Respect

[Freak]

Originally posted by GAVol@Aug 5, 2005 1:10 AM
As crazy as it sounds, it's actually plausible.  I can't see LSU really doing it because of the coaching change, but they are loaded.  Ohio State is definitely going to have a shot.  And Louisville, as crazy as it seems, will have a shot by virtue of playing in that weak Big East.

[snapback]121927[/snapback]​

Kirk, is that you?

 

[GAVol]

No . . . this is Trev Alberts, you stupid playcall loving hillbilly. :lol:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by GAVol@Aug 5, 2005 1:16 AM
No . . . this is Trev Alberts, you stupid playcall loving hillbilly.  :lol:

[snapback]121936[/snapback]​

:huh: :blink: :lol:

 

[milohimself]

lol: GAVol

Look at Louisville's schedule:

09/04 @ Kentucky
09/17 Oregon St
09/24 @ S Florida
10/01 FAU
10/08 UNC
10/15 @ W Virginia
10/22 @ Cincy
11/03 Pittsburgh
11/11 Rutgers
11/26 Syracuse
12/03 @ UConn

As long as they stay healthy, they should be a practical lock for a BCS bid.

 

[GatorVille]

Oh no!They have to play Oregon State! Wouldnt wanna mess with the all-mighty pac 10...pencil in OSU with a W for 9/17!

 

[milohimself]

:disappointed:

 

[GAVol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Aug 5, 2005 2:05 AM
lol: GAVol
Look at Louisville's schedule:

[snapback]121962[/snapback]​

It's a complete joke that the Big East is still getting a BCS bid.

 

[GenNeyland9]

BCS?

Hell, with that schedule they should go undefeated. That's absolutely inexcusable. The voters better take into account their strength of schedule. I bet 5 or 6 SEC teams could go undefeated with that schedule.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Originally posted by milohimself@Aug 5, 2005 1:05 AM
Look at Louisville's schedule:

09/04 @ Kentucky
09/17 Oregon St
09/24 @ S Florida
10/01 FAU
10/08 UNC
10/15 @ W Virginia
10/22 @ Cincy
11/03 Pittsburgh
11/11 Rutgers
11/26 Syracuse
12/03 @ UConn

[snapback]121962[/snapback]​

Were that hoops, I might worry. But GIVE ME A BREAK!!! With that schedule, my brothers and I might go undefeated. And there's only 3 of us. And what the heck is a Fau?

 

[GatorVille]

Florida Atlantic

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Aug 4, 2005 11:41 PM
And if Nike did push their teams that hard to try and bury the competition, you would not be hearing of Notre Dame or Louisville.

[snapback]121904[/snapback]​

You hear of them because theyr're winning. ND is the all time winningest program and they're not going to go away.

What you guys seem to miss is the age old concept that money talks.

When you wonder why UT gets some of the horribly unfair coverage from ESPN, including false stories made up that continue to get repeated even after investigations prove they were false, then you have to look at all of the reasons why. One is; UT is not marching to the same drummer as the rest. They dare to make a deal with Adidas.

I'm not going to believe that the kind of money NIKE pours into the pockets of everyone at ESPN is not going to have an affect, even if it's subconscious in its nature.

To believe that would be really naive.

Gagorville,

I've never said NIKE controls the rankings, but they do have INFLUENCE into the quality of reporting coming from ESPN.

Do you lads have any concept of the kind of money we're talking about here?

 

[GatorVille]

But first of all. Why would Nike care about the kind of reporting their teams get? When you have teams like, USC, LSU, UF, Texas, OU...etc. one, if not both of those teams will be in the National Championship Game. Nike would get plenty of publicity, just because of who they sponsor. I dont think "influencing" the quality of reporting on ESPN would be necessary.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by GAVol@Aug 4, 2005 11:43 PM
I think that's why Reebok was bought out by Adidas today.  They want to wield more influence with ESPN.  :bs:

[snapback]121906[/snapback]​

So; you don't believe the millions of dollars the beer companies pour into the NFL doesn't have an impact on decision making.

Do you really believe the millions that NIKE pours into advertising on ESPN does not have an influence on coverage.

If you're advertising during a game, which teams would you rather see get air time? Teams with your logo, or teams with your competition who may not be paying a cent for the efforts?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by OldVol@Aug 5, 2005 12:45 PM
So; you don't believe the millions of dollars the beer companies pour into the NFL doesn't have an impact on decision making.

Do you really believe the millions that NIKE pours into advertising on ESPN does not have an influence on coverage.

If you're advertising during a game, which teams would you rather see get air time? Teams with your logo, or teams with your competition who may not be paying a cent for the efforts?

