The Wiz of Odds: ESPN's 'Game Day' Problem

I sometimes wonder if a bug is put into the ears of the ESPN guys doing games. It seems like no matter what game you are watching, even from a different conference, on ESPN and there sister channels, the commentators continuously talk about SEC this and SEC that and compare EVERYTHING to them. It wouldn't bother me if the comments were some how related to the game I am watching but 9 out of 10 times, it's not.

 
zoogies said:
Guy, you made a good point earlier that the SEC/ESPN also depend on college football outside of the SEC. That's true, but only to an extent. They don't need any of the other conferences to flourish, and indeed, can't be expected to expend any effort to that end. Absent any other parties with influence, they need only that the NCAA College Football landscape be alive so as to present an external prop with which its SEC teams can, on occasion, interact.
Click to expand...
Well thanks for complimenting me on making a good point, but the rest of your post seems to ignore it. ESPN absolutely needs the other conferences to flourish, and this is based on the simple math of advertising, viewership and U.S. population distribution. You can't talk about ESPN making the SEC a business decision, then ignore how the broadcast industry actually works.

I'm reminded of the broadcasting execs who studied the demographics of the Howard Stern show, and found out that the people who said they hated Howard Stern listened to his show longer and more frequently than the people who said they loved him.

 
shyndy said:
NUpolo8 said:
zoogies said:
Yes, and if it were BTN that had such shared interests and financial ties with ESPN, it would also be an issue. Though you'd be right -- a lot fewer complaints in B1G country.Guy, you made a good point earlier that the SEC/ESPN also depend on college football outside of the SEC. That's true, but only to an extent. They don't need any of the other conferences to flourish, and indeed, can't be expected to expend any effort to that end. Absent any other parties with influence, they need only that the NCAA College Football landscape be alive so as to present an external prop with which its SEC teams can, on occasion, interact.Sustained success should be earned on the field, not to work at tipping the environment in their favor, and surely that's what they're trying to do, wielding the current interest and success of their football teams and the influence of ESPN as their weapons. I suppose time will tell how effectively they can actually accomplish this.
Click to expand...
When USC was winning everything in sight, literally everything they did was on Sportscenter. In 2012, Notre Dame was omnipresent, regardless of how they snuck through their weak schedule. Florida St is currently receiving press. Oregon gets gameday every year it seems. Ohio st was an unstoppable juggernaut right up until they weren't.The common the se with all of those teams are, they were contenders. And if Nebraska was (and they could be as soon as this year) you can bet Espn will cover us. That I'm sure of.
Click to expand...
We are mostly talking 2009 and on since from 2009 to now since over that span espn has vested 2.25 billion in the SEC(that's alot of money that requires a lot of return). Otherwise I'd agree with you, it isn't that long ago they obsessed over Usc, Miami, Ohio state, etc. honestly, most of FSU's press has been negative (maybe deserved). If you watch their shows they like to tAlk down FSU. That said I think there might be pressures in some areas to push the SEC, but I doubt they are sitting guys down and telling them it's their job to pump the sec, or we'd get some whistleblowing. The bias is real, but its a strange mishmash of a plethora things, probably the largest factor being simply that the sec is and has been good and chocked full of talent. That said there are some ridiculous SEC homers, many of them on ESPN and you don't tend to see that much with other conferences. There are people that are homers for teams, but not someone trying to promote the idea that a weak sec team would run the table in the acc for an example. Trevor matich for example seems so ridiculous that I wonder if he's getting an extra paycheck, dude had FSU 5th and Bama 3rd.
Click to expand...
Is that all it is? I wasn't sure this link if this info was still current. I know everybody is getting a sh!tload of money from ESPN, but the way I hear it around here you'd think they only pay the SEC.

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/3163/a-comparison-conference-television-deals

I've only quoted the ESPN payouts here, plus what CBS pays the SEC. I suspect this is missing the SEC network windfall. The "negotiations ongoing" refers to the SEC wanting a bit more after adding Missouri and A&M, IIRC. We get $2.8B from the BTN.

This includes all sports, btw, which must explain why the ACC gets so much, but football is the big dog overall.

BIG 12

First- and second-tier rights: $2.6 billion, ESPN/FOX, 13 years through 2024-25

PAC-12

First- and second-tier rights: $3 billion, ESPN/FOX, 12 years through 2023-24

SEC

First-tier rights: $825 million, CBS, 15 years through 2023-24 (negotiations ongoing)

Second-tier rights: $2.25 billion, ESPN, 15 years through 2023-24 (negotiations ongoing)

BIG TEN

First-tier rights: $1 billion, ESPN, 10 years through 2016-17

ACC

First-, second- and third-tier rights: $3.6 billion, ESPN, 15 years through 2026-27
Click to expand...
 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Well thanks for complimenting me on making a good point, but the rest of your post seems to ignore it. ESPN absolutely needs the other conferences to flourish, and this is based on the simple math of advertising, viewership and U.S. population distribution. You can't talk about ESPN making the SEC a business decision, then ignore how the broadcast industry actually works.

