Check out this old boys rant...............
It's a long read, but I think he hit the nail on the head!!!!!
Note, I changed a few words 3 to be exact to fit the rule here at Woody's
This is always a hot-button topic for many sports fans, especially those fans who believe their team, their league, their conference, their sport (etc.) is the one getting the short shrift due to not being the "favorite" of those who hold much sway with public opinion, and in the case of college football, those who hold much control over any particular school's destiny.
Before I get into naming names and assessing blame, I want to point out that the real reason why many people are upset with bias (perceived or real) in the Sports Media is because these people are, for the large part, never held accountable. People who write some of the most reprehensible things (think Ron Borgess in Boston) are never censured for their insane and irrational biases. In fact, people like this are encouraged, because in the Sports Media, lightning-rod personalities draw a crowd, and it doesn't matter if the crowd is made up of people who hate and loathe this person, web hits are web hits, and the only thing that matters are the Benjamins.
Another prime example of a member of the Sports Media who's opinions are so far out of whack with his constituency is Terence Moore, a columnist for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. The man is a reverse-racist who divides his community on a regular basis, but because the people who loathe him rush to say so at the bottom of his columns, his columns are generally the most popular on AJC.com. Whereas people like me feel Terence Moore is an irresponsible opportunist who has written some of the most reprehensible copy I've ever read from the Sports Media, he's going to keep his job until he dies or quits, because his legion of haters will continue to keep him employed.
Now, I also want y'all to know that usually, claiming bias against a journalist is a pretty serious charge, and I don't take it lightly. I joke on my blogs when I call Matt Hayes "Biased Matt Hayes." Actually, Hayes, while I tend to disagree with a lot of what he writes, wouldn't be on any top-10 of the most biased members of the Sports Media. I call him biased because every now and again, you can see his Florida Homerism creep into what he writes. His man-love for Tim Teblow. His thinly veiled shots at Georgia, and also his refusal to vote Georgia in at No. 2 at the end of the year (he picked OSU... yes, that OSU). But all in all, he's not too bad. And when I call him Biased Matt Hayes, it's more me busting a guy's balls for being a journalist and a Florida fan (I don't know how he can type... doesn't the mullet get in the way?) than anything else.
I also want to explain that when I say Sports Media, that encompasses both actual journalists and the new breed: the sports analyst. Sports analysts tend to be former players, not journalists. They also tend to be very, very biased.
Which leads us to the Sports / Disney Conglomeration that is ABC / ESPN, the single-most guilty entity when it comes to bias in the Sports Media. I'm one of those who believes that money tends to drive much of the current level of bias we find in college football especially. ESPN is the most powerful Sports Media member, and as such, should try to be above reproach. But they continue to do things like boggle the mind, like not firing Emmitt Smith, or allowing Kirk Herbstreit to continue to pimp his favorite team, OSU, no matter how many times they are slapped by better, more athletic teams. What have we heard from ESPN this offseason? That OSU is coming back "loaded" and will be a definite MNC contender.
I ask the simple question, "Okay, they're returning a bunch of players, but aren't they the same players who've been slapped by faster, more athletic teams the last two years?" I follow that up with yet another simple question, "And if this is basically the same slow team, how is ANYONE justified in saying they should contend for the MNC?" Is it because their conference sucks so much, that we know they'll roll through, and even when USC destroys them, because USC will destroy OSU, they'll most likely make it through with one loss?
Is a one loss OSU team better than a two loss team from the SEC? Especially if it is Georgia, Florida, LSU, or Auburn which wins the SEC?
Heck no it isn't.
But you won't hear that from ESPN even though it's the truth. Why? Because ESPN and ABC have television contracts with the Big-ZERO. They also have contracts with the Big-II and Pac-1 as their first-pick conferences. The SEC will get one game a week on ESPN and ESPN2, but ESPN, ESPN2, and most importantly, ABC, has the games from those other conferences.
