- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why was Alabama the media choice for BCS NCG?
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:10 am
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:10 am
Ok, I'm an LSU fan and I can't stand Bama; I'll put that out there. Hell, I'm still pissed about 1/9 to the point that I changed up recent family vacation spot in Orange Beach to Perdito so as to not spend a dime in that state.
However, from a business perspective, I still don't understand the logic of ESPN, the network host of the game and chief Alabama spokesman, pushing for them to be in the game in the fashion they did. I've worked in media and my brother currently works in media. Outside individual reporters, the primary bias is on the side of what they feel will make money. This what I don't get. This whole post relies on two assumptions: 1. There was an organized push to put Alabama in the game. 2. ESPN is loyal to money above all else. If you don't accept either, this post is total BS.
Serious question, does anyone doubt there was an orchestrated push to include Alabama? I remember College Football Live arguing whether or not LSU deserved to play Alabama if they lost the SEC championship. WTF world were we living in?
In defense of ESPN, they were clearly not alone.
Still, a conference rematch of two Red State U's in flyover country in the poorest part of the country just doesn't sell and resulted in the lowest rated BCS championship game in history. This was entirely predictable. No one wanted to see this match-up outside Tuscaloosa and apparently Bristol, CT.
Granted, the alternative was OSU, not a blue blood by any stretch, but a deserving conference champ team with a high-powered, entertaining offense and they hadn't been defeated 6 weeks earlier by LSU. In my personal experience with friends on acquaintances around the country with zero SEC ties, all would have watched LSU/OSU and many wrote off the game.
My question is this--why did ESPN ride the Tide like they did is what was sure to be a ratings loser?
a. They didn't think it would be a ratings loser
b. They thought UA was more appealing than OSU
c. They have some kind of loyalty bias toward Alabama
d. They honestly thought they were deserving
e. Promoting Alabama served a broader, long-range goal to blow up the BCS and allow ESPN greater future revenue through playoff/plus-1 system
f. Pride from the talking heads who originally favored Bama (preseason or pre-11/5) overtook objectivity and they wanted to stick with their horse
A-C I can't even wrap my head around. UA may be the favorite in the SEC, but they'd be kicked to the curb quicker than a flaming bag of dog poo if all things were equal and the choice involved Ohio State, Texas, USC, Michigan or Notre Dame. Choice D I can accept, but I just don't believe the media acts honestly about anything and don't see why they would endorse a losing match up (ratings/interest wise).
E and F were added through this discussion.
Thoughts?
***Bama, congrats on taking advantage of your unprecedented mulligan. You were clearly the better team on 1/9.
However, from a business perspective, I still don't understand the logic of ESPN, the network host of the game and chief Alabama spokesman, pushing for them to be in the game in the fashion they did. I've worked in media and my brother currently works in media. Outside individual reporters, the primary bias is on the side of what they feel will make money. This what I don't get. This whole post relies on two assumptions: 1. There was an organized push to put Alabama in the game. 2. ESPN is loyal to money above all else. If you don't accept either, this post is total BS.
Serious question, does anyone doubt there was an orchestrated push to include Alabama? I remember College Football Live arguing whether or not LSU deserved to play Alabama if they lost the SEC championship. WTF world were we living in?
In defense of ESPN, they were clearly not alone.
quote:
Both sets of pollsters tilted heavily to a rematch in the national title game, as 42 of the 59 coaches ranked Alabama second; Oklahoma State was second on the other 17 ballots. In the Harris poll, 70 of 115 pollsters voted Alabama No. 2. No coach had Alabama ranked lower than third, but six coaches had Oklahoma State fourth or worse. The most notable? Alabama coach Nick Saban had the Cowboys fourth.
Still, a conference rematch of two Red State U's in flyover country in the poorest part of the country just doesn't sell and resulted in the lowest rated BCS championship game in history. This was entirely predictable. No one wanted to see this match-up outside Tuscaloosa and apparently Bristol, CT.
Granted, the alternative was OSU, not a blue blood by any stretch, but a deserving conference champ team with a high-powered, entertaining offense and they hadn't been defeated 6 weeks earlier by LSU. In my personal experience with friends on acquaintances around the country with zero SEC ties, all would have watched LSU/OSU and many wrote off the game.
