The dust has settled

Donate To GopherHole
Schnauzer

Schnauzer

Pretty Sure You are Wrong
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
6,362
Reaction score
2,935
Points
113
Well, it has now been nearly a month since the Outback Bowl. I have rewatched it too many times to admit to even my fellow readers of Gopherhole, let alone "normal" people. Despite how many times I have watched it, I am still amazed at how spectacular that game was for the Gophers. Don't need to rehash the play by play with a bunch of people that know exactly what I am talking about. Total domination, both sides of the ball.

However, the more I watch it, the more the ESPN commentary of the game annoys me.

The crew was Jason Benetti (play-by-play) Rod Gilmore (analyst) Quint Kessenich (sideline). I haven't minded the guys in the booth (Benetti and Gilmore) in the past and enjoyed them doing the Maryland game this past season and Wisconsin game last year. Benetti was still generally okay for the bowl but Kessenich and particularly Gilmore has me clawing at my own ears.

The patronizing comments, the way they generally treated the matchup like it was Bloomington Kennedy vs the 49ers, and the constant flow of SEC propaganda gets continually more obvious and annoying the more I rewatch the game. All the SEC stereotypes are on full display with Gilmore. SEC speed, patronizing repeated comments about "Auburn wants to be here", and assumptions Auburn simply had to be the best team and defense the Gophers had seen because, you know, SEC!
 

Easier said than done, but I've come to just accept that type of stuff, and not let it bother me so much. Annoying and stupid, sure, but I think commentators are still new to this Minnesota relevance thing, just as we are.
 

The Auburn wants to be here stuff is actually a compliment to us.

SEC and ESPN have been in bed together for a long time. And as far as the game was concerned Auburn was a fairly significant favorite so I am sure they went into it thinking the game was going to go much differently then it did.
 

I wonder if there's a way to really quantify media bias in a game. Seems like we remember statements about other teams a lot more than positive statements about our own team.

Also, saying "Auburn wants to be here" as they are getting beat. I take that as a positive comment for the Gophers.

I think quantifying the bias would be difficult unless you log each comment and then have a group of people score whether you feel that was a positive statement towards your team or if it sounded like a sarcastic or patronizing.
 

I thought they were fine and as the game went on were more and more complementary towards the Gophers.

The comments about Auburn were to indicate that the Gophers were beating a motivated Auburn team and head off any "well they didn't want to be there" / explaining away what was happening. That's not a bad thing.

The only thing I kinda didn't like was that they were pretty easy going on the refs when there were some BRUTAL missed calls (not the worst reffing but a few sucked ass) and the whole clock not starting during plays randomly they didn't notice.... like guies.

But they did get excited and praise the Gophers when they made plays / knew the playmakers and etc.
 
Last edited:


I‘m pretty sure if Reusse himself had been in the booth throwing out backhanded compliments some aren’t going to let it ruin the game for them. The coverage from the booth to the cameras to the guys in the truck failing to run replays were bad, period. Perhaps...my expectations have become too high or I’ve become easily triggered.
 

Wasn't nearly as bad as that game the gopher played about 10 years ago against Syracuse. Not sure how many times they mentioned that Greg Paulus played for Duke but it had to be 50-60 times.

There was no football talk the whole game just Paulus Duke talk.
 

The quality of the announcers wasn't good, but that doesn't shock me. For how much money football makes, it is simply amazing how bad the average announcing team seems to be and how all they can do is talk about basic narratives/story-lines all day.
 

A note on the "Auburn wants to be here" thing. On the surface it seems like a compliment. But, going to that card again and again became overtly patronizing. If Gilmore has to remind us every 10 minutes that Auburn wants to be here, it is continually hammering home the amazement that another power five team can beat an SEC team, and it also keeps reminding the audience that a mighty SEC team might have a reason to not care, being matched up against a lowly squad from another conference. In the Bigger 10 podcast the week after the game, they pointed out the same thing and the first couple times I rewatched the game I didn't necessarily agree with them. But, on further viewings my opinion changed. It was mentioned waaaaaay too much and it was quite simply: Patronizing.

Did the announcers of the USC/Iowa game remind the audience every 10 minutes that USC wanted to be there? Was there a need to tell the audience of Utah's bowl game that Utah wanted to be there?
 
Last edited:



Schnauzer said:
A note on the "Auburn wants to be here" thing. On the surface it seems like a compliment. But, going to that card again and again became overtly patronizing. If Gilmore has to remind us every 10 minutes that Auburn wants to be here, it is continually hammering home the amazement that another power five team can beat an SEC team, and it also keeps reminding the audience that a mighty SEC team might have a reason to not care, being matched up against a lowly squad from another conference. In the Bigger 10 podcast the week after the game, they pointed out the same thing and the first couple times I rewatched the game I didn't necessarily agree with them. But, on further viewings my opinion changed. It was mentioned waaaaaay too much and it was quite simply: Patronizing.
Click to expand...
I think you're reading too much into it. They repeated themselves, but that's just more of a "not great broadcaster" thing, not some intentional effort to be patronising. I think it was quite the opposite.
 

Gilmore seems to be legitimately losing it. He should be evaluated.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I think you're reading too much into it. They repeated themselves, but that's just more of a "not great broadcaster" thing, not some intentional effort to be patronising. I think it was quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

I disagree. When you combine the fact it was brought up repeatedly, and combine that with Gilmore's wacky statements about MN players being heros for generations at future reunions - it all combined to be quite patronizing. It was Gilmore in particular.
 

Schnauzer said:
I disagree. When you combine the fact it was brought up repeatedly, and combine that with Gilmore's wacky statements about MN players being heros for generations at future reunions - it all combined to be quite patronizing. It was Gilmore in particular.
Click to expand...
Man I duno.

Like the things you're describing are nice things ...
 



I agree with Schnauzer on this one. It struck me as patronizing, along the lines of "No ladies and gentlemen, you REALLY are seeing what you think you're seeing. The lowly Gophers really are beating the Auburn Tigers who emerged from on high out of their magnificent graciousness to play a team so obviously beneath them. It's not your imagination, and you're not seeing things!"
 


I read an interesting article in the Mobile Press Register about the merits of Kevin Steele, the DC at Auburn. He just signed a 2.5 million dollar contract becoming the highest paid assistant coach. The article expounded on his defense, limiting LSU (Burrow) to 1 TD pass, limiting Alabama, etc.. but not one mention, no sir not one mention of the bowl game. It’s as if Auburn didn’t play the Gophers.
 

Yup, it was a very pleasant and entertaining game to watch.

The sportscasters at the start of the game make me feel like it was in the bag that Auburn will win.
 

You Have to remember that on Jan1 ABC/ESPN aired 4 games. The Outback Bowl had to have crew number 4. Letting the quality of the announce team affect your enjoyment of the game is silly. They could have used the Aggievision crew and it would not have ruined that game for me. The finale of an 11 win season will always be one of the greatest memories I have as a Gopher fan.
 

I get where you or anyone else might be upset as lets face it were were homers meaning a bit bias as to what was said. If the announcers would have said that Auburn didn't want to be hear then that explains why the Gophers took charge of the game. Instead the Gophers beat a good Auburn team that wanted to be there.

Time to watch the game again!
 

Everything ESPN has done in recent years has gone downhill. I remember a couple of years ago they made up nicknames for Smith and Brooks and only referred to them by the nicknames all game. Their bowl selection show is horrible with 75% of the time spent on 4 teams with an hour for the other 70 bowl teams. Completely missing a touchdown still feels like a new low for them though. Too worried about commercials to actually show the game.
 

I get it, it can be annoying, but sometimes you got to let it go

It wasn't nearly as bad as twins/yankees where Costas was openly rooting for yankees
 

GoGophersUMN said:
Everything ESPN has done in recent years has gone downhill. I remember a couple of years ago they made up nicknames for Smith and Brooks and only referred to them by the nicknames all game. Their bowl selection show is horrible with 75% of the time spent on 4 teams with an hour for the other 70 bowl teams. Completely missing a touchdown still feels like a new low for them though. Too worried about commercials to actually show the game.
Click to expand...

