Sign Of The Times

How is this a bad thing? It ensures that game will be broadcast in HD and won't be preempted by mud slides, wildfires, actor strikes, Bronco chases, Tony Villar, Barack Obama press conferences, terrorism, or earthquakes. The only bad thing that could happen is that they assign the experimental ESPN female announcer to call the game. That would be a real kick in the nuts.

You're telling me you want to see the fat Song Girls in crystal clear HD? You would need a really widescreen TV to capture that.

Scott's title "Sign of the Times" is either his snide way of saying that the USC-ND game has less meaning than in the past or he is commenting on the proliferation of cable TV channels and ESPN's tremendous success over the past 20+ years.

I seriously doubt its the latter, since Scott never misses the opportunity to be negative and self-loathe. So, I agree with Bosco's read on Scott's post that its a bad thing that USC-ND game is being shown on ESPN, since Scott's mind interprets everything negatively.

Scott, since most major bowl games will be on ESPN starting in 2010, is this also a sign of the times (a bad thing)?

Where does he say it's a bad thing? I think he's just pointing out that the game now lacks the "star" quality it once had due to N.D.'s recent teams.

I can remember in the 80's when games from South Bend were radio only, thanks to SC's crappy teams.

ESPN isn't a downgrade from "Network TV". Everyone has it and it's the future of major sports on TV. Look at the new BCS TV contract.

Can't fault ABC for taking the Oklahoma-Oklahoma State game over ours. Our game SHOULD be a foregone conclusion where the other game has BCS implications.

I doubt the Oklahoma fans will have mass-produced banners of their score over Texas Tech.