I'm reminded of the broadcasting execs who studied the demographics of the Howard Stern show, and found out that the people who said they hated Howard Stern listened to his show longer and more frequently than the people who said they loved him.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you agree, though, that the current deal offers a significant incentive for the SEC to remain the top dog while the rest of the conferences merely need to be just relevant enough?

If the football situation were to change drastically, I'm sure ESPN would have to respond accordingly. But that can't be as beneficial to them as the current landscape, right? It's not like the other Power 5 conferences are dead in the water. But SEC predominance floods national perception. If the SEC & B1G swapped places in football relevance, wouldn't that be at least a little less good for ESPN?

 
zoogies said:
Guy Chamberlin said:
Well thanks for complimenting me on making a good point, but the rest of your post seems to ignore it. ESPN absolutely needs the other conferences to flourish, and this is based on the simple math of advertising, viewership and U.S. population distribution. You can't talk about ESPN making the SEC a business decision, then ignore how the broadcast industry actually works. I'm reminded of the broadcasting execs who studied the demographics of the Howard Stern show, and found out that the people who said they hated Howard Stern listened to his show longer and more frequently than the people who said they loved him.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you agree, though, that the current deal offers a significant incentive for the SEC to remain the top dog while the rest of the conferences merely need to be just relevant enough?If the football situation were to change drastically, I'm sure ESPN would have to respond accordingly. But that can't be as beneficial to them as the current landscape, right? It's not like the other Power 5 conferences are dead in the water. But SEC predominance floods national perception. If the SEC & B1G swapped places in football relevance, wouldn't that be at least a little less good for ESPN?
Click to expand...
With the big ten having an extraordinarily wide alumni base, and a very good tv footprint, I doubt they'd shed much of a tear.

 
NUpolo8 said:
zoogies said:
Guy Chamberlin said:
Well thanks for complimenting me on making a good point, but the rest of your post seems to ignore it. ESPN absolutely needs the other conferences to flourish, and this is based on the simple math of advertising, viewership and U.S. population distribution. You can't talk about ESPN making the SEC a business decision, then ignore how the broadcast industry actually works. I'm reminded of the broadcasting execs who studied the demographics of the Howard Stern show, and found out that the people who said they hated Howard Stern listened to his show longer and more frequently than the people who said they loved him.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you agree, though, that the current deal offers a significant incentive for the SEC to remain the top dog while the rest of the conferences merely need to be just relevant enough?If the football situation were to change drastically, I'm sure ESPN would have to respond accordingly. But that can't be as beneficial to them as the current landscape, right? It's not like the other Power 5 conferences are dead in the water. But SEC predominance floods national perception. If the SEC & B1G swapped places in football relevance, wouldn't that be at least a little less good for ESPN?
Click to expand...
With the big ten having an extraordinarily wide alumni base, and a very good tv footprint, I doubt they'd shed much of a tear.
Click to expand...
yeah, they were really smart. because, no matter what ESPN wins (unless football's popularity wanes, which is possible). but they just set it up to have more control and have the money flow directly to them.

the B1G is not exceptionally exciting, but they are making records amount of money. i imagine that if the SEC has a downturn, ESPN will still profit. a lot. this is about control of a market more than anything else, and by market, the tv's in SEC country.

 
kchusker_chris said:
you'd think they'd cram Texas down your throat on an hourly basis...yet they don't. how come?
Click to expand...
you look at what delaney is doing and what they are doing and you can tell it is all about subscriptions in homes, not even necessarily eyeballs on the sets. plus, who knows what network television looks like in 5 years.

 
zoogies said:
Guy Chamberlin said:
Well thanks for complimenting me on making a good point, but the rest of your post seems to ignore it. ESPN absolutely needs the other conferences to flourish, and this is based on the simple math of advertising, viewership and U.S. population distribution. You can't talk about ESPN making the SEC a business decision, then ignore how the broadcast industry actually works.

I'm reminded of the broadcasting execs who studied the demographics of the Howard Stern show, and found out that the people who said they hated Howard Stern listened to his show longer and more frequently than the people who said they loved him.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you agree, though, that the current deal offers a significant incentive for the SEC to remain the top dog while the rest of the conferences merely need to be just relevant enough?

