It's called ESPN covering the SEC. Bias is inherent.
here's one vote for "John Beilein's head in a Futurama jar"
It's called ESPN covering the SEC. Bias is inherent.
Didn't ESPN break one of the stories that the they are criticizing as overblown and unproven? It seems to me that this isn't inherent bias so much as looking for a bunch of different angles on the story so as to give them something to talk about.
I agree with you, however to be fair... Fox Sports I believe aired this out... ESPN had but no choice to follow suit... they are the worldwide leader... yada yada. But I agree, ESPN must value its integrity over any relationship with the SEC...right?! (Well at any rate, it will lead to increased hits, views etc.)
I think Yahoo sports was first to report it, then Fox, then ESPN...either way where there is smoke, there is usually fire. They have a history of questionable recruiting...and the SEC has some interesting issues recently. Maybe he should be eliminated and someone who has equivalent stats and who is a saint on and off the field with dreads and untied shoelaces should be the front runner!
ESPN got the 'Newtons talk about pay to play deal' story, courtesy of Joe Schad.
The sports media, quoting the great Mike Gundy, likes to "kick people while they're down" so to speak... Losing plus any magnitude of negativity outside the lines equates to the sports media jumping all over it, it seems.... Well, negativity in general. ESPN has also had a massive erection for the SEC for quite some time now.
Kinda sucks bad but that's why we are all blessed with knowledge past the MSM...
But I completely agree. From everything I've heard, people have been saying "if you think this doesn't go on at other programs, you are crazy." Almost like that's a suitable excuse. The most frustrating thing is that it's also happening locally from the tools who shall not be named. Clearly that wasn't an excuse for us and if anything, this situation is way worse than what we did which amounted to clerical errors.
I'm leaving neg-bombs to Tim... HOWEVA, this could have been posted as an addendum to EDSBS on Rosenberg for journalistic idiocy.
Did I miss a neg bomb warning over posting a particular though process?
You didn't necessarily miss it since it was posted in the Moderator Action Sticky and I don't blame you if you don't read it often (or ever). But here you go:
Cam Newton - Make It Rain
Put it in a different Cam Newton thread, dude.
User docked a million mgopoints (as will most Newton-related thread starters), and should probably stop spamming for his website, as well.
I'll take the bullet/bomb if its dropped...I have room to spare...(sad face)
But... ESPN is in this to make money and this is how they bring in viewers and visitors. They are going to debate this thing every which way from Sunday.
I understand what they do and how they generate viewership.. but my question is where was this through the whole RichRod thing?
There wasn't even two sides to the story. No one said "This is ridiculous, everyone does it, they're just dragging his name through the mud unfairly."
That's all I'm wondering I guess.
In fairness, Kirk Herbstreit said exactly that about Rich Rod and Stretchgate.
Yes, I remember a lot of people defending Rich Rod throughout the whole practice scandal-thing. I distinctly remember an interview with some Ohio State players and even they defended RR. They called it ridiculous that it was even being discussed. There was even a segment on ESPN where they called the whole thing a joke. Not an exact quote, but the idea was 'trying to keep a player away from the practice field if they have any desire to succeed and make it to the next level is impossible.' So I have to disagree with the OPs point. While there were some people giving RR a hard time, I think most realized how absurd that whole thing was.
Probably because it was a student athlete complaining, so it became big bad coaches and program vs. the little guy student athlete.
MSM caught wind of it and exacerbated everything.
The news loves a whistleblower story and always demonizes the whistleblower's target, even when unwarranted.
Bringing in viewers is. ESPN's general strategy is to go to polar opposites in coverage. Have certain people say outrageously stupid things to generate water-cooler buzz about what they just heard on ESPN, and then have other guys say what people want to hear.
ESPN is not about marketing sports, it's about marketing ESPN via sports. So congrats, you've helped ESPN gain more viewers by making a thread about something deliberately outrageous ESPN broadcast.
I think she is pretty good at what she does. Granted, no one, including her, would deny she has gotten opportunities thanks to her looks, but I think she works her ass off to stay on top.
I think she works her ass off to stay on top.
Don't you dare sully the good name of Erin Andrews. She is an American treasure.
Seriously though, she actually does good coverage. Considering they need someone to fill the top sideline/personal interest story reporter, would you rather her or several more Holly "Manatee" Rowes?
The difference is what Auburn was(alledgeldly) caught doing was much worse than what Rich Rod got in trouble for.
The difference is ESPN is making money of making Cam Newton the headliner athlete of the year.
The difference is ESPN was making money by paiting michigan in a bad light to create a compelling story.
... It'll always be like this. The best solution is to just stop watching ESPN and get your college football news from quality blogs like this one.
But why do you think ESPN makes money by shedding one player or school in a good light, and another (with a larger, more passionate fanbase) in a negative light?
I'm not disagreeing with you, but why would they take such a negative approach to the RichRod situation if they wanted to gain viewers?
ESPN tends to stay out of the middle and choose the polar opposites to create drama and better headlines. It makes sense, but it's not exactly accurate.
that players are paid everywhere so it's okay. Clearly they aren't paid everywhere or he'd be at Miss. St. And that's just the SEC. Do you think Stanford is paying players? Iowa? Wisconsin? Give me a break.