The SEC's main television partner is CBS. Does anyone think that may play a part in how ESPN covers college football? Does anyone see the potential conflict of interest? Does anyone else think that maybe, just maybe Tommy Tubberville had even the slightest of logical points when he denounced ESPN when his undefeated Tigers got left out in the cold, even though the SEC is far and away the best conference in football? Does anyone think that ESPN had a vested interest in keeping Oklahoma, their partner school through the Big-II, in that MNC game against USC? Does anyone think, especially considering the fact that they were blown out, that ESPN's efforts through the pervasive and persuasive use of mass media projection, gave us the wrong two teams that year?
I do. Yes, USC most likely would have beaten Auburn. But Auburn doesn't get blown out like OU did, because Auburn was a far better team with a much better defense (which was SEC-tested) than OU.
I'll give you another example, and this involved the extremely biased Kirk Herbstreit, who is not a journalist, but doesn't have a single bone of integrity in his body when it comes to providing unbiased analysis of college football, which is what he's paid to do.
Two years ago, Herbstreit infamously led the charge for a OSU-Michigan rematch in the MNC because he said they were the two best teams in the nation, and Florida didn't belong in the game. Now, he completely ignored the fact that Florida played a far tougher in-conference and out of conference schedule and had actually WON their conference. That's right, Kirk was advocating a team which DID NOT win their conference have a shot to play for the MNC. I'm sure it had nothing to do with ESPN's and Kirk's personal and professional ties to OSU and the Big-ZERO, right? And when it was announced that Florida would play OSU, Kirk (female dogged)and whined and complained about the match-up, about how Florida didn't belong on the same field as LSU and how OSU was going to blow them out.
What happened? Well, during Ginn's TD return of the kick-off, Kirk was infamously found to be jumping up and down, celebrating on the sideline with the OSU players and coaches. Way to hold on to your integrity as an analyst, Kirk. Then, after Florida dismantled OSU with superior athletes and speed, Kirk looked like he wanted to cry, and he STILL wouldn't give Florida credit. He said OSU didn't come ready to play. He blamed the "buffet circuit" for Troy Smith's poor play (I guess it had nothing to do with Florida's DE's blowing past his slow, unathletic Big-ZERO-type offensive line, huh Kirk?)
Then, in the offseason, we had to hear from Kirk and ESPN how that game was just a fluke, and that OSU really was good, and that the team really wasn't slow-footed and unathletic. ESPN was about the only place in the sports media where you would find this opinion. I'm sure it had nothing to do with their professional attachment to the Big-ZERO, right?
So, as it happens, OSU runs through yet another easy in-conference schedule, not to mention the Ohio Championship, and the question remains, who deserves to play for the MNC? Well, this time around, Kirk decries the fact that Georgia believes they should be eligible to play for the MNC due to their place as the No. 2 team in the nation before the various championship games. The Georgia argument is, if you didn't think we were the No. 2 team in the nation, why did you vote us the number 2 team in the nation? It's pretty decent logic. Well, Kirk, in a stunning and hypocritical reversal, decides that Georgia doesn't deserve to play for the MNC because they didn't win the SEC. But wait a minute, isn't this the same guy who said numerous times on camera that Michigan should play for the MNC the last year, and when pressed about their lack of a conference title, he said time and time again that it didn't matter, that they were obviously the second best team in the nation? Isn't that the same guy? Wasn't Georgia obviously the second best team in the nation regardless of a conference title trip? Well, that's arguable, but many coaches and AP voters obviously thought so, because they DID vote them number 2 before championship Saturday.
But thanks to ESPN's and Kirk's constant stream of 24/7, over-saturated sound-bites, Georgia found itself moved from 2 to 4 without even playing a game. Once again, I'm not arguing whether this was right or wrong (I believe it was right... sorry fellow Dawgs, but you should win your conference). I'm just pointing out the outright hypocrisy and bias of ESPN and Kirk Hebrstreit in particular when it comes to decisions regarding college football, especially when the Big-ZERO or OSU is involved.
