ESPN's Chris Fowler is feeling a little guilty

[NCND]

I liked Jackson's style of game calling but he was the biggest homer on the networks. ND v UM or ND v USC didn't matter, ABC carried those game and Keith openly rooted for the Rose Bowl (carried on ABC) prospects. Raved ad nauseam about the superiority of the BIG and PAC conferences which played in "The Granddaddy of the them all".

We're critical of Keith Jackson now? Wtf is going on. He was the absolute best. Musburger is a close 2nd in my book.

 

[T Town Tommy]

There is a big difference, though, between the SEC and the rest of college football; ESPN holds a financial stake in the SEC network. They don't own any of the BIG-10, PAC-12, or Longhorn networks. So, they have a vested financial interest in pumping up the SEC, win or lose. Again, I get the business end of it. But don't sit on a national stage, act superior, and call people stupid for recognizing your bias.

I may be wrong but I think ESPN has a serious financial vested interest in every conference. And until other conferences put 3-4 teams in the top of the AP - not ESPN - poll every week, why would ESPN not talk about those top rated teams? And why would they not have Game Day at SEC venues more often if that is the top rated games that week? I mean they were at FSU for the game last week - mind you, against a team who has serious financial stakes with a whole other network.

I am sorry but I just do not get the complaints about SEC bias from people here. Their coverage of Notre Dame has been fair and consistent. Just as it has been for every conference.

 

[kmoose]

We're critical of Keith Jackson now? Wtf is going on. He was the absolute best. Musburger is a close 2nd in my book.

Keith Jackson was the absolute best............ for a while. After he went into semi-retirement, and started doing almost nothing but West Coast games, he became an unapologetic, senile. Pac-10 homer.

 

[kmoose]

I may be wrong but I think ESPN has a serious financial vested interest in every conference. And until other conferences put 3-4 teams in the top of the AP - not ESPN - poll every week, why would ESPN not talk about those top rated teams? And why would they not have Game Day at SEC venues more often if that is the top rated games that week? I mean they were at FSU for the game last week - mind you, against a team who has serious financial stakes with a whole other network.

I am sorry but I just do not get the complaints about SEC bias from people here. Their coverage of Notre Dame has been fair and consistent. Just as it has been for every conference.

Let's say you own Avis Rental Car Co. You have a vested financial interest in every automaker, in that each of your customers has a different preference of make/model that they would like to rent.

Now let's say you own Avis Rental Car Co., and that Avis Rental Car Co. owns 35% of Chevy. Your interest in Chevy is weighted such that you are probably going to feature Chevy cars in all of your advertising. You want a strong auto industry, as a whole, but you also want Chevy to be the most popular of all of the brands. Because you make money off of your investment in Chevy.

The two are not equal, and it is not even close. I don't spend a lot of time complaining about ESPN's SEC bias. It is what it is. But when douchebags like Chris Fowler use their airtime to try to spin the perception, and deny the obvious, then my ideals get aggravated, yes.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Let's say you own Avis Rental Car Co. You have a vested financial interest in every automaker, in that each of your customers has a different preference of make/model that they would like to rent.

Now let's say you own Avis Rental Car Co., and that Avis Rental Car Co. owns 35% of Chevy. Your interest in Chevy is weighted such that you are probably going to feature Chevy cars in all of your advertising. You want a strong auto industry, as a whole, but you also want Chevy to be the most popular of all of the brands. Because you make money off of your investment in Chevy.

The two are not equal, and it is not even close. I don't spend a lot of time complaining about ESPN's SEC bias. It is what it is. But when douchebags like Chris Fowler use their airtime to try to spin the perception, and deny the obvious, then my ideals get aggravated, yes.

I can see that to a point. When ESPN primarily dealt with the B1G, they had more stories, obviously games, etc. If the B1G goes to Fox- which is the current projection - then I would expect less coverage for their conference. I don't have an issue with that either. But the present situation at ESPN has them having major financial interests ith each conference and I personally do not think they really care who is in the playoff games at the end of the year. They will get their money regardless.

