eSECpn Bias

[Savage Husker]

Fowler and Corso have had respect for Nebraska prior to their ESPN days. They've just reiterated their beliefs over the years.

[Red Five]

You know how to get ESPN to be biased towards the B1G? Win 7 national championships in a row.

[DomiNUs]

 

 

ESPN does rank the teams. They created their very own FPI, which they use and reference more than the AP and Coaches poll. And, take a look at the pre-season ESPN FPI if you still don't believe the bias.

 

The bolded is a flat out lie.

 

In all the games they show, the graphics show the AP rank by the team.

 

On sportscenter/cfb scoreboard/espn.com, the ranking they show with the highlight packages are the AP.

 

Go to ESPN.com and click on rankings. The results are the AP and Coaches. Hell, I can't even find the FPI on the website without doing a search for it.

 

How is that a lie? They created their own de-facto poll - check, they use that poll - check. Now, I will give you the more than AP and Coaches poll argument because I didn't do the research, but they do use it quite a bit. Read through the blogs.

[Red Five]

 

 

 

ESPN does rank the teams. They created their very own FPI, which they use and reference more than the AP and Coaches poll. And, take a look at the pre-season ESPN FPI if you still don't believe the bias.

 

The bolded is a flat out lie.

 

In all the games they show, the graphics show the AP rank by the team.

 

On sportscenter/cfb scoreboard/espn.com, the ranking they show with the highlight packages are the AP.

 

Go to ESPN.com and click on rankings. The results are the AP and Coaches. Hell, I can't even find the FPI on the website without doing a search for it.

 

How is that a lie? They created their own de-facto poll - check, they use that poll - check. Now, I will give you the more than AP and Coaches poll argument because I didn't do the research, but they do use it quite a bit. Read through the blogs.

 

Way to semantic yourself out of that.

[DomiNUs]

 

 

 

Guy, do you think ESPN has a more vested interest in SEC success?

 

Sure. Sort of. Just not as obviously as some think.

 

Mostly they want people to watch ESPN. They want good stories. America still likes underdog stories. If that means teams upsetting SEC powerhouses, they will run with the underdog story. If it involves scandals, they will run with the scandal regardless of conference affiliation. If people are watching ESPN looking for evidence of SEC bias, it means more people watching ESPN.

 

Also, ESPN does sh#tloads of reporting because they're on the air 24/7. Someone here freaks out because the ESPN home page didn't trumpet a near upset of an SEC team. A fresher home page shows ESPN clearly reporting the SEC's entire bad weekend. But if you're addicted to ESPN bias, you remember one and forget the other. So the bias works both ways.

 

And some want to think of ESPN as a single entity, exerting a singular agenda. The network is actually full of reporters and analysts from different colleges and conferences who constantly disagree with each other. Technically that's the formula. Report the facts and then debate the crap out of them. They have millions of viewers across the country. They can literally not afford to be SEC cheerleaders. But they can certainly profit from airing their games. If people tune in rooting for the overrated SEC to be upset, in only works in ESPN's favor.

 

As reported a few months ago, Alabama fans are convinced ESPN has it in for them.

 

Just for the record, here are some of the opinions ESPN has logged in recent years:

 

• Rated '95 Nebraska and '71 Nebraska the #1 and #3 all-time college football teams respectively.

• Ranked Jack Hoffman's Nebraska Spring Game Run the single best moment in all of sports at the ESPY's

• Ranked Jordan Westerkamp's otherwise meaningless behind the back catch the College Play of the Year at the ESPY's

• Allowed Lee Corso and Chris Fowler to appear on the Nebraska Legacy Video, calling Nebraska the best fans and Lincoln the best gameday experience in all of college football.

• Supported the Suh for Heisman bandwagon over Tim Tebow in 2009. Even Skip Bayless got on board.

 

But we don't talk about ESPN's Nebraska bias because that just sounds too weird.

 

We're in a terrible position to be objective.

 

I will admit this, since fans and coaches started calling them out on it over the last 18 months, ESPN has actually toned it down a bit. But the fact is, they still have a long way to go. BTW, half the stuff you mentioned ESPN doing for Nebraska, was voted on by fans, and had nothing to do with ESPN allowing anything.

 

 

This is also a flat-out lie.

 

ESPN did have a separate fan vote for the top college teams of all-time, but Nebraska's #1 and #3 ranking came from ESPN's select college football panel. (The fans gave us pretty much the same love, but flipped '71 for '95)

 

ESPN nominates all the candidates for ESPY Awards before submitting to a vote of fans, sportswriters, broadcasters and ESPN personalities.

