Both points are correct.

 

I don't care about ESPN or what they have to say,  but there's a clear agenda, it's not something you need to spend time vetting.

 

If Manziel had his 60 yard on 11 throws performance here the talk would be about what a terrible team this is and how it will hold him back from being successful and how it's unfair to him.

 

Its not an agenda, its basic freaking business. Agenda says they all sit around twisting their mustaches in an evil way, plotting the downfall of the team.

 

ESPN covers the all 50 states and wants to appeal to as many of the good ol' fat, beer drinkin', fair weather, couch potato sports fans in America and the world beyond as possible. The Jaguars are a bad team, from a relatively small town, with no star players and who appeal to a relatively small number of people so the coverage of the team reflects that. Why the heck would ESPN or any national media service cover us over Jonny Manzeil, Michael Sam, or the Dallas Cowboys when they all appeal to a much bigger number of people?

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

 

 

Here is another basic truth: the NFL and the nation in general doesn't like it that we have a team in Jacksonville. They won't talk about Jacksonville unless they have to, and when they have to do it they'll be sure to frame it in the most negative way possible.

 

 

I've said this before, but then everyone bashes me for saying it. 

---

LOL....really?....

 

20 years isn't "relatively new", even for us/ Carolina. 

 

I wouldn't even say that the Texans were "relatively new" to the NFL at this point. 

 

 

Do you know what the word relative means?

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

Do you know what the word relative means?

 

Yep, and your comment was still a stupid one. 

 

Once a team has 2 decades under their belt it sounds [BLEEP] to label them "relatively new to the NFL". 

 

Even with only 10 years that comment would be on its last legs. 

---

Yep, and your comment was still a stupid one. 

 

Clearly you don't.

 

There are teams in the NFL that are over 100 years old. We would be 1/5 of that meaning 'relative' to teams like the Packers and Bears we are a young franchise.

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

Its not an agenda, its basic freaking business. Agenda says they all sit around twisting their mustaches in an evil way, plotting the downfall of the team.

 

ESPN covers the all 50 states and wants to appeal to as many of the good ol' fat, beer drinkin', fair weather, couch potato sports fans in America and the world beyond as possible. The Jaguars are a bad team, from a relatively small town, with no star players and who appeal to a relatively small number of people so the coverage of the team reflects that. Why the heck would ESPN or any national media service cover us over Jonny Manzeil, Michael Sam, or the Dallas Cowboys when they all appeal to a much bigger number of people?

 

You do understand what agenda actually means, don't you?

 

It's often used around here to refer to some kind of sinister intention of a poster, but it isn't inherently negative.


All of that now said, it's clear that the agenda for ESPN is to talk about the big markets and the popular heritage teams as much as possible and to ignore and denigrate the smaller markets when ignoring them isn't an option.

 

I don't really care about the media because the Jaguars can be good anyway, but I can just see the headline now if the Jaguars ever do win a Superbowl: "The Jaguars, worst Superbowl team ever?" where "How do the Jaguars rank among Superbowl winners" would work fine.

---

Clearly you don't.

 

There are teams in the NFL that are over 100 years old. We would be 1/5 of that meaning 'relative' to teams like the Packers and Bears we are a young franchise.

 

I know the textbook definition, thank you..

 

It still sounds really dumb and lame to still be referring to the Jaguars (or Panthers, or even Texans) as relatively new franchises. 

 

 

Good day, sir. 

---

I know the textbook definition, thank you..

 

It still sounds really dumb and lame to still be referring to the Jaguars (or Panthers, or even Texans) as relatively new franchises. 

 

 

Good day, sir. 

It's not dumb or lame because the newer franchises are still trying to develop a history, and the traditions that go along with that. 

 

As long as Jacksonville isn't winning titles, and they remain a relatively small market team, the media is going to pay them the minimum amount of attention because ratings tell them that's the way to go. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

 

Here is another basic truth: the NFL and the nation in general doesn't like it that we have a team in Jacksonville.

While I agree with the other assertions in your post, this broad sweeping generalization concerning a company with 1100 employees and a national fanbase of millions is definitely not a "basic truth."  That's putting words in a whole lot of mouths. 

---

While I agree with the other assertions in your post, this broad sweeping generalization concerning a company with 1100 employees and a national fanbase of millions is definitely not a "basic truth."  That's putting words in a whole lot of mouths. 

 

Yes, it is a sweeping generalization, which is why the words "in general" were included.

---

While I agree with the other assertions in your post, this broad sweeping generalization concerning a company with 1100 employees and a national fanbase of millions is definitely not a "basic truth."  That's putting words in a whole lot of mouths. 

Seriously.  The majority don't care one way or the other about a franchise existing in Jacksonville, but we need to have that sense that someone is out to get us in order to bolster the inferiority complex. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You do understand what agenda actually means, don't you?

 

It's often used around here to refer to some kind of sinister intention of a poster, but it isn't inherently negative.

All of that now said, it's clear that the agenda for ESPN is to talk about the big markets and the popular heritage teams as much as possible and to ignore and denigrate the smaller markets when ignoring them isn't an option.

 

I don't really care about the media because the Jaguars can be good anyway, but I can just see the headline now if the Jaguars ever do win a Superbowl: "The Jaguars, worst Superbowl team ever?" where "How do the Jaguars rank among Superbowl winners" would work fine.