More importantly, we're talking allegedly $200k for a guy, at a minimum OK'd by a school. This is a BIG BIG deal. It's literally the worst thing a program can do. They made an entire movie about it for goodness sakes, and that was where I first learned what a great actor Shaq was.
That bit about Shaq aside, this is the real thing (if it's legit). There have been multiple news orgs with multiple sources all over it. The family is turtling up and is no longer talking, which looks suspicious. I don't understand how ANYONE has a problem with the reporting on this story so far.
that Shaq's real tour de force performance was in Kazaam!
Sounds to me like somebody felt they didnt get their fair share of the pie..and has decided to blow the whistle on everyone involved
Watch out Cam, here comes Alberto!
On RR's situation his issues came within the walls of his own program whereas Auburn is in better position to defend its fortress because the claims are coming from another University. Auburn is trying very hard to make Miss. State claims to be frivolous. So now you have figure heads at different stations of the University taking slightly different stances with the overall perception of claiming innocence. Chizik will defiantly defend his turf while the Auburn Regents/Pres will defend it with caution knowing there is a probability of this being true.
Players are paid through scholarships. I think the situation could be fixed almost entirely if students were given the opportunity to pursue their education free of cost after their playing days were over. It is truly impossible to submit the highest quality of work when you must take 12-15 credit hours as well as being occupied with athletics for at least that long. Even worse, some of these players have jobs.
That's a fresh idea. How about instead of classes, they can have the opportunity to work part time in various professions sponsored by the school so they can gain experience in the real world settings, and they are getting paid for giving value in a business? This might make them really value the education they haven't used yet.
Or maybe it might help them network and build business skills that makes the formal education unnecessary.
It is total hypocrisy. The only difference is Rodriguez was coming off of 3-9 and Cam Newton is putting up great numbers on an undefeated and top 2 team. Everyone loves a winner. Sad but predictable.
Because the world needs villians, and when RichRod had the audacity to leave his good job for an even better, higher paying job (a decision most people, if put in a similar situation, would have made), the media collectively decided that he was a bad guy forever.
Sports fans, especially those who root for bad teams, need something that they can grab onto - someone they can root against no matter who they play. And the media needs a narrative for everything. Right now, the narrative is RichRod = traitor; Cam Newton = kid who overcame adversity to become the best player in college football.
Granted, not all (probably most) of the national coverage of the Michigan situation was fair, but I remember a lot of analysts coming out in defense of Rich Rod. Less so ESPN articles, but ESPN commentators and other coaches were defending him a fair amount (including Tressel and Meyer).
EDIT: I also think it's worth noting that a lot of the national press got their information from the Free Press, which caused a pretty nasty trickle down effect of negative coverage. Everyone was pretty much getting their info from the same biased source.
I have been against shamateurism for about twenty years now. I have stated on many occasions that players should be allowed to accept all of the outside income anyone wants to offer to them.
However, I also think that players should follow the rules as they are set out. Until the rules change, players have no right to violate the terminology of their scholarship agreements. If Newton or his father violated the rules, they will probably be caught now. There are too many eyes searching for answers.
I, too, had a cynical eye toward the charges until the feds got involved. Usually, though, once the feds get involved, it's pretty much a fait accompli that improprieties will be found and charges will be filed.
As Reverend Newton is rumored to have said:
"Brothers and sisters of the congregation, throw all your money on the wall. What stays is the Lord's and what falls is mine."
Me too. I'm a hypocrite, and don't always practice what I preach. I don't feel good about that, but it is my reality. I would argue that if we're honest, it is the reality of most all people.
We want justice and fair play for others, but often want a free ride and a lack of accountability for ourselves, and our own team. That's human nature.
Having said that, the worst hypocrites are those who really want to bring the hammer down on others, but beg mercy for themselves. Some journalists, politicians, and preachers can easily fall into this category.
Regarding Cam Newton & Auburn, this whole discussion has several distinct parts, which are not identical.
The thing that really bothers me about the coverage is all of the "wait and see... benefit of the doubt... innocent until proven guilty" stuff I keep hearing.
NTM they (Newton's) have already admitted guilt as far as I'm concerned... Unless someone can give me a legit reason not to deny the accusations (aside from being guilty)?
...but if Cam and his family took cash, they need to be held accountable and punished.
I like the headline possibilities, too:
Will Cam get the shaft?
"Scam" Newton says goodbye to Heisman.
We all know RR has been a favorite whipping-boy for the media. He has been losing. The media is lazy and gutless. I think the religious slant may be holding them back with Newtons...not even gonna bring up what else
One of the great sports moments of the last decade.
If M had been winning games, then there would have been pundits rushing to RR's defense for sure
Kenny Rogers, on ESPN Dallas radio, telling the interviewer that Cecil Newton told him, in front of two Miss St coaches, that it would take "between $100,000 and $180,000" to sign Cam.
You reap what you sow. The pro-Newton faction tried to make it out like Rogers was an independent actor trying to make $ off of Rogers, giving Rogers an incentive to come public and clear his name.
I know a lot of you are trying to say "Freep innocent until proven guilty etc etc" but this case is different. Notice how the Newtons don't actually deny anything -- they just shoot the messenger or say "I'm not talking about that." They are guilty.
What is horrifying about this whole story is how a father is willing to put his son's future at risk so he can make some extra cash. I'm surprised more people haven't called him out for that.
Really don't care what the "experts" at ESPN think.