Yeah, those guys do an hour show after every night of the season, and do numerous offseason podcasts and put out all sorts of other fun content that you can get for zero dollars if you choose (they charge for a couple things, like the Almanac).
For me, as a college hoops fan, I think it’s awesome! Even if I do often find Goodman annoying, and Dauster a bit abrasive, and even if they say things about UVa hoops that are negative,
For me, it’s roughly analogous to what we have with LRA – I love UVa hoops and college hoops and both have given me more ways to enjoy it, especially as more traditional media sources (local papers for UVa hoops, and ESPN for national college hoops) have mostly stopped covering college hoops (for ESPN, other than just broadcasting it).
Which reminds me – they do a (free!) newsletter every morning that covers the landscape of college hoops.
Maybe I’m just a nicer person than the rest of you curmudgeons (), but I am always surprised when people’s reactions to this stuff is “I don’t like hearing negative things about the team I like!” and not, “oh wow, thanks for allowing me to read and listen to all sorts of free content!”
I think he is fair about what he would like to see. Free flowing games with less contact from the defender. I think it misses part of what makes college basketball interesting, that lots of styles can produce success.
I think part of the problem with college basketball media today is there aren’t many fans anymore who really follow the game as a whole. It’s become more team oriented than ever with the rise of the internet and social media. People are more likely to spend their time on a website like this devoted entirely to their team than listening to a podcast that may mention them briefly.
So in order for these shows to get viewers they have to almost make outlandish statements about teams to get viewers from those fans. Rinse and repeat.
Good point. And as far as LRA is concerned not many national guys are gonna add much insight to Virginia Basketball for the smart people and Haney that follow the Hoos here
I think you’re right about websites like this changing the landscape. But I think it has the opposite effect, actually. I think the folks who post here have been far more negative and outlandish (at times) than either Goodman or Dauster. I bet I can pull up a dozen posts in the last two weeks alone that would make Dauster think, “Hey, maybe I’m going too easy on these guys.”
I’m reading this as “the smart people and the smartEST people”.
I’ll also add that the reason I think following the national stuff about UVa hoops is good is not that it adds insight (that you wouldn’t already get here or from being a super fan), it’s that it adds context. And to the get full context, you have to read/listen to the non-UVa stuff, too.
The interesting thing to me is the same doesn’t apply to college football. If you’re a football fan I bet you still regularly watch the big games each week with with national relevance or even just relevant to other conferences.
With hoops these days, I really doubt most fans can name more than 1 first team All-American. We might know who’s ranked where from the ESPN scroll and constant Joey Bracket updates but most of us really don’t know jack about teams outside the conference we follow.
I wonder how much of that is the difference in volume of games and relatedly having less clear TV windows of when the marquee games are going to be. I also think it could be reflective of less talent concentration in bball compared to football. Seems like you can watch like 10 college fb teams and see all the Heisman contenders and a fair percentage of the future NFL players in the college game.
I think you just described the 24-hour news cycle as a whole… you can’t be completely objective anymore on anything… you need to pick as side, cater the story to that bias and confirm a segment’s bias so those folks continue to listen to you.
If you stay completely objective in the middle… you anger both sides of a story and neither side listens to you again.
Yeah, I think it’s mostly volume. Volume of games involving relevant teams. Much lower in college football. Fewer relevant teams. Fewer relevant games involving those relevant teams.
I think a lot of the difference between football and basketball has to do with the postseasons. The football playoff has kept more teams alive later into the season, and each game was always more relevant anyway. And with football, people still care about conference titles and all that more. So it’s not all about the playoffs for every team.
Making everything about March Madness has cheapened the regular season product for basketball. It’s like somewhere along the way, the media realized hey people really like this NCAA Tournament stuff. So let’s just focus on that all year long. Since the best programs have the largest fan bases, most fans already know or assume their teams are in the tournament before the season starts. The regular season really isn’t that interesting to most people anymore.
Titus and Tate used to joke that college basketball season only started after the Super Bowl because that’s when average sports viewers would start paying attention.
Only difference though is that to hardcore fans, players, staff, etc the regular season is still meaningful. You know if someone can play, they will play. Can’t say the same about the NBA.
Field of 68 represents everything that is wrong with sports media nowadays, it’s just all viral takes and gambling ads/content. Ah so 5 months out from the season, Duke is #1 and no one else should even be in the conversation, got it…
), but I am always surprised when people’s reactions to this stuff is “I don’t like hearing negative things about the team I like!” and not, “oh wow, thanks for allowing me to read and listen to all sorts of free content!”