Case in point: ESPN was the only place you could find before the MNC in which a majority of their journalists and analysts were picking OSU to win the game. Go back and look at the picks. It's true. Kirk Herbstreit had started it at the beginning of the season, denouncing the "myth" that OSU and the Big-ZERO were slow and unathletic compared to USC, WVU, and the top-tier SEC teams. By the time January rolled around, he had convinced the majority of his peers that OSU was the real deal, contrary to the fact that their in-conference schedule is a joke because the Big-ZERO is a joke conference and their out of conference schedule was a joke as well. These people are supposed to be SMART. But I believe that corporate interests played a huge part in how these people made their picks. Any moron could have seen from watching the two teams play all year that LSU was a far faster, far deeper, and just far superior team to OSU. And don't get me started on that overrated Laurinaitus. LSU treated him like a (female dog). There are plenty of linebackers in the SEC who are superior to this Katzenmoyer reject. But because they don't have a champion at ESPN to sing their praises, like this kid does, they don't win the awards. What did we hear from these guys? How OSU had the "best" defense in the nation. None of them, ESPECIALLY at ESPN, had the following disclaimer: OSU has the best STATISTICAL defense against inferior competition from an inferior conference when compared to LSU's statistical defenses. They refused to make it relative. That would be actual unbiased analysis, but we didn't get it from ESPN because it's not in their corporate interests to do so. Fox Sports is guilty for that same kind of shoddy journalism as well last year. If ESPN is the single most biased entity in the Sports Media, Fox Sports is second.
Awards. That's a whole other story in which ESPN can make or break kids or teams.
Tommy Tubberville was right. ESPN, the conglomeration, with money ties to three of the big conferences, should not be allowed to present unbalanced opinion they way they do. If they persist in allowing such a biased homer as Kirk Herbstreit have full sway at the network, then they need to promote The Bachelor and give him the ability to counter Kirk's bias. Then again, from what I saw last year, Jesse Palmer, although a graduate of Florida, a SEC school, has far more integrity than Kirk Herbstreit.
And this is just college football, people.
Who here was aware that there were 25 other baseball teams in MLB other than the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, or Dodgers? Anyone? Any hands?
ESPN does not speak for those of us who don't live in Boston, New York, Chicago, or L.A. I mean, on that show Around the Horn, where is the guy from Atlanta, or Charlotte, or Nashville, or Jacksonville? Why does the south receive little to no representation at ESPN? And that's what makes the college football stuff so hard to swallow. The vast majority of the national sports journalists in this country went to northern, western, or midwestern schools. It's like a good-ole-boy network: only yankees need apply. So southern teams are always getting the short shrift. Name one national journalist at ESPN who went to a southern school? The only one I'm aware of is Mark Schlabach, but he doesn't get to go on television with 6 shows a week like Herbstreit, or Reece Davis, or Mark May. In fact, as ESPN talent goes, Schlabach, a graduate of the Grady College of Journalism at Georgia, is highly unbiased, and hardly ever writes about the Bulldogs.
This coming football season, even if OSU is destroyed by USC, watch how Kirk and the Gang at ESPN will talk up OSU every week and do what they can to get OSU to stay at the top of the rankings. Remember, it's in their professional and personal best interests to do so.
And that is what is so very wrong about ESPN.
On a personel note. A few weekends last year Gameday decides to go to far less desirable games because of the conference affiliations rather than the best game. I always thought that they sat down and decided to go to the BEST "matchup" of the weekend????? Just goes to show ya money talks and they have a hidden agenda................Whatever makes us (ESPN/ABC) the most money is our agenda.........Not the best FOOTBALL GAME
College Gameday's Chris Fowler wrote the following on ESPN Insider:
"For 13 seasons, the locations of the GameDay road shows have been editorial decisions based on the college football landscape. The basic principle was to (almost) always come from the site of the "biggest game," or occasionally, "the best story..."
Now, the philosophy has been rethought by upper management. For the first time, the competitive landscape of football programming is a frequent consideration. Serving the needs of ABC's new prime-time package of games is often a priority. The decision on GameDay's site is less a clear-cut "best game" philosophy now and is more complicated, made on a landscape where terms like "synergy" and "branding" live."
Come on Sept.................. Football and deer hunting doesn't get much better
Unicoidawg
It's a long read, but I think he hit the nail on the head!!!!!
Note, I changed a few words 3 to be exact to fit the rule here at Woody's
This is always a hot-button topic for many sports fans, especially those fans who believe their team, their league, their conference, their sport (etc.) is the one getting the short shrift due to not being the "favorite" of those who hold much sway with public opinion, and in the case of college football, those who hold much control over any particular school's destiny.
