Danny B and KFAN ripping on GopherHole, names posters

Donate To GopherHole

Brew_recruit said:
Of course the media would be all over the gophers if they started to win, THATS HOW IT WORKS. (especaillay in MN where is is fair weather fans all the way) The media covers winning teams, and teams that are relevant, PERIOD. Only in small college towns will the university team that isn't winning be talked about in their off season, or will they still be relevant if they cannot win. One of the great things about the U, and is the reason that most people came here is the fact that it is in a huge city with many options. IF you wanted to have the college town appeal you would of gone to a school in a college TOWN!!!!!
Click to expand...

Surely you can't believe that I don't understand this - its happened time and time again in cities across this country. I know and understand how and why. I'm also not currently living in the MSP sports market anymore, but rather Milwaukee. I do read the Strip and PiPress, and occasionally stream KFAN at work, so I'm not in the dark entirely.

The difference with the Gophers is that there seems to be a near grudge against the 'U' with all the usual suspects (K-Fan, Reusse, Souhan, etc.). They seem to delight in taking whacks at the Gophers and any failures or shortcomings they have. A perfect example of the difference is the Milwaukee Bucks, in the market I live in. Now, I'm a pretty big Bucks fan - and they've had some pretty godawful seasons in the last 6-7 years. The Milwaukee sports media:
1) Has never outright ignored the Bucks

2) Maliciously cut on them in editorials or on the radio day after day. They have been critical but not unfair (you want unfair, see Reusse's last editorial on Tubby)

3) Produced positive stories when warranted. i.e. - the long term development of Andrew Bogut, the quality of the 09-10 Bucks bench, etc.

Now I'm not suggesting that the MSP sporting press need continuously pump out positive spin and propaganda for the U. But would it kill them to publish something positive occasional, so that the casual sports fan who didn't go to Minnesota doesn't subconsciously have a toxic reaction to the Gophers? The answer is 'no, it wouldn't'. And it might get them to sell a few more newspapers from folks like me who would like more even handed coverage.
 

Gopher Bandanna Guy said:
Surely you can't believe that I don't understand this - its happened time and time again in cities across this country. I know and understand how and why. I'm also not currently living in the MSP sports market anymore, but rather Milwaukee. I do read the Strip and PiPress, and occasionally stream KFAN at work, so I'm not in the dark entirely.

The difference with the Gophers is that there seems to be a near grudge against the 'U' with all the usual suspects (K-Fan, Reusse, Souhan, etc.). They seem to delight in taking whacks at the Gophers and any failures or shortcomings they have. A perfect example of the difference is the Milwaukee Bucks, in the market I live in. Now, I'm a pretty big Bucks fan - and they've had some pretty godawful seasons in the last 6-7 years. The Milwaukee sports media:
1) Has never outright ignored the Bucks

2) Maliciously cut on them in editorials or on the radio day after day. They have been critical but not unfair (you want unfair, see Reusse's last editorial on Tubby)

3) Produced positive stories when warranted. i.e. - the long term development of Andrew Bogut, the quality of the 09-10 Bucks bench, etc.

Now I'm not suggesting that the MSP sporting press need continuously pump out positive spin and propaganda for the U. But would it kill them to publish something positive occasional, so that the casual sports fan who didn't go to Minnesota doesn't subconsciously have a toxic reaction to the Gophers? The answer is 'no, it wouldn't'. And it might get them to sell a few more newspapers from folks like me who would like more even handed coverage.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the way I feel.
 

I got around to listening to Barreiro's "ripping" of this website this morning. Dan argued that people from this website simply want more Gopher football coverage and its not going to happen in a competitive sports market when the team is not any good. He also said that people from this website want to hear "sugar" i.e. that the team is better than it is, things are looking up etc,etc. Dan also mad some remarks about people using monikers and how lame that was (as if that was not something that was the norm on every message board).

