Rolling Stone article on ESPN/SEC unholy alliance

I agree with some points of the article, but ESPN also has a stake in the Long Horn Network but we don't hear anything about Texas. Also, most TV markets in the south except Atlanta and Charlotte are very small. ESPN doesn't want to alienate LA, Chicago, and other bigger Midwest football markets entirely. Does ESPN want the SEC to succeed? Yes. Does ESPN want the SEC to dominate like it has? I am not entirely sure. 

I agree with Fowler with the point that a powerful OSU, Texas, Michigan, Oklahoma, etc make ESPN/ABC more money and isn't that what ESPN is about? I am not even a rah rah SEC! SEC! guy. I really do just think they are the best. Do people remember what that Florida team did to that OSU team we lost to in '06 or that Alabama team we played in Texas in '12? The SEC is good and they prove it.

I was expecting something more than anecdotes and innuendo.

 

I agree with the basic thesis, but the article itself seemed rather shallow and click-baitish.

For what it's worth this was written by an FSU grad. The wrath and lunacy of #FSUTwitter extends to print media as well.

They over hype the SEC, but I don't think it'll change the playoff. That's a stretch

ESPN would love a great Big Ten. New York (not because of Rutgers, more M and OSU) and Chicago are hotbeds for B1G fans. Certainly more people live in the Big Ten's footprint than in the SEC's. 

Was ready to scarf on a confirmation bias smorgasbord; but this wasn't good enough to lure me in despite my primed state.

I really was looking to accept all the author's arguments at face value. But then I read his arguments and couldn't ignore how weak they are.

FTR: The substance of this article distills down to two implications. (1) We've unfairly judged Jameis Winston and--then, based a bunch of isolated anecdotes about preseason rankings and who-beat-who's--(2) the "transitive property of college football" has been rigorously established as incontrovertible and obviously true.

I disregard basically anything that comes out of the mouths or from the fingers of people who associate with FSU. The inferiority complex caused by being the college for middle class dumbasses in their state + legions of bandwagon sports fans who just cheer for winners is a dangerous combination. Bud Elliot is probably the most sensible and intelligent FSU writer that exists, and his website's commentariat s is still a cesspool. 

I think the bias talk is a lot of nonsense. You're talking about the least valuable area of the country geographically besides the non-Denver parts of  mountain time zone for television viewership. NOTHING in television tries to target southerners. But ESPN is conspiring to help them at the expense of other leagues (namely the ACC) that they also own rights to? It's laughable nonsense mostly being spread by clueless Florida State fans who think it's a conspiracy that so many people think Jameis Winston is a horrible person and that Jimbo Fisher is Barry Switzer without the charm.

-----

Also, Big Ten people complaining of media bias is pretty rich considering how big a benefit of the doubt we got for years from the media even as the quality of our teams declined more and more. Ohio State got to go get pummeled in TWO different BCS title games they had no business in based solely on media refusing to admit the Big 10 had collapsed into suckitude. If we want people to stop talking about SEC dominance, we should stop being worse than them at football and then they won't. 

Is there an SEC bias? Kinda, yes. What's the motivation? There is none. It formed naturally because they won seven straight national titles, performed well in out of conference play, and haven't gotten embarrassed like their biggest competitor has (the B1G).

So, I agree with this part: "ESPN has created such an incestuous bubble of hype that there can be no arguing when these teams lose. "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.""

Once you've anointed the SEC West as the cream of the crop, it becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that they'll rank higher even with more losses. Hence the 2012 BCS title game, where OK State absolutely deserved a shot at the title.

BUT while ESPN owns the SEC Network, SEC games are also broadcast on CBS, whereas more Big Ten games end up on ABC, right? So I don't really understand what their motivation would be to nefariously keep the SEC higher. In fact, when ESPN controls the sport as much as they do, they have less incentive to see on conference perform better - they control the media access for everyone, after all!

I do think Ole Miss and Auburn are being overrated, and that Sparty, TCU and Notre Dame are being underrated by the CoFoPOff poll,. But I'm surprised anyone outside of NDNation would argue there is nefarious bias AGAINST Notre Dame.

I really wanted to agree with the author, but that article is pretty bad.

We all want to believe the conspiracy theories surrounding ESPN's partnership with the SEC and Tuesday nights initial CFP power ranknigs will probably do nothing to abate them, but let's wait until the conference championships get played and the final bracket comes out before we go screaming about unfair bias. 

A lot gets made of ND's number 10 ranking, but aside from their performance against FSU, their strength of schedule just isn't very impresive this season.  I think pollsters are completey warranted in questioning the legitimacy of ND's worthiness to be in the playoff.

The author speaks about ESPN downplaying scandals around the SEC and sensationalizing those of other conferences, but Todd Gurley got plenty of coverage when his suspension came up.  Cam Newton got lots of coverage, so did Johnny Manziel, so it's sort of selective reasoning to decry the firestorm around Jameis Winston as being excessive.

Overall, this article is a lot of sizzle, with very little steak.

Extreme

SEC

Propaganda 

Network

ESPN sucks