As far as the Irish... I believe they have been very kind to ND and have given them a lot of coverage even though another network has a much larger business interest. Most of the complaints I read here on IE is the "filter" most employ when they feel their team is being slighted... when there is really no evidence to back that up.

 

[kmoose]

But the present situation at ESPN has them having major financial interests ith each conference and I personally do not think they really care who is in the playoff games at the end of the year. They will get their money regardless.

ESPN(Disney) owns 80% of the SEC network. So the less popular SEC football is, the less revenue the SEC network produces. Take the PAC-12 Network, for example; the PAC-12 Network is solely owned by the PAC-12 Conference. So, if the PAC-12 ratings go under, and the PAC-12 Network goes bankrupt? ESPN is not out any money; they just find other games to show on their ABC/ESPN branded networks. If the SEC network goes bust, that is money straight out of ESPN's pockets. You do understand the difference, don't you?

EDIT: I agree that they don't care who gets into the playoffs. The Super Bowl rates off of the chart all over the country, not just in the areas of the teams playing in it. But I still have not heard too many people complaining that ESPN is trying to get extra SEC teams into the playoffs. But people do see, because it is there, a bias for the SEC, in ESPN's coverage. Some is subtle, some is not

 

[BobbyMac]

ESPN(Disney) owns 80% of the SEC network. So the less popular SEC football is, the less revenue the SEC network produces. Take the PAC-12 Network, for example; the PAC-12 Network is solely owned by the PAC-12 Conference. So, if the PAC-12 ratings go under, and the PAC-12 Network goes bankrupt? ESPN is not out any money; they just find other games to show on their ABC/ESPN branded networks. If the SEC network goes bust, that is money straight out of ESPN's pockets. You do understand the difference, don't you?

EDIT: I agree that they don't care who gets into the playoffs. The Super Bowl rates off of the chart all over the country, not just in the areas of the teams playing in it. But I still have not heard too many people complaining that ESPN is trying to get extra SEC teams into the playoffs. But people do see, because it is there, a bias for the SEC, in ESPN's coverage. Some is subtle, some is not

Whoever is broadcasting and hosting the playoffs wants ND, Bama, Texas and Michigan, Ohio St, UCLA or SC to make it. It's about market, grads and how each fan base consumes. It's no different from any other sport. Baseball's dream is for the Yankees to play the Cubs in the Series. Basketball wants the Lakers vs. the Celtics, Bulls, Knicks or Cavs now that LBJ is back. The NHL wants the Hawks, Kings or Ducks to play the Bruins or Rangers in the SCF.

It's business.

.

 

[kmoose]

Whoever is broadcasting and hosting the playoffs wants ND, Bama, Texas and Michigan, Ohio St, UCLA or SC to make it. It's about market, grads and how each fan base consumes. It's no different from any other sport. Baseball's dream is for the Yankees to play the Cubs in the Series. Basketball wants the Lakers vs. the Celtics, Bulls, Knicks or Cavs now that LBJ is back. The NHL wants the Hawks, Kings or Ducks to play the Bruins or Rangers in the SCF.

It's business.

.

The conflict and bias are not in the championships, they are in the week in and week out coverage. ESPN is constantly hyping the SEC. This perpetuates the fallacy that even the worst place teams in the SEC would dominate other conferences. That pushes more people to choose to watch the SEC game on the SEC network, instead of UCLA v. Washington or Minnesota v. Northwestern. This inflates the SEC network's ratings, which allows them to charge more for commercial time, thereby increasing the value of ESPN's investment in them. I get that that's how business is run. But don't come out on national TV and call people stupid for realizing that you are doing it.

 

[irishfan]

No bias, but the first four highlights on SportsCenter tonight are all SEC games.

 

[Irish2155]

And UND had no highlights of today's game...the truck is up with that?

BTW, did you see that Miss team loose for the first time?

 

[irishfan]

And UND had no highlights of today's game...the truck is up with that?

BTW, did you see that Miss team loose for the first time?

Not looking for ND highlights. I just figured PSU-OSU or USC-Utah would be higher on the highlight totem pole than Bama-Tennessee.

 

[Irish2155]

Not looking for ND highlights. I just figured PSU-OSU or USC-Utah would be higher on the highlight totem pole than Bama-Tennessee.

One would think.

 

[kmoose]

Not looking for ND highlights. I just figured PSU-OSU or USC-Utah would be higher on the highlight totem pole than Bama-Tennessee.

Bama is ranked #4, Penn State is unranked, Ohio State is #13, Utah #19, USC #20.

That's why...

 

[irishfan]

Bama is ranked #4, Penn State is unranked, Ohio State is #13, Utah #19, USC #20.

That's why...

When we play Navy, our highlights will be about the 10th-15th game shown. Same thing when we played UNC earlier. No reason for Bama-Tennessee to be a top game in ESPN's eyes.

 

[Rocket89]

The conflict and bias are not in the championships, they are in the week in and week out coverage. ESPN is constantly hyping the SEC. This perpetuates the fallacy that even the worst place teams in the SEC would dominate other conferences. That pushes more people to choose to watch the SEC game on the SEC network, instead of UCLA v. Washington or Minnesota v. Northwestern. This inflates the SEC network's ratings, which allows them to charge more for commercial time, thereby increasing the value of ESPN's investment in them. I get that that's how business is run. But don't come out on national TV and call people stupid for realizing that you are doing it.

The bolded portion is really the only legitimate complaint and it's not really worth much.

It all comes down to the fact that a lot of people just don't like the SEC and ESPN is the prominent vehicle through which to voice that frustration/hate/grudge. The SEC is the best conference in football, by far, and it's not even close. It's annoying enough that many folks have been unable to admit this for 10 years but the it's probably even more annoying to listen to the complaining that ESPN is doing something wrong by hyping the SEC.

For all intents and purposes, ESPN owns ALL of college football. They are financially invested in seeing the sport being popular and fruitful. The teams that bring forth the most fruit right now are largely SEC teams, therefore they deserve all the hype.

I mean, what kind of world would we live in where ESPN should be hyping a Northwestern vs. Minnesota game? Why should they hype a game between two crappy teams? Aren't you advocating the same thing you're (falsely) accusing ESPN of doing re hyping games that don't 'deserve' the hype?

Keep in mind this same type of complaining about ESPN existed long before the SEC Network and their partnership existed.

 

[ickythump1225]

The bolded portion is really the only legitimate complaint and it's not really worth much.

It all comes down to the fact that a lot of people just don't like the SEC and ESPN is the prominent vehicle through which to voice that frustration/hate/grudge. The SEC is the best conference in football, by far, and it's not even close. It's annoying enough that many folks have been unable to admit this for 10 years but the it's probably even more annoying to listen to the complaining that ESPN is doing something wrong by hyping the SEC.

For all intents and purposes, ESPN owns ALL of college football. They are financially invested in seeing the sport being popular and fruitful. The teams that bring forth the most fruit right now are largely SEC teams, therefore they deserve all the hype.

I mean, what kind of world would we live in where ESPN should be hyping a Northwestern vs. Minnesota game? Why should they hype a game between two crappy teams? Aren't you advocating the same thing you're (falsely) accusing ESPN of doing re hyping games that don't 'deserve' the hype?

Keep in mind this same type of complaining about ESPN existed long before the SEC Network and their partnership existed.

Oh no, that is worth a lot. It completely changes the dynamic of every game. Lets take 2 games from yesterday to illustrate. OSU and Auburn both struggled against unranked conference foes. In the eyes of ESPN Auburn struggled because "it's the SEC and every game is hellishly tough and a slugfest" whereas when a team from another conference struggles with a lesser opponent, like OSU, it is because that team probably wasn't as good as we all thought.

 

[Rocket89]

Oh no, that is worth a lot. It completely changes the dynamic of every game. Lets take 2 games from yesterday to illustrate. OSU and Auburn both struggled against unranked conference foes. In the eyes of ESPN Auburn struggled because "it's the SEC and every game is hellishly tough and a slugfest" whereas when a team from another conference struggles with a lesser opponent, like OSU, it is because that team probably wasn't as good as we all thought.

Why does that upset you? Do you watch college football?

