ESPN and its effect on College Athletics

mrandyk said:
http://www.usatoday....ment/51019966/1

The Boston College AD said that ESPN is who caused the ACC expansion. He quickly took it back, probably because he has to be dying to get his school into the ACC, but ESPN is no doubt playing a much larger role in this than a TV network should be.
Click to expand...
BC is already in the ACC. Interesting article though. I suppose if it's all true, someday someone like the Big East coming in on the short end will haul them into court in an anti-trust suit. Or some school president will get their senator to haul ESPN before congress.

 
VA Husker Fan said:
mrandyk said:
http://www.usatoday....ment/51019966/1

The Boston College AD said that ESPN is who caused the ACC expansion. He quickly took it back, probably because he has to be dying to get his school into the ACC, but ESPN is no doubt playing a much larger role in this than a TV network should be.
Click to expand...
BC is already in the ACC. Interesting article though. I suppose if it's all true, someday someone like the Big East coming in on the short end will haul them into court in an anti-trust suit. Or some school president will get their senator to haul ESPN before congress.
Click to expand...
Oh god...I can't believe I forgot that they've been in the ACC for a while now already.

 
Unless ESPN goes 'Gameday' in the midwest or west, they are typically uninterested in showing games that are away from the east coast. It may not be a 'big' bias, but for their television interest, they do have preferences to where they show games.

 
The SEC is a dominant conference, which is obvious because of the last 6 national titles being owned by teams of the SEC, but I don't think that the discrepancy is that large. The SEC has 2 or 3 really good teams each year and the rest of the conference usually isn't anything special. Florida, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Auburn, Miss St, Tennessee, and Ole Miss were all not that good last season - average at best. Then they had some respectable teams in Georgia and USC who were above average, and then they had the 3 big dogs who were Arkansas, Alabama, and LSU. To me, Arkansas was potent offensively but also very beatable. Texas A&M was winning pretty good through the first half and then collapsed just like they did every game last year in the 2nd half. Alabama and LSU however, were really freakin' awesome, and nobody else in the country was anywhere near their level.

Other than my SEC rant, I actually enjoy ESPN. Not their opinions, just their timely news updates and the resources they have available on their site. It's the first place I go when I need to look up something about a team or player. I just try to ignore the fluff and use the information given by ESPN to form my own opinions, which is what everybody should do IMO.

And I also like listening to Colin Cowherd. And yes, I do expect to take a little heat for that.

 
HuskerShark said:
The SEC is a dominant conference, which is obvious because of the last 6 national titles being owned by teams of the SEC, but I don't think that the discrepancy is that large. The SEC has 2 or 3 really good teams each year and the rest of the conference usually isn't anything special. Florida, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Auburn, Miss St, Tennessee, and Ole Miss were all not that good last season - average at best. Then they had some respectable teams in Georgia and USC who were above average, and then they had the 3 big dogs who were Arkansas, Alabama, and LSU. To me, Arkansas was potent offensively but also very beatable. Texas A&M was winning pretty good through the first half and then collapsed just like they did every game last year in the 2nd half. Alabama and LSU however, were really freakin' awesome, and nobody else in the country was anywhere near their level.

Other than my SEC rant, I actually enjoy ESPN. Not their opinions, just their timely news updates and the resources they have available on their site. It's the first place I go when I need to look up something about a team or player. I just try to ignore the fluff and use the information given by ESPN to form my own opinions, which is what everybody should do IMO.

And I also like listening to Colin Cowherd. And yes, I do expect to take a little heat for that.
Click to expand...
Cowturd is ok... SVP OR BUST! Only one I really make time to listen to!
 
ESPN absolutely has biases (hello NY) especially towards the larger cities. I won't speak for the start of ESPN, but today ESPN is about gathering as many eyeballs as possible, not balanced reporting/coverage. But like some others have posted, unfortunately their overall coverage is still the best.

To me, one of the biggest ways they've impacted college football over the past 10-20 years is non Saturday/Thursday coverage. Allowing a platform for less popular teams on Tuesday/Wednesday exponentially increased their exposure. The biggest benafactor was Boise St. They often got to showcase their blue field (I give them credit for using this novelty to their advantage) and then got better recruiting compared to their peers (other WAC/MWC/MAC type schools) based on extended tv coverage.

