Bo and SECPN

[Saunders]

Stealing this from my post in the woodshed thread:

 

 

Imagine if MSNBC had the exclusive rights to be the only network televising Election Night 2016. Now imagine if MSNBC controlled about 85% of all the access and coverage of the process leading up to the election, including the primaries, the debates, the conventions and all of the candidates’ appearances and speeches. Now imagine if MSNBC had a massive financial investment and interest in Hillary Clinton, to go along with having most of the control of the message, the medium, and the access to information in terms of covering other candidates and parties.

 

Now imagine that during the debates, aired exclusively on MSNBC, there were commercial breaks with ads for Hillary’s campaign, and during the broadcast, the moderator reminded you of future Hillary appearances all while a scroll/crawl was going at the bottom of the screen with almost all of the news about the Democrats and items pertaining to the party.

 

Now, imagine if the one network that aired the College Football Playoff and the national title game was also in deep, deep, deep, deep, deep with the best conference and the top teams in a sport that determines a tournament field based solely on judgment and perception.

One thing became extremely apparent in the first week of the 2014 season – too many are going to fall back on a lazy and erroneous narrative that a four-team college football playoff will all of a sudden make things more fair, when the opposite is potentially true.

At least with the BCS, a third of the formula was based on hard numbers and data, and now, even with the new playoff, it’s not possible for a team to earn its way in the same way college basketball teams can. Now it’s 100% ALL about opinion.

It’s all about whatever the 13 playoff committee members think and believe, it’s even more of a beauty contest than ever before. That means perception and packaging are everything, and ESPN is selling the sizzle along with the steak.

Considering the SEC is the best college football conference in college football, watching SEC games is unavoidable, which means you have to watch ESPN’s coverage on the SEC Network, which means you’re going to be bludgeoned by SEC propaganda.

That means if you’re a Utah State fan, you weren’t just competing with Tennessee in Knoxville, but also a broadcast that was geared towards an SEC slant.

That means if you were a Wisconsin fan watching the game against LSU on ESPN, you sat through a ceaseless array of promotions and ads pumping up the SEC Network and how great it and the league apparently are. That means that even if you were watching Texas A&M play South Carolina in an SEC vs. SEC battle, you were inundated with “this is what it’s all about” and “the atmosphere is special” and “this is as good as it gets” type of comments which only furthered the brand.

And it could all backfire in a huge way, at least theoretically, in terms of whether or not the right four teams are in the playoff.

Remember, with the College Football Playoff committee job simply to be to pick the four teams it thinks are best, it’s in no way out of the realm of possibility that the top four in college football this year are all in the SEC. Even if they really and truly are, considering the backlash from all the other fan bases and from a skeptical media, good luck trying to sell America on an inaugural four-team playoff with Alabama, Georgia, Auburn and Texas A&M – for example – even if all are worthy and even if all of their losses end up coming against each other.

Can’t happen?

If a committee decided on who the best four teams were at the end of the 2011 college football regular season, unbeaten LSU and one-loss Alabama – to LSU – would’ve been the top two seeds. In practicality, Oklahoma State would’ve been in along with Oregon, however, 2011 Arkansas had two losses – at Alabama and at LSU. There would’ve been a very, very reasonable fight for the SEC to get in three teams, and it could easily happen this year if the politics of the playoff weren’t in the equation.

But I digress.

If Week One was any indication, this whole ESPN/SEC marriage coming at the exact same time a playoff is kicking in puts college football in a tough spot. If there’s a question mark between a two teams for one or two of the playoff openings, even if the committee is representative of all the different interests in college football, what’s going to happen if the tie goes to the SEC? In terms of perception, it could be a no-win situation.

 

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1440930.html

 

Only a fool can't see the problem with ESPN and the SEC.

[Saunders]

 

 

At the end of the day this is a pretty large glass house situation. If Bo truly has a problem with the sec feeding homer stories to Espn, he can lead by example and quit feeding them to Sipple.

And yes I understand the scale. But if it's the action he's truly mad at......

Boy, you must be really running out of material if you're trying to make this argument work.

This is a sport built on bias and hype. For as much as stoops and Bo hate the bias, they have their own little propaganda men. Let's be honest and admit it.

 

[NUpolo8]

 

 

So you're not disagreeing that it's a bad thing for ESPN to have a significantly greater vested interest in one conference as opposed to covering all equally?

I'm saying it's probably not great, but I understand.

Then that's all most anyone here is saying. If we take the Bo Blinders off we can see that there's a larger issue here. That's what everyone is arguing. There isn't a pro-Bo windmill to tilt at here.

This is the latest version of Bo Pelini: Paragon of Virtue, much like his recruiting takes earlier, or his anti weed stance. And it rings hollow when he benefitted from the bias in 07 and would take it again.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

So you're not disagreeing that it's a bad thing for ESPN to have a significantly greater vested interest in one conference as opposed to covering all equally?

I'm saying it's probably not great, but I understand.

Then that's all most anyone here is saying. If we take the Bo Blinders off we can see that there's a larger issue here. That's what everyone is arguing. There isn't a pro-Bo windmill to tilt at here.

This is the latest version of Bo Pelini: Paragon of Virtue, much like his recruiting takes earlier, or his anti weed stance. And it rings hollow when he benefitted from the bias in 07 and would take it again.

 

You're arguing this point, just because it's opposite of Bo. How cute.

[NUpolo8]

No, I'm pointing out the hypocricy of the statements.

[Saunders]

No, I'm pointing out the hypocricy of the statements.

lol

 

I mean seriously, lol.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

So you're not disagreeing that it's a bad thing for ESPN to have a significantly greater vested interest in one conference as opposed to covering all equally?

I'm saying it's probably not great, but I understand.

 

Then that's all most anyone here is saying. If we take the Bo Blinders off we can see that there's a larger issue here. That's what everyone is arguing. There isn't a pro-Bo windmill to tilt at here.

 

This is the latest version of Bo Pelini: Paragon of Virtue, much like his recruiting takes earlier, or his anti weed stance. And it rings hollow when he benefitted from the bias in 07 and would take it again.

 

There are two issues here. One is the issue with Bo. I'm not arguing that, other than to say Bo responded to questions he was asked three times. He did not bring this up, and he did not say anything at all that was controversial.

 

The second issue, the greater and far more important issue, is the bias of ESPN. If we just want to focus on All Things Bo and how bad they are, I'm out.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

This is a sport built on bias and hype. For as much as stoops and Bo hate the bias, they have their own little propaganda men. Let's be honest and admit it.

We're not equating one small-town-paper columnist to a TV network with eight channels and 7,000 employees worldwide, are we?Because I think we can all agree that ESPN's market share/reach is a little bit higher than Steve Sipple's.

What is Bo mad at? The act of neutrality being compromised or that they do it better? Honest question.

 

He's not mad. Like the clap issue. He was asked a question and answered.

 

I swear. Do you people even listen to these statements?

 

Naaaa....it's just easier if you don't like the guy to think everything that comes out of his mouth he is an angry little man about.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

So you're not disagreeing that it's a bad thing for ESPN to have a significantly greater vested interest in one conference as opposed to covering all equally?

I'm saying it's probably not great, but I understand.

Then that's all most anyone here is saying. If we take the Bo Blinders off we can see that there's a larger issue here. That's what everyone is arguing. There isn't a pro-Bo windmill to tilt at here.

This is the latest version of Bo Pelini: Paragon of Virtue, much like his recruiting takes earlier, or his anti weed stance. And it rings hollow when he benefitted from the bias in 07 and would take it again.

 

It's difficult to say that Bo "benefitted" from the bias in 07. First he was a DC not the Head Coach. Also, there wasn't really that much bias to be had at the time because it was only the 2nd year in a row that the SEC was in the NC game and both times it was against Ohio State. And lastly, the SEC didn't have a network channel being funded by ESPN.

 

Say what you want about Bo, but his comments about recruiting and SEC/ESPN are spot on and no one can argue that.

[NUpolo8]

 

 

 

 

So you're not disagreeing that it's a bad thing for ESPN to have a significantly greater vested interest in one conference as opposed to covering all equally?

I'm saying it's probably not great, but I understand.

Then that's all most anyone here is saying. If we take the Bo Blinders off we can see that there's a larger issue here. That's what everyone is arguing. There isn't a pro-Bo windmill to tilt at here.

This is the latest version of Bo Pelini: Paragon of Virtue, much like his recruiting takes earlier, or his anti weed stance. And it rings hollow when he benefitted from the bias in 07 and would take it again.

There are two issues here. One is the issue with Bo. I'm not arguing that, other than to say Bo responded to questions he was asked three times. He did not bring this up, and he did not say anything at all that was controversial.The second issue, the greater and far more important issue, is the bias of ESPN. If we just want to focus on All Things Bo and how bad they are, I'm out.

I mean we agree that the Espn relationship isn't great. But Bo knew about the bias, was ok with the bias when he was at LSU and walked into this job with hie eyes wide open, at least I hope he did. It's important that we all admit that.

[StPaulHusker]

I mean we agree that the Espn relationship isn't great. But Bo knew about the bias, was ok with the bias when he was at LSU and walked into this job with hie eyes wide open, at least I hope he did. It's important that we all admit that.

 

No he didn't.

[Undone]

I mean we agree that the Espn relationship isn't great. But Bo knew about the bias, was ok with the bias when he was at LSU and walked into this job with hie eyes wide open, at least I hope he did. It's important that we all admit that.

 

He was OK with the bias while he was at LSU?

 

Yeah, I remember him saying that. He was like, "I'm ok with the bias."

[dspanther05]

Does anyone else think we probably shouldn't wait an entire month to play the National Championship game after the last regular season games are played?

[NUpolo8]

 

I mean we agree that the Espn relationship isn't great. But Bo knew about the bias, was ok with the bias when he was at LSU and walked into this job with hie eyes wide open, at least I hope he did. It's important that we all admit that.

 

No he didn't.

Yes he did. If we are going to point to 2007 as evidence of the bias then it's reasonable to assume the DC knew about it.

[NUpolo8]

 

I mean we agree that the Espn relationship isn't great. But Bo knew about the bias, was ok with the bias when he was at LSU and walked into this job with hie eyes wide open, at least I hope he did. It's important that we all admit that.

 

He was OK with the bias while he was at LSU?

 

Yeah, I remember him saying that. He was like, "I'm ok with the bias."

I remember him saying after they won the title, "you know let's give this to USC, we don't deserve to be here". Oh right.