 

 



a·gen·da
<span><span>[<span>uh-jen-duh</span>] <a class="" title="Click to show IPA">Show IPA</a> </span></span>
<span><span>noun </span></span><span><span><span>formally a plural of </span></span>, </span><span><span>agendum </span></span><span><span><span>but usually used as a singular with plural </span></span>, </span><span><span>a·gen·das </span></span><span><span><span>or </span></span> </span><span><span>a·gen·da. </span></span>
<div><span>a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.: </span><span><span>The chairman says we have a lengthy agenda this afternoon. </span></span>
 
</div>
 

'A clear agenda' as you put it suggests a group of executives at ESPN got together and one said 'You know what I think would be fun? Never talking about the Jacksonville Jaguars in a positive way. All in favor say aye'.

 

If by agenda you mean the executives at ESPN want to show content that gets them the most eye balls and therefore the most money, sure I agree. But that's not really same thing as actively trying harm teams like the Jaguars by either willfully ignoring them or only bashing them.

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

Yes, it is a sweeping generalization, which is why the words "in general" were included.

And it asserts that a giant number of people have something against Jacksonville having a team when the reality is  - you have no clue how they feel - and they likely don't care.

---

And it asserts that a giant number of people have something against Jacksonville having a team when the reality is  - you have no clue how they feel - and they likely don't care.

 

Quite right, I'm making sweeping generalizations based on what I've seen from people who actually voiced an opinion.

 

Why do you think this is worth noting?

---

 

Why do you think this is worth noting?

 

Because you claimed a half-cocked opinion as a "basic truth."   You do stuff like that often and it's annoying.  I thought you should realize your error. 

---

It's not dumb or lame because the newer franchises are still trying to develop a history, and the traditions that go along with that. 

 

As long as Jacksonville isn't winning titles, and they remain a relatively small market team, the media is going to pay them the minimum amount of attention because ratings tell them that's the way to go. 

 

So at what point does a franchise develop a history?

 

What constitutes history?

 

If relative/comparative age disparities between franchises justifies disparate coverage irrespective of merit, what are the implications? 

 

Should Detroit always be given more coverage than the Jaguars, even though they have had maybe 9 playoff appearances in the last 50 years?

 

Are Tampa fans more passionate than Jaguars fans, simply due to the age of the franchises?

 

If Cincinnati and Jacksonville won the Super Bowl in the next two seasons, should Cincy's Lombardi trophy be bigger than the Jaguars' due to age?  Should it count for more?

 

 

Seriously.  The majority don't care one way or the other about a franchise existing in Jacksonville, but we need to have that sense that someone is out to get us in order to bolster the inferiority complex. 

 

 

So observing a bias (real or perceived) is linked to inferiority complexes? That's quite the leap.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Because you claimed a half-cocked opinion as a "basic truth."   You do stuff like that often and it's annoying.  I thought you should realize your error. 

 

Okay, well let me make my reasoning clear, then.

 

The majority of people in general don't care. That is generally true for most things. Among NFL fans, most of them probably don't care, either. Among fans of other teams that do care, the feeling about the Jaguars and Jacksonville in general is we're a terrible fan base and our city doesn't deserve a team.

 

If there is any motivation regarding the Jaguars around the nation it's a negative one, so media outlets can't go wrong picking on the Jaguars. They know we're an easy butt for every joke, and the fans around the league don't object to the idea of the Jaguars being moved because they either don't care about us, or don't like us to begin with.

 

So I consider the overall sentiment to be negative. Take from it what you like.

---

Don't be worried about the lack of coverage. All that matters is what we see and the progress to be made. Once we start winning and shut every doubter up (which will take some time), we'll get the due coverage.

 

GO JAGS!!

---

Let's Get Em!!!! Go Jags!

So at what point does a franchise develop a history?

 

What constitutes history?

 

If relative/comparative age disparities between franchises justifies disparate coverage irrespective of merit, what are the implications? 

 

Should Detroit always be given more coverage than the Jaguars, even though they have had maybe 9 playoff appearances in the last 50 years?

 

Are Tampa fans more passionate than Jaguars fans, simply due to the age of the franchises?

 

If Cincinnati and Jacksonville won the Super Bowl in the next two seasons, should Cincy's Lombardi trophy be bigger than the Jaguars' due to age?  Should it count for more?

 

 

 

 

So observing a bias (real or perceived) is linked to inferiority complexes? That's quite the leap.

There's more to it than age, and you know that good and well.  When folks get upset because they perceive a slight by the media about this team, they seem to think media outlets are all about fair treatment for each franchise, and that's not the case.  It's about ratings, and when you happen to be fans of the smallest market franchise in the league with one of the shortest tenures in the NFL, and you've had limited success, particularly in the past decade or so, you should expect that major media outlets aren't going to care what's going on here.  Since the conglomerates pander to the larger media markets, the only; way we're ever going to break that trend is for this team to start winning, and developing a winning tradition that forces the media to pay attention. 

 

Not all large markets get a ton of coverage.  You mention Detroit.  They don't get a ton of media coverage unless something happens.  Even a team like Chicago doesn't get a ton of national coverage unless they're winning.  Everything in the media is driven by what they think will get them ratings, which is why there's such an obsession with Johnny Manziel.  So, sometimes less successful franchises definitely get preferential treatment if there's an angle there that the networks can exploit for ratings, or the online outlets can convert into clicks.  We see it all the time. 

 

I think many of our fans do indeed possess an inferiority complex when it comes to this team.  Otherwise we wouldn't have people starting threads all the time complaining about how we were slighted, or disrespected, or ignored by the ESPNs and NFL Networks of the world.  For most, they couldn't care less.  Goodness.  There was a 15+ page thread after the draft because Walter Football didn't like our picks.  People were that outraged about a website most have never been to having a negative impression of the draft for this team.  It has absolutely no bearing on anything other than the psyche of the fans. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

dang grow a pair op...

---