PDA

View Full Version : ESPN's baseball bias



TRF
06-02-2006, 01:54 PM
I along with other have noticed a definite bias towards certain teams. NY, Boston etc.

Over the next month, beginning today I plan to log what the main story is on ESPN's baseball page to see if this bias really exists or if it is perceived. The criteria is simple; the main story must be directly about or mention one of the following teams: Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, Giants and Cardinals.

If a bias exists, we'll see the trend.

June 2, 2006: Main Story Tigers avoid sweep by beating the Yankees.

Joseph
06-02-2006, 01:57 PM
Not a bad idea will be interesting to see how it plays out.

lollipopcurve
06-02-2006, 02:07 PM
Nice TRF. I've had the same notion myself.

One tweak to consider -- instead of the Giants, how about just Bonds?

I'd also be curious to know how many of the NYY-Red Sox games are televised on ESPN...

pedro
06-02-2006, 02:18 PM
There is a pretty strong BIAS but I do think a lot of has to do with the sheer market size that those two teams hold and b/c ESPN itself is based in the northeast.

I really wish it wasn't so though b/c I get damn sick of those two teams after a while.

kbrake
06-02-2006, 02:24 PM
I think ESPN would admit to giving far more coverage to those teams listed, but I'm sure its what the ad buyers want as those are the biggest markets.

M2
06-02-2006, 02:29 PM
I would expect to hear a lot about the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Cardinals (Tigers and White Sox too), because they're the better teams in the league right now.

Making them the lead story on a regular basis isn't showing a bias, it's simply standard story prioritization. The best teams playing for the highest stakes lead the newscast.

savafan
06-02-2006, 02:33 PM
I'd also be curious to know how many of the NYY-Red Sox games are televised on ESPN...

It feels like they all are.

VR
06-02-2006, 02:37 PM
I would expect to hear a lot about the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Cardinals (Tigers and White Sox too), because they're the better teams in the league right now.

Making them the lead story on a regular basis isn't showing a bias, it's simply standard story prioritization. The best teams playing for the highest stakes lead the newscast.


Not just the better teams, but the fan base..... thus the larger audience for ESPN. If the D-Rays were leading the AL East right now, they'd still be behind the Sox and Yanks for air time and features. The Cubbies are on all the time, along with their injury woes.

lollipopcurve
06-02-2006, 02:54 PM
I would expect to hear a lot about the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Cardinals (Tigers and White Sox too), because they're the better teams in the league right now.

What defines better? For weeks the Reds had a better record than either NYY or Boston, but while the ESPN baseball page featured the Yanks and Bosox regularly, the Reds got 1 maybe 2 splashes.

Right now the Dbacks and Dodgers are within a game of the Yanks and vying for a division lead. Does that mean they deserve close to equal exposure?

We all know what drives ESPN's baseball coverage -- it's not about showing the excellence and excitement of major league baseball; it's about creating huge markets around 5-6 marquee franchises, with a steady focus on NY-Boston. They have the right to cover the game however they wish, and for all I know MLB is complicit in the strategy. I just like that threads like this will help us track that strategy and make it plain to see.

captainmorgan07
06-02-2006, 02:56 PM
espn never shows the mediocre teams it's always the yankee's sox mets cardinals etc

15fan
06-02-2006, 03:01 PM
Go easy on them. ESPN has a lot of programming time and bandwidth to fill up during the 7 months of the year that Duke isn't playing basketball.

Oh how I long for the days when MTV just played videos and ESPN just showed games...

savafan
06-02-2006, 03:05 PM
espn never shows the mediocre teams it's always the yankee's sox mets cardinals etc

I want an ESPN Sunday night game of the week with the Royals vs. the Twins. That'll draw a large viewership.

lollipopcurve
06-02-2006, 03:18 PM
Maybe someone with some media savvy can answer this one for me.

If ESPN were to leave basic cable packages, would they be in trouble? Seems to me that with the local FOX telecasts, the team-owned networks, the NFL Network and the EI, Sunday Ticket and League Pass packages on Direct TV, viewers have plenty of venues for getting their sports fix and would have no problem choosing not to pay extra to watch ESPN. I'd ditch it in a second.