South Carolina is 37-10 over the last 3+ years and even while going through a down year have already beaten Georgia and East Carolina. Penn State is a middling team who hasn't beaten a team the caliber of Georgia in 5 years.

So yes, going into South Carolina is several notches more difficult than going into Penn State and should be discussed as such by the media.

 

[MNIrishman]

The bolded portion is really the only legitimate complaint and it's not really worth much.

It all comes down to the fact that a lot of people just don't like the SEC and ESPN is the prominent vehicle through which to voice that frustration/hate/grudge. The SEC is the best conference in football, by far, and it's not even close. It's annoying enough that many folks have been unable to admit this for 10 years but the it's probably even more annoying to listen to the complaining that ESPN is doing something wrong by hyping the SEC.

For all intents and purposes, ESPN owns ALL of college football. They are financially invested in seeing the sport being popular and fruitful. The teams that bring forth the most fruit right now are largely SEC teams, therefore they deserve all the hype.

I mean, what kind of world would we live in where ESPN should be hyping a Northwestern vs. Minnesota game? Why should they hype a game between two crappy teams? Aren't you advocating the same thing you're (falsely) accusing ESPN of doing re hyping games that don't 'deserve' the hype?

Keep in mind this same type of complaining about ESPN existed long before the SEC Network and their partnership existed.

ESPN hypes games between crappy teams all the time. Remember aTm vs. SCar? The bolded is just objectively wrong. It's a lot closer than you think, and I'm sorry you're buying into the nonsense. That's why there's a problem--people buy into the nonsense. Remember when Florida was the best team ever and it was a joke that they were playing Louisville, then got blown out? Remember when Arkansas was going to roll OSU? Remember when Florida lost to an FCS team last year? Remember when a Saban-led Bama lost to Louisiana-Monroe? Or when they didn't win a single BCS bowl last year, with the ALMIGHTY BAMA being blown out by Oklahoma? The SEC is just like any other conference. It has teams at the top and teams at the bottom. It DOES have the benefit of playing almost all its bowls in the immediate vicinity, which is nice for the bowl record. It also benefits from playing by a separate set of rules than the other conferences when it comes to the BCS NC game, where the 2006 and 2011 seasons clearly showed that the SEC gets special treatment.

 

[ickythump1225]

Why does that upset you? Do you watch college football?

South Carolina is 37-10 over the last 3+ years and even while going through a down year have already beaten Georgia and East Carolina. Penn State is a middling team who hasn't beaten a team the caliber of Georgia in 5 years.

So yes, going into South Carolina is several notches more difficult than going into Penn State and should be discussed as such by the media.

Yeah except Auburn didn't go into South Carolina! It was played at Jordan-Hare! What the hell are you talking about "Do you watch college footbal?" Do you? If you're going to nut ride the SEC at least get your facts right.

Just because a team had success a few years ago doesn't mean squat for this year. It's people with your mindset that keep giving middling SEC teams or worse (aTm, USCe, LSU) these preseason rankings that are completely unwarranted. It is an absolute joke that aTm was ever a top 10 team. That team is garbage, but they hyped simply for being in the SEC so teams that beat them got a lot of credit for a "top 10" win. Not to mention that aTm only got their ridiculous ranking for housing a crappy and overrated USCe team in the first place. The SEC circle jerk is a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Rocket89]

ESPN hypes games between crappy teams all the time. Remember aTm vs. SCar? The bolded is just objectively wrong. It's a lot closer than you think, and I'm sorry you're buying into the nonsense. That's why there's a problem--people buy into the nonsense. Remember when Florida was the best team ever and it was a joke that they were playing Louisville, then got blown out? Remember when Arkansas was going to roll OSU? Remember when Florida lost to an FCS team last year? Remember when a Saban-led Bama lost to Louisiana-Monroe? Or when they didn't win a single BCS bowl last year, with the ALMIGHTY BAMA being blown out by Oklahoma? The SEC is just like any other conference. It has teams at the top and teams at the bottom. It DOES have the benefit of playing almost all its bowls in the immediate vicinity, which is nice for the bowl record. It also benefits from playing by a separate set of rules than the other conferences when it comes to the BCS NC game, where the 2006 and 2011 seasons clearly showed that the SEC gets special treatment.