Before I get into naming names and assessing blame, I want to point out that the real reason why many people are upset with bias (perceived or real) in the Sports Media is because these people are, for the large part, never held accountable. People who write some of the most reprehensible things (think Ron Borgess in Boston) are never censured for their insane and irrational biases. In fact, people like this are encouraged, because in the Sports Media, lightning-rod personalities draw a crowd, and it doesn't matter if the crowd is made up of people who hate and loathe this person, web hits are web hits, and the only thing that matters are the Benjamins.
Another prime example of a member of the Sports Media who's opinions are so far out of whack with his constituency is Terence Moore, a columnist for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. The man is a reverse-racist who divides his community on a regular basis, but because the people who loathe him rush to say so at the bottom of his columns, his columns are generally the most popular on AJC.com. Whereas people like me feel Terence Moore is an irresponsible opportunist who has written some of the most reprehensible copy I've ever read from the Sports Media, he's going to keep his job until he dies or quits, because his legion of haters will continue to keep him employed.
Now, I also want y'all to know that usually, claiming bias against a journalist is a pretty serious charge, and I don't take it lightly. I joke on my blogs when I call Matt Hayes "Biased Matt Hayes." Actually, Hayes, while I tend to disagree with a lot of what he writes, wouldn't be on any top-10 of the most biased members of the Sports Media. I call him biased because every now and again, you can see his Florida Homerism creep into what he writes. His man-love for Tim Teblow. His thinly veiled shots at Georgia, and also his refusal to vote Georgia in at No. 2 at the end of the year (he picked OSU... yes, that OSU). But all in all, he's not too bad. And when I call him Biased Matt Hayes, it's more me busting a guy's balls for being a journalist and a Florida fan (I don't know how he can type... doesn't the mullet get in the way?) than anything else.
I also want to explain that when I say Sports Media, that encompasses both actual journalists and the new breed: the sports analyst. Sports analysts tend to be former players, not journalists. They also tend to be very, very biased.
Which leads us to the Sports / Disney Conglomeration that is ABC / ESPN, the single-most guilty entity when it comes to bias in the Sports Media. I'm one of those who believes that money tends to drive much of the current level of bias we find in college football especially. ESPN is the most powerful Sports Media member, and as such, should try to be above reproach. But they continue to do things like boggle the mind, like not firing Emmitt Smith, or allowing Kirk Herbstreit to continue to pimp his favorite team, OSU, no matter how many times they are slapped by better, more athletic teams. What have we heard from ESPN this offseason? That OSU is coming back "loaded" and will be a definite MNC contender.
I ask the simple question, "Okay, they're returning a bunch of players, but aren't they the same players who've been slapped by faster, more athletic teams the last two years?" I follow that up with yet another simple question, "And if this is basically the same slow team, how is ANYONE justified in saying they should contend for the MNC?" Is it because their conference sucks so much, that we know they'll roll through, and even when USC destroys them, because USC will destroy OSU, they'll most likely make it through with one loss?
Is a one loss OSU team better than a two loss team from the SEC? Especially if it is Georgia, Florida, LSU, or Auburn which wins the SEC?
Heck no it isn't.
But you won't hear that from ESPN even though it's the truth. Why? Because ESPN and ABC have television contracts with the Big-ZERO. They also have contracts with the Big-II and Pac-1 as their first-pick conferences. The SEC will get one game a week on ESPN and ESPN2, but ESPN, ESPN2, and most importantly, ABC, has the games from those other conferences.
The SEC's main television partner is CBS. Does anyone think that may play a part in how ESPN covers college football? Does anyone see the potential conflict of interest? Does anyone else think that maybe, just maybe Tommy Tubberville had even the slightest of logical points when he denounced ESPN when his undefeated Tigers got left out in the cold, even though the SEC is far and away the best conference in football? Does anyone think that ESPN had a vested interest in keeping Oklahoma, their partner school through the Big-II, in that MNC game against USC? Does anyone think, especially considering the fact that they were blown out, that ESPN's efforts through the pervasive and persuasive use of mass media projection, gave us the wrong two teams that year?
I do. Yes, USC most likely would have beaten Auburn. But Auburn doesn't get blown out like OU did, because Auburn was a far better team with a much better defense (which was SEC-tested) than OU.