My question is this--why did ESPN ride the Tide like they did is what was sure to be a ratings loser?
a. They didn't think it would be a ratings loser
b. They thought UA was more appealing than OSU
c. They have some kind of loyalty bias toward Alabama
d. They honestly thought they were deserving
e. Promoting Alabama served a broader, long-range goal to blow up the BCS and allow ESPN greater future revenue through playoff/plus-1 system
f. Pride from the talking heads who originally favored Bama (preseason or pre-11/5) overtook objectivity and they wanted to stick with their horse
A-C I can't even wrap my head around. UA may be the favorite in the SEC, but they'd be kicked to the curb quicker than a flaming bag of dog poo if all things were equal and the choice involved Ohio State, Texas, USC, Michigan or Notre Dame. Choice D I can accept, but I just don't believe the media acts honestly about anything and don't see why they would endorse a losing match up (ratings/interest wise).
E and F were added through this discussion.
Thoughts?
***Bama, congrats on taking advantage of your unprecedented mulligan. You were clearly the better team on 1/9.
This post was edited on 4/18/12 at 10:01 am
23
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:13 am to Ghostfacedistiller
They were previewing the LSU/Alabama national championship game after the SEC Championship game was over as if it was already set in stone, before OSU and OU had even played; despite the fact that Alabama/Oklahoma State was the closest margin between #2 and #3 in BCS history.
It was irresponsible on their part.
There was definitely a push in the media. Anyone who disagrees is naive.
Would LSU have gotten the same push if the roles were reversed? I, for one, am not sure. Not likely, in my opinion.
It was irresponsible on their part.
There was definitely a push in the media. Anyone who disagrees is naive.
Would LSU have gotten the same push if the roles were reversed? I, for one, am not sure. Not likely, in my opinion.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:16 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
They were previewing the LSU/Alabama national championship game after the SEC Championship game was over as if it was already set in stone, before OSU and OU had even played; despite the fact that Alabama/Oklahoma State was the closest margin between #2 and #3 in BCS history.
This was ridiculous.
I honestly think there might have been a push if the roles were reversed though...I really believe ESPN just wanted the all-SEC title game because of their contract with the SEC
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:16 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
They were previewing the LSU/Alabama national championship game after the SEC Championship game was over as if it was already set in stone
Hell they were previewing it before the SEC championship game was even played. LSU just wasted a week getting ready for Georgia because the consensus was that match up was set. Okie State couldn't do anything to derail Bama and LSU didn't even have to win to get in the NC. That being said Bama sucks
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:17 am to Ghostfacedistiller
Bama was also the coach's choice, because they were the 2nd best team.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:17 am to BayouBengals03
Oklahoma State was given no chance by ESPN. It was laughable how terrible ESPN was the last couple of weeks of the season.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:18 am to The Boat
quote:
It was laughable how terrible ESPN was the last couple of weeks of the season
which was different from every other week of the season in which way?
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:20 am to Ghostfacedistiller
Here's a thought. Maybe the media believed that Bama simply had a better team than Oklahoma State and would give LSU the most competitive game. It was either that or you're right. It was an ESPN conspiracy to prop up Bama and hurt LSU despite the fact that most of the country outside of the south vehemently didn't want a LSU/Bama national championship game.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:23 am to Eighteen
quote:
.I really believe ESPN just wanted the all-SEC title game because of their contract with the SEC
Maybe so, but how does that that benefit them? They already have the contract. Do they want an all SEC game to get more future viewers? I guess I just don't see how, if given a choice, you would want an all SEC matchup because people outside two poor, lower population states don't care and don't want a rematch.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:23 am to Unbiased Bama Fan
here's another thought. maybe the media shouldn't be biased.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:24 am to Unbiased Bama Fan
quote:
Maybe the media believed that Bama simply had a better team than Oklahoma State and would give LSU the most competitive game.
that was choice B and D. I'm not certain what you're getting at.
I said it's a possibility.
