can come up with.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Pearl increased the number of TV games, but that contract is also responsible for Tennessee getting increased exposure.
Click to expand...

I said that 15 posts ago in this thread. Yea, how unfair I'm being to poor Bruce by stating that. Some of you all just read what you want to read and anything less than just some unqualified, "Bruce is the best coach I've ever seen." is seen as hating the man.
 
#139
#139
pl3 said:
If the contract is the reason why ut had more national exposure, as you state
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I stated it was one of the reasons, and you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that it's not. Maybe it makes you feel better to pretend that Bruce Pearl was the sole reason, but that doesn't make it true.
 
#140
#140
LawVol13 said:
I said that 15 posts ago in this thread. Yea, how unfair I'm being to poor Bruce by stating that. Some of you all just read what you want to read and anything less than just some unqualified, "Bruce is the best coach I've ever seen." is seen as hating the man.
Click to expand...

That's a rational dialogue you just preached to me about? I didn't say any of that bs you just posted.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#141
#141
LawVol13 said:
I stated it was one of the reasons, and you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that it's not. Maybe it makes you feel better to pretend that Bruce Pearl was the sole reason, but that doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

Show me where I said that. Your little sarcastic jabs are weak man.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#142
#142
pl3 said:
That's a rational dialogue you just preached to me about? I didn't say any of that bs you just posted.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No, you apparently just disregard any praise I give to Pearl and pretend that I said the tv contract was solely responsible for our increased exposure. I suggested it was something you couldn't just dismiss as insignificant, but then I was accused of hating Pearl. So, it seems in your eyes, anything other than saying Bruce is the sole reason for everything good, then that is somehow being unfair.
 
#144
#144
LawVol13 said:
No, you apparently just disregard any praise I give to Pearl and pretend that I said the tv contract was solely responsible for our increased exposure. I suggested it was something you couldn't just dismiss as insignificant, but then I was accused of hating Pearl. So, it seems in your eyes, anything other than saying Bruce is the sole reason for everything good, then that is somehow being unfair.
Click to expand...

And now repost where I accused you of "hating pearl". I challenged that you have trouble being objective about the issue, and I stick by it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#145
#145
pl3 said:
And now repost where I accused you of "hating pearl". I challenged that you have trouble being objective about the issue, and I stick by it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Already discussed it. I gave Pearl his due credit for increased exposure. But, if one mentions that small $2 billion contract, that's not being objective in an evaluation of Bruce. Somehow, it seems to me that the person who refuses to take that into account is the one that's not being objective. Just my two cents. Have a good night. :hi:
 
#147
#147
ESPN's contract requires them to show a crapton of SEC basketball games on weeknights. There are only a handful of SEC schools that take basketball even semi-seriously, so of course UT has been appearing in more of those games than all those schools in the SEC West. We're playing in those primetime ESPN games by default, not because of any national interest in us.

Again, if UT basketball had any national appeal or relevance, then we wouldn't be tipping off every year in the tournament on Friday at 2 pm. Yet every year we do, while nationally relevant teams play on Thursday and Friday in primetime. We're just as regional a team now as we were when Don DeVoe was the coach. This whole "national relevance" argument is silly.
 
#148
#148
pl3 said:
I did, and I called you out for making up more bs. Grow up.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I stand by what I said. You manipulated what I said to act as if I was giving Pearl no credit, which was not true. And, you've consistently acted as if anytime anyone tries to qualify any praise of Pearl that that's somehow not being objective. I didn't make up any BS; just read your own posts.
 
#150
#150
LawVol13 said:
I stand by what I said. You manipulated what I said to act as if I was giving Pearl no credit, which was not true. And, you've consistently acted as if anytime anyone tries to qualify any praise of Pearl that that's somehow not being objective. I didn't make up any BS; just read your own posts.
Click to expand...

I didn't call you a pearl hater. I didn't say he was the sole reason for exposure. I didn't say the contract was of no significance. I didn't mention objectivity to anyone but you. That's what you accused me of and its all bs. I stated that tn earned national recognition when bp got to campus that they haven't seen in 20 years. I also asked why other teams under.the same contract didn't garner the same attention, and some even less.than prior years when they had better teams. You just kept mentioning that they are all on tv and its not " hard to grasp". People around the country weren't watching those teams play, but they were watching ut play elite teams from other conferences on a national stage. Somehow, those facts became debatable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top