 

Lee Corso and Chris Fowler's endorsement of Nebraska is actually fairly stunning when you watch it. We would absolutely sh#t bricks if they came out that overtly for any other school.

 

They also pumped Suh for Heisman. We liked it at the time, then forgot about it when we wanted to get all paranoid.

 

Wow, being called a liar twice, for telling the truth. Amazing. You just said, fans voted for the ESPY's. That's exactly what I said. Anyway, let's not pretend ESPN is doing Nebraska or the B1G any favors. It's not in their financial interest to do so.

[DomiNUs]

 

 

 

 

ESPN does rank the teams. They created their very own FPI, which they use and reference more than the AP and Coaches poll. And, take a look at the pre-season ESPN FPI if you still don't believe the bias.

 

The bolded is a flat out lie.

 

In all the games they show, the graphics show the AP rank by the team.

 

On sportscenter/cfb scoreboard/espn.com, the ranking they show with the highlight packages are the AP.

 

Go to ESPN.com and click on rankings. The results are the AP and Coaches. Hell, I can't even find the FPI on the website without doing a search for it.

 

Scroll down. It's there below the AP poll.

 

That's not the FPI. That's how all their analysts rank the teams.

 

And even is that was the FPI, they still don't use it on 95% of all their graphics.

 

My mistake there, guess I should of read the poll more closely. Here is the FPI that I was speaking of.

[Savage Husker]

You know how to get ESPN to be biased towards the B1G? Win 7 national championships in a row.

its not about being biased towards B1G or any other conference. It's about giving credit where credit is due.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Fowler and Corso have had respect for Nebraska prior to their ESPN days. They've just reiterated their beliefs over the years.

 

Everyone on ESPN formed opinions years ago.

 

Now they reiterate their beliefs on ESPN.

 

Often times disagreeing with each other.

 

Kirk Herbstreit is their lead guy these days. He's an Ohio State guy, and apparently was prior to his ESPN days.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

Guy, do you think ESPN has a more vested interest in SEC success?

 

Sure. Sort of. Just not as obviously as some think.

 

Mostly they want people to watch ESPN. They want good stories. America still likes underdog stories. If that means teams upsetting SEC powerhouses, they will run with the underdog story. If it involves scandals, they will run with the scandal regardless of conference affiliation. If people are watching ESPN looking for evidence of SEC bias, it means more people watching ESPN.

 

Also, ESPN does sh#tloads of reporting because they're on the air 24/7. Someone here freaks out because the ESPN home page didn't trumpet a near upset of an SEC team. A fresher home page shows ESPN clearly reporting the SEC's entire bad weekend. But if you're addicted to ESPN bias, you remember one and forget the other. So the bias works both ways.

 

And some want to think of ESPN as a single entity, exerting a singular agenda. The network is actually full of reporters and analysts from different colleges and conferences who constantly disagree with each other. Technically that's the formula. Report the facts and then debate the crap out of them. They have millions of viewers across the country. They can literally not afford to be SEC cheerleaders. But they can certainly profit from airing their games. If people tune in rooting for the overrated SEC to be upset, in only works in ESPN's favor.

 

As reported a few months ago, Alabama fans are convinced ESPN has it in for them.

 

Just for the record, here are some of the opinions ESPN has logged in recent years:

 

• Rated '95 Nebraska and '71 Nebraska the #1 and #3 all-time college football teams respectively.

• Ranked Jack Hoffman's Nebraska Spring Game Run the single best moment in all of sports at the ESPY's

• Ranked Jordan Westerkamp's otherwise meaningless behind the back catch the College Play of the Year at the ESPY's

• Allowed Lee Corso and Chris Fowler to appear on the Nebraska Legacy Video, calling Nebraska the best fans and Lincoln the best gameday experience in all of college football.

• Supported the Suh for Heisman bandwagon over Tim Tebow in 2009. Even Skip Bayless got on board.

 

But we don't talk about ESPN's Nebraska bias because that just sounds too weird.

 

We're in a terrible position to be objective.

 

I will admit this, since fans and coaches started calling them out on it over the last 18 months, ESPN has actually toned it down a bit. But the fact is, they still have a long way to go. BTW, half the stuff you mentioned ESPN doing for Nebraska, was voted on by fans, and had nothing to do with ESPN allowing anything.

