ESPN Bias -- More Evidence

[siestahawk]

Just got done watching ESPN's 2014 Outlook for the Big Ten. Throughout the show the commentators continued to drive home the point that the Big 10 has a reputation for being weak and that the conference was doing nothing to alter this perception with a weak non-conference schedule. This is complete bunk. By ESPN's own Power Rating measure, the Big 10 plays 7 teams in the Power top 25 while the SEC plays 4. If you continue this through those that got votes (out to a 42 ranking) it is Big 10 with 11 and the SEC with 7. After this, the Big 10 play 7 more teams from the Power 5 conferences while the SEC only plays 1. The total is 18 to 8 for the Big 10. Even more, the SEC loads up on a lot of very weak non-conference teams which can often ensure that they have unblemished records when they get into conference action. Alabama, in particular, plays a very weak non-conference schedule.

Of course, having said all of this, the Big 10 really needs to make a statement when they play the SEC head-to-head and there are only two contests this year for this to happen: Wisconsin v. LSU (neutral site) and Indiana v. Missouri (at Missouri).

Just looking at things objectively, it would seem that the SEC is the conference that dodges outside competition, not the Big 10. I also expect ESPN to make the argument all year long that 2 teams from the same conference can make the Championship Playoffs and they want to lock out the Big 10 from one of these spots.

 

[Hawk1960]

Good analysis on your part. Let's hope Bucky can knock off LSU to take some wind out of ESPNs sails. That may be the only game this year we want Wisconsin to win.

 

[PCHawk]

That's pretty stupid that they say that with those numbers that clearly show different. Are they trying to make it obvious?

 

[CAARHawk]

That's pretty stupid that they say that with those numbers that clearly show different. Are they trying to make it obvious?

Pretty much all media sites spin their message regardless of data. They know people won't look at data. They know if they say it enough, it will become truth.

 

[BigD]

Doesn't ESPN have contracts to broadcast SEC games? If so of course they are going to promote that conference.

 

[Jonesy86]

I used to think talking about bias was silly. But, apparently, the new SEC Network is produced by ESPN. So OF COURSE there's bias. I'm curious how much money comes in for SEC games versus B1G games. If it's more for SEC then of course you'll have bias for that as well. Follow the money.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

That's pretty stupid that they say that with those numbers that clearly show different. Are they trying to make it obvious?

I suppose that if you were able to corner the execs at E$ecPN, they'd say that because the $EC teams have SOOOOOOO much more talent, that they are by default the stronger conference and that the B1G has to beat top 10 opponents all non con long to even come close.

It's a bunch of b.s.

 

[RocknRollface]

Pretty much all media sites spin their message regardless of data. They know people won't look at data. They know if they say it enough, it will become truth.

Not truth but it may as we'll be because the masses will believe what ever the TV tells them.

 

[judzeehawk]

Will a time come when the BIG won't be shown on the EsecPN?

 

[NCHawker]

It takes time and bowl wins to regain a reputation. And in the case of the big ten it is going to take bowl wins by multiple teams over several years to rebuild the reputation.

When I get carried a way with my vicarious attachment to the conference, I remind myself that its time for me to get a life.

 

[PCHawk]

I suppose that if you were able to corner the execs at E$ecPN, they'd say that because the $EC teams have SOOOOOOO much more talent, that they are by default the stronger conference and that the B1G has to beat top 10 opponents all non con long to even come close.

It's a bunch of b.s.

SEC speed.

 

[doclee]

Why do we even care what the media, or even the general public, thinks about the BT vs the SEC in terms of football talent? We are doing very well financially, good attendance at our games, the BTN has been pretty successful, i.e., brings lots of $ into the BT teams. I don't really care what goes on at ESPN, as long as Iowa is competitive in football against their conference foes. The bowl game, and we usually get a pretty good one when the smoke clears, is just a bonus. Is there a bias...probably. Does the SEC play better football? Maybe. The only way to clarify would be a head to head from top to bottom between the conferences every year for about 5 years. Maybe ESPN would like to pay the $ to see that happen! But, hey, that would cost too much and may make ESPN look silly.

 

[PCHawk]

Why do we even care what the media, or even the general public, thinks about the BT vs the SEC in terms of football talent? We are doing very well financially, good attendance at our games, the BTN has been pretty successful, i.e., brings lots of $ into the BT teams. I don't really care what goes on at ESPN, as long as Iowa is competitive in football against their conference foes. The bowl game, and we usually get a pretty good one when the smoke clears, is just a bonus. Is there a bias...probably. Does the SEC play better football? Maybe. The only way to clarify would be a head to head from top to bottom between the conferences every year for about 5 years. Maybe ESPN would like to pay the $ to see that happen! But, hey, that would cost too much and may make ESPN look silly.

The reason I care is because espn is supposed to be THE sports network and now its unwatchable.

 

[docholihawk]

Pretty typical. All media is agenda driven. Remember when ESPN was discussing Tim Tebow on all their talk shows for two years straight and telling viewers it's what we wanted. Everybody I knew was so sick of the regurgitation they stopped watching. The BIG is no different. They're not exactly unbiased in their coverage of Big 10 teams.

 

[pmchawk]

Pretty typical. All media is agenda driven. Remember when ESPN was discussing Tim Tebow on all their talk shows for two years straight and telling viewers it's what we wanted. Everybody I knew was so sick of the regurgitation they stopped watching. The BIG is no different. They're not exactly unbiased in their coverage of Big 10 teams.

Well the BTN is a conference network. They don't claim to be unbiased.

 

[eyekwah]

Will a time come when the BIG won't be shown on the EsecPN?

I personally think it is coming when the B1G contract is up. All the networks are hunting for content. Fox, CBS and NBC need more programming than they currently have. The Big Ten has a more national appeal than all other conferences. There are the markets in the states where the B1G located, but the major difference is that B1G graduates are all over the U.S., where the alumni of southern schools tends to remain in the south. I don't think we can say the ACC, PAC12, or Big 12 have the national alumni base of the Big Ten.

The broadcast rights are more than about football. The Big Ten has far more sports than the SEC and Big 12. Again more programming for the highest bidder.

 

[docholihawk]

Well the BTN is a conference network. They don't claim to be unbiased.

tou'che.

 

[NCHawker]

The BTN isn't biased at all ! They'll show OSU against any of the other teams, and any time of day.

 

[Benddontbreak]

That B1G preview was a disaster. Jason Sehorn and some random former SEC player had the most shallow, just enough to answer the question analysis. No position group analysis, no real mention of Iowa. They both agreed that MSU and Wisconsin are the only teams that have any chance at the playoff because of their marquee non-con, and that they’d need to go undefeated while Oregon/LSU also had a great season (Nevermind that MSU would’ve been in playoff at 12-1 last year).