eSECpn Bias

I live on the West Coast and East Coast Media bias is a common gripe around here.

Part of the reality is that PST games kick off when east coast media types have already digested a full day of football. Our night games end after midnight on the East Coast.

That also means every Saturday features a full cycle of SEC, ACC and Big 10 game coverage that the PAC 12 can never get, because they haven't played their games yet.

If any Power 5 Conference is on the ropes and falling under the media radar, it's the Big 12. And I don't see many folks outside the Big 12 rushing to their defense.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
If any Power 5 Conference is on the ropes and falling under the media radar, it's the Big 12. And I don't see many folks outside the Big 12 rushing to their defense.
Click to expand...
Or from inside the Big XII (that matters, anyway; sorry/not sorry Baylor/TCU.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HuskerExpat said:
Guy Chamberlin said:
Savage Husker said:
Red Five said:
You know how to get ESPN to be biased towards the B1G? Win 7 national championships in a row.
Click to expand...
its not about being biased towards B1G or any other conference. It's about giving credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
It's no coincidence. The data does not lie.

 
BykNV7GIcAAm5JP.jpg


 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Savage Husker said:
Red Five said:
You know how to get ESPN to be biased towards the B1G? Win 7 national championships in a row.
Click to expand...
its not about being biased towards B1G or any other conference. It's about giving credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The B1G has been in a down cycle for the better part of 13 years, good Lord, I never debated that. Only OSU has consistently stuck out between their title teams.
Giving the SEC credit for the success of teams not in their conference is petty. If you're OK with that, then cool, to each their own. But there's no reason to do it unless you're trying to build up their brand.

I never heard Fowler speak to that, but it's a no brainer that better football in other conferences helps raise their ratings. More stories, more controversies/debates, more fan reactions, more viewership, helps bring in more money. Again, a topic I didn't debate.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I live on the West Coast and East Coast Media bias is a common gripe around here.

Part of the reality is that PST games kick off when east coast media types have already digested a full day of football. Our night games end after midnight on the East Coast.
Click to expand...
I made the same point to my buddies from Seattle just two weeks ago and one blew up on me. Many out there can't grasp it.
 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Huh. Here's the page I just got:

ESPN.png
Click to expand...
I know this is just a snippet, but look at the page. Teams represented here: Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Notre Dame, Florida, Arkansas and Louisville. 50% SEC. Is there really nothing going on in the rest of CFB that ESPN, the sports entertainment juggernaut couldn't find to report on?

 
Well involves bad publicity for two of the SEC schools. Had it been bad publicity involving another conference, the conspiracy might have spun it the other way.

I'm pretty sure I'm not going to win this argument, since I haven't for the past few years. So I'll leave it alone until the next eSECpn thread.

Which should be coming any second now.

btw....the ESPN College Football Page gets updated constantly. Here's the 4:38 PST content:

ESPN%202.jpg


ESPN%203.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Look, eSECpn is going to promote whatever makes them the most money and that of course is all right as long as they are honest about it....but they are not. They promote themselves as sports journalism, and as the authorities on sports when they should just come out and be honest and say that they are trying to steal viewers from CBS, Fox sports, and NBC sports because the more viewers they have the more they can charge their advertisers. It's always about the bottom line.

The problem is the perception that anything you see on eSECpn is ever going to be anything close to unbiased. It never has been. This is nothing new. I will site an example that goes back to the 1997 season and includes our beloved Huskers.

Early on in the season the Huskers were ranked number one and undefeated. Nebraska played a hard fought game against Missouri and won in overtime. However, that week there was a big game between two highly ranked opponents (I don't recall who, but one was Michigan). There was also another big match-up and the hype all week on eSECpn was: "Who should be #1?" and the answers never included the current #1 team at the time, Nebraska (by the way, at that time, it wasn't eSECpn, they didn't have the contract with the SEC network yet, back then they were all about the Big 10). I just found it interesting that they hyped everyone for the #1 spot except Nebraska, the team that was currently in the #1 spot.

Of course when Nebraska played a tough game, everyone on eSECpn picked the winners of THEIR big game to be the new #1, and of course the pinhead sports writers are as easily influenced as a three-year-old so they jumped Michigan over Nebraska into the #1 spot.

Another thing that happened that same year was that Payton Manning had an amazing year at Tennessee. Charles Woodson also had an amazing year at Michigan. However, every college football promotion ABC/eSECpn ran featured yet another Charles Woodson touchdown. It was incredible. It seemed like that guy was in the end zone all year long. It was no wonder he edged out Payton Manning in the Heisman voting, right? Well, until you realize that he only scored one touchdown and eSECpn just showed the same highlight all year long. Why might you ask? Well, because back then they didn't have a bowl monopoly. Michigan was likely going to be in the Rose Bowl and they were promoting the hell out of Charles Woodson, shamelessly, so they could then shamelessly promote the hell out of the fact that they had the Heisman winner in the Rose Bowl. Payton Manning was likely going to the Sugar or Orange Bowl and neither of those games were going to be on ABC or eSECpn. So basically those hacks screwed Manning out of a Heisman trophy so that they could have the Heisman winner in their game.

One last point. I'll never forget that hack Bob Griese of ABC proclaiming Michigan National Champions after the Rose Bowl was over, before Nebraska had even played the Orange Bowl that evening. And after the final polls came out, I also remember several ABC/eSECpn "analysts" sitting around talking about how they were disappointed that Michigan had been #1 going into the Rose Bowl but the coaches had still voted Nebraska #1 after the game (never mind that Michigan escaped against #7 Washington St. and Nebraska blasted #3 Tennessee). The overriding sentiment seemed to be that if you are #1 and you win you shouldn't lose your #1 ranking. However these geniuses seemed to conveniently forget that they had successfully lobbied for the voters to do that very thing to Nebraska earlier in the year after the Missouri game.

Now, I will say, I understand why eSECpn does all of this. It's about ratings and making money. But I hate that they pretend to be unbiased sports "journalists" when they are just hacks trotted out by the networks to drum up viewership.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top