 

 

This is also a flat-out lie.

 

ESPN did have a separate fan vote for the top college teams of all-time, but Nebraska's #1 and #3 ranking came from ESPN's select college football panel. (The fans gave us pretty much the same love, but flipped '71 for '95)

 

ESPN nominates all the candidates for ESPY Awards before submitting to a vote of fans, sportswriters, broadcasters and ESPN personalities.

 

Lee Corso and Chris Fowler's endorsement of Nebraska is actually fairly stunning when you watch it. We would absolutely sh#t bricks if they came out that overtly for any other school.

 

They also pumped Suh for Heisman. We liked it at the time, then forgot about it when we wanted to get all paranoid.

 

Wow, being called a liar twice, for telling the truth. Amazing. You just said, fans voted for the ESPY's. That's exactly what I said. Anyway, let's not pretend ESPN is doing Nebraska or the B1G any favors. It's not in their financial interest to do so.

 

 

This is a great example of someone only seeing what they want to see.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

Guy, do you think ESPN has a more vested interest in SEC success?

 

Sure. Sort of. Just not as obviously as some think.

 

Mostly they want people to watch ESPN. They want good stories. America still likes underdog stories. If that means teams upsetting SEC powerhouses, they will run with the underdog story. If it involves scandals, they will run with the scandal regardless of conference affiliation. If people are watching ESPN looking for evidence of SEC bias, it means more people watching ESPN.

 

Also, ESPN does sh#tloads of reporting because they're on the air 24/7. Someone here freaks out because the ESPN home page didn't trumpet a near upset of an SEC team. A fresher home page shows ESPN clearly reporting the SEC's entire bad weekend. But if you're addicted to ESPN bias, you remember one and forget the other. So the bias works both ways.

 

And some want to think of ESPN as a single entity, exerting a singular agenda. The network is actually full of reporters and analysts from different colleges and conferences who constantly disagree with each other. Technically that's the formula. Report the facts and then debate the crap out of them. They have millions of viewers across the country. They can literally not afford to be SEC cheerleaders. But they can certainly profit from airing their games. If people tune in rooting for the overrated SEC to be upset, in only works in ESPN's favor.

 

As reported a few months ago, Alabama fans are convinced ESPN has it in for them.

 

Just for the record, here are some of the opinions ESPN has logged in recent years:

 

• Rated '95 Nebraska and '71 Nebraska the #1 and #3 all-time college football teams respectively.

• Ranked Jack Hoffman's Nebraska Spring Game Run the single best moment in all of sports at the ESPY's

• Ranked Jordan Westerkamp's otherwise meaningless behind the back catch the College Play of the Year at the ESPY's

• Allowed Lee Corso and Chris Fowler to appear on the Nebraska Legacy Video, calling Nebraska the best fans and Lincoln the best gameday experience in all of college football.

• Supported the Suh for Heisman bandwagon over Tim Tebow in 2009. Even Skip Bayless got on board.

 

But we don't talk about ESPN's Nebraska bias because that just sounds too weird.

 

We're in a terrible position to be objective.

 

I will admit this, since fans and coaches started calling them out on it over the last 18 months, ESPN has actually toned it down a bit. But the fact is, they still have a long way to go. BTW, half the stuff you mentioned ESPN doing for Nebraska, was voted on by fans, and had nothing to do with ESPN allowing anything.

 

 

This is also a flat-out lie.

 

ESPN did have a separate fan vote for the top college teams of all-time, but Nebraska's #1 and #3 ranking came from ESPN's select college football panel. (The fans gave us pretty much the same love, but flipped '71 for '95)

 

ESPN nominates all the candidates for ESPY Awards before submitting to a vote of fans, sportswriters, broadcasters and ESPN personalities.

 

Lee Corso and Chris Fowler's endorsement of Nebraska is actually fairly stunning when you watch it. We would absolutely sh#t bricks if they came out that overtly for any other school.

 

They also pumped Suh for Heisman. We liked it at the time, then forgot about it when we wanted to get all paranoid.

 

Wow, being called a liar twice, for telling the truth. Amazing. You just said, fans voted for the ESPY's. That's exactly what I said. Anyway, let's not pretend ESPN is doing Nebraska or the B1G any favors. It's not in their financial interest to do so.

 

How much grousing on this board do you think you will need to do before ESPN changes their bias?

 

It won't change their mindset? Even if you piss and moan for the next 14 weeks of college football?