I'll give you another example, and this involved the extremely biased Kirk Herbstreit, who is not a journalist, but doesn't have a single bone of integrity in his body when it comes to providing unbiased analysis of college football, which is what he's paid to do.
Two years ago, Herbstreit infamously led the charge for a OSU-Michigan rematch in the MNC because he said they were the two best teams in the nation, and Florida didn't belong in the game. Now, he completely ignored the fact that Florida played a far tougher in-conference and out of conference schedule and had actually WON their conference. That's right, Kirk was advocating a team which DID NOT win their conference have a shot to play for the MNC. I'm sure it had nothing to do with ESPN's and Kirk's personal and professional ties to OSU and the Big-ZERO, right? And when it was announced that Florida would play OSU, Kirk (female dogged)and whined and complained about the match-up, about how Florida didn't belong on the same field as LSU and how OSU was going to blow them out.
What happened? Well, during Ginn's TD return of the kick-off, Kirk was infamously found to be jumping up and down, celebrating on the sideline with the OSU players and coaches. Way to hold on to your integrity as an analyst, Kirk. Then, after Florida dismantled OSU with superior athletes and speed, Kirk looked like he wanted to cry, and he STILL wouldn't give Florida credit. He said OSU didn't come ready to play. He blamed the "buffet circuit" for Troy Smith's poor play (I guess it had nothing to do with Florida's DE's blowing past his slow, unathletic Big-ZERO-type offensive line, huh Kirk?)
Then, in the offseason, we had to hear from Kirk and ESPN how that game was just a fluke, and that OSU really was good, and that the team really wasn't slow-footed and unathletic. ESPN was about the only place in the sports media where you would find this opinion. I'm sure it had nothing to do with their professional attachment to the Big-ZERO, right?
So, as it happens, OSU runs through yet another easy in-conference schedule, not to mention the Ohio Championship, and the question remains, who deserves to play for the MNC? Well, this time around, Kirk decries the fact that Georgia believes they should be eligible to play for the MNC due to their place as the No. 2 team in the nation before the various championship games. The Georgia argument is, if you didn't think we were the No. 2 team in the nation, why did you vote us the number 2 team in the nation? It's pretty decent logic. Well, Kirk, in a stunning and hypocritical reversal, decides that Georgia doesn't deserve to play for the MNC because they didn't win the SEC. But wait a minute, isn't this the same guy who said numerous times on camera that Michigan should play for the MNC the last year, and when pressed about their lack of a conference title, he said time and time again that it didn't matter, that they were obviously the second best team in the nation? Isn't that the same guy? Wasn't Georgia obviously the second best team in the nation regardless of a conference title trip? Well, that's arguable, but many coaches and AP voters obviously thought so, because they DID vote them number 2 before championship Saturday.
But thanks to ESPN's and Kirk's constant stream of 24/7, over-saturated sound-bites, Georgia found itself moved from 2 to 4 without even playing a game. Once again, I'm not arguing whether this was right or wrong (I believe it was right... sorry fellow Dawgs, but you should win your conference). I'm just pointing out the outright hypocrisy and bias of ESPN and Kirk Hebrstreit in particular when it comes to decisions regarding college football, especially when the Big-ZERO or OSU is involved.
Case in point: ESPN was the only place you could find before the MNC in which a majority of their journalists and analysts were picking OSU to win the game. Go back and look at the picks. It's true. Kirk Herbstreit had started it at the beginning of the season, denouncing the "myth" that OSU and the Big-ZERO were slow and unathletic compared to USC, WVU, and the top-tier SEC teams. By the time January rolled around, he had convinced the majority of his peers that OSU was the real deal, contrary to the fact that their in-conference schedule is a joke because the Big-ZERO is a joke conference and their out of conference schedule was a joke as well. These people are supposed to be SMART. But I believe that corporate interests played a huge part in how these people made their picks. Any moron could have seen from watching the two teams play all year that LSU was a far faster, far deeper, and just far superior team to OSU. And don't get me started on that overrated Laurinaitus. LSU treated him like a (female dog). There are plenty of linebackers in the SEC who are superior to this Katzenmoyer reject. But because they don't have a champion at ESPN to sing their praises, like this kid does, they don't win the awards. What did we hear from these guys? How OSU had the "best" defense in the nation. None of them, ESPECIALLY at ESPN, had the following disclaimer: OSU has the best STATISTICAL defense against inferior competition from an inferior conference when compared to LSU's statistical defenses. They refused to make it relative. That would be actual unbiased analysis, but we didn't get it from ESPN because it's not in their corporate interests to do so. Fox Sports is guilty for that same kind of shoddy journalism as well last year. If ESPN is the single most biased entity in the Sports Media, Fox Sports is second.