I agree with Dan that expecting more coverage of the Gopher football program is not realistic. The Twin Cities is a competitive market and a lot of time won't be spent on a losing/poor program.

I disagree that more coverage is what posters from the GopherHole want from KFAN. As Mr. Royston pointed out, it's informed coverage that many of us want.

Dan made the point that fans here blame KFAN for the programs struggles and how "ridiculous" that was. I do not listen to KFAN often, but when I do, there is a mocking tone taking towards Gopher football that IS destructive on some level. How destructive? That's up for debate. Even if it only has a 1% impact on the program as far as turning potential fans/recruits off, a Minnesota sports station should not be a net negative for the University of Minnesota football program. I don't want "rah rah ski u mah". The last thing I want is to hear that 6-6 is acceptable, much less a good season. What I don't want to hear is a mocking, sarcastic take that makes weak minded listeners feel stupid for paying attention to/supporting Gopher football.

An example of being not informed on Gopher football was Dan's sarcastic take on Gopher recruiting the past couple years not living up to the hype when Brewster was hired. I think most Gopher fans were very happy with the 2009 class which featured Carter, Alipate, Hageman, and several other players who never would have been Gophers under Glen Mason. So Dan's recruiting take was both negative and uninformed.
 

EG#9 said:
I got around to listening to Barreiro's "ripping" of this website this morning. Dan argued that people from this website simply want more Gopher football coverage and its not going to happen in a competitive sports market when the team is not any good. He also said that people from this website want to hear "sugar" i.e. that the team is better than it is, things are looking up etc,etc. Dan also mad some remarks about people using monikers and how lame that was (as if that was not something that was the norm on every message board).

I agree with Dan that expecting more coverage of the Gopher football program is not realistic. The Twin Cities is a competitive market and a lot of time won't be spent on a losing/poor program.

I disagree that more coverage is what posters from the GopherHole want from KFAN. As Mr. Royston pointed out, it's informed coverage that many of us want.

Dan made the point that fans here blame KFAN for the programs struggles and how "ridiculous" that was. I do not listen to KFAN often, but when I do, there is a mocking tone taking towards Gopher football that IS destructive on some level. How destructive? That's up for debate. Even if it only has a 1% impact on the program as far as turning potential fans/recruits off, a Minnesota sports station should not be a net negative for the University of Minnesota football program. I don't want "rah rah ski u mah". The last thing I want is to hear that 6-6 is acceptable, much less a good season. What I don't want to hear is a mocking, sarcastic take that makes weak minded listeners feel stupid for paying attention to/supporting Gopher football.

An example of being not informed on Gopher football was Dan's sarcastic take on Gopher recruiting the past couple years not living up to the hype when Brewster was hired. I think most Gopher fans were very happy with the 2009 class which featured Carter, Alipate, Hageman, and several other players who never would have been Gophers under Glen Mason. So Dan's recruiting take was both negative and uninformed.
Click to expand...

dan got called out for not knowing the material......he considers himself the smartest man on the planet, and you don't call out the smartest man on the planet for not knowing his material

I still laugh that he talked about gopherhole on his show........and named monikers....there won't be anything more funny or more stupid on KFAN in all of 2010

danny reads gopherhole.........LMAO
 


EG#9 said:
I got around to listening to Barreiro's "ripping" of this website this morning. Dan argued that people from this website simply want more Gopher football coverage and its not going to happen in a competitive sports market when the team is not any good. He also said that people from this website want to hear "sugar" i.e. that the team is better than it is, things are looking up etc,etc. Dan also mad some remarks about people using monikers and how lame that was (as if that was not something that was the norm on every message board).

I agree with Dan that expecting more coverage of the Gopher football program is not realistic. The Twin Cities is a competitive market and a lot of time won't be spent on a losing/poor program.

I disagree that more coverage is what posters from the GopherHole want from KFAN. As Mr. Royston pointed out, it's informed coverage that many of us want.