I have to ask, was this written for comedic purposes? If so, well done.

 

[Rocket89]

Yeah except Auburn didn't go into South Carolina! It was played at Jordan-Hare! What the hell are you talking about "Do you watch college footbal?" Do you? If you're going to nut ride the SEC at least get your facts right.

Just because a team had success a few years ago doesn't mean squat for this year. It's people with your mindset that keep giving middling SEC teams or worse (aTm, USCe, LSU) these preseason rankings that are completely unwarranted. It is an absolute joke that aTm was ever a top 10 team. That team is garbage, but they hyped simply for being in the SEC so teams that beat them got a lot of credit for a "top 10" win. Not to mention that aTm only got their ridiculous ranking for housing a crappy and overrated USCe team in the first place. The SEC circle jerk is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Just stop, this is embarrassing.

I don't really care about pre-season rankings, nor that Texas A&M was ranked high for a while before losing a few games. All of this stuff gets settled on the field and the SEC, on the whole, remains the best in the country.

Also, where the Auburn game was played doesn't matter. South Carolina has proven--this year and over the past several years--that they are a much stronger program than Penn State.

 

[TheChosen1]

Espn bracket on the show they just aired had 4 sec teams in the top 6.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

Oh no, that is worth a lot. It completely changes the dynamic of every game. Lets take 2 games from yesterday to illustrate. OSU and Auburn both struggled against unranked conference foes. In the eyes of ESPN Auburn struggled because "it's the SEC and every game is hellishly tough and a slugfest" whereas when a team from another conference struggles with a lesser opponent, like OSU, it is because that team probably wasn't as good as we all thought.

You need to cite sources for this shit. Otherwise don't post it.

 

[kmoose]

I mean, what kind of world would we live in where ESPN should be hyping a Northwestern vs. Minnesota game? Why should they hype a game between two crappy teams? Aren't you advocating the same thing you're (falsely) accusing ESPN of doing re hyping games that don't 'deserve' the hype?

You are completely misunderstanding my issue here. My issue is not that ESPN overhypes the SEC; I get the business end of the deal. My issue is this:

Don't come on a national TV program and claim that you don't, and that people who claim that you do are stupid.


It would be like ND releasing a statement denying that they are a Catholic institution, and saying that it is stupid to say that they are.

 

[ickythump1225]

Just stop, this is embarrassing.

I don't really care about pre-season rankings, nor that Texas A&M was ranked high for a while before losing a few games. All of this stuff gets settled on the field and the SEC, on the whole, remains the best in the country.

Also, where the Auburn game was played doesn't matter. South Carolina has proven--this year and over the past several years--that they are a much stronger program than Penn State.

I'm not sure if you're a troll or not. You've been here a while so I guess not, but then again you could be.

You need to cite sources for this shit. Otherwise don't post it.

Excuse me if I just ignore you telling me what I can and cannot post. If you don't like it don't read it.

Also I'll take the entire 2012 Notre Dame season and the first 6 games of this season as my cited source. We get dinged for not "winning by enough" against teams like Purdue whereas no one questions SEC powers when they post similar scores against SEC equivalents of Purdue.

 

[stlnd01]

We get dinged for not "winning by enough" against teams like Purdue whereas no one questions SEC powers when they post similar scores against SEC equivalents of Purdue.

There is no SEC equivalent of Purdue. The worst teams in the SEC (Vandy, Kentucky, Arkansas, I would say Miss. State except they're #1 in the country) have a lot more talent than Purdue can dream of, which is how Miss. State winds up #1 in the country. And, yeah, South Carolina's better than Penn State. The third best team in the Big 10 right now would be towards the bottom of the SEC.
This isn't rocket science. The SEC has the best recruiting grounds in the country. They generally go easy on the academics. And they pay up for facilities and coaching staffs like no one else. Almost across the board. It'd be unusual if they didn't have more than their share of the best programs.
Yeah, it's annoying. And yeah there can be an echo chamber effect sometimes. But these are good teams. And it's not just ESPN saying so. Four of the top seven in the AP poll are SEC, and AP voters owe nothing to ESPN.

 

[kmoose]

AP voters owe nothing to ESPN.

I don't know for certain, but I think that a case could be made, that ESPN could have GREAT influence on sportswriters. Before ESPN, Colin Cowherd was an unheard of sports guy at KGW, Channel 8, in Portland, OR. I'm not saying that he shilled for ESPN to get his job there, but I would not be surprised to find out that they were in contact with him for some time before hiring him, and that his reporting was influenced by the opportunity to maybe work there.

 

[Rocket89]

You are completely misunderstanding my issue here. My issue is not that ESPN overhypes the SEC; I get the business end of the deal. My issue is this:

Don't come on a national TV program and claim that you don't, and that people who claim that you do are stupid.


It would be like ND releasing a statement denying that they are a Catholic institution, and saying that it is stupid to say that they are.

I would submit that it is you that don't understand the issues that Fowler was talking about.

The SEC has been the best conference in college football and as such ESPN is just riding their coattails. The SEC teams get a lot of the GameDay locations, more publicity, and are ranked highly not because of bias from ESPN but because of how they've performed on the field. They've earned the respect and ratings.

This is the crux of the issue. The vast majority of people who hate the SEC simply cannot accept this fact, therefore they reflexively blame ESPN. It's a tired and illogical argument that makes no sense.

It's this stupidity that Fowler was speaking to--that ESPN has a bias towards the SEC and it's somehow unfair or undeserving. No, it is not. The SEC is not the best because of ESPN bias, it is because the SEC is the best.

Fowler was speaking about accusations that ESPN wants 3 SEC teams in the playoff because of their partnership with that conference. His response was no, ESPN has a greater financial interest in seeing the balance of power spread out more across the rest of the country. This is what will bring them the best ratings. As he mentioned on Twitter before Saturday, ESPN would love nothing more than to see the Big Ten rise up as a conference and become dominant because there is a ton of money to be made there.

Fowler was 100% correct. It's not an easy pill to swallow for a lot of people because they naturally hate the SEC and won't let anything get in the way of that.

 

[IrishLax]

There is no SEC equivalent of Purdue. The worst teams in the SEC (Vandy, Kentucky, Arkansas, I would say Miss. State except they're #1 in the country) have a lot more talent than Purdue can dream of, which is how Miss. State winds up #1 in the country. And, yeah, South Carolina's better than Penn State. The third best team in the Big 10 right now would be towards the bottom of the SEC.
This isn't rocket science. The SEC has the best recruiting grounds in the country. They generally go easy on the academics. And they pay up for facilities and coaching staffs like no one else. Almost across the board. It'd be unusual if they didn't have more than their share of the best programs.
Yeah, it's annoying. And yeah there can be an echo chamber effect sometimes. But these are good teams. And it's not just ESPN saying so. Four of the top seven in the AP poll are SEC, and AP voters owe nothing to ESPN.

This is such bullsh*t though. Because the true (historical) bottom dweller of the Big Ten isn't even Purdue. It's Indiana.

And Indiana went on the road and beat Missouri this year, a team that was last season in the SEC title game, and was ranked for a part of this year. Missouri is 6-2 and 3-1 in the SEC... and they lost to freaking INDIANA at home.

 

[kmoose]

Fowler was speaking about accusations that ESPN wants 3 SEC teams in the playoff because of their partnership with that conference. His response was no, ESPN has a greater financial interest in seeing the balance of power spread out more across the rest of the country. This is what will bring them the best ratings. As he mentioned on Twitter before Saturday, ESPN would love nothing more than to see the Big Ten rise up as a conference and become dominant because there is a ton of money to be made there.

I'm not sure that the bolded is true. People from all over the country are going to watch the playoffs because they love football, and college football in particular. I'm not going to not watch the playoffs, if ND is not in it. Take the Super Bowl for example; the Super Bowl doesn't usually get significantly better ratings in the towns of the teams that are playing. It transcends local bias........ and the College Football Playoffs will, as well.