Awards. That's a whole other story in which ESPN can make or break kids or teams.
Tommy Tubberville was right. ESPN, the conglomeration, with money ties to three of the big conferences, should not be allowed to present unbalanced opinion they way they do. If they persist in allowing such a biased homer as Kirk Herbstreit have full sway at the network, then they need to promote The Bachelor and give him the ability to counter Kirk's bias. Then again, from what I saw last year, Jesse Palmer, although a graduate of Florida, a SEC school, has far more integrity than Kirk Herbstreit.
And this is just college football, people.
Who here was aware that there were 25 other baseball teams in MLB other than the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, or Dodgers? Anyone? Any hands?
ESPN does not speak for those of us who don't live in Boston, New York, Chicago, or L.A. I mean, on that show Around the Horn, where is the guy from Atlanta, or Charlotte, or Nashville, or Jacksonville? Why does the south receive little to no representation at ESPN? And that's what makes the college football stuff so hard to swallow. The vast majority of the national sports journalists in this country went to northern, western, or midwestern schools. It's like a good-ole-boy network: only yankees need apply. So southern teams are always getting the short shrift. Name one national journalist at ESPN who went to a southern school? The only one I'm aware of is Mark Schlabach, but he doesn't get to go on television with 6 shows a week like Herbstreit, or Reece Davis, or Mark May. In fact, as ESPN talent goes, Schlabach, a graduate of the Grady College of Journalism at Georgia, is highly unbiased, and hardly ever writes about the Bulldogs.
This coming football season, even if OSU is destroyed by USC, watch how Kirk and the Gang at ESPN will talk up OSU every week and do what they can to get OSU to stay at the top of the rankings. Remember, it's in their professional and personal best interests to do so.
And that is what is so very wrong about ESPN.
On a personel note. A few weekends last year Gameday decides to go to far less desirable games because of the conference affiliations rather than the best game. I always thought that they sat down and decided to go to the BEST "matchup" of the weekend????? Just goes to show ya money talks and they have a hidden agenda................Whatever makes us (ESPN/ABC) the most money is our agenda.........Not the best FOOTBALL GAME
College Gameday's Chris Fowler wrote the following on ESPN Insider:
"For 13 seasons, the locations of the GameDay road shows have been editorial decisions based on the college football landscape. The basic principle was to (almost) always come from the site of the "biggest game," or occasionally, "the best story..."
Now, the philosophy has been rethought by upper management. For the first time, the competitive landscape of football programming is a frequent consideration. Serving the needs of ABC's new prime-time package of games is often a priority. The decision on GameDay's site is less a clear-cut "best game" philosophy now and is more complicated, made on a landscape where terms like "synergy" and "branding" live."
Come on Sept.................. Football and deer hunting doesn't get much better
Unicoidawg
OSU WAS NOT HYPED INTO THE BIG GAME LAST YEAR. THE OTHER TEAMS THAT WERE THOUGHT TO BE BETTER LOST TO INFERIOR TEAMS. Why is it that OSU beats everybody they should every single year but loses twice to two very good teams but USC, Oklahoma, WV, etc can lose to unranked teams every year, lose to 40 point dogs, etc. and get a pass. Why does OSU NEVER lose to a 40 point dog? 
Those kind of games happen with 20 year olds. LSU had many returning senoirs and was the best team in the country and they won. The game was much closer than sec fans make it out to be. OSU outgained LSU in both the first half and second half. There were 2 to 3 plays that could have changed the whole complextion of that game. LSU was finally healthy and much more experienced and the better team won. SEC fans act like OSU came in as the superior team and again choked which proves something.
Yea right.
