South Carolina

[SCGamecock]

I dont understand this logic. They can claim the SEC will win every bowl, but if they go out there and lose every bowl it hurts the league's image, just like winning every bowl would only enhance the reputation. My point is that what actually happens on the field matters more than what some "analysts" say. The SEC winning the past 5(6 this year) national championships is why ESPN hypes up the league so much.

 

It's actually pretty simple logic. By pimping each and every SEC bowl 24/7, they get eyeballs to the games. They don't care as much if the SEC wins every game because they've already gotten paid via the TV ratings - although to continue to keep the brand viable, it behooves them to have the SEC win every game.

 

Further, by continually pumping sunshine about the SEC on their stations, it keeps the SEC as a desired destination fresh in the minds of all prospects, which essentially acts as a recruiting tool for the conference. You cannot deny that Bristol has a vested interest in the continued supremacy of the SEC.

 

My argument was that an analyst picking an SEC school to win their bowl game really doesnt do anything for the conference. Pimping the game itself is a different story. But arent they pimping out every game thats on ESPN?

 

The SEC is a desired spot for recruits because it is without a doubt the best conference in the nation. Recruits want to play the best competition, get to the NFL, and win championships. The SEC is the place to do that. Whatever ESPN says about the SEC is already known by the recruits.

[knapplc]

My argument was that an analyst picking an SEC school to win their bowl game really doesnt do anything for the conference. Pimping the game itself is a different story. But arent they pimping out every game thats on ESPN?

 

The SEC is a desired spot for recruits because it is without a doubt the best conference in the nation. Recruits want to play the best competition, get to the NFL, and win championships. The SEC is the place to do that. Whatever ESPN says about the SEC is already known by the recruits.

 

Both are true points, but neither point you're making means that ESPN doesn't profit by the SEC being a top conference, nor does either point mean that ESPN doesn't profit by having eyeballs watching SEC games. And the machine feeds itself when it continues to have top recruits go to SEC schools, which ESPN promotes. The SEC is not the only avenue to the NFL - heck, many 1AA programs send players to the NFL - but it's profitable for ESPN to perpetuate the belief that the best avenue to the NFL is via the SEC. And that cannot be denied.

[knapplc]

I don't get ESPN's supposed financial incentive for the SEC. CBS carries the main SEC game each week, not ABC/ESPN. Can't it just be that ESPN thinks the SEC teams are the best right now? As far as drawing eyes, wouldn't they be pimping teams in the largest markets, few of which are in the SEC?

 

You're not familiar with $2 billion dollar deal ESPN signed with the SEC?

[VA Husker Fan]

My argument was that an analyst picking an SEC school to win their bowl game really doesnt do anything for the conference. Pimping the game itself is a different story. But arent they pimping out every game thats on ESPN?

 

The SEC is a desired spot for recruits because it is without a doubt the best conference in the nation. Recruits want to play the best competition, get to the NFL, and win championships. The SEC is the place to do that. Whatever ESPN says about the SEC is already known by the recruits.

 

Both are true points, but neither point you're making means that ESPN doesn't profit by the SEC being a top conference, nor does either point mean that ESPN doesn't profit by having eyeballs watching SEC games. And the machine feeds itself when it continues to have top recruits go to SEC schools, which ESPN promotes. The SEC is not the only avenue to the NFL - heck, many 1AA programs send players to the NFL - but it's profitable for ESPN to perpetuate the belief that the best avenue to the NFL is via the SEC. And that cannot be denied.

I don't buy it. That sounds to me like you reached your own conclusion that ESPN is biased toward the SEC, and then made up (not very good) reasons why.

 

And if this were the case, don't you think there would be one or two analysts/announcers who left ESPN, maybe not on good terms, who would come out say that they were told to push SEC teams? Most of these guys have big egos, and some have a lot of money from the playing or coaching days. You think they're going to listen to a suit in marketing tell them what to say? No Freaking Way.

[knapplc]

I don't buy it. That sounds to me like you reached your own conclusion that ESPN is biased toward the SEC, and then made up (not very good) reasons why.

 

And if this were the case, don't you think there would be one or two analysts/announcers who left ESPN, maybe not on good terms, who would come out say that they were told to push SEC teams? Most of these guys have big egos, and some have a lot of money from the playing or coaching days. You think they're going to listen to a suit in marketing tell them what to say? No Freaking Way.

 

 

OK. ESPN doesn't have a $2 billion investment in the SEC, and ESPN wouldn't attempt to promote that investment whenever possible. Thanks for the correction.

[kchusker_chris]

i think our hatred for ESPN is maybe clouding the reality behind this ones...besides the fact that they are much higher ranked (inside top 10 and we've beat what...2 of those in the last decade?) -- maybe it's just because the SEC performs better come bowl time...

 

2007

SEC: 7-2

B1G: 3-5

 

2008

SEC: 6-2

B1G: 1-6

 

2009

SEC: 6-4

B1G: 4-3

 

2010

SEC: 5-5

B1G: 3-5

 

TOTAL

SEC: 24-13 (64.86%)

B1G: 11-19 (33.66%)

 

If I was betting my home on it - SC all the way...

[VA Husker Fan]

I don't get ESPN's supposed financial incentive for the SEC. CBS carries the main SEC game each week, not ABC/ESPN. Can't it just be that ESPN thinks the SEC teams are the best right now? As far as drawing eyes, wouldn't they be pimping teams in the largest markets, few of which are in the SEC?

 

You're not familiar with $2 billion dollar deal ESPN signed with the SEC?

