Indispensable NCAA Players: Gardner

[brewcity77]

ESPN is ranking college basketball's 10 most indispensable players. Was pleasantly surprised to see Gardner listed. With all the preseason recognition he's getting, he could end up on quite a few All-American lists by the time the year is done if he can play consistently well. Anyway...here's the link if you want to vote him up.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/9506647/indispensable-ncaa-hoops-players

[Spotcheck Billy]

Come on scoopers, get out the vote! DG barely has 200 1st place votes so far

[barfolomew]

So who has my "I Voted" sticker?

[MUMonster03]

So who has my "I Voted" sticker?

That would require me to go to ESPN's website and not Fox Sports, which I now try to frequent more often.

[bilsu]

I cannot help thinking that Jamil Wilson is more indispensable than Gardner.

[Galway Eagle]

Isn't this pretty old? I feel like I commented on it awhile ago.

[Spotcheck Billy]

good catch, it was posted July 24th

Isn't this pretty old? I feel like I commented on it awhile ago.

[brewcity77]

Weird...just saw it on the NCAA Men's front page today.

[The Equalizer]

ESPN is ranking college basketball's 10 most indispensable players. Was pleasantly surprised to see Gardner listed. With all the preseason recognition he's getting, he could end up on quite a few All-American lists by the time the year is done if he can play consistently well. Anyway...here's the link if you want to vote him up.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/9506647/indispensable-ncaa-hoops-players

I guess this is another one of those attempts by ESPN to marginalize the NBE and paint us as mid-Majors--why else would they list a couple of our guys alongside  Andrew Wiggins, Russ Smith and Mitch McGary.

[forgetful]

Weird...just saw it on the NCAA Men's front page today.

Media these days love to take the same articles, apply a new catch phrase and reuse articles about a month later.  They really don't care if you read the article once you realize you've seen it before, they just want the hits.

[brewcity77]

I guess this is another one of those attempts by ESPN to marginalize the NBE and paint us as mid-Majors--why else would they list a couple of our guys alongside  Andrew Wiggins, Russ Smith and Mitch McGary.

I'm not going to bother. You're just being a troll, which has pretty much become your schtick, you just draw the posts out to try to make them seem legit. Doesn't change that trolling is trolling.

[The Equalizer]

I'm not going to bother. You're just being a troll, which has pretty much become your schtick, you just draw the posts out to try to make them seem legit. Doesn't change that trolling is trolling.

In other words, because I dared to point out that contrary to your pet theory ESPN is clearly NOT trying to marginalize the NBE in every article, that somehow makes me a troll?   

Instead of resorting to name calling, why didn't you try to back up your claim and explain how I missed the point of how this article marginalizes the NBE and paints the league as mid-majors?

Maybe, the reason is because this article (as well as the other one today) shows that ESPN is doing no such thing.

If ESPN was trying to marginalize the Big East and paint the league as a bunch of mid-majors in every post, they wouldn't positively feature McDermott and Gardner in an article of the NCAA's most indespensible players.

[brewcity77]

In other words, because I dared to point out that contrary to your pet theory ESPN is clearly NOT trying to marginalize the NBE in every article, that somehow makes me a troll?   

Instead of resorting to name calling, why didn't you try to back up your claim and explain how I missed the point of how this article marginalizes the NBE and paints the league as mid-majors?

Maybe, the reason is because this article (as well as the other one today) shows that ESPN is doing no such thing.

If ESPN was trying to marginalize the Big East and paint the league as a bunch of mid-majors in every post, they wouldn't positively feature McDermott and Gardner in an article of the NCAA's most indespensible players.

You are completely full of crap as usual. The mention of a player or two does not change the general tone that has gone on in articles and broadcasts for the past 6-8 months. If you are too blind to see that the focus from ESPN about our league has constantly been on what is it not (the old Big East) rather than what it is (a solid top-5 league going forward) then I don't know what to tell you.

Do you really believe the mother ship is some wondrous impartial news outlet free from agenda? If so, that's as asinine as it is stupid. You probably pretend Fox News, MSNBC, and even FS1 are agenda free too (did you see all the UFC coverage from FS1 on Saturday into Sunday airing of Fox Sports News?).

Trolling from the bushes with one minor point does not change that ever since this league was announced does not change that ESPN has painted it with a mid-major brush since the start and will continue to do so because THEY ARE A BUSINESS and have operated as such for ages. In the past they promoted leagues and sports that served their interests (Tebow, X Games) while reducing the priority of of leagues and sports (last year's Mountain West, decreased NHL coverage) that didn't.

Regardless, blather on and pontificate all you like. I'm done with you and your incessant trolling tendencies. I have better things to do in my life than read your smarmy, condescending, one-sided posts. Ignored.

[muwarrior97]

Get Buckets Get Votes.....#297, I voted 

[The Equalizer]

You are completely full of crap as usual. The mention of a player or two does not change the general tone that has gone on in articles and broadcasts for the past 6-8 months. If you are too blind to see that the focus from ESPN about our league has constantly been on what is it not (the old Big East) rather than what it is (a solid top-5 league going forward) then I don't know what to tell you.

Do you really believe the mother ship is some wondrous impartial news outlet free from agenda? If so, that's as asinine as it is stupid. You probably pretend Fox News, MSNBC, and even FS1 are agenda free too (did you see all the UFC coverage from FS1 on Saturday into Sunday airing of Fox Sports News?).