This post was edited on 4/18/12 at 12:28 am
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:27 am to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
Hell, I'm still pissed about 1/9 to the point that I changed up recent family vacation spot in Orange Beach to Perdito so as to not spend a dime in that state.
I agree that Bama should not have gotten a second chance but I gotta frick with you here. Just cry a river and save yourself the vacation.
That rematch dominated sports talk radio here for months and it pissed me off. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in Alabama is interested in the god damn Crimson Tide
This post was edited on 4/18/12 at 12:48 am
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:27 am to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
c. They have some kind of loyalty bias toward Alabama
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:28 am to Unbiased Bama Fan
I still remember Todd Blackledge pimping Bama during the Big 12 title game as OSU was making a pretty impressive statement in pounding OU - basically saying...it doesn't matter what OSU does.
That said...he said something else more interesting...
"Alabama should have beaten LSU on Nov 5th."
I think a lot of voters felt this and that well OSU choked away its game against a lesser opponent and that well...Bama is blueblood and OSU isn't. That's reality in CFB...the name programs will always get the love. People are stuck on tradition.
And of course...ESPN-SEC Network connections...guarantees the winner represents their TV deal.
That said...he said something else more interesting...
"Alabama should have beaten LSU on Nov 5th."
I think a lot of voters felt this and that well OSU choked away its game against a lesser opponent and that well...Bama is blueblood and OSU isn't. That's reality in CFB...the name programs will always get the love. People are stuck on tradition.
And of course...ESPN-SEC Network connections...guarantees the winner represents their TV deal.
This post was edited on 4/18/12 at 12:31 am
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:30 am to LooseCannon22282
quote:
I gotta frick with you here. Just cry a river and save yourself the vacation.
I'll be honest, the game was not 100% of the reason we're going to Perdito but I thought it would be a good touch.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:35 am to Zamoro10
quote:
I still remember Todd Blackledge pimping Bama during the Big 12 title game as OSU was making a pretty impressive statement in pounding OU - basically saying...it doesn't matter what OSU does.
That said...he said something else more interesting...
"Alabama should have beaten LSU on Nov 5th."
I remember that too. It was shocking.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:41 am to Ghostfacedistiller
That statement was ludicrous.
They were overly biased. They were all pissed because they all picked Alabama to beat LSU the first time around, and they all ended up being wrong. They wanted Alabama to get a 2nd chance, not because they wanted to see a better game, but because they wanted a chance to redeem themselves. Example: Robert Smith staking his entire reputation on Alabama beating LSU the second time around.
That was the joke. They are supposed to be at least sort of neutral, and not appear to let their personal vendettas get in the way of their jobs. However, a lot of them did. Example: Todd Blackledge.
They were overly biased. They were all pissed because they all picked Alabama to beat LSU the first time around, and they all ended up being wrong. They wanted Alabama to get a 2nd chance, not because they wanted to see a better game, but because they wanted a chance to redeem themselves. Example: Robert Smith staking his entire reputation on Alabama beating LSU the second time around.
That was the joke. They are supposed to be at least sort of neutral, and not appear to let their personal vendettas get in the way of their jobs. However, a lot of them did. Example: Todd Blackledge.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:45 am to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
I remember that too. It was shocking.
Why? Alabama was the better team.
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:51 am to LSUSOBEAST1
quote:
Why? Alabama was the better team.
It was shocking to me the inappropriately of the comments at that point in time. They were calling the OSU/OU game and completely pissed on the best season OSU had ever had at their best moment and went out of their way to say how the game they were currently broadcasting was of no consequence. As a broadcaster, it's generally frowned upon to degrade the game you're broadcasting, especially when it was actually of great importance.
This post was edited on 4/18/12 at 12:58 am
Posted on 4/18/12 at 12:51 am to LSUSOBEAST1
They were outplayed from the 2nd quarter on in a game played in front of 100,000 of their own fans.
Was Alabama a lot better on January 9th? Absolutely. But the idea that they were way better on November 5th, like many sportswriters and media members wanted you to believe, was literally retarded.
Was Alabama a lot better on January 9th? Absolutely. But the idea that they were way better on November 5th, like many sportswriters and media members wanted you to believe, was literally retarded.
Page 1 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News