I'm also aware of huge deals ESPN has with other conferences, like http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6471380 and http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5363743

[kchusker_chris]

I don't get ESPN's supposed financial incentive for the SEC. CBS carries the main SEC game each week, not ABC/ESPN. Can't it just be that ESPN thinks the SEC teams are the best right now? As far as drawing eyes, wouldn't they be pimping teams in the largest markets, few of which are in the SEC?

 

You're not familiar with $2 billion dollar deal ESPN signed with the SEC?

I'm also aware of huge deals ESPN has with other conferences, like http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=6471380 and http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5363743

Don't forget the important one - the one w/ the Big 10 (valued at $1 billion - pre Nebraska)

 

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=2494149

[junior4949]

How does one rationalize their thoughts not wanting Alabama in the BCS title game but then aknowledge they're a better team than Okie State? The BCS system is supposed to put the best two teams in the title game. While they don't always get it right, I believe they did get it right this year. I'd say there's a considerable distance between LSU/Bama over the rest of the top teams.

Yes, oversigning does have its benefits.

 

They're not the only ones that oversign, yet they're still head and shoulders above those other teams that oversign. I continue to hear people whining and complaining about LSU playing Bama in the title game. Yet, most of them concede that LSU and Bama are the two best teams this year in college football. Why do we even have the BCS if people don't want the two best teams to play in the title game? We might as well go back to bowl tie ins and do away with the BCS bowl system.

[knapplc]

How does one rationalize their thoughts not wanting Alabama in the BCS title game but then aknowledge they're a better team than Okie State? The BCS system is supposed to put the best two teams in the title game. While they don't always get it right, I believe they did get it right this year. I'd say there's a considerable distance between LSU/Bama over the rest of the top teams.

Yes, oversigning does have its benefits.

 

They're not the only ones that oversign, yet they're still head and shoulders above those other teams that oversign. I continue to hear people whining and complaining about LSU playing Bama in the title game. Yet, most of them concede that LSU and Bama are the two best teams this year in college football. Why do we even have the BCS if people don't want the two best teams to play in the title game? We might as well go back to bowl tie ins and do away with the BCS bowl system.

Who else oversigns like the SEC?

[ADS]

How does one rationalize their thoughts not wanting Alabama in the BCS title game but then aknowledge they're a better team than Okie State? The BCS system is supposed to put the best two teams in the title game. While they don't always get it right, I believe they did get it right this year. I'd say there's a considerable distance between LSU/Bama over the rest of the top teams.

Yes, oversigning does have its benefits.

 

They're not the only ones that oversign, yet they're still head and shoulders above those other teams that oversign. I continue to hear people whining and complaining about LSU playing Bama in the title game. Yet, most of them concede that LSU and Bama are the two best teams this year in college football. Why do we even have the BCS if people don't want the two best teams to play in the title game? We might as well go back to bowl tie ins and do away with the BCS bowl system.

Who else oversigns like the SEC?

Pretty much every team.

[kchusker_chris]

How does one rationalize their thoughts not wanting Alabama in the BCS title game but then aknowledge they're a better team than Okie State? The BCS system is supposed to put the best two teams in the title game. While they don't always get it right, I believe they did get it right this year. I'd say there's a considerable distance between LSU/Bama over the rest of the top teams.

Yes, oversigning does have its benefits.

 

They're not the only ones that oversign, yet they're still head and shoulders above those other teams that oversign. I continue to hear people whining and complaining about LSU playing Bama in the title game. Yet, most of them concede that LSU and Bama are the two best teams this year in college football. Why do we even have the BCS if people don't want the two best teams to play in the title game? We might as well go back to bowl tie ins and do away with the BCS bowl system.

Who else oversigns like the SEC?

Pretty much every team.

According to this guy, http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/the-oversigning-cup/

 

...not very many. Clemson is on there, as is USC. I was surprised to see Michigan State kind of high on that list.

[knapplc]

Near as I can recall, ESPN isn't involved directly in the creation of the Big Ten Network. In fact, the BTN and its ilk are direct competitors to ESPN. Not so the SEC Network, which is being created in partnership with ESPN, not in competition against it. The Pac-12, the Big Ten and the ACC aren't in bed with ESPN to the extent the SEC is.

[kchusker_chris]

Near as I can recall, ESPN isn't involved directly in the creation of the Big Ten Network. In fact, the BTN and its ilk are direct competitors to ESPN. Not so the SEC Network, which is being created in partnership with ESPN, not in competition against it. The Pac-12, the Big Ten and the ACC aren't in bed with ESPN to the extent the SEC is.

And since the bowl game won't be on the SEC Network - what exactly are you getting at? And the Pac12 just signed a deal worth $2.7 billion. The ACC got in bed with ESPN for $1.86 billion.

 

I just don't see where you all are going with this one. ESPN IS college football.

[knapplc]

Near as I can recall, ESPN isn't involved directly in the creation of the Big Ten Network. In fact, the BTN and its ilk are direct competitors to ESPN. Not so the SEC Network, which is being created in partnership with ESPN, not in competition against it. The Pac-12, the Big Ten and the ACC aren't in bed with ESPN to the extent the SEC is.

And since the bowl game won't be on the SEC Network - what exactly are you getting at? And the Pac12 just signed a deal worth $2.7 billion. The got in bed with ESPN for $1.86 billion.

 

I just don't see where you all are going with this one. ESPN IS college football.

 

 

It's simple marketing. By pimping the SEC they pimp the brand they are invested in. Same for Texas and the Longhorn Network. It's not just about this bowl season, it's about the overall brand of the SEC.