Trolling from the bushes with one minor point does not change that ever since this league was announced does not change that ESPN has painted it with a mid-major brush since the start and will continue to do so because THEY ARE A BUSINESS and have operated as such for ages. In the past they promoted leagues and sports that served their interests (Tebow, X Games) while reducing the priority of of leagues and sports (last year's Mountain West, decreased NHL coverage) that didn't.

Regardless, blather on and pontificate all you like. I'm done with you and your incessant trolling tendencies. I have better things to do in my life than read your smarmy, condescending, one-sided posts. Ignored.

In the last day you and I have butted heads on two articles posted here--neither of which made any sort of attempt to marginalize the NBE as a mid-major league, and both of which can only be considered positive for the league and Marquette.

I know from past posts that you tend to be pretty thin skinned about having any of your ideas questioned. I suspect that you're equally thin skinned about any ESPN article or story that isn't 100% boosterism.

The bottom line here is that ESPN didn't marginalize the BE in their recent post about the best Xs and Os coaches.

• They didn't do it in their recent article about about the best recruiters. 
• They didn't do it in thier recent article on the best at developing talent. 
• They didn't do it in their article about the most dispensible players.
• They didn't do it in their articles highligting the upcoming Wooden Classic.
  
• They didn't do it in their articles annoucing the commitments from Malik Harris or Sandy Cohen

So, no, there isn't evidence to support your claim of widespread attempts by ESPN to disparage the NBE.   At worst, even if you bothered to find some less than flattering article, all it would show is that they're not 100% boosters of the NBE--but that wasn't really your argument, was it? 

[Pakuni]

I think the people at NHL headquarters would have a thing or two to say about ESPN's treatment of leagues to which it doesn't hold the rights.

When ESPN held the league's rights, not only did hockey get substantial coverage on Sportscenter, the network had a nightly show (NHL2Night) dedicated to the league. That show, coincidentally, was dropped when the NHL sold its rights to NBC.

Nowadays, the NHL goes virtually unnoticed by ESPN.
According to the Deadspin story linked below, Sportscenter gave the entire NHL got a total of 459 minutes of coverage on Sportscenter in 2012. That's less than half what just the Miami Heat got.

http://deadspin.com/what-i-learned-from-a-year-of-watching-sportscenter-5979510

A cynic might suggest ESPN's lack of hockey coverage could have something to do with the fact that the sport is now carried by a competitor.

[Lennys Tap]

I think the people at NHL headquarters would have a thing or two to say about ESPN's treatment of leagues to which it doesn't hold the rights.

When ESPN held the league's rights, not only did hockey get substantial coverage on Sportscenter, the network had a nightly show (NHL2Night) dedicated to the league. That show, coincidentally, was dropped when the NHL sold its rights to NBC.

Nowadays, the NHL goes virtually unnoticed by ESPN.
According to the Deadspin story linked below, Sportscenter gave the entire NHL got a total of 459 minutes of coverage on Sportscenter in 2012. That's less than half what just the Miami Heat got.

http://deadspin.com/what-i-learned-from-a-year-of-watching-sportscenter-5979510

A cynic might suggest ESPN's lack of hockey coverage could have something to do with the fact that the sport is now carried by a competitor.

SJS's explanation should be interesting.

[ATL MU Warrior]

SJS's explanation should be interesting.

I'll summarize.  Nobody gives a sh!t about hockey.  That was easy.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I would have thought certain lottery pick Mitch McGary would be the most indispensable player on the list.

For me, I voted McDermott.  They lose him, they are toast.  MU loses DG, not good but not toast either.

[Pakuni]

I'll summarize.  Nobody gives a sh!t about hockey.  That was easy.

Nope, nobody at all.

[bilsu]

I would have thought certain lottery pick Mitch McGary would be the most indispensable player on the list.

For me, I voted McDermott.  They lose him, they are toast.  MU loses DG, not good but not toast either.

I also voted for McDermott. Jamil Wilson is more indispensible than Gardner. Gardner is more fun to watch.

[Sunbelt15]

I also voted for McDermott. Jamil Wilson is more indispensible than Gardner. Gardner is more fun to watch.

The best jump shooter will be the more indispensable because we seem to not have one RIGHT NOW! At least a proven one.

[Lennys Tap]

I would have thought certain lottery pick Mitch McGary would be the most indispensable player on the list.

Mitch was a certain lottery pick in last year's draft, one whose weakness led you (illogically) to excuse the epic failure of a team with 2 top 5 picks. I don't think anyone has him pegged a certain lottery pick in this year's stacked class, though it's quite possible.

[MarquetteDano]

I guess this is another one of those attempts by ESPN to marginalize the NBE and paint us as mid-Majors--why else would they list a couple of our guys alongside  Andrew Wiggins, Russ Smith and Mitch McGary.

Your use of the term "us" is disingenuous to say the least.

[MU82]

Nope, nobody at all.

A team wins a championship and a million people -- 980,000 of whom couldn't name 2 Blackhawks before the 2010 title team -- come out to the rally. That proves nothing. Oh, and my son, a huge Blackhawks fan (when the team wins) was at that rally.

I agree ESPN has given the NHL short shrift. But do folks here really think  American sports fans care more about hockey than about LeBron James and the Heat? Come on. The Heat have become the Yankees/Duke/ND of the NBA. Lots of people love 'em and lots of people hate 'em, but most sports fans have an opinion of 'em.

I like hockey, but it really still is a niche sport, very local in its fanbases. Frankly, I was always surprised when ESPN dedicated entire segments to Barry Melrose and Steve Levy.