ESPN is covering for the SEC and the Big 10+2Anyone else notice that lack of coverage that E$PN gives the ACC? Use to be, they would report on each game. Go over who the MVP was. Even give helmet stickers. Now it's just the Clemson game and that's about it. Just seems like the whole ACC gets slighted. Not like the ACC is the winning-est conference, right now. Not like we have the most National Championships in the last 3-5 years. Just kind of disappointing.
Yeah... I noticed I did not see the bloggers on the CFB nation area. Now, that makes sense. Did not know they did a lay off.
Start reading CBS Sports online it's much better
Will do. Thanks!Start reading CBS Sports online it's much better
Or he could talk about how GT is the powerhouse of the ACC.
I'd love to see Fox go all in for an All ACC Sports Network.
Normally I give sportswriters huge coils of rope. What they do, if done well, is very hard. But in today's "journalism" world I think we see the effect of losing so much in print. ESPN, after what seems like decades of explosive growth and profits is hurting for sure. Not just in numbers, but in talent. That as much as anything might explain the ACC. Let's face it, FSU lost luster, GT lost a game that was impossible to lose -- exciting if you didn't have a dog in the fight -- Miami got washed away, early season darkhorse NC State already lost, and who cares about VT? I mean, there is no sex appeal there at all. Louisville is one cop call away from another disgrace. Maybe that explains why Clemson knocks off a very good Auburn team -- a good team -- yet Oklahoma gets raves and bumped up in the ratings because it beat OSU. You know, the team Clemson beat 31-0 in the playoffs. That OSU. I'm sure Swinney is secretly gloating these days, hiding in the weeds again. But the ACC is downplayed again, the Big Ten is up -- bad games, but up -- and out there in oil land, Oklahoma is sexy. It was in 2016, too. And 2015 I think. All of this is to say in my view it is the talent level of the ESPN staff that decides these issues. They just ain't very good. And sex sells. Now, if Miami, GT, VT and even FSU gets in the saddle, you'll see changes. And at the end, Clemson will be laughing. That QB, already a better runner than Watson, is going to be really good. Not Watson, but nobody is. And anybody who wants to play that defense has a death wish.
Well, face it, our offense is not sexy. Effective, but not sexy. Our D is well.... That's for another topic.
For the most part I guess you're right. But I thought it was very sexy in the 2014 ACC championship game and the Orange Bowl. This one may -- may -- have a chance to be as sexy before all is done.
I don't know why our O isn't considered "sexy". That is a purely subjective opinion. I personally find our O (and others like it) to be far more "sexy" than the average type O that most teams run. I find those other O's to be quite boring most of the time, barring a single spectacular play. But we have our share of spectacular plays too in most games.
well they did let almost everyone go but the talking heads hot takes people. Too bad. I used to enjoy some of their blog stuff. They don't even put it on the default top bar anymore though. you have to go over to the other stuff to even see it so it shows much little they care about that part of the site these days