Rolling Stone: ESPN is biased toward SEC

[8timechamps]

This is a great read: eSpEn C (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-worldwide-cheerleader-espn-and-the-college-football-playoff-20141028)

Nothing we haven't talked about here in the past, but I thought the author did a good job of putting it all together.

[Wishboned]

I have a friend who works for ESPN. I asked her about the article last night. Their stance is it was written by an FSU homer. That's all they want to see.

[ashley]

This is a great read: eSpEn C (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-worldwide-cheerleader-espn-and-the-college-football-playoff-20141028)

Nothing we haven't talked about here in the past, but I thought the author did a good job of putting it all together.

Do you really think that ESPN wants to see a team from Starkville, Miss to play a team from Kansas for the NC. Think about that. Anyone that knows anything about TV ratings knows that isn't true.

[8timechamps]

Do you really think that ESPN wants to see a team from Starkville, Miss to play a team from Kansas for the NC. Think about that. Anyone that knows anything about TV ratings knows that isn't true.

If they had their choice, they'd want 4 SEC teams in the playoffs. It's all about money for ESPN, and it's crazy for them to pretend like they aren't biased toward the SEC.

[8timechamps]

I have a friend who works for ESPN. I asked her about the article last night. Their stance is it was written by an FSU homer. That's all they want to see.

Not surprised that would be the company line.

It's too bad ESPN really doesn't have a competitor on the same level. Fox and NBC haven't really put much of a dent into the "worldwide leader in sports".

[ashley]

Can't you see that ESPN would want the biggest audience. They really want USC, UT, SEC school and Ohio State.

[ObiKaTony]

Can't you see that ESPN would want the biggest audience. They really want USC, UT, SEC school and Ohio State.

They signed a 50 billion dollar deal...they could give a rats *** about placing Texas in the game. Say what you will but the conflict of interests is undeniable, it's a joke.

[SoonerorLater]

I think we've crossed a line in College Football where ESPN has gone from broadcaster to promoter to business partner.

[Therealsouthsider]

I have a friend who works for ESPN. I asked her about the article last night. Their stance is it was written by an FSU homer. That's all they want to see.

....I like my coffee black, and tell her to pick up some bagels too

ss

[badger]

If they had their choice, they'd want 4 SEC teams in the playoffs. It's all about money for ESPN, and it's crazy for them to pretend like they aren't biased toward the SEC.

If that were to happen, I say the other power conference stage the real playoffs and let the SEC determine their own champion.

[8timechamps]

Can't you see that ESPN would want the biggest audience. They really want USC, UT, SEC school and Ohio State.

No, they want to ensure their investment continues to succeed. If more eyeballs are on the playoffs, great. You don't really think the playoffs wouldn't be watched if KSU or, say Baylor ended up involved, do you?

ESPN is the SEC network. They are interested in their bottom line with their biggest 'spin off'. If you think there is another agenda, you're crazy.

[EatLeadCommie]

I guess this explains the preemptive salvo ESPN did on Gameday this past week.

[Curly Bill]

Not to say ESPN has much credibility, but are we to believe that Rolling Stone does?

[8timechamps]

Not to say ESPN has much credibility, but are we to believe that Rolling Stone does?

I'm not much of a Rolling Stone fan, but the article is more of an opinion piece, backed with some factual examples. It's pretty hard to argue the points made in the column.

[Curly Bill]

I'm not much of a Rolling Stone fan, but the article is more of an opinion piece, backed with some factual examples. It's pretty hard to argue the points made in the column.

I care as much about Rolling Stones opinion pieces on sports, as I do ESPN's opinions on music.

[Eielson]

I care as much about Rolling Stones opinion pieces on sports, as I do ESPN's opinions on music.

Well if you don't care about it, then I have no idea why they would waste their time writing it!!

[Curly Bill]

Well if you don't care about it, then I have no idea why they would waste their time writing it!!

Because like many people they have an overinflated sense of self-importance.

[okiewaker]

Nothing would make make me smile more than no SEC in the top 4 at the end of the year. Not. Going. To. Happen. It's skewed from the get go. Jmo

[Eielson]

Because like many people they have an overinflated sense of self-importance.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

[Mookie91]

The only reason there is an SEC bias is because the conference is that strong. It happens and is cyclical, the Big 10 and Big 12 have had their share of hype or have we all forgot when OU got spanked in the Big 12 title game but go their shot at a National Title but lost.

[BoomerMcSooner]

Article makes some good points, but some really stupid ones as well...Does read like an FSU homer who can't acknowledge that the ACC sucks wrote it.


So it's been painfully perplexing to witness ESPN use its outsize influence to prop up a Southeastern Conference that, for the first time in a decade, is arguably in a state of decline.

Complete nonsense. The computer algorithms are unanimous in viewing the SEC as uniquely strong this year. In past years, the computers have viewed the SEC as overrated, but not this year.