[snapback]122084[/snapback]​

Dude, no offense. But this is bordering on paranoia.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by Atreus21@Aug 5, 2005 2:06 PM
Dude, no offense.  But this is bordering on paranoia.

[snapback]122138[/snapback]​

Well, DUDE, I have over 30 years experience in the Sporting Goods insustries, so maye you'll overlook my experience and knowledge on the subject, DUDE.

 

[GenNeyland9]

I think our relationship with ESPN is very complicated, and can't be explained by endorsement ties. I'm sure there's a ton of money in play, but it can't just be because Nike pulls ESPN's strings.

There is animosity on both sides. We gave them hell over the Heistman, and Fowler called some of our fans trailer trash. They, in turn, do several investigations into student athlete tutoring. That didn't help things. The latest source of confrontation seems to be over Trev Alberts and Mark May's attitudes toward the Vols. But then again every team in America gets badmouthed by them every once in a while.

I agree with a previous poster that almost every major team in America today uses Nike. We, along with Louisville, UAB, UCLA, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Arkansas, Auburn, Maryland, South Carolina, Miss. State, and a few others all use brands other than Nike. ESPN doesn't exclusively bad mouth these teams. On the other hand, they did let Alabama, Florida, and Ohio State freaking have it when they have had their recent troubles.

I have friends of other teams that also say ESPN is out to get them, etc. Almost all of those teams are sponsored by Nike.

With all respect to your experience in the Sporting Goods market, I just think our relationship with ESPN runs a lot deeper than the labels on our cleats.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by GenNeyland9@Aug 5, 2005 3:13 PM
I think our relationship with ESPN is very complicated, and can't be explained by endorsement ties.  I'm sure there's a ton of money in play, but it can't just be because Nike pulls ESPN's strings.

There is animosity on both sides.  We gave them hell over the Heistman, and Fowler called some of fans trailer trash.  They, in turn, do several investigations into student athlete tutoring.  That didn't help things.  The latest source of confrontation seems to be over Trev Alberts and Mark May's attitudes toward the Vols.  But then again every team in America gets badmouthed by them every once in a while.

I agree with a previous poster that almost every major team in America today uses Nike.  We, along with Louisville, UAB, UCLA, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Arkansas, Auburn, Maryland, South Carolina, Miss. State, and a few others all use brands other than Nike.  ESPN doesn't exclusively bad mouth these teams.  On the other hand, they did let Alabama, Florida, and Ohio State freaking have it when they have had their recent troubles.

I have friends of other teams that also say ESPN is out to get them, etc.  Almost all of those teams are sponsored by Nike. 

With all respect to your experience in the Sporting Goods market, I just think our relationship with ESPN runs a lot deeper than the labels on our cleats.

[snapback]122170[/snapback]​

I've never said the advertising dollars controll all aspects of the media. I do have enough experience in the field to know that it does have a big impact on coverage, and it does filter down to reporting as well because even idiots with microphones know who pays their salary.

I've dealt with this problem in my experience with the company I was with for more than 30 years. I guess I have an insiders view when it comes to the industry.

While it's not the determining factor on all that goes on there, it does have a huge impact.

 

[GenNeyland9]

What is very troubling to me is the recent stories about Nike manipulating young high school basketball players, and also how they refused to let Auburn wear tape over their cleats, because it covered up the "swoosh" on the side. Auburn is sponsored by Russell Athletics, but they had a shoe deal with Nike. Now Auburn uses New Balance cleats, a company who has no problem with the players taping over its label.

A top high school junior attended Reebok's all-star prep camp, refusing to comply with Nike's order to not go to the camp. Nike had an agreement with the kid, kind of like a verbal to be endorsed by Nike once he gets to the pros. After the kid's defiance, Nike refused to ever endorse him. He only wanted to go the camp in order to play against America's best.

I think Nike is severly overstepping their bounds here.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by GenNeyland9@Aug 5, 2005 3:24 PM
What is very troubling to me is the recent stories about Nike manipulating young high school basketball players, and also how they refused to let Auburn wear tape over their cleats, because it covered up the "swoosh" on the side.  Auburn is sponsored by Russell Athletics, but they had a shoe deal with Nike.  Now Auburn uses New Balance cleats, a company who has no problem with the players taping over its label.

A top high school junior attended Reebok's all-star prep camp, refusing to comply with Nike's order to not go to the camp.  Nike had an agreement with the kid, kind of like a verbal to be endorsed by Nike once he gets to the pros.  After the kid's defiance, Nike refused to ever endorse him.  He only wanted to go the camp in order to play against America's best. 

I think Nike is severly overstepping their bounds here.

[snapback]122174[/snapback]​

You have no idea how nasty the business is.

I'm sure it's the same in all businesses, but not all businesses have an impact on the lives of teenage kids.

It is brutal.