PA actually making effort to talk Gophers

Donate To GopherHole
dpodoll68 said:
Yes, great example. A city that has no Division I-A football within its borders (Rutgers does not count, as it is in New Jersey), and whose basketball programs have all sucked for the better part of two decades.

Great point.
Click to expand...

coming from a person who lived out there....YES IT DOES.
 


c'monman said:
re3886 said:
Please do not give examples like the Minnesota Thunder to validate your argument. Minnesota Gopher Basketball/Hockey gets plenty of air time on KFAN when they are relevant. Likewise, when Minnesota Football becomes relevant they will receive more air time.

Professional sports will ALWAYS be more relevant (as a whole) in this market so long as we have them here. Please see NYC as a prime example.
Click to expand...

True about pro sports here, it will stay number one here for a lot of reasons. There are places like LA, Dallas, Miami, Seattle, Atlanta etc. where college coverage more then holds it's own with the local pro teams.

The tone of the response and the constant ignorance of the original complaint makes me agree with Monk on the "groupie" thing. No matter how many times the KFAN Kool Aid drinkers come over here and say "you just want more coverage, but.." it, as usual misses the point.

Much like Barrerio and Common we don't WANT anymore (Gopher) sports talk on KFAN because, your cute headed little notions aside, more coverage ISN'T what we want. Spain's curse upon the America's, Mr. Barrerio said it best when he admitted wanting to see the Gophers "crushed". His (forced) apology wasn't really necessary, no one bought it anyway.

While you're probably right about the winning part; coverage during the week of the infamous Friday night Michigan game was good and the coverage after they went 7-1 in 2008 was pretty balanced, overall you miss the most basic point:

"KFAN, KFAN, KFAN we don't CARE about KFAN and there's nothing you can do to change that!"
Click to expand...
 

re3886 said:
that support your spurious premise....no thanks. You claimed that only winning is relevant, I proved that wrong. Now you expand it to mean pro sports matter all the time, no matter what and college doesn't when losing. Why? Just because you said so, I guess.
I don't think you have ever been to NYC,or listened to the radio there.
There are a lot of different options in Radio to listen to.
St. John's basketball receives a lot of coverage, winning or not.
Columbia gets coverage, and they haven't been important since somewhere around the turn of the last century. Rutgers has a media contract in NYC for sports, and did before they had some recent success. Do they talk college all the time? No, they don't, not even close. If someone calls in, they have at least a foundation of info, so not to come off as ignorant? Yes.
Do you want to limit this again to one particular station in NYC? you seem to move the target when it gets hit.
Click to expand...

College sports become irrelevant in major professional sports markets when they are losing....this is not even debatable.
 

c'monman said:
College sports become irrelevant in major professional sports markets when they are losing....this is not even debatable.
Click to expand...

Really? So you're telling me Chicago doesn't talk Notre Dame football when they're losing?

L.A. with USC and UCLA?

Houston with Texas football?

Seattle and Washington football?

I've never lived in any of these places, so I don't know from personal experience, but I find that impossible to believe.
 


dpodoll68 said:
Houston with Texas football?
Click to expand...

I can confirm that they talked college football. Its been too many moons to remember anyone but the Cougars that they talked about, since that was the time of Ware and Klinger, and the Air Attack at the Dome.
 


dpodoll68 said:
Really? So you're telling me Chicago doesn't talk Notre Dame football when they're losing?

L.A. with USC and UCLA?

Houston with Texas football?

Seattle and Washington football?

I've never lived in any of these places, so I don't know from personal experience, but I find that impossible to believe.
Click to expand...

Are you really telling me Seattle is a major sports city? They have two major sports teams. Additionally, if "losing" means being a top 25 team in the country year in and year out, then yes you are right.
 

c'monman said:
Are you really telling me Seattle is a major sports city? They have two major sports teams. Additionally, if "losing" means being a top 25 team in the country year in and year out, then yes you are right. It depends on how you define "losing".
Click to expand...

Nothing personal, but you make no sense.

And everything you are spouting off about has very little to do with the original discussion. Just stop reading and responding to this post.
 



wait!what? said:
PA is one of the better sports radio guys in town. Have you ever tried to listen to Mike Max? MM is awful.
Click to expand...

I'll take MM over any PA any day. PA is so uninformed it is pathetic, and no I am not refering to just Gopher sports.
 

c'monman said:
Are you really telling me Seattle is a major sports city? They have two major sports teams. Additionally, if "losing" means being a top 25 team in the country year in and year out, then yes you are right. It depends on how you define "losing".
Click to expand...

Attempt to invalidate one out of multiple points by quibbling over semantics. Whether you like it or not, Seattle is the #14 media market in the country. I don't know how you'd define it, but I'd call that "major" by any definition. If MSP, ranked lower than Seattle, is a "major media market" by your definition (which you've implied already), then Seattle certainly is. And they had 3 pro teams until very recently. Are you saying they don't talk about Washington football when they're losing? They didn't talk about Washington in 2008 when they were possibly the worst BCS team in history?

(P.S. In case you weren't aware, Texas, USC, and Notre Dame all lose. A lot. In fact, there are many seasons in which they lose more than they win. Sometimes, a lot more than they win.)

You, sir, are a master debater.
 

Unregistered User said:
Nothing personal, but you make no sense.

And everything you are spouting off about has very little to do with the original discussion. Just stop reading and responding to this post.
Click to expand...

nothing personal but if you cant differentiate what USC is to the general sports market vs gopher football, you live in lala land.
 

c'monman said:
Are you really telling me Seattle is a major sports city? They have two major sports teams. Additionally, if "losing" means being a top 25 team in the country year in and year out, then yes you are right.
Click to expand...

Well Seattle had 3 until a few years back. And Washington hasn't been in the top 25 in years.
 



c'monman said:
nothing personal but if you cant differentiate what USC is to the general sports market vs gopher football, you live in lala land.
Click to expand...

What's your point? That has nothing to do with what you stated.

c'monman said:
College sports become irrelevant in major professional sports markets when they are losing....this is not even debatable.
Click to expand...

I've given multiple points to prove that this is quite demonstrably wrong.

Do you really want to keep going with this? You are feebly attempting to punch well above your weight class. I feel like Rocky Marciano trying to take on Sugar Ray Robinson.
 


dpodoll68 said:
That they do or don't talk about it when Texas is losing?

(Not snarky, I seriously don't know.)
Click to expand...

Updated while you were posting since I realized I was vague. It is just a football driven culture, that there is always time to talk football.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom