Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[GoBulls84]

I think the issue with the Times is this: we were spoiled with Auman. Like, ridiculously spoiled. The man was one of the very best at what he does, as exhibited by the fact that he now writes for a publication/company that people are more than willing to pay a subscription for (I gladly put up the $50 or $60 or whatever it is for the quality writing). I don't remember exactly when Joey Knight took over, but it was pretty much square in the middle of our first nose dive. There's no positive spin to it and the combination of him reporting on a tail-spinning program and not being Greg Auman left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouth. Add to it that Martin Fennelly is a complete assbag who was incapable of saying anything positive because he felt that the important thing was to generate rage clicks and basically the entire fanbase turned on the Times. Now we've got Matt Baker, who is the state beat reporter because not enough people are paying to justify individual team coverage. I can see why some people hate on Matt. He can be sarcastic, isn't afraid to take pot shots, isn't afraid to sh!+-stir (as exhibited by the stadium story last week), but he does occasionally put something together worth reading.

TL;DR We were spoiled with Auman, the new guys have come along since we took a downturn, and nobody is as good as Auman

[NewEnglandBull]

15 minutes ago, puc86 said:

I’m not necessarily talking about that I’m talking about their general interactions and the tone of the reporting, the relationship was hostile long before McMurphy decided to kill that kid. 

I disagree I still remember the column by McMurphy after we beat Pitt and Auburn. Just a point of note, I have not a big fan of McMurphy at all he’s not the one who is on Twitter today. He does have an edge for sure. 

[NewEnglandBull]

16 minutes ago, Brad said:

Everyone's default response on this.  I simply said I would pay more for a Bianchi.  A guy that pushed positive press.  Anyone in their right mind would.  I don't want a ********.  With a choice I'll take someone that stands in support, not someone who wants to "piss and whine" about things.

 

I guess my point is the media is a reflection of where the program is. Would I like more positive press? For sure, but that means the football team needs to do more on the field. Joey was the biggest cheerleader for Q when he was here and the team won games. Now, Joey talk about attendance at the same time? Yes, but that was because it was relevant to our support in the community and consequently a change in Conference. He did take a big dig at the attendance on Q’s senior night…which was more than warranted.

[NewEnglandBull]

20 minutes ago, GoBulls84 said:

I'd argue CJL was fired more for what he did after the story broke than for what was reported on.

Well that is indeed fair, and I agree in part. It was, from the legal statement, the fruit from the poisonous tree.

[NewEnglandBull]

12 minutes ago, E.T. said:

I heard from a few local sports reporters and they heard of the story and didn't see the need to pursue . . . McMurphy did see the need. Wasn't for an axe to grind or just get his name out there more?

Don't Not Know . . . I've moooved on long ago.

Still a HUGE Jim Leavitt Fan!

And I think this whole discussion and outrage at the media in general is predicated on what happened to Jim Leavitt. Many on this board have not gotten over it and are making others in the media pay for it. Thus, I appreciate that you have moved on. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by NewEnglandBull

[Mission9]

49 minutes ago, Brad said:

Everyone's default response on this.  I simply said I would pay more for a Bianchi.  A guy that pushed positive press.  Anyone in their right mind would.  I don't want a ********.  With a choice I'll take someone that stands in support, not someone who wants to "piss and whine" about things.

 

From what I have seen, Bianchi was also not afraid to be critical of UCF football when he felt necessary.  It is not as if he were merely a cheerleader. 

[Brad]

We're way off topic here and again this should be its own topic.

@NewEnglandBull, I don't think anyone is talking about the Bulls treatment this fine Thursday morning.  No, it's the duration of the program by some (Tribune).  Even in good times, aka the awful plateau of 8 or 9 wins.

Naivete is speaking loudly in many of these posts.  NEB, you don't remember the claims of racist behavior in the program (made by McMurphy)?  There was a vendetta.  Only those willingly naïve could not or cannot now see it.

The story took three weeks to break.  Whenever have you heard of such a thing for such an alleged act?  

29 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

And I think this whole discussion and outrage at the media in general is predicated on what happened to Jim Leavitt. Many on this board have not gotten over it and are making others in the media pay for it. Thus, I appreciate that you have moved on. 

Another incorrect assumption.

[Mission9]

41 minutes ago, GoBulls84 said:

I think the issue with the Times is this: we were spoiled with Auman. Like, ridiculously spoiled. The man was one of the very best at what he does, as exhibited by the fact that he now writes for a publication/company that people are more than willing to pay a subscription for (I gladly put up the $50 or $60 or whatever it is for the quality writing). I don't remember exactly when Joey Knight took over, but it was pretty much square in the middle of our first nose dive. There's no positive spin to it and the combination of him reporting on a tail-spinning program and not being Greg Auman left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouth. Add to it that Martin Fennelly is a complete assbag who was incapable of saying anything positive because he felt that the important thing was to generate rage clicks and basically the entire fanbase turned on the Times. Now we've got Matt Baker, who is the state beat reporter because not enough people are paying to justify individual team coverage. I can see why some people hate on Matt. He can be sarcastic, isn't afraid to take pot shots, isn't afraid to sh!+-stir (as exhibited by the stadium story last week), but he does occasionally put something together worth reading.

TL;DR We were spoiled with Auman, the new guys have come along since we took a downturn, and nobody is as good as Auman

It seems like every time this issue pops up, I have to repeat myself.  No, we do not want a cheerleader.  We want someone who objectively reports on the program and avoids making snide remarks given that we have committed the ultimate sin of not being in the SEC longer than we have all been alive. 

[Mission9]

3 hours ago, Jim Johnson said:

This.

Plus Bianchi was a columnist not a reporter.  He doesn't "cover" UCF.  You should not compare McMurphy / Auman / Knight / Baker to Bianchi.

That said - Queston for @Brad -- How does the Arizona Republic cover ASU? It's a "major sports market" -- do their columnists always pimp the Sun Devils?

 

Jim, I lived in Arizona many many years ago but can say that ASU is the most popular program in that state.  It is really hard to compare their coverage to USF coverage given that fact.  

[Triple B]

35 minutes ago, GoBulls84 said:

I think the issue with the Times is this: we were spoiled with Auman. Like, ridiculously spoiled. The man was one of the very best at what he does, as exhibited by the fact that he now writes for a publication/company that people are more than willing to pay a subscription for (I gladly put up the $50 or $60 or whatever it is for the quality writing). I don't remember exactly when Joey Knight took over, but it was pretty much square in the middle of our first nose dive. There's no positive spin to it and the combination of him reporting on a tail-spinning program and not being Greg Auman left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouth. Add to it that Martin Fennelly is a complete assbag who was incapable of saying anything positive because he felt that the important thing was to generate rage clicks and basically the entire fanbase turned on the Times. Now we've got Matt Baker, who is the state beat reporter because not enough people are paying to justify individual team coverage. I can see why some people hate on Matt. He can be sarcastic, isn't afraid to take pot shots, isn't afraid to sh!+-stir (as exhibited by the stadium story last week), but he does occasionally put something together worth reading.

TL;DR We were spoiled with Auman, the new guys have come along since we took a downturn, and nobody is as good as Auman

An excellent take on this. Auman was great, big shoes to fill, with JK coming in at a bad time programwise. The ******** attendance obsession he had for awhile has forever negatively tainted some's view on him and I get it. I don't think it's a coincidence that some that hold this view on the Times are the same that still begrudge CWT leaving, doing the same thing 99.% of us would have done. Their views on some things USF related are a bit colored.