If the football situation were to change drastically, I'm sure ESPN would have to respond accordingly. But that can't be as beneficial to them as the current landscape, right? It's not like the other Power 5 conferences are dead in the water. But SEC predominance floods national perception. If the SEC & B1G swapped places in football relevance, wouldn't that be at least a little less good for ESPN?
Click to expand...
TV rights are expensive. ESPN had to pick one conference and the SEC was the smart choice. The SEC was on the upswing, having nothing to do with ESPN, and the conferences fortunes could trend downward, too, because they always do.

We're not talking about any drastic changes at this point anyway. SEC is the top dog by a few clicks at the moment. Even if it wanted to, ESPN could not prop the SEC up beyond what the teams do on the field. It's not like they don't report scandals on SEC teams, or decline to cover Oklahoma's humiliation of Alabama. When Nick Saban blows up on the sidelines, they show it. We only think they showcase angry Bo Pelini because we are hyper-sensitive to any perceived slight. We don't seem to compare how much positive attention ESPN gives Nebraska and its players because...well I'm not really sure why some Nebraska fans want to believe we're constantly disrespected.

ESPN wants to cover good stories that attract a national audience. The perception that ESPN considers 75% of college football allegiences less-relevant isn't good for business. They will only get good numbers for their huge SEC investment if generic football fans, and indeed SEC-haters tune in. They do have to promote the games they are broadcasting, so of course you have a point, but they would be thrilled with a marquee match-up from another conference. The individual ESPN pundits exhibit rooting interest for plenty of non-SEC teams and always have.

When you say "SEC predominance floods the national perception" it's not simply the self-serving creation of ESPN, it's an opinion shared widely throughout the sporting community. At this particular moment. Same pundits have been around long enough to know the ebb and flow of teams and conferences and a landscape that's trending to Superconferences and new attempts to generate money through parity. The SEC isn't in stone. Nothing's really in stone. The biggest lure in televised sports in unpredictibility. ESPN can't afford to promote overdogs over underdogs. It just doesn't work that way.

And yeah, the demographics of the Big 10 would be very attractive to ESPN if the situation was flipped. But those are games and ratings the Big 10 teams still gotta go out and earn.

Maybe they will.

That's why they play the games.

 
NUpolo8 said:
Stumpy1 said:
kchusker_chris said:
you'd think they'd cram Texas down your throat on an hourly basis...yet they don't. how come?
Click to expand...
Kind of hard to pimp them when Horns fans don't even watch LHN.
Click to expand...
Well that and they're bad.

Now, if they were STILL promoting them endlessly, that's bias and everyone would have a right to go as crazy as they're going.
Click to expand...
The reason the Longhorn Network isn't being promoted by ESPN much is because other than Dish Network, they can't get major cable companies to carry the channel widespread.

I think ESPN promotes the SEC Channel because they feel they need to do it because they are invested and without them they probably feel the channel will fail. Fox owns 49% of the BTN and you don't see them doing the same thing as ESPN. And BTN is widely more successful than SEC.

 
StPaulHusker said:
The reason the Longhorn Network isn't being promoted by ESPN much is because other than Dish Network, they can't get major cable companies to carry the channel widespread.
Click to expand...
Isn't that all the more reason ESPN would have to promote Texas and the LHN? If they could create more demand, they could get more carriers, which is a lot more money than what they might possibly get with a few more eyes on the SEC network. You make your money 2 ways: 1) get carriers for your network and 2) make it more popular so you can charge more. I could be wrong, but I think #1 is the biggest gainer.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
zoogies said:
Guy, you made a good point earlier that the SEC/ESPN also depend on college football outside of the SEC. That's true, but only to an extent. They don't need any of the other conferences to flourish, and indeed, can't be expected to expend any effort to that end. Absent any other parties with influence, they need only that the NCAA College Football landscape be alive so as to present an external prop with which its SEC teams can, on occasion, interact.
Click to expand...
Well thanks for complimenting me on making a good point, but the rest of your post seems to ignore it. ESPN absolutely needs the other conferences to flourish, and this is based on the simple math of advertising, viewership and U.S. population distribution. You can't talk about ESPN making the SEC a business decision, then ignore how the broadcast industry actually works.

I'm reminded of the broadcasting execs who studied the demographics of the Howard Stern show, and found out that the people who said they hated Howard Stern listened to his show longer and more frequently than the people who said they loved him.
Click to expand...
Minutes I watched the LSU-Bama rematch - 0

I know I'm not the only one that tuned out for that "championship" game, otherwise we wouldn't have the new playoff system.

 
dtbugeater said:
Man, I have heard enough about the SEC to last me a life time. Part of me hopes the south just falls into the ocean--
Click to expand...
Wait--this the football or Politics/Religion forum?

Or have we found a common goal that transcends the individual boards: completing a Lex Luther-style geographical change to give Ohioans beach-front property?

 
Back
Top