M2
06-02-2006, 03:28 PM
What defines better? For weeks the Reds had a better record than either NYY or Boston, but while the ESPN baseball page featured the Yanks and Bosox regularly, the Reds got 1 maybe 2 splashes.

Right now the Dbacks and Dodgers are within a game of the Yanks and vying for a division lead. Does that mean they deserve close to equal exposure?

I think they can be excused for not jumping on every April bandwagon. Yet they have seized upon the Tigers. And let's not be naive here, the Yankees and Red Sox are two of the best teams in baseball year-in, year-out.

As for the DBacks and Dodgers, it would seem they're focusing on NL West as a five-team field trying to sort itself out. IMO, that's probably the smart way to cover it at this time. Thing is, those teams won't lead the East Coast broadcasts all that often because they're often just getting started with their games.

BRM
06-02-2006, 03:31 PM
Maybe someone with some media savvy can answer this one for me.

If ESPN were to leave basic cable packages, would they be in trouble? Seems to me that with the local FOX telecasts, the team-owned networks, the NFL Network and the EI, Sunday Ticket and League Pass packages on Direct TV, viewers have plenty of venues for getting their sports fix and would have no problem choosing not to pay extra to watch ESPN. I'd ditch it in a second.

Depending on the cost, I'd probably ditch it as well. At $3 or $4 a month I'd probably keep it. Anymore than that and I'd drop it.

MattyHo4Life
06-02-2006, 04:01 PM
espn never shows the mediocre teams it's always the yankee's sox mets cardinals etc

ESPN never showed the Cardinals when they were a mediocre team. I can see where you would think that there is a bias towards East Coast teams or West Coast teams, but the Cardinals?

westofyou
06-02-2006, 04:16 PM
All the books about baseball in the 50's are New York centric.... oh wait, wrong thread.

Fast forward 50 years.

ESPN located in the east and formed orginally to report the underreported Hartford Whalers has an east coast bias.

In more troubling news USA Today's Baseball Weekly was bad enough when it started covering Football, but now NASCAR is included.

What's up with that?

KronoRed
06-02-2006, 04:18 PM
I'd also be curious to know how many of the NYY-Red Sox games are televised on ESPN...
NY/Bos games are the only real baseball games. ;)

jmcclain19
06-02-2006, 04:29 PM
Someone over on the Dbacks board broke down the ESPN baseball game schedule for the season

Red Sox 19
Yankees 16
Indians 11
Cardinals10
Braves 8
Mets 7
White Sox 7
Phillies 6
Rangers 6
Astros 5
Cubs 5
Blue Jays 3
Devil Rays 3
Dodgers 3
Giants 3
Nationals 3
Twins 3
Athletics 2
Orioles 2
Reds 2
Rockies 2
Tigers 2
Angels 1
Brewers 1
Marlins 1
Padres 1
Pirates 1
Royals 1
Dbacks 0
Mariners 0

KronoRed
06-02-2006, 04:32 PM
Dbacks because they don't play the yanks, Mariners is odd.

savafan
06-02-2006, 06:47 PM
Dbacks because they don't play the yanks, Mariners is odd.

Yeah it is. Seattle is a pretty good market, and has one of the top stars in the AL in Ichiro.

dsmith421
06-02-2006, 06:50 PM
I along with other have noticed a definite bias towards certain teams. NY, Boston etc.


No offense, but this project is pointless.

The Yankees and Red Sox are the two most popular teams and, at least recently, two of the most consistent;y successful franchises in baseball. ESPN is a national sports media organization. Anyone who doesn't see why ESPN might prefer to cover the Yankees and Red Sox over, say, the Royals, is quite honestly deluding themselves.

ESPN does not owe teams "equal coverage" and to suggest they do is just asinine. They are attempting to develop stories of interest to the largest possible group of fans. When the Reds do something interesting enough to merit coverage--for example, Arroyo's hot start--they get coverage on ESPN and on the Web.