That was VERY annoying.
 

GoGophersUMN said:
Everything ESPN has done in recent years has gone downhill. I remember a couple of years ago they made up nicknames for Smith and Brooks and only referred to them by the nicknames all game. Their bowl selection show is horrible with 75% of the time spent on 4 teams with an hour for the other 70 bowl teams. Completely missing a touchdown still feels like a new low for them though. Too worried about commercials to actually show the game.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that was just the fault of the TV guy on the field that tells the refs when it's okay to start play again. He's usually the guy with a big glove on that holds his arm up until it's time to start play again. Or the refs just ignored him for some reason. I believe the play was missed live on Gophers radio as well.
 

BroncoRedux said:
That was VERY annoying.
Click to expand...

GophersInIowa said:
I'm guessing that was just the fault of the TV guy on the field that tells the refs when it's okay to start play again. He's usually the guy with a big glove on that holds his arm up until it's time to start play again. Or the refs just ignored him for some reason. I believe the play was missed live on Gophers radio as well.
Click to expand...

A comment I saw on Reddit from a user at the game said that the refs just ignored the TV guy. Apparently he was still on the field and started jumping up and down and waving his arms to get the refs' attention when they started to get everything ready to start the play. 100% the fault of the refs at the game, and not ESPN or the radio announcers (who likely use the same signal to know when play is about to start again).
 

Taji34 said:
A comment I saw on Reddit from a user at the game said that the refs just ignored the TV guy. Apparently he was still on the field and started jumping up and down and waving his arms to get the refs' attention when they started to get everything ready to start the play. 100% the fault of the refs at the game, and not ESPN or the radio announcers (who likely use the same signal to know when play is about to start again).
Click to expand...
Yeah that makes sense.
 

The one that got me was their description of TJs TD catch in the back of the end zone. The words were okay, but just they way they described it... "no way he got that foot down" or "that would have been a great catch" followed by a realization that it was indeed a TD. It was almost like they were in shock, and not happy about it. I also didn't feel like there was enough recognition that the Gophers, despite a tight game on the scoreboard, were thoroughly dominating this beloved SEC team. I mean stat-wise this was a complete a$$ pounding. Not some sort of upstart team getting kind of lucky to even be in the game.
 
Last edited:


I didn't want to deal with watching/hearing promo after promo for the Rose Bowl, or SEC announcers, so we synced our TV and listened to Grimm and Thompson. It was very enjoyable.
 

On the "wants to be here" deal. Fair or not, there is a perception that the Playoff system has made the 'other' bowl games irrelevant. So, if a high-profile team does not make the playoffs, and winds up in one of the 'other' bowls, they may be tempted to phone it in because, in their eyes, the game doesn't really count if they're not in the playoff system.

that, in turn, has made the 'other' bowls really touchy about the notion that they are staging meaningless games in which the teams don't really care.

so, I am willing to bet that the bowls have STRONGLY impressed on their broadcast partners the need to tell the listeners that they are watching a really good game that matters and the players are really excited - even if it's not part of the playoffs and the players are not in line for the National Championship.

In other words, I think Gilmore was following the script to keep the bowl sponsors happy.
 

Since 2000, the SEC has won 11 national championships. LSU, Alabama, Auburn and Florida all have at least one. The B1G has won 2, both by Ohio St. The ACC has 4: 2 by Clemson, 1 by Florida St, and 1 by Miami. The Pac-12 has 2 and the Big 12 has 1.

So the SEC has more national championships than all of the other conferences combined. If you don't want to hear SEC bias, there's a simple solution: beat them more and win more national championships than they do. When that happens, the perception will "rightfully" change.

www.ncaa.com

College football championship history

Here is a comprehensive list of every college football champion from 1869 to the present day.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom