Colin Cowherd

[kmoose]

I'm curious, how do you think this functions, logistically? John Skipper calls up David Pollack and tells him to make sure he talks up how great Georgia's ground game is going to be this year (or else)? And then the sportswriters, rather than using their own brains and eyeballs, doing the thing that is literally their job, dump their integrity out the window and blindly parrot what Pollack says on air?

I think that the guys that are "company men" (and tout the SEC "on their own") get the prime assignments and the best grades/reviews. This leads to larger contracts and more "extras" (This is Sportcenter" promos, etc). It's how you establish a corporate culture without the management having to pressure anyone directly. It just becomes "known" that X behavior is rewarded, while Y behavior is, if not actually punished, certainly not rewarded.

 

[IrishLion]

I'm curious, how do you think this functions, logistically? John Skipper calls up David Pollack and tells him to make sure he talks up how great Georgia's ground game is going to be this year (or else)? And then the sportswriters, rather than using their own brains and eyeballs, doing the thing that is literally their job, dump their integrity out the window and blindly parrot what Pollack says on air?

Ha basically. I don't think there are daily memos, but I'm sure there is an "unspoken agreement" of sorts (a silent verbal!) that goes, "hey, don't sh*t on the conference that helps pay our bills. Remember, they have a channel entirely dedicated to them now through our network!"

So, some of these college football guys know they can't be overly critical, while others might be legitimately brainwashed. But either way. ESPN sets a false reality around the SEC. Can you not see that?

 

[irishtrain]

Exactly. ESPN has an interest in protecting the SEC brand due to their network affiliation. Part of that means the talking heads at ESPN, since there is no legitimate competition, create the reality of college football every time they get on TV and talk. EVERYONE sees this, not just the casual fans. Sportswriters see it, opposing coaches see it, recruits see it, etc.

So of course, when a preseason poll comes out, we see completely undeserving SEC teams in the top 20. Why? Because the talking heads at ESPN love them, despite the actual facts that those teams aren't deserving of the praise they receive.

College football has become such an 'industry' that all the things that we are saying is true -----and more----- let me give an example. Yesterday I was tuned in to Finebaum for the first time in months ( always the same sec silliness so I dont listen anymore ) and Finebaum made the comment that Notre Dame 'just isn't in the conversation anymore' on the subject of Notre Dame needs to be in a conference brought up this time by Gary Pinkle. First- play Notre Dames schedule then complain after you play 3 out of conference patsies every year sec folks. 2nd- as my mother always says if snipes are always coming your way someone must be afraid of you or your position. And 3rd-Notre Dame (please try to understand this sec people) does not need a conference even in todays college football league if they have a good team and run the table or finish with 1 loss. What will happen next to reign Notre Dame in is to keep them out of a playoff as they try to handcuff Notre Dame in to submitting to a conference. I hope this last sports entity in American culture never ever allows that to happen.

 

[wizards8507]

But either way. ESPN sets a false reality around the SEC. Can you not see that?

Sure, I think the SEC is overrated. But I think those beliefs are sincerely held by the analysts expressing them. Last year people were talking about three teams from the SEC West in the playoff. I thought they were wrong, but I think they honestly believed it. I don't believe they were saying what they were saying to prop up the SEC Network, because it wasn't just ESPN saying it.

 

[wizards8507]

College football has become such an 'industry' that all the things that we are saying is true -----and more----- let me give an example. Yesterday I was tuned in to Finebaum for the first time in months ( always the same sec silliness so I dont listen anymore ) and Finebaum made the comment that Notre Dame 'just isn't in the conversation anymore' on the subject of Notre Dame needs to be in a conference brought up this time by Gary Pinkle. First- play Notre Dames schedule then complain after you play 3 out of conference patsies every year sec folks. 2nd- as my mother always says if snipes are always coming your way someone must be afraid of you or your position. And 3rd-Notre Dame (please try to understand this sec people) does not need a conference even in todays college football league if they have a good team and run the table or finish with 1 loss. What will happen next to reign Notre Dame in is to keep them out of a playoff as they try to handcuff Notre Dame in to submitting to a conference. I hope this last sports entity in American culture never ever allows that to happen.

Finebaum is an SEC personality hosting an SEC program in SEC country on the SEC network. If we want to talk about "pro-SEC bias," let's keep it to the content on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, etc. No shit that the SEC Network itself is going to have a pro-SEC vibe. That's no different than Longhorn being pro-Texas or NBCSports being pro-Notre Dame.

 

[IrishLax]

I'm curious, how do you think this functions, logistically? John Skipper calls up David Pollack and tells him to make sure he talks up how great Georgia's ground game is going to be this year (or else)? And then the sportswriters, rather than using their own brains and eyeballs, doing the thing that is literally their job, dump their integrity out the window and blindly parrot what Pollack says on air?

Just so we're clear, you do know that ESPN was basically exposed for doing exactly this with Tebow, right?

In their production meetings they were explicitly instructed to talk about Tebow because ESPN was finding that you "could not have too much Tebow."

This is basic business. Radio hosts complain about it all the time... both literally and metaphorically. "Playing the hits"... when ESPN fluffs the SEC, it's both because it explicitly and implicitly benefits their business interests. They have a channel that they need to drive eyeballs to, but they have that channel in the first place BECAUSE there are eyeballs for it. In large, ESPN is simply catering to what the viewers want... SEC fans that watch ESPN shows greatly outnumber PAC12, ACC, and Big 12 fans. It makes no sense for ESPN to run a special on Idaho or Wake Forest when no one is going to watch... that is bad business.

But then there is the whole discussion of whether ESPN intentionally or unintentionally inflates the strength of the SEC because of the SEC network. There is little evidence that they pull a "Tebow" for the SEC. However, when you have tertiary rights to games you need to get them as hyped up as possible. Hypothetically, more people will tune in to see #13 Tennessee play #10 Arkansas then will tune in to see unranked Tennesee play unranked Arkansas (assuming that's the #3 game that day that would then go to the SEC Network). Both Arkansas and Tennessee were 7-6 last year yet find themselves near the top 10 on account of a formula that weights subjective recruiting rankings. Recruiting rankings that benefit from oversigning, and count players that never even end up enrolling in the school or soon transfer. It's rather nonsensical.

On top of that, it's hard not to look at the crossover now between College Game Day and the SEC Game Day (that gets live cut ins on the main program) and see some preferential treatment towards their business interest. They plug the SEC Network because any business would do that... it's not much different than how NBC will have advertisements for Notre Dame game on some of its TV programs.

 

[irishtrain]

Finebaum is an SEC personality hosting an SEC program in SEC country on the SEC network. If we want to talk about "pro-SEC bias," let's keep it to the content on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, etc. No shit that the SEC Network itself is going to have a pro-SEC vibe. That's no different than Longhorn being pro-Texas or NBCSports being pro-Notre Dame.

I respectfully disagree as his show is sponsored by espn and paid by espn-so its an outlet of that network. I have no particular beef with espn , my beef is with anyone that wont let my Irish alone. IF Notre Dame is never allowed to chart its own course this whole deal ( industry ) is in a ton of trouble. Pinkle referred to the NFL as to having no independents-what the hell does that have to do with anything except to say that its professional and that's the problem-college football is not professional. (except to sec coaches)

 

[wizards8507]

Just so we're clear, you do know that ESPN was basically exposed for doing exactly this with Tebow, right?

In their production meetings they were explicitly instructed to talk about Tebow because ESPN was finding that you "could not have too much Tebow."

In this case we're talking about two different things. Talking about the SEC more than other conferences is not bias, it's just how TV works. The producer saying "Herbstreit, talk about the SEC" is much different than the producer saying "Herbstreit, talk about the SEC and how awesome they are and how Nick Saban should have sole authority to modify the decisions of the CFP committee." Obviously, the production meetings set the slate of what topics are going to be discussed. But the analysts are out there giving their honest opinions on those topics (unless something is obviously staged like Lou Holtz versus Mark May).

This is basic business. Radio hosts complain about it all the time... both literally and metaphorically. "Playing the hits"... when ESPN fluffs the SEC, it's both because it explicitly and implicitly benefits their business interests. They have a channel that they need to drive eyeballs to, but they have that channel in the first place BECAUSE there are eyeballs for it. In large, ESPN is simply catering to what the viewers want... SEC fans that watch ESPN shows greatly outnumber PAC12, ACC, and Big 12 fans. It makes no sense for ESPN to run a special on Idaho or Wake Forest when no one is going to watch... that is bad business.

I think this is the basis of the larger disagreement. ESPN (the company) has minimal incentive to drive eyeballs to SECN because most of those eyeballs are coming from ESPN (the channel) itself. It's cannibalistic to their own flagship station, and the flagship eyeballs are worth more dollars than the SECN eyeballs. Given the choice of a college football viewer watching an ACC game on ESPN or an SEC game on SECN, it's much more beneficial to have them watching ESPN.

But then there is the whole discussion of whether ESPN intentionally or unintentionally inflates the strength of the SEC because of the SEC network. There is little evidence that they pull a "Tebow" for the SEC. However, when you have tertiary rights to games you need to get them as hyped up as possible. Hypothetically, more people will tune in to see #13 Tennessee play #10 Arkansas then will tune in to see unranked Tennesee play unranked Arkansas (assuming that's the #3 game that day that would then go to the SEC Network). Both Arkansas and Tennessee were 7-6 last year yet find themselves near the top 10 on account of a formula that weights subjective recruiting rankings. Recruiting rankings that benefit from oversigning, and count players that never even end up enrolling in the school or soon transfer. It's rather nonsensical.

But nobody is talking about specifically hyping games that will air on the SEC network. They're talking about hyping the SEC as a whole. When you hype the SEC as a whole, it has a disproportionate effect on the #1 SEC game of the week, which is on CBS. By hyping the SEC, ESPN would be driving more viewers to CBS than they would be picking up on SECN. That's bad business. In your example, the incremental viewership of hardcore Tennessee and Arkansas fans who wouldn't have had the game televised in the first place is where the net pickup lies.

I respectfully disagree as his show is sponsored by espn and paid by espn-so its an outlet of that network. I have no particular beef with espn , my beef is with anyone that wont let my Irish alone. IF Notre Dame is never allowed to chart its own course this whole deal ( industry ) is in a ton of trouble. Pinkle referred to the NFL as to having no independents-what the hell does that have to do with anything except to say that its professional and that's the problem-college football is not professional. (except to sec coaches)

Who cares what Gary Pinkel says? I obviously disagree and think his comment is ludicrous. But it's equally ludicrous to hold ESPN responsible for every dumb comment any guest they've ever had makes.

 

[pumpdog20]

How the hell is LSU number 5 in the preseason? Do we return more starters? Did we beat them in the bowl game? What are the recruiting class rankings the last 3 years? Is there any metric that makes the number 5 and us 18?

LOL, is this a serious question? Clearly the answer is SEC.

 

[wizards8507]

LOL, is this a serious question? Clearly the answer is SEC.

Keep reading, smarty pants. LSU is NOT number 5 in any preseason poll. They're number 5 in preseason FPI, a metric that has nothing to do with conference and is calculated using tangible statistics from the prior season as well as (admittedly) subjective recruiting rankings.

 

[Ndaccountant]

In this case we're talking about two different things. Talking about the SEC more than other conferences is not bias, it's just how TV works. The producer saying "Herbstreit, talk about the SEC" is much different than the producer saying "Herbstreit, talk about the SEC and how awesome they are and how Nick Saban should have sole authority to modify the decisions of the CFP committee." Obviously, the production meetings set the slate of what topics are going to be discussed. But the analysts are out there giving their honest opinions on those topics (unless something is obviously staged like Lou Holtz versus Mark May).


I think this is the basis of the larger disagreement. ESPN (the company) has minimal incentive to drive eyeballs to SECN because most of those eyeballs are coming from ESPN (the channel) itself. It's cannibalistic to their own flagship station, and the flagship eyeballs are worth more dollars than the SECN eyeballs. Given the choice of a college football viewer watching an ACC game on ESPN or an SEC game on SECN, it's much more beneficial to have them watching ESPN.


But nobody is talking about specifically hyping games that will air on the SEC network. They're talking about hyping the SEC as a whole. When you hype the SEC as a whole, it has a disproportionate effect on the #1 SEC game of the week, which is on CBS. By hyping the SEC, ESPN would be driving more viewers to CBS than they would be picking up on SECN. That's bad business. In your example, the incremental viewership of hardcore Tennessee and Arkansas fans who wouldn't have had the game televised in the first place is where the net pickup lies.


Who cares what Gary Pinkel says? I obviously disagree and think his comment is ludicrous. But it's equally ludicrous to hold ESPN responsible for every dumb comment any guest they've ever had makes.

I guess there are two views on this. One is marketing dollars and the other is subscription dollars. To the point of marketing, I would agree with you. However, ESPN still wants people to subscribe to the channel. The way to do this is to make sure everyone knows that the 3rd or 4th best conference game, which is carried on the SEC network, is so good, that any CFB fan would be really missing out if they didn't see any of the game.

EDIT: It would also prove that with more subscribers, the more revenue they can generate for the conference. The more lucrative they are for the conference compared to other networks, the more likely they are to pick up other conferences. For example, Fox I believe owns a little under half of the Big 10 network. I don't think the Pac12 network is affiliated with either Fox, Comcast, ESPN, etc. So, ESPN can use the success of the SEC network to leverage a potential deal with the Pac12 network.

 

[wizards8507]

I guess there are two views on this. One is marketing dollars and the other is subscription dollars. To the point of marketing, I would agree with you. However, ESPN still wants people to subscribe to the channel. The way to do this is to make sure everyone knows that the 3rd or 4th best conference game, which is carried on the SEC network, is so good, that any CFB fan would be really missing out if they didn't see any of the game.

Subs are money in the bank. Most consumers have no choice but to pay for SECN. It's been tagged on to most expanded basic packages. Nobody "signs up," it's just a channel you get.

 

[pumpdog20]

Keep reading, smarty pants. LSU is NOT number 5 in any preseason poll. They're number 5 in preseason FPI, a metric that has nothing to do with conference and is calculated using tangible statistics from the prior season as well as (admittedly) subjective recruiting rankings.

Smarty pants, I take a fence to that.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Subs are money in the bank. Most consumers have no choice but to pay for SECN. It's been tagged on to most expanded basic packages. Nobody "signs up," it's just a channel you get.

That was not the case for me. It was part of the overall Sports Package, which was certainly an add on. I really didn't want it, I was more after NFL Network.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I don't really think so. If the PAC 12 was able to make ESPN more money, then they would cover that conference more. Since the PAC 12 has alignment with FOX, they receive the lion's share of coverage on that network. It doesn't mean ESPN ignores them, they just don't make them enough revenue to put them on as much as the SEC.

Actually, ESPN completely ignored the Pac 12 and the ACC and the Big 12 and the Big 10 for 6 straight days on CFL, save for a 4 minute snippet of FSU talk at the very end of yesterday's show. And this was during the Big 12 and the ACC media days. Think about that. Even when the SEC's media days were over, they still devoted their coverage to the SEC, when there was other news being made.

It's crazy that this is even a discussion, and that there are people who don't see the inherent bias. It's not just about eyeballs...believe it or not people care about other teams. It's about pushing a product that benefits them, and ESPN is so powerful that it absolutely sways public opinion.

I believe ESPN is pretty fair with Notre Dame - especially given the fact that Notre Dame aligns with NBC sports. ESPN doesn't blow smoke up the Irish's skirt, but outside of the typical Mark May rants, I think most of the coverage on ESPN is pretty fair. Will Notre Dame be the marquee story line most Saturdays on ESPN? No. They don't provide ESPN with the revenue stream other teams do. But I simply don't see this anti-Notre Dame bias that most Irish fans see. I think you have posted somewhat similar opinions of that as well iirc. Just my opinion.

This is like the 15th time I've had to say this on this thread, but I don't believe that ND is treated unfairly by ESPN. In fact, many on this thread have echoed the same thing. Not sure why you quoted me and typed that part.