Dan made the point that fans here blame KFAN for the programs struggles and how "ridiculous" that was. I do not listen to KFAN often, but when I do, there is a mocking tone taking towards Gopher football that IS destructive on some level. How destructive? That's up for debate. Even if it only has a 1% impact on the program as far as turning potential fans/recruits off, a Minnesota sports station should not be a net negative for the University of Minnesota football program. I don't want "rah rah ski u mah". The last thing I want is to hear that 6-6 is acceptable, much less a good season. What I don't want to hear is a mocking, sarcastic take that makes weak minded listeners feel stupid for paying attention to/supporting Gopher football.

An example of being not informed on Gopher football was Dan's sarcastic take on Gopher recruiting the past couple years not living up to the hype when Brewster was hired. I think most Gopher fans were very happy with the 2009 class which featured Carter, Alipate, Hageman, and several other players who never would have been Gophers under Glen Mason. So Dan's recruiting take was both negative and uninformed.
Click to expand...

This paragraph pretty much wraps it up IMO but I would add that it's not just Gopher Football, it's other Gopher sports as well.

As far as winning enough to be 'relevant', The T-Wolves and Wild are still getting coverage and how much are they winning. The Twins and Vikes, though doing well recently, have had their bad years and they have always been 'relevant'.
 

The irony of Dan B ripping on our monikers is that Common Man defined his show by people calling in and asking for monikers and often refer to themselves as "Bleed Gopher Guy" or "I Hate Packers Guy."

I must have missed the show where Dan ripped Common and KFAN listners for that.

Go Gophers!!
 


MNBadgerGuy said:
Is this thread really still on the top of the board? Let's move on.
Click to expand...

you do realize that this thread fell down a few and only when you posted did it move back up to the top. so congrats on keeping this thread on top of the board
 



Why anyone in a non-professional capacity would ever use their real name on the internet is beyond me. There are so many crazy fvckers out there and with how heated some message boards can get I would not want someone like Loon knowing my personal information. It's bad enough that Loon happens to live (or temporarily reside in) in my city.
 

Kuato Lives! said:
Why anyone in a non-professional capacity would ever use their real name on the internet is beyond me. There are so many crazy fvckers out there and with how heated some message boards can get I would not want someone like Loon knowing my personal information. It's bad enough that Loon happens to live (or temporarily reside in) in my city.
Click to expand...

What's your address?:cool:
 


EG#9 said:
I got around to listening to Barreiro's "ripping" of this website this morning. Dan argued that people from this website simply want more Gopher football coverage and its not going to happen in a competitive sports market when the team is not any good. He also said that people from this website want to hear "sugar" i.e. that the team is better than it is, things are looking up etc,etc. Dan also mad some remarks about people using monikers and how lame that was (as if that was not something that was the norm on every message board).

I agree with Dan that expecting more coverage of the Gopher football program is not realistic. The Twin Cities is a competitive market and a lot of time won't be spent on a losing/poor program.

I disagree that more coverage is what posters from the GopherHole want from KFAN. As Mr. Royston pointed out, it's informed coverage that many of us want.

Dan made the point that fans here blame KFAN for the programs struggles and how "ridiculous" that was. I do not listen to KFAN often, but when I do, there is a mocking tone taking towards Gopher football that IS destructive on some level. How destructive? That's up for debate. Even if it only has a 1% impact on the program as far as turning potential fans/recruits off, a Minnesota sports station should not be a net negative for the University of Minnesota football program. I don't want "rah rah ski u mah". The last thing I want is to hear that 6-6 is acceptable, much less a good season. What I don't want to hear is a mocking, sarcastic take that makes weak minded listeners feel stupid for paying attention to/supporting Gopher football.