 

That's what I thought.

[Red Five]

 

You know how to get ESPN to be biased towards the B1G? Win 7 national championships in a row.

its not about being biased towards B1G or any other conference. It's about giving credit where credit is due.

 

And they gave credit to the B1G this week. And took away credit from the SEC.

[Kernal]

 

You know how to get ESPN to be biased towards the B1G? Win 7 national championships in a row.

its not about being biased towards B1G or any other conference. It's about giving credit where credit is due.

 

 

 

It sucks, but fairness doesn't fund media businesses; eyeballs do.

[Enhance]

I don't think there's as much of an SEC bias as people like to believe. I used to listen to SVP and Russillo almost every day for years, and the amount of SEC fans calling in saying that ESPN was biased against them, never gave them any credit, blah blah blah, was astonishingly high. I vividly remember a handful of Alabama fan calling in the last couple of years to say Alabama, of all schools, wasn't getting enough credit. People, fans in particular, are undoubtedly irrational and have selective attentions.

 

Furthermore, I think the narrative that's been building around the SEC has infiltrated a lot of people's minds, not just ESPN's. You can see journalists from all over the country, who work for different media outlets, giving SEC teams the benefit of the doubt. People can scoff at this all they want, but the truth of the matter is, the SEC tends to deliver when they need to. You can call the BCS faulty, and it was, but when an SEC team needs to win, they often have in recent history.

 

I can almost guarantee, too, that whenever Nebraska is a Top 10 team and seriously in the discussion for a playoff berth, we'll see a ton more Husker coverage. It's what sells. I intentionally haven't watched ESPN much in recent years because we haven't been that good. But, in 2010, when TMart was a Heisman contender and we were riding high, I watched a ton of ESPN for Nebraska news and was on their website all the time reading their thoughts on the Huskers.

 

I've also worked in the media, and I can tell you from personal experience that a lot of journalists are just trying to do their jobs. The claims against the "media" being out to get anyone are often times blown way out of proportion; or, one solitary example on a national stage is used to critique the entire "media." I realize that's just kind of how things go.

 

But, I wouldn't get caught up in the SEC bias. If the Pac-12 becomes really good as a conference in the future and the SEC starts to suck, the Pac-12 will be the new sexy thing for everyone to talk about. Same if it happens to the B1G or Big 12.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

You know how to get ESPN to be biased towards the B1G? Win 7 national championships in a row.

its not about being biased towards B1G or any other conference. It's about giving credit where credit is due.

 

 

The Big 10 was in a down cycle. We admitted that on this board. Good Lord, even BTN admitted it. It was a statistical fact.

 

Then Ohio State crushed it in the playoffs, the Big10 did better than expected in the bowls, and the SEC closed meekly.

 

All due credit was given to those developments.

 

I think it was Fowler who tried vainly to point out why a healthy Big 10 works much better for ESPN's ratings. It made total sense if you understand numbers, demographics and business plans, but it probably didn't budge the conspiracy theorists.

[HuskerExpat]

 

 

You know how to get ESPN to be biased towards the B1G? Win 7 national championships in a row.

its not about being biased towards B1G or any other conference. It's about giving credit where credit is due.

 

 

The Big 10 was in a down cycle. We admitted that on this board. Good Lord, even BTN admitted it. It was a statistical fact.

 

Then Ohio State crushed it in the playoffs, the Big10 did better than expected in the bowls, and the SEC closed meekly.

 

All due credit was given to those developments.

 

I think it was Fowler who tried vainly to point out why a healthy Big 10 works much better for ESPN's ratings. It made total sense if you understand numbers, demographics and business plans, but it probably didn't budge the conspiracy theorists.

 

I agree that a healthy B1G is good for ESPN ratings on a long term basis only if the B1G renews their contract with ESPN at the end of this year. It has looked for the last couple of years that the B1G will go elsewhere at the end of this contract. If there are no B1G games on any of the ESPN family of networks, there is no reason that a healthy B1G is good for ESPN.

 

There was a blogger last year who broke down the amount that each conference (or conference team) was discussed on ESPN Gameday last year. The Pac 12, despite having several highly ranked teams got about 1/5 of the air time that the SEC got. Another website is tracking that same information this year and the results are more or less the same.

 

Now maybe it is just coincidence that Gameday devotes attention to the Power 5 conferences in direct proportion to their financial ties to each conference, but it's a big coincidence.