I just defended ESPN. I need a shower.

dsmith421
06-02-2006, 06:55 PM
espn never shows the mediocre teams it's always the yankee's sox mets cardinals etc

I for one am shocked that ESPN chooses to show good teams on TV rather than crappy ones. The Bengals weren't on Monday Night Football for ten years. This is hardly a new phenomenon.

redsrule2500
06-03-2006, 03:22 PM
They have huge bias, you don't have to do a study to know this. But it's also because these teams fans are most into watching them right now - thus most viewership ($$$)

ESPN still sucks.

KronoRed
06-03-2006, 04:32 PM
Yeah it is. Seattle is a pretty good market, and has one of the top stars in the AL in Ichiro.
East coast bias, and I'm serious ;)

Highlifeman21
06-03-2006, 05:18 PM
They have huge bias, you don't have to do a study to know this. But it's also because these teams fans are most into watching them right now - thus most viewership ($$$)

ESPN still sucks.


Who does a better overall job of all sports than ESPN?

You're going to have bias from whatever channel you chose, that's the nature of the beast. Look at all the news outlets/channels (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc..): they all have bias of some sort.

Give me ESPN 8 days of the week, they do the best job by far of doing an adequate to above average job of covering all sporting events.

westofyou
06-03-2006, 05:23 PM
Give me ESPN 8 days of the week, they do the best job by far of doing an adequate to above average job of covering all sporting events.Yep, having grown up in an era that didn't have ESPN, or the internet and only TSN and SI as weekly conduits, plus studying the Sunday paper and often calling up the San Francisco newspaper sports department for the Reds score is still very fresh on my mind. Because of all this the chances of me saying ESPN sucks because they don't cover enough Reds news will likely never happen.

Because I know what the other side of the coin look like all too well.

GoReds
06-03-2006, 06:06 PM
I'd love to see baseball come up with it's own channel, similar to the NFL Network. IMO, it would go a long ways towards solving some of baseball's economic issues, if used properly.

Let ESPN and the major networks continue to pimp the Yanks, Red Sox, Dodgers, et al. Their best interest in making a buck to support their rather outrageous tv deals. The Baseball Network could spent a LOT of time building support for the teams that don't necessarily get the exposure. Get the owners to buy into it and start making the channel THE place to get baseball.

It isn't hard to build support for major market teams; the hard part is in drumming up support for the Marlins, Rays, Royals, Reds, etc. A dedicated network could reach that young, influential fan in search of a team to follow.

RFS62
06-03-2006, 08:50 PM
ESPN is a business.

Their bias is towards making money.

TRF
06-03-2006, 11:06 PM
Typical to my luck today's top story Is about the Minnesota Twins.

ESPN does have an east coast bias. And ESPN also does sports better than anyone else.

However, ESPN is not a local or even a regional network. They are national and to some extent an international network. They do the game and themselves a disservice by not favoring all teams equally, but when you ignore the large asian and hispanic viewerships by paying little attention to teams in the west and southwest, well that is just foolish. Especially when you consider they do understand the value of the latin market. (ESPN Deportes)

harangatang
06-04-2006, 12:01 AM
Baseball Tonight just featured Kearns and Freel as their top 2 web gems...just saying.

SunDeck
06-04-2006, 01:37 PM
I don't have cable. :dunno:

Hubba
06-04-2006, 02:50 PM
A lot of people complain about ESPN? Why watch it ?:confused: I happen to like it but if I didn't I wouldnt watch it.

StillFunkyB
06-04-2006, 03:21 PM
ESPN is a business.

Their bias is towards making money.

I agree. While I am not happy with seing the Yankees games all the time, I understand why it's that way.

The real thing that ticks me off is when you watch Baseball tonight, and they spend more than half the show talking about those two teams. Is it just me or did they used to show good highlights from all the games? I want to see that, not blurbs about other games and half an hour of breakdown on Yankees baseball. Save that for the Yes network.

KronoRed
06-04-2006, 04:38 PM
I don't have cable. :dunno:
I'm sorry :(


;)

SunDeck
06-04-2006, 04:49 PM
I'm sorry :(


;)

Not complaining. Evidently, there is an upside to being cheap.

KronoRed
06-04-2006, 04:51 PM
Not complaining. Evidently, there is an upside to being cheap.
Being stuck with the local news sports guys would drive me batty.

TRF
06-05-2006, 10:31 AM
It isn't just their television broadcast product. It's radio. It's the internet. It's the magazine. How many times THIS YEAR have they televised Red Sox Yankees? 2? 3?

But to be fair, today's top story: multiple HR's hit yesterday.

Part of the project is to determine if their is a bias or if it is perceived. I think 30 day is enough of a sample size. It's an exercise in curiosity.

bucksfan
06-05-2006, 02:17 PM
...It's the magazine...

Man, the barbershop I go to has this rag on their waiting table. That thing would be horrible even if it only had the teams I follow in it! I look at it out of morbid curiousity more than anything - well that along with an even stronger distate for Good Housekeeping and the like (I guess the place I go to isn't a real "barbershop" in the traditional sense).

RFS62
06-05-2006, 02:34 PM
Man, the barbershop I go to has this rag on their waiting table. That thing would be horrible even if it only had the teams I follow in it! I look at it out of morbid curiousity more than anything - well that along with an even stronger distate for Good Housekeeping and the like (I guess the place I go to isn't a real "barbershop" in the traditional sense).


No kidding. I subscribed to ESPN's Insider a couple of years ago, and they started sending me the magazine as part of the deal. What a waste of paper.

Roy Tucker
06-05-2006, 04:31 PM
The American people should be made aware of the trend toward monopolization of the great public information vehicles and the concentration of more and more power over public opinion in fewer and fewer hands.

cReds1
06-05-2006, 05:57 PM
ESPN is a business.

Their bias is towards making money.

So true and I made a point to my wife at lunch time when they were showing highlights of the Mets game ESPN showed 10 different highlighted plays and our game against the Stros in which was just as exciting only received 5 different highlighted plays.

It is about money and what the biggest market wants to see. To me, it should be based on winning teams. How can people start liking other teams if they don't show them or talk about them?

It is all about who is paying the bills. I don't have a problem with the way they operate, except if you don't show the winning teams then I have a problem with that.

If I am not mistaken and a real poll was taken, you would see people wanting to root for the underdog more than the favorite, so people do want to see the underdog more than these businessmen think. We all have a hatred for these winning teams that win all the time because these networks keep hammering them in front of us! but they neglect the teams that start to win sometimes even more.

Will it change? Doubt it and it is the reason you stated, RFS62.

George Foster
06-06-2006, 01:20 AM
Reds game tonight was not mentioned until the second segment...brutal!!

It should have been the 2nd game mentioned after the Cubs almost had a no hitter. Jr. hits a three run ninth inning homerun and its mentions 30 minutes into the show...awful.

TRF
06-06-2006, 10:37 AM
Today's ESPN.com Baseball top story is the MLB Draft.

30 days, 30 updates, though I believe they update their "home pages" twice a day.

So far this month, at least on their website, they have been failry balanced. in their coverage.

macro
06-06-2006, 02:08 PM
Yep, having grown up in an era that didn't have ESPN, or the internet and only TSN and SI as weekly conduits, plus studying the Sunday paper and often calling up the San Francisco newspaper sports department for the Reds score is still very fresh on my mind. Because of all this the chances of me saying ESPN sucks because they don't cover enough Reds news will likely never happen.

Because I know what the other side of the coin look like all too well.

Man, woy, that reminds me of the 1980s, when I'd be out-and-about on weekends an unable to listen to or watch Reds games. I'd tune my radio to 780AM WBBM in Chicago because they'd run sports scores at :15 and :45 every hour. If I made it to our drive and hadn't heard the scores yet, I'd sit there in the car until they came on, just to see how the Reds and the team they were chasing did that night. That scene played out many Friday and Saturday nights in the mid-80s for me.

RBA
06-06-2006, 02:15 PM
Man, woy, that reminds me of the 1980s, when I'd be out-and-about on weekends an unable to listen to or watch Reds games. I'd tune my radio to 780AM WBBM in Chicago because they'd run sports scores at :15 and :45 every hour. If I made it to our drive and hadn't heard the scores yet, I'd sit there in the car until they came on, just to see how the Reds and the team they were chasing did that night. That scene played out many Friday and Saturday nights in the mid-80s for me.

I did pretty much the same thing. I was just barely able to get Los Angleles stations where I lived and I would try to hit the times when they did the scores out of KNX 1070 in LA. Sometimes I would lose the score in the static and have to wait another 1/2 hour for the score.

macro
06-06-2006, 02:31 PM
Sometimes I would lose the score in the static and have to wait another 1/2 hour for the score.

:lol:

Yep, I went throught that, too. Very frustrating.

Along these same lines, it always frustrated me to open up the morning paper and see a bunch of X's beside teams' names. The "X" meant "last night's game not included, of course. People today find it hard to believe that we had to wait 36 hours for a box score, and the standings were rarely up-to-date in the morning paper, at least not in the morning Louisville paper.

VR
06-06-2006, 02:35 PM
I did pretty much the same thing. I was just barely able to get Los Angleles stations where I lived and I would try to hit the times when they did the scores out of KNX 1070 in LA. Sometimes I would lose the score in the static and have to wait another 1/2 hour for the score.

The Des Moines register was usually a day behind, so I would be I would have to look at tomorrow mornings paper to find out about Griffeys big night last night.

In the late 70's local news was on at 10 (bedtime), so I'd often sneak downstairs at 10:20 to catch the sports.

In the early 80's there was also a 900 number you could call (900-525-9393 is was comes to mind, I think it was Sportsline?) I found out about that, and called it about 10 times a day the first month. I thought I was in heaven, until the phone bill came and it was fifty cents a call. Not a happy day for me.

Also in the early 80's I used to do the radio taping of the church service in a little room at the front of church, I'd sneak in Sunday sportspage (rolled up in my sock) to scour the statistics for all the Reds.

While I used to be a Sportscenter regular, to this day I don't watch it if the Reds lose, and will watch every highlight of every game just to see the Reds highlights multiple times, even if I watched the game. And, I make my wife and kids watch it too:)

redsrule2500
06-06-2006, 03:43 PM
Who does a better overall job of all sports than ESPN?

You're going to have bias from whatever channel you chose, that's the nature of the beast. Look at all the news outlets/channels (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc..): they all have bias of some sort.

Give me ESPN 8 days of the week, they do the best job by far of doing an adequate to above average job of covering all sporting events.

\Fox Sports did a better job when they had their sports center.

redsrule2500
06-06-2006, 03:44 PM
If anything, we should try looking at MLB.com for a bias. They should be more unbiased than ESPN. ESPN has no reason to not be biased.

KronoRed
06-06-2006, 05:16 PM
I liked CNN/SI.

TRF
06-07-2006, 11:31 AM
Wednesday 6-7-2006

Top Story: Roger Clemens.

My hope is to either confirm what our eyes tell us, or prove that they are somewhat balanced. I don't know what the final tally will be.

OldXOhio
06-07-2006, 11:52 AM
Am I the only one that thinks this Clemens minor league stint is a tad overblown? Media coverage out the wazoo making it the top story on every sportscast. All it is extended spring training...move on.

RedsManRick
06-07-2006, 12:35 PM
ESPN = CBS Nightly News.. maybe CNN
ESPN news = BBC/PBS

So long as the primary directive is cash, it will always be about ratings and market size and the Reds will never win that competition. If you want merit based national sports coverage, ESPN News is probably your best bet. But I think the "market" is there for something even less invested in ratings.

Personally, I get my baseball news from BP, Hardball times, and MLB Radio (where they aren't yet big enough to be corrupted by ratings issues).

NJReds
06-07-2006, 12:46 PM
Last night when BB Tonight came on at 10 p.m., they got to the Reds highlights pretty quickly. It was 3-0 at the time.

