Bo and SECPN

[knapplc]

I mean we agree that the Espn relationship isn't great.

Awesome!

[Saunders]

 

 

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

Point taken since a lot of people here have brought up LSU getting the nod over Michigan.

 

But again, I would point out that this was only year 2 in the run of championships so I don't know if the bias was really in favor of the SEC or not in favor of a repeat game between Ohio State and Michigan

[Blackshirt39]

It doesn't bother me that ESPN and other national media outlets think the SEC is the best conference, arguably they are. It doesn't even bother me that they are over-rating some of the SEC teams at this point in the season. What bothers me is when they do talk about anybody other than the SEC, it's usually negative.That's where coaches like Bo are getting upset. They can't talk about how good of a season Abdullah is having without mentioning how weak the B1G is. It's complete and utter BS.

[sd'sker]

But again, I would point out that this was only year 2 in the run of championships so I don't know if the bias was really in favor of the SEC or not in favor of a repeat game between Ohio State and Michigan

this is what i do not understand. so there is always bias, it is either in favor of your position or it is not. but, if you string together a run of championships, how can you expect people not to give you the benefit of the doubt? then if you do leave an sec team out, is that not just bias against them because they won too much?

 

this just seems like such a silly argument and focus when there was always going to be a problem with such a flawed system. i mean, we directly benefited from a similar bias. i imagine there is a thread on a buffs board (again, i imagine because i doubt there is such a thing) complaining about bias for nebraska after our successes in the 90's.

 

the system was a mess and bias was usually the determining factor. and after so much talk about bias, i hardly know what that word even means anymore.

 

but i think the best team is just to have the top 8 teams play. the 5 conference champs and 3 at large bids. or, probably just the top 8 teams, because if you are team #9, that is your fault and you had your chance to get in. not to mention, the difference between 8-9 is a lot bigger than 4-5 and realistically the 8 or 9 team is not going to win it all. but at least then the controversy would just be feigned.

[Saunders]

 

But again, I would point out that this was only year 2 in the run of championships so I don't know if the bias was really in favor of the SEC or not in favor of a repeat game between Ohio State and Michigan

this is what i do not understand. so there is always bias, it is either in favor of your position or it is not. but, if you string together a run of championships, how can you expect people not to give you the benefit of the doubt? then if you do leave an sec team out, is that not just bias against them because they won too much?

 

this just seems like such a silly argument and focus when there was always going to be a problem with such a flawed system. i mean, we directly benefited from a similar bias. i imagine there is a thread on a buffs board (again, i imagine because i doubt there is such a thing) complaining about bias for nebraska after our successes in the 90's.

 

the system was a mess and bias was usually the determining factor. and after so much talk about bias, i hardly know what that word even means anymore.

 

but i think the best team is just to have the top 8 teams play. the 5 conference champs and 3 at large bids. or, probably just the top 8 teams, because if you are team #9, that is your fault and you had your chance to get in. not to mention, the difference between 8-9 is a lot bigger than 4-5 and realistically the 8 or 9 team is not going to win it all. but at least then the controversy would just be feigned.

 

This isn't just about the playoff. It's about a supposedly neutral party having the power to manipulate the playing field. See the article I posted.

[sd'sker]

 

 

But again, I would point out that this was only year 2 in the run of championships so I don't know if the bias was really in favor of the SEC or not in favor of a repeat game between Ohio State and Michigan

this is what i do not understand. so there is always bias, it is either in favor of your position or it is not. but, if you string together a run of championships, how can you expect people not to give you the benefit of the doubt? then if you do leave an sec team out, is that not just bias against them because they won too much?

 

this just seems like such a silly argument and focus when there was always going to be a problem with such a flawed system. i mean, we directly benefited from a similar bias. i imagine there is a thread on a buffs board (again, i imagine because i doubt there is such a thing) complaining about bias for nebraska after our successes in the 90's.

 

the system was a mess and bias was usually the determining factor. and after so much talk about bias, i hardly know what that word even means anymore.

 

but i think the best team is just to have the top 8 teams play. the 5 conference champs and 3 at large bids. or, probably just the top 8 teams, because if you are team #9, that is your fault and you had your chance to get in. not to mention, the difference between 8-9 is a lot bigger than 4-5 and realistically the 8 or 9 team is not going to win it all. but at least then the controversy would just be feigned.

 

This isn't just about the playoff. It's about a supposedly neutral party having the power to manipulate the playing field. See the article I posted.

 

who has ever thought espn was or should be neutral? they have always been biased towards ratings. they cater to the teams/stories that provide the most.

[BigRedBuster]

 

But again, I would point out that this was only year 2 in the run of championships so I don't know if the bias was really in favor of the SEC or not in favor of a repeat game between Ohio State and Michigan

this is what i do not understand. so there is always bias, it is either in favor of your position or it is not. but, if you string together a run of championships, how can you expect people not to give you the benefit of the doubt? then if you do leave an sec team out, is that not just bias against them because they won too much?

 

this just seems like such a silly argument and focus when there was always going to be a problem with such a flawed system. i mean, we directly benefited from a similar bias. i imagine there is a thread on a buffs board (again, i imagine because i doubt there is such a thing) complaining about bias for nebraska after our successes in the 90's.

 

the system was a mess and bias was usually the determining factor. and after so much talk about bias, i hardly know what that word even means anymore.

 

but i think the best team is just to have the top 8 teams play. the 5 conference champs and 3 at large bids. or, probably just the top 8 teams, because if you are team #9, that is your fault and you had your chance to get in. not to mention, the difference between 8-9 is a lot bigger than 4-5 and realistically the 8 or 9 team is not going to win it all. but at least then the controversy would just be feigned.

 

Wait......what?

 

Nobody is saying to leave the SEC out of the playoffs.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

But again, I would point out that this was only year 2 in the run of championships so I don't know if the bias was really in favor of the SEC or not in favor of a repeat game between Ohio State and Michigan

this is what i do not understand. so there is always bias, it is either in favor of your position or it is not. but, if you string together a run of championships, how can you expect people not to give you the benefit of the doubt? then if you do leave an sec team out, is that not just bias against them because they won too much?

 

this just seems like such a silly argument and focus when there was always going to be a problem with such a flawed system. i mean, we directly benefited from a similar bias. i imagine there is a thread on a buffs board (again, i imagine because i doubt there is such a thing) complaining about bias for nebraska after our successes in the 90's.

 

the system was a mess and bias was usually the determining factor. and after so much talk about bias, i hardly know what that word even means anymore.

 

but i think the best team is just to have the top 8 teams play. the 5 conference champs and 3 at large bids. or, probably just the top 8 teams, because if you are team #9, that is your fault and you had your chance to get in. not to mention, the difference between 8-9 is a lot bigger than 4-5 and realistically the 8 or 9 team is not going to win it all. but at least then the controversy would just be feigned.

 

This isn't just about the playoff. It's about a supposedly neutral party having the power to manipulate the playing field. See the article I posted.

 

who has ever thought espn was or should be neutral? they have always been biased towards ratings. they cater to the teams/stories that provide the most.

 

People who want a level playing field think ESPN should be neutral. Again, the article spells it out.

[VA Husker Fan]

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.

 

Yes, the bolded part. It wasn't until very recently that ESPN had a much lesser relationship with the SEC. CBS always got the big games. Yet apparently this SEC bias has been going on through all of the SEC championships? Why is that? Doesn't ESPN have contracts with all of the big conferences? Before the SEC deal, I'm pretty sure the biggest contracts they had were with the Big12 and ACC. Why didn't ESPN use their might and influence to push recruits to those schools?

 

I can also promise you that ESPN does not want college football to be primarily a southeastern US interest. There are way too many TVs elsewhere in the country. They want good teams throughout the country. Seriously, why wouldn't they? The SEC network is never going to be huge like ESPN and ESPN2. Why on earth did they have game day twice in North Dakota if they don't want to promote college football everywhere?

 

Some of you need to get over your butthurt and think about things more logically.

[sd'sker]

 

 

 

 

But again, I would point out that this was only year 2 in the run of championships so I don't know if the bias was really in favor of the SEC or not in favor of a repeat game between Ohio State and Michigan

this is what i do not understand. so there is always bias, it is either in favor of your position or it is not. but, if you string together a run of championships, how can you expect people not to give you the benefit of the doubt? then if you do leave an sec team out, is that not just bias against them because they won too much?

 

this just seems like such a silly argument and focus when there was always going to be a problem with such a flawed system. i mean, we directly benefited from a similar bias. i imagine there is a thread on a buffs board (again, i imagine because i doubt there is such a thing) complaining about bias for nebraska after our successes in the 90's.

 

the system was a mess and bias was usually the determining factor. and after so much talk about bias, i hardly know what that word even means anymore.

 

but i think the best team is just to have the top 8 teams play. the 5 conference champs and 3 at large bids. or, probably just the top 8 teams, because if you are team #9, that is your fault and you had your chance to get in. not to mention, the difference between 8-9 is a lot bigger than 4-5 and realistically the 8 or 9 team is not going to win it all. but at least then the controversy would just be feigned.

 

This isn't just about the playoff. It's about a supposedly neutral party having the power to manipulate the playing field. See the article I posted.

 

who has ever thought espn was or should be neutral? they have always been biased towards ratings. they cater to the teams/stories that provide the most.

 

People who want a level playing field think ESPN should be neutral. Again, the article spells it out.

 

that article is pretty biased.

[StPaulHusker]

 

But again, I would point out that this was only year 2 in the run of championships so I don't know if the bias was really in favor of the SEC or not in favor of a repeat game between Ohio State and Michigan

this just seems like such a silly argument and focus when there was always going to be a problem with such a flawed system. i mean, we directly benefited from a similar bias. i imagine there is a thread on a buffs board (again, i imagine because i doubt there is such a thing) complaining about bias for nebraska after our successes in the 90's.

You're right. Nebraska did benefit from a bias in the 2002 Rose Bowl. And I distinctly remember several media pundits saying that Nebraska shouldn't be there. I also remember the same media saying Oklahoma didn't belong either a couple years later.

 

But Alabama loses at home against LSU, and immediately the talk goes to a being about a rematch for the championship. They wrote off every other team in the country after a 9-6 win by LSU

[sd'sker]

 

 

But again, I would point out that this was only year 2 in the run of championships so I don't know if the bias was really in favor of the SEC or not in favor of a repeat game between Ohio State and Michigan

this is what i do not understand. so there is always bias, it is either in favor of your position or it is not. but, if you string together a run of championships, how can you expect people not to give you the benefit of the doubt? then if you do leave an sec team out, is that not just bias against them because they won too much?

 

this just seems like such a silly argument and focus when there was always going to be a problem with such a flawed system. i mean, we directly benefited from a similar bias. i imagine there is a thread on a buffs board (again, i imagine because i doubt there is such a thing) complaining about bias for nebraska after our successes in the 90's.

 

the system was a mess and bias was usually the determining factor. and after so much talk about bias, i hardly know what that word even means anymore.

 

but i think the best team is just to have the top 8 teams play. the 5 conference champs and 3 at large bids. or, probably just the top 8 teams, because if you are team #9, that is your fault and you had your chance to get in. not to mention, the difference between 8-9 is a lot bigger than 4-5 and realistically the 8 or 9 team is not going to win it all. but at least then the controversy would just be feigned.

 

Wait......what?

 

Nobody is saying to leave the SEC out of the playoffs.

 

i was referring to the bcs era. when people were complaining about the sec getting the benefit of the doubt and other teams did not get a chance to play in the championship.

[BigRedBuster]

who has ever thought espn was or should be neutral? they have always been biased towards ratings. they cater to the teams/stories that provide the most.

 

 

Thanks for explaining why Bo's comments make sense.

[sd'sker]

You're right. Nebraska did benefit from a bias in the 2002 Rose Bowl. And I distinctly remember several media pundits saying that Nebraska shouldn't be there. I also remember the same media saying Oklahoma didn't belong either a couple years later.

 

But Alabama loses at home against LSU, and immediately the talk goes to a being about a rematch for the championship. They wrote off every other team in the country after a 9-6 win by LSU

i think it was fairly controversial. and arguably what led to the end of the bcs and the start of the playoffs.