Without ESPN, I wonder how many of the less exposed conference (non BCS) would still be in existance at the D1 level.

 
hskrpwr13 said:
ESPN absolutely has biases (hello NY) especially towards the larger cities. I won't speak for the start of ESPN, but today ESPN is about gathering as many eyeballs as possible, not balanced reporting/coverage. But like some others have posted, unfortunately their overall coverage is still the best.

To me, one of the biggest ways they've impacted college football over the past 10-20 years is non Saturday/Thursday coverage. Allowing a platform for less popular teams on Tuesday/Wednesday exponentially increased their exposure. The biggest benafactor was Boise St. They often got to showcase their blue field (I give them credit for using this novelty to their advantage) and then got better recruiting compared to their peers (other WAC/MWC/MAC type schools) based on extended tv coverage.

Without ESPN, I wonder how many of the less exposed conference (non BCS) would still be in existance at the D1 level.
Click to expand...

Very good question. I guess the idea behind starting this thread was to see what others had to say about how the increased media exposure that has impacted college athletics (especially football and basketball) if at all. I agree that the smaller schools have definitely benefited but so have the large schools.

Every major change in the way things are done there are inherent benefits but there are also drawbacks some of which could have been planned for before the change and others were unrelated effects that no one saw coming. This effect is of course seen in Economics, environmental and city planning, etc. I was just curious of the insights others had on the known effects this change has had on college athletics as well as some of the unforseen effects this major change has had on the process.

I guess i am a believer in the idea that the market will take care of itself over time. There will be natural ebbs and flows but the market will level things out to what is in demand. Where are we in this latest ebb and or flow of the pendulum on this topic? Is the money going to stick around? Will the lawsuits like the ones against EA sports/concussions/ others have an effect etc?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jaybird, you've now broadened the scope from your original post which was ESPN-centric. I guess to add another response to your original post would be that I think the extra media exposure has hurt some of the great programs of yesterday that don't/didn't have recruits in their backyards. The Huskers are a prime example of this. If it was still just NBC, CBS, ABC the Huskers (since they were already elite) got the most exposure along with the other elites. Just like how NU can no longer sell the weight room as well as we used to (many now have exercise palaces), they can no longer sell t.v. exposure to top recruits (they'll be on t.v. most anywhere they go). Even selling the ability to go to bowl games used to be a big deal in recruiting. T.V. (mostly ESPN) saturated the market with more bowls and another avenue to show them. Thats led to bowl games becoming easier for players to get to, regardless of the school they choose, and again, they know they'll be on t.v. Its also eroded the quality of bowl games. Where not only did a team have to be good, they also had to have a strong fan base to get to a "good" bowl and the additional t.v. exposure. LOL This paragraph kind of turned into a "how ESPN hurt Husker football" rant.

Back to your above post, I truly worry for the future of college football. I think its hit its apex. I can easily see a future where more teams are added to the new playoff (even beyound 8) and players start reaping additional financial incentives (perhaps outright pay). At that point we'll see an arc towards being a niche sport. It won't be the NFL and nobody will care about the players if they are truly paid "employees" instead of students. (I'd argue here that college football is nothing more than an extra-curricular activity for which a business model has been built around. Most don't care to agree.) If there was a good market for professional minor league football we'd still have some form of NFL Europe still in play. Thats where I think college football will get too big and ultimately implode.

 
hskrpwr13 said:
Jaybird, you've now broadened the scope from your original post which was ESPN-centric. I guess to add another response to your original post would be that I think the extra media exposure has hurt some of the great programs of yesterday that don't/didn't have recruits in their backyards. The Huskers are a prime example of this. If it was still just NBC, CBS, ABC the Huskers (since they were already elite) got the most exposure along with the other elites. Just like how NU can no longer sell the weight room as well as we used to (many now have exercise palaces), they can no longer sell t.v. exposure to top recruits (they'll be on t.v. most anywhere they go). Even selling the ability to go to bowl games used to be a big deal in recruiting. T.V. (mostly ESPN) saturated the market with more bowls and another avenue to show them. Thats led to bowl games becoming easier for players to get to, regardless of the school they choose, and again, they know they'll be on t.v. Its also eroded the quality of bowl games. Where not only did a team have to be good, they also had to have a strong fan base to get to a "good" bowl and the additional t.v. exposure. LOL This paragraph kind of turned into a "how ESPN hurt Husker football" rant.