Then they did another update about 15 minutes later with more expanded highlights. They showed Dunn's first inning error ("What the heck is Dunn doing out there") and gave Milton props for getting out of the inning unscathed.

They showed Phillips double (Peter, what's his story? Gammons: "He needed steady playing time")

On Dunn's HR (Ravich: "El Grande Donkey...wow he crushed it...his 18th...also had his 66th strikeout tonight. Hey Kruk, do you accept 66K's for 18 HRs" Kruk: "mumble, mumble, gurgle, snort ..." (I have no idea what Kruk actually said).

Overall though, they gave the Reds some credit last night.

OldXOhio
06-07-2006, 01:20 PM
Kruk's comments were basically in reference to the irony of Dunn's 66th strikeout on 6/6/06.

NJReds
06-07-2006, 01:58 PM
Kruk's comments were basically in reference to the irony of Dunn's 66th strikeout on 6/6/06.

Oh, thanks. I guess I need to buy a Kruk-to-English dictionary. ;)

TRF
06-08-2006, 09:55 AM
Todays top story: Jason Grimsley.

Perhaps it is more perception than reality. At least when it comes to ESPN's website.

membengal
06-08-2006, 09:57 AM
On the 12:20 am BBTN last night, their lead story and pic in a 20 minute show was the tarp on the field in the Bronx and the Yanks/Sox rainout. Just sayin'...

TRF
06-08-2006, 10:09 AM
Oh, I know there is a bias.

But 8 days into June, their website has been pretty even handed. We'll see if that lasts.

TRF
06-09-2006, 11:53 AM
Today's top story: Kenny Rogers and the Tigers.

That said last night's BBT was a joke. Touch them all shows Womacks HR in a loss, but none of the three Reds HR's? are you kidding me?

lollipopcurve
06-09-2006, 12:19 PM
To be fair, the 10PM BBT had a quick phone interview with Brandon Phillips in their first segment. I get the sense that Carl Ravech actually understands the Reds have a lot of good young players.

On ESPN Radio yesterday AM, on the other hand, Mike and Mike interviewed Kurkjian in the usual fashion, and his response was boilerplate:

M & M: The Reds are in first. Do you think they can stay there?
TK: No. They don't field and they don't pitch. They may play .500. But they can sure hit. The NL is strange this year.

It appears that the developing big-pic story will be that there are no real good teams in NL -- except the Mets. This is what allows teams like the Reds to succeed, and it reserves greatness for the AL, where, of course, the Yankees and Red Sox play.

OldXOhio
06-09-2006, 12:39 PM
To be fair, the 10PM BBT had a quick phone interview with Brandon Phillips in their first segment. I get the sense that Carl Ravech actually understands the Reds have a lot of good young players.

On ESPN Radio yesterday AM, on the other hand, Mike and Mike interviewed Kurkjian in the usual fashion, and his response was boilerplate:

M & M: The Reds are in first. Do you think they can stay there?
TK: No. They don't field and they don't pitch. They may play .500. But they can sure hit. The NL is strange this year.

It appears that the developing big-pic story will be that there are no real good teams in NL -- except the Mets. This is what allows teams like the Reds to succeed, and it reserves greatness for the AL, where, of course, the Yankees and Red Sox play.

I think we all remember the smoke and mirrors start in 2004 this team had. They showed the #s last night on BBTN...eventually the run discrepancy caught up with them. If the national media doesn't yet quite buy into the Reds prolonged success, I can't say I blame them, even though this year's team has been different to this point.

deltachi8
06-09-2006, 01:44 PM
I think we all remember the smoke and mirrors start in 2004 this team had. They showed the #s last night on BBTN...eventually the run discrepancy caught up with them. If the national media doesn't yet quite buy into the Reds prolonged success, I can't say I blame them, even though this year's team has been different to this point.

They (cant remember who it was) also pointedout that due to the difference in RUn Diff (a + this year) from 2004 (a neg then), that the Reds record is more real.

dsmith421
06-09-2006, 01:48 PM
Today's top story: Kenny Rogers and the Tigers.

That said last night's BBT was a joke. Touch them all shows Womacks HR in a loss, but none of the three Reds HR's? are you kidding me?

It's an ANTI-REDS CONSPIRACY !!!1!1

Reds/Flyers Fan
06-09-2006, 01:51 PM
E-SPiN

The network's hidden mission statement: "If you're not a Yankees, Red Sox, Duke, Carolina, Cowboys or Lakers fan, you will be."

dsmith421
06-09-2006, 01:56 PM
E-SPiN

The network's hidden mission statement: "If you're not a Yankees, Red Sox, Duke, Carolina, Cowboys or Lakers fan, you will be."

This is just BS. Team A has 25 million fans, and Team B has 5 million fans. You're a national network. Who do you cover more?

I will agree all day that ESPN's programming has gone down the tubes with sensationalism and this "we are the story" attitude, but I get so sick of this argument that every team should get equal coverage. Don't like it? Watch something else.

EDIT: Also, the Yankees, Red Sox, Cowboys, and Lakers were all fantastically (and nationally) popular long before the advent of ESPN.

lollipopcurve
06-09-2006, 01:57 PM
It's an ANTI-REDS CONSPIRACY !!!1!1

All in good fun. We understand why ESPN is the way it is.

lollipopcurve
06-09-2006, 01:58 PM
I will agree all day that ESPN's programming has gone down the tubes with sensationalism and this "we are the story" attitude, but I get so sick of this argument that every team should get equal coverage. Don't like it? Watch something else.

Don't like these threads? Don't read 'em.

dsmith421
06-09-2006, 02:01 PM
Don't like these threads? Don't read 'em.

Good point. In the future, I'll restrict myself only to threads where every poster is bound to agree with me.

Reds/Flyers Fan
06-09-2006, 02:12 PM
This is just BS. Team A has 25 million fans, and Team B has 5 million fans. You're a national network. Who do you cover more?

I will agree all day that ESPN's programming has gone down the tubes with sensationalism and this "we are the story" attitude, but I get so sick of this argument that every team should get equal coverage. Don't like it? Watch something else.

EDIT: Also, the Yankees, Red Sox, Cowboys, and Lakers were all fantastically (and nationally) popular long before the advent of ESPN.

With all due respect (or as much as I can muster for someone who called my post "BS"), it's hardly a Team A vs. Team B comparison.

It's Team A vs. Teams B - Z. Yes the Yankee$ and Red $ox have their millions of fans, but they don't outnumber all the other non-Yanks and non-Sox fans. Fine, show endless NY/Boston games, but you'll turn off not just Reds fans, but Rockies fans, Astros fans, Tigers fans, Indians fans, D-Backs fans, Giants fans, Twins fans and on and on and on.

Duke is E-SPiN's college basketball version of the Yankees, meaning if you have the network you have unofficial Duke TV season tickets. Why is this? Duke isn't exactly a program with "25 million fans." I know of no Duke fan and rarely, if ever, see any Duke hats or shirts in the malls, parks and stadiums of this country (and that includes Charlotte). It's just another case of E-SPiN force feeding the teams they love to showcase to the rest of us.

OldXOhio
06-09-2006, 02:17 PM
They (cant remember who it was) also pointedout that due to the difference in RUn Diff (a + this year) from 2004 (a neg then), that the Reds record is more real.

Orestes Destrade. First time I've seen him on the set. Thought he was pretty good.

TeamBoone
06-09-2006, 02:43 PM
M & M: The Reds are in first. Do you think they can stay there?
TK: No. They don't field and they don't pitch. They may play .500. But they can sure hit. The NL is strange this year.

Reds field has improved a ton with some great plays thrown in to boot (pardon the pun).

And has the guy even looked at the pitching stats? Just because Reds pitching was thought to be putrid going in to 2006, they just assume it still is and that they're getting lucky.

They really should do their homework instead of making ignorant, off-the-cuff comments like that. Instead, they justify their opinions by saying... "the Cards are hurt".

dsmith421
06-09-2006, 02:50 PM
Duke is E-SPiN's college basketball version of the Yankees, meaning if you have the network you have unofficial Duke TV season tickets. Why is this? Duke isn't exactly a program with "25 million fans." I know of no Duke fan and rarely, if ever, see any Duke hats or shirts in the malls, parks and stadiums of this country (and that includes Charlotte). It's just another case of E-SPiN force feeding the teams they love to showcase to the rest of us.

Duke has been a national power for nigh on two decades (if you want to go back to Bill Foster, make it 30). They play in the ACC, which until the Mega-Big East this year, has been the best or second best league in the country for the last 15 years. Duke regularly plays marquee games against other nationally prominent schools.

The Duke love is embarassing from the talking heads on that network. But to argue that less of their games should be televised doesn't make much sense to me--they are the ones playing the games of interest to the general public.

You and I may agonize over a Tuesday night Dayton-Duquesne game played before 800 people in that stinking pit of filth in Pittsburgh, but the general public prefers to see Duke-NC State. Can you blame them?

TRF
06-13-2006, 03:35 PM
Duke has been a national power for nigh on two decades (if you want to go back to Bill Foster, make it 30). They play in the ACC, which until the Mega-Big East this year, has been the best or second best league in the country for the last 15 years. Duke regularly plays marquee games against other nationally prominent schools.

The Duke love is embarassing from the talking heads on that network. But to argue that less of their games should be televised doesn't make much sense to me--they are the ones playing the games of interest to the general public.

You and I may agonize over a Tuesday night Dayton-Duquesne game played before 800 people in that stinking pit of filth in Pittsburgh, but the general public prefers to see Duke-NC State. Can you blame them?

Gosh I guess I should stop drinking Mt. Dew. Waaay more people prefer Coca Cola.

ESPN has an opportunity and an obligation. They can cash in on the West Coast teams. They owe it to the game, and themselves. How many generations of Giants fans have now been born in California? Dodger fans too. Does anyone remember the Kansas City A's much less the Philadelphia version?

This was a great thought, and it bears repeating:


It's Team A vs. Teams B - Z. Yes the Yankee$ and Red $ox have their millions of fans, but they don't outnumber all the other non-Yanks and non-Sox fans. Fine, show endless NY/Boston games, but you'll turn off not just Reds fans, but Rockies fans, Astros fans, Tigers fans, Indians fans, D-Backs fans, Giants fans, Twins fans and on and on and on.

In fact I think they should split their network into East/West like Disney does, and when they televise games have 2: one at 7:00 eastern, one at 7:00 pacific. All other programming could be based on timezone as well. PTI at 6:00 on both coasts.

vaticanplum
06-22-2006, 11:52 AM
Hey guys, your local deadspin cheerleader stopping by...

I am sure a lot of you are fans of www.deadspin.com, Gawker media's sports site. Gawker has several sites; the original is a New York-centric general news/gossip site, and they also have one devoted to gadgets, one to Hollywood, etc. They are all pretty sharp and pretty snarky, not worth reading unless you have a pretty tough sense of humor (and if you do, they're well worth it. think along Onion lines.)

Anyway, Deadspin doesn't pretend to be unbiased -- the editor is a die-hard Cardinals fan, both St. Louis and Arizona -- and New York and Boston certainly get their share of attention there, but Deadspin is pretty fair and also really pays mind to teams that are doing well and the Reds are one of them. They're quite often featured in the daily "Closer" feature, which is five short tidbits about five of the day's previous games; yesterday's Reds win is the lead story again today:

http://www.deadspin.com/sports/baseball/the-closer-when-one-single-beats-the-cycle-182547.php

So if you want a biased-but-more-biased-in-your-favor news site, this is a good one. It's also completely hilarious.

macro
12-30-2008, 10:16 AM
I'm pretty-much bumping this thread out of nowhere, but I ran across the faux news article below and didn't find it worthy of a new thread...

http://www.serioussportsnewsnetwork.com/2008/12/espn-discovers-28-other-mlb-squads-3.html#more-3235

ESPN discovers 28 other MLB squads

BRISTOL, CT — With the help of a research team numbering in the hundreds, sports media giant ESPN made a startling discovery