It can be argued that Texas A&M derived its lofty ranking through the first month of the season on the hype generated by the SEC Network's inaugural game broadcast, a 52-28 trouncing of a South Carolina team...

Very few teams played quality opponents early. South Carolina finished #4 last year and were expected to be good this year. The Aggies had arguably the best first week win, and showed that they could overcome the loss of Manziel. If Baylor had slaughtered us in week 1, they would have been getting lots of hype for it too.


Could a two-loss SEC team make the playoff?" Mike Bellotti's circular defense of his "yes" answer had nothing to do with X's, O's or anything remotely resembling a reasoned case for inclusion. In a response that evoked Nigel Tufnel's rationalization of amplifiers that go up to 11, Bellotti simply said, "They have four teams in the top five." Teams that ESPN, through its determined campaigning, has helped place there.

Nearly every computer poll also has 4 SEC teams in the top-5. Belotti's point is accurate, just as it would have been accurate in 2008 to suggest that the Big12 would be likely to have 2 teams in the playoff as OU and Texas were both in the top-4 in nearly every poll, human and computer.


Of course, Jameis Winston is a fixture atop the network's programming blocks, tickers and home pages, mostly for news based on unfounded allegations.

Really? The weekly clown show of a Heisman winner, national champion who is leading his #2 ranked team to the payoff is overblown? The media should instead be focused on an Alabama 4th string tight end whose caught a total of one pass in garbage time against Georgia State?



? Consider the treatment of the starting quarterback opposite Winston in last year's national championship game, Nick Marshall, who was cited in July for possession of a small amount of marijuana, a violation of a city ordinance.

Right...Because violating a city ordinance is a much bigger deal than rape.


Clemson, an ACC team with the same record as Texas A&M before the Aggies' third loss, was still ranked lower despite starting the season five spots higher, losing to 12th-ranked Georgia and taking the No. 1 team to overtime, both on the road.

Apparently he forgot that Clemson got trucked by Georgia...The same Georgia who lost to South Carolina who got trucked by Texas A&M. It isn't SEC bias to point out that by far the toughest game Clemson had was against Georgia. It is ACC homerism to pretend that Clemson is underrated by virtue of their close loss to FSU. An objective look at Clemson's results screams that the ACC (including FSU) sucks compared to the SEC, and Clemson would likely have a lot more losses if they had A&M's schedule.


Auburn is ranked two spots ahead of Notre Dame in this week's AP poll, despite losing to (then) third-ranked Mississippi State by 15 points. Meanwhile, the Irish barely lost to No. 2 Florida State by four points on a game-deciding penalty.

Again, he wants to give FSU credit for being top-ranked despite the fact that all computers agree FSU has played a crap schedule, and that they're overrated. Meanwhile, all the computers agree Auburn has played a wicked beast of a schedule, and think they're better than FSU and a lot better than Notre Dame.

It is the subjective humans who are overrating FSU. This writer takes for granted that FSU is the best team, and then extrapolates that FSU opponents are underrated by virtue of playing FSU close. In fact, FSU's opponents have played much weaker schedules than the SEC teams, as shown by 100% of objective number-crunching strength of schedule calculators.


Three SEC teams have yet to record a conference win, going a combined 0-13 so far in league play.

And yet those same teams do fine against other conferences (witness Arkansas crushing Texas Tech.)


Tennessee hasn't turned in a winning season since Obama's first year in office. Florida has won just seven of its last 19 games. LSU, South Carolina and Texas A&M haven't lived up to preseason expectations, and Arkansas is Vanderbilt now.

And yet according to computer algorithms that set the betting lines in Vegas, every one of those teams except Vanderbilt are about the same Louisville. So the breather games in the SEC are what are considered the big challenges for FSU in the ACC.


"Alabama lost, but it was to Ole Miss...Ole Miss lost, but it was to LSU...LSU lost, but it was to Auburn… Auburn lost, but it was to Mississippi State."

The thing is, this year all these teams won OOC too. Alabama beat WV, LSU beat Wisconsin. Auburn beat KSU. Ole Miss beat Boise State. And then of course, Georgia crushed Clemson. If the ACC performed nearly as well OOC, they'd get more respect. But they performed massively worse. Which is a big part of the reason why their scheduled are calculated to be much, much easier just based on the math.

The SEC is overhyped. But they are very good this year. The only conference that has a legit claim to being in the same universe is the Big12, since 40% of our conference is actually SEC quality. But the ACC and Big10 are a freaking joke, and outside of Oregon, the Pac12 doesn't look so good either this year.

If you look at Sagarin's latest rankings, the top-9 are all SEC and Big12 teams. Oregon is the only top-10 team from another conference (#10), and KSU is #11. FSU is #13, and would only be favored by 1.5 points over Texas A&M.

Here we have a guy whose team is favored by humans, but not computers whining about subjective rankings, despite his teams being higher in the subjective rankings than in the objective computer rankings.

[SoonerForLife92]

Interesting read and my new favorite website

https://secexposed.wordpress.com/