 

[irishtrain]

Actually, ESPN completely ignored the Pac 12 and the ACC and the Big 12 and the Big 10 for 6 straight days on CFL, save for a 4 minute snippet of FSU talk at the very end of yesterday's show. And this was during the Big 12 and the ACC media days. Think about that. Even when the SEC's media days were over, they still devoted their coverage to the SEC, when there was other news being made.

It's crazy that this is even a discussion, and that there are people who don't see the inherent bias. It's not just about eyeballs...believe it or not people care about other teams. It's about pushing a product that benefits them, and ESPN is so powerful that it absolutely sways public opinion.



This is like the 15th time I've had to say this on this thread, but I don't believe that ND is treated unfairly by ESPN. In fact, many on this thread have echoed the same thing. Not sure why you quoted me and typed that part.

Like I said and agree with you guys-I have no beef with espn-they are what they are a sports entertainment group. My problem is trying any way possible to get Notre Dame in a conference if Notre Dame does not want to be in a conference. Therefore the statement Notre Dame is not in the conversation by hacks like Finebaum are just hot air.

 

[D-BOE34]

If we went 8 teams, ND is in with 10 wins regardless of schedule. Stop whining so much...

 

[Irish Insanity]

Stop whining so much...

We both know that will never happen.

 

[Irish#1]

I'm curious, how do you think this functions, logistically? John Skipper calls up David Pollack and tells him to make sure he talks up how great Georgia's ground game is going to be this year (or else)? And then the sportswriters, rather than using their own brains and eyeballs, doing the thing that is literally their job, dump their integrity out the window and blindly parrot what Pollack says on air?

Ha basically. I don't think there are daily memos, but I'm sure there is an "unspoken agreement" of sorts (a silent verbal!) that goes, "hey, don't sh*t on the conference that helps pay our bills. Remember, they have a channel entirely dedicated to them now through our network!"

So, some of these college football guys know they can't be overly critical, while others might be legitimately brainwashed. But either way. ESPN sets a false reality around the SEC. Can you not see that?

I think this happens regularly. I've heard Mike and Mike talk about show planning and how they get direction on some of the topics that should be covered on their show.

 

[Blaise]

I just wish someone from the "Talking head" shows would smack someone down, when a team like Florida ST in 2013 is described on the shows as a "SEC Type" team... Give me a break and get off your high horse... People act like the SEC invented speed, defense, and smash mouth football

 

[wizards8507]

I think this happens regularly. I've heard Mike and Mike talk about show planning and how they get direction on some of the topics that should be covered on their show.

They get direction on what topics to cover, but they're not forced to give specific opinions on those topics. They might say to Mike and Mike, "we'd like you to discuss college quarterbacks who you think will have the best NFL future," but the analysts and hosts are free to express their own opinions about which quarterbacks fit that bill. It's like an essay prompt in high school or college. Your teacher gives you the topic you have to write about, but you're allowed to articulate your own position on that topic.

 

[greyhammer90]

They get direction on what topics to cover, but they're not forced to give specific opinions on those topics. They might say to Mike and Mike, "we'd like you to discuss college quarterbacks who you think will have the best NFL future," but the analysts and hosts are free to express their own opinions about which quarterbacks fit that bill. It's like an essay prompt in high school or college. Your teacher gives you the topic you have to write about, but you're allowed to articulate your own position on that topic.

Just so long as you don't interfere with ESPN's economic interests in the expression of that opinion.

"Every employee must be accountable to ESPN and those engaged in our editorial operations must also operate within ESPN's journalistic standards," the network said in a statement, released on Wednesday night. "We have worked hard to ensure that our recent NFL coverage has met that criteria. Bill Simmons did not meet those obligations in a recent podcast, and as a result we have suspended him for three weeks."

(Not saying I think ESPN hates ND or anybody else's opinion. But let's not act like ESPN is a bastion of free speech either.)

 

[NCND]

I just wish someone from the "Talking head" shows would smack someone down, when a team like Florida ST in 2013 is described on the shows as a "SEC Type" team... Give me a break and get off your high horse... People act like the SEC invented speed, defense, and smash mouth football

Yeah that "SEC speed", "SEC athlete " crap has run it's course.

 

[wizards8507]

I just wish someone from the "Talking head" shows would smack someone down, when a team like Florida ST in 2013 is described on the shows as a "SEC Type" team... Give me a break and get off your high horse... People act like the SEC invented speed, defense, and smash mouth football

Yeah that "SEC speed", "SEC athlete " crap has run it's course.

I'm pretty sure Brian Kelly (D-MA) spent the entire 2012 season bragging about his "SEC-style defense."

Confirmed. Brian Kelly is biased to the SEC. Fire Brian Kelly! Boycott Brian Kelly! Brian Kelly has no integrity and is ruining college football. Brian Kelly gets his marching orders from Bristol and Charlotte!

Irish emulated SEC in building defense | Local News | Times Free Press

"It's clear that the formation of any great program is going to be on its defense," Kelly said. "Whether it's high school, college or NFL, if you play great defense you've got a chance. For us to move Notre Dame back into a national prominence, we had to begin with our defense, so our focus in recruiting and developing our talent and getting the right staff was on the defensive side of the ball.

"A lot of that was by natural models, but you look at the SEC and the teams that were playing for national championships -- obviously Alabama has been leading that charge -- and they have been built on defense."

 

[NCND]

This guy. I bet you're a fucking handfull. Anyways, like I said that "SEC " on anything that's good in college football has run it's course.

 

[wizards8507]

This guy. I bet you're a fucking handfull.

 

[NCND]

LMAO.

 

[kmoose]

I'm pretty sure Brian Kelly (D-MA) spent the entire 2012 season bragging about his "SEC-style defense."

Confirmed. Brian Kelly is biased to the SEC. Fire Brian Kelly! Boycott Brian Kelly! Brian Kelly has no integrity and is ruining college football. Brian Kelly gets his marching orders from Bristol and Charlotte!

Irish emulated SEC in building defense | Local News | Times Free Press

I'm pretty sure that you are taking one quote which happens to mention the SEC, and completely ignoring the context, to try to justify your position. Kelly said that the SEC teams were winning championships when he got to ND, and they were doing it by building the defense first. Again, as previously stated; the SEC did not invent this philosophy. Just ask the Steelers, Raiders, and Cowboys of the 70s, or the Bears and Giants of the 80s. Nowhere did Kelly use the term "SEC-style defense", in reference to his unit. As I have already said; I get that you are loyal to the company that pays your bills and provides for your family. But blind loyalty is rarely a good thing, and it's ok to say, "Hey, I work for a good company. But they certainly have(are) screwed the pooch on this one."

 

[wizards8507]

I'm pretty sure that you are taking one quote which happens to mention the SEC, and completely ignoring the context, to try to justify your position. Kelly said that the SEC teams were winning championships when he got to ND, and they were doing it by building the defense first. Again, as previously stated; the SEC did not invent this philosophy. Just ask the Steelers, Raiders, and Cowboys of the 70s, or the Bears and Giants of the 80s. Nowhere did Kelly use the term "SEC-style defense", in reference to his unit.

He did. He said it all season long that year. I'd provide more quotes but Googling press conference transcripts from three years ago is a PITA. Other non-ESPN sources comparing Notre Dame's defense that year to the SEC:

Transcript of Media Conference Call with Lou Holtz - ESPN MediaZone

Notre Dame's defensive line is built in SEC image

Notre Dame, the best SEC team not in the SEC - SBNation.com

As I have already said; I get that you are loyal to the company that pays your bills and provides for your family. But blind loyalty is rarely a good thing, and it's ok to say, "Hey, I work for a good company. But they certainly have(are) screwed the pooch on this one."

That would be a wonderful theory, except I've been openly critical of ESPN in the past. Why would my "blind loyalty" apply to the SEC but not to Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, the coverage of Deflategate, Jesse Palmer, and other topics? I'm free to express my own opinion and I don't have to agree with every decision ESPN or The Walt Disney Company makes. The fact that I've expressed those disagreements in the past should lend some credibility to the fact that I'm being completely genuine when I say I see no problem with their college football coverage.

Also, I've only been here a year. It's not like I'm a lifer who golfs with Bob Ley and Chris Berman on the weekends.

 

[ACamp1900]

Because you are a racist bigot... ??