An example of being not informed on Gopher football was Dan's sarcastic take on Gopher recruiting the past couple years not living up to the hype when Brewster was hired. I think most Gopher fans were very happy with the 2009 class which featured Carter, Alipate, Hageman, and several other players who never would have been Gophers under Glen Mason. So Dan's recruiting take was both negative and uninformed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't necessarily want more coverage; I want better coverage (i.e...knowing actual facts). I actually don't care how much coverage Gopher football gets as long as they have some actual facts to back it up. If they did that, they could be as negative as they want and I wouldn't have a problem.
 



tikited said:
What's your address?:cool:
Click to expand...

tikited-so what did you say to piss off danny boy? Whatever it was keep it up. My opinion of you is highly.....well...higher!

I can't stang that smug SOB. He acts like we're the only state that pulls for local players and the local teams.
 


nasa35 said:
tikited-so what did you say to piss off danny boy? Whatever it was keep it up. My opinion of you is highly.....well...higher!

I can't stang that smug SOB. He acts like we're the only state that pulls for local players and the local teams.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming my calling him a lier was what got me called-out! I like to think it was a team effort overall..
 

I got around to listening to Barreiro's "ripping" of this website this morning. Dan argued that people from this website simply want more Gopher football coverage and its not going to happen in a competitive sports market when the team is not any good. He also said that people from this website want to hear "sugar" i.e. that the team is better than it is, things are looking up etc,etc. Dan also mad some remarks about people using monikers and how lame that was (as if that was not something that was the norm on every message board).

I agree with Dan that expecting more coverage of the Gopher football program is not realistic. The Twin Cities is a competitive market and a lot of time won't be spent on a losing/poor program.

I disagree that more coverage is what posters from the GopherHole want from KFAN. As Mr. Royston pointed out, it's informed coverage that many of us want.

Dan made the point that fans here blame KFAN for the programs struggles and how "ridiculous" that was. I do not listen to KFAN often, but when I do, there is a mocking tone taking towards Gopher football that IS destructive on some level. How destructive? That's up for debate. Even if it only has a 1% impact on the program as far as turning potential fans/recruits off, a Minnesota sports station should not be a net negative for the University of Minnesota football program. I don't want "rah rah ski u mah". The last thing I want is to hear that 6-6 is acceptable, much less a good season. What I don't want to hear is a mocking, sarcastic take that makes weak minded listeners feel stupid for paying attention to/supporting Gopher football.

An example of being not informed on Gopher football was Dan's sarcastic take on Gopher recruiting the past couple years not living up to the hype when Brewster was hired. I think most Gopher fans were very happy with the 2009 class which featured Carter, Alipate, Hageman, and several other players who never would have been Gophers under Glen Mason. So Dan's recruiting take was both negative and uninformed.
Click to expand...

This was very well stated. I, too, have never had a big problem with the amount of coverage they have had on Gopher football (...considering the popularity of the Vikings in this town right now, and also that they are the Vikings station the Vikings typically play a day after the Gophers and are likely to be more on the mind of fans come Monday anyway). However, their coverage has been pretty weak in terms of analysis and insight (...I will give P.A. the most credit here for effort, even if the execution could be improved upon).

However, it is the overwhelmingly negative, sarcastic, smug comments and slants from some of their on-air personalities that I cannot stand. Moreover, lately it seems Barreiro has been on a personal vendetta against Brewster.

The best example I can think was several weeks ago when Huff decommitted. Barreiro first reported that "Eric Stephens" decommitted from the 'U' to Texas Tech. Later, after a commercial, when I am sure fans emailed them the right information, Barreiro then stated they had the wrong player and that it was actually Huff who had decommitted, and that Eric Stephens was evidently a decommit from last years class (...rest assured, said in a self-pleasing manner, as if there were two decommits). I'd like to think if they were reporting on something that took place last year as recent news and had to be corrected by listeners, they would be absolutely embarrassed, but it just came out as another rip on the program. It's left me thinking it is Barreiro who wants 'bobos' for fans who will just mindlessly listen to the same hatchet jobs day after day.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom