Rolling Stone calling out sEcSPN....

floridajacket said:
There was certainly a lot of fairly damning circumstantial evidence put together. I knew Nick Marshall had some off the field problems, but I never thought to contrast his problems to coverage of Winston's problems. I can understand coverage of the rape allegation, but the media did really run away with that dumb Internet meme thing. It becomes even worse with the contrast to coverage of Cam Newton. There was a good bit of coverage of how he got kicked out of UF and how his dad solicited payment from MSU, but I don't know. The coverage just had a different tone, especially these pundits who question Winston's ability to "lead teammates." None of that stuff was said about Cam Newton.

But one issue with these corporation-hating articles is they always assume the corporation is far more competent than they really are. I like the idea of the evil Mickey Mouse working behind the scenes to shift the story of the SEC and then get higher franchise fees for its SEC Network. There might be a little bit of truth to that, with ESPN executives wanting Fowler or Herbstreit to plug the games on the SEC network and get higher ratings. But narratives can also become monsters that grow without corporate oversight. Sports pundits needs some sort of narrative, whether it exists or not. Dispassionate analysis is boring, sort of like reading my posts, and so anything that's even mildly true like the SEC is the best conference (it is) gets blown way out of proportion.
Click to expand...

Sometimes there's a nugget of gold if one is patient enough to read it.
 
ESPN committed something like $3 Billion to the SEC.

How did anyone expect ESPN was going to get an ROI on that $3 Billion?

By going FULL "propaganda."

Lesson to all: Follow...The...Money.
 
3GT said:
ESPN committed something like $3 Billion to the SEC.

How did anyone expect ESPN was going to get an ROI on that $3 Billion?

By going FULL "propaganda."

Lesson to all: Follow...The...Money.
Click to expand...

NDconpiracy.0.png
 
Until the ACC starts winning the majority of games against the SEC, we need to stfu about bias.
 
So is it true that the writer of the article went to FSU?
 
Yes, I too can frequently hear the sound of gagging as various announcers gleefully take the full, veiny length of SEC football down their gullet.

But no, I don't believe it's some sort of intentional corporate conspiracy. I'd say it's more just a hype driven circle jerk that's gone awry.

I honestly do believe that the SEC west is the best division in college football, but I don't think the margin is as great as the rankings and talking heads seem to support.
 
Weak article, but this will move the conversation forward and espn may back off to appear more objective.
 
savbandjacket said:
Weak article, but this will move the conversation forward and espn may back off to appear more objective.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

People saying that the ACC needs to win more vs. SEC or that the SEC west is in fact where the best football is played are missing the point.

And that point is that the SEC's "dominance" is in large part due to a self-fulfilling prophecy based on preseason rankings. That's true again this year, with MSU getting lots of credit for beating shitty Texas A&M and LSU squads that were preseason rankings juggernauts for no logical reason.

The only quality team on their schedule thus far has been Auburn, and said quality is debatable for the same reasons.

But because I'm a guy on a message board, it's easy to dismiss that as tinfoil hat stuff. When a national publication says it, it causes people to think twice about it.

Ultimately the only thing that matters to me in this debate is the SEC not getting multiple teams into the playoff. Win your ööööing conference or go home. I don't care how subjectively and unprovably "tough" your conference is.

If you cannot win your conference, you cannot be the best team in the land, by definition.
 
Also- don't discount the impact of the constant bullshit spin on recruiting. That is the true self-fulfilling prophecy and it's been years in the making.
 
The two usual SEC West doormats win a few games against the SEC big boys and all of a sudden the SEC West is the supreme being of college football.

But I believe another way to look at this is that the SEC West big boys are just having a down year.
 
3GT said:
ESPN committed something like $3 Billion to the SEC.

How did anyone expect ESPN was going to get an ROI on that $3 Billion?

By going FULL "propaganda."

Lesson to all: Follow...The...Money.
Click to expand...
ESPN committed $3.6 billion to the ACC, which is the same per team as what the SEC gets.

I assume the SEC will get more when they renew, and ACC basketball is more valuable than SEC basketball, but your money argument doesn't hold a whole lot of water because their investment in ACC football is sizable no matter how you slice it.

I would agree this is mainly a hype cycle that ESPN is capitalizing on rather than a conspiracy. The hype cycle grew out of a very real period of domination by the SEC, and now kind of feeds on itself as others have said.
 
If undefeated Miss St is beaten by a one loss UGA you will see two SEC teams in for sure. Otherwise it will be iffy as long as teams like Oregon, Sparty, and Big 12 rep only have one loss.
 
andrew said:
I would agree this is mainly a hype cycle that ESPN is capitalizing on rather than a conspiracy. The hype cycle grew out of a very real period of domination by the SEC, and now kind of feeds on itself as others have said.
Click to expand...

This sums it up best. I don't see any reason for ESPN to love the SEC besides the fact that that's where the money is right now.
 
cyclejacket said:
If undefeated Miss St is beaten by a one loss UGA you will see two SEC teams in for sure. Otherwise it will be iffy as long as teams like Oregon, Sparty, and Big 12 rep only have one loss.
Click to expand...

Two loss UGAg. Two. One out of conference. The Saturday after Thanksgiving.
 
Remember a time when Mark Richt was the most successful coach in the SEC? That was before the conference dominance

The success of the SEC has traditionally laid on the shoulders of one man: Nick Saban. SEC fans will beat their chest and tell you that they have the best conference, but only two coaches are winning national titles there: Nick Saban accounts for 4 of their 7, Meyer for 2, and Mahlzahn for 1. Sure, other teams are getting better coaches. MSU got the UF offensive brain, LSU got a coach that managed to keep up appearances. At the end of the day, the success and failure of the SEC goes as Nick Saban goes.

And when someone tells you the SEC is the NFL, just remember that the 2012 Alabama team, one of the best college teams of all time, was a 25 point underdog to the Jacksonville Jaguars.

And don't forget. Without Nick Saban in the national championship game last year, the SEC fell to the ACC. And where was the mighty Crimson Tide? Getting their butts whooped by the Big 12 Sooners. And Georgia, the only consistent team in the East? They split The Big 10's Nebraska 1-1 in the last two years. (And let's not forget Mizzou's pretty embarrassing loss to Indiana)
 
andrew said:
ESPN committed $3.6 billion to the ACC, which is the same per team as what the SEC gets.

I assume the SEC will get more when they renew, and ACC basketball is more valuable than SEC basketball, but your money argument doesn't hold a whole lot of water because their investment in ACC football is sizable no matter how you slice it.

I would agree this is mainly a hype cycle that ESPN is capitalizing on rather than a conspiracy. The hype cycle grew out of a very real period of domination by the SEC, and now kind of feeds on itself as others have said.
Click to expand...


IIRC, ESPN signed the $3 Billion+ for the SEC when they had 12 teams. The ACC got their $3 Billion + for 14 teams...and that included Basketball also.

Those would be very different circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top