Back to your above post, I truly worry for the future of college football. I think its hit its apex. I can easily see a future where more teams are added to the new playoff (even beyound 8) and players start reaping additional financial incentives (perhaps outright pay). At that point we'll see an arc towards being a niche sport. It won't be the NFL and nobody will care about the players if they are truly paid "employees" instead of students. (I'd argue here that college football is nothing more than an extra-curricular activity for which a business model has been built around. Most don't care to agree.) If there was a good market for professional minor league football we'd still have some form of NFL Europe still in play. Thats where I think college football will get too big and ultimately implode.
Click to expand...
Ok.... I'm sleepy!! ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He mentioned the $2.25B contract many times yet never once mentions the $3.6B deal with the ACC and big deals with other conferences. Bowl matchups are manipulated but regular season games aren't? Bowl pairings are pre-set between conference standings (more or less), and how can they manipulate easy bowl games for all of their teams? I'd like to see the W-L records for the last 6 years, not since 1998. Nobody thought that the SEC dominated in the late 90s and early 00s as they do now, yet they're using those years as if that counters all arguments. And there's no given that they'll be dominant in 5 or 10 years. I don't think ESPN is pure in this, but if they were really looking at this from a business standpoint, would they really be promoting the minor markets in Alabama and Louisiana over California and Texas?

 
Foppa said:
Unless ESPN goes 'Gameday' in the midwest or west, they are typically uninterested in showing games that are away from the east coast. It may not be a 'big' bias, but for their television interest, they do have preferences to where they show games.
Click to expand...
I'm critical of ESPN, but this isn't exactly their fault or entirely true. They want to go to the biggest game of the week. More often than not, that game happens to involve some great schools, many of which are in the undeniably superior SEC.

Regardless, they go to pretty varied locations. In 2011, for example, they went to nine locations away from the east coast (not including the BCS games). They watched the same team play a couple of times last year but, again, I don't really see this as entirely their fault. They're after ratings and money, and they try to pick games that aren't similar week-to-week in terms of team, but also games that will make them cash.

 
Jaybird said:
Interesting article and kind of touches on similar points I was touching on in this thread.

http://www.thepostga...hompson-sec-bcs
Click to expand...
I heard about this article. I have a couple of problems with it, most of which I'm not going to get into. The point is simple - it doesn't matter how many times people write these articles, the numbers speak for themselves - six straight national championships. Although this title run coincides with ESPN's and the SEC's television contract, and even I agree there's something very peculiar about that, the top teams in the SEC have been dominating out of conference opponents for the last six years. And unless the author is suggesting that ESPN is illegally giving the SEC an advantage through hidden money, paying players, or whatever, there's really little substance to his rant. His article boils down to his belief that a t.v. deal with the SEC is why the SEC is so good.

Really?

Forget that they've had Steve Spurrier, Les Miles, Nick Saban, and Urban Meyer coaching for them (four likely Hall of Fame coaches). Forget that they get the best talent (I would say this is more SEC shadiness than ESPN's helping hand). Forget that when they play in big games they win. They've faced highly ranked opponents from five other conferences and won championships. Explain how their t.v. deal helps them there?

I think he raises some talking points, but overall, it's a little shoddy imho.

 
Bowl record isn't that fair, all bowl games are home games for the SEC.

ESPN clearly has an effect on who makes the title game though. No need to look any farther than the damn preseason polls that they manipulate.

 
mrandyk said:
Bowl record isn't that fair, all bowl games are home games for the SEC.

ESPN clearly has an effect on who makes the title game though. No need to look any farther than the damn preseason polls that they manipulate.
Click to expand...
The SEC has teams start in high positions, there's no denying that, but are a television deal and high pre-season rankings really the only reasons the SEC has been so successful the last six years? Those rankings and the t.v. deal don't give them wins; somehow, they end up manufacturing them, and I don't think it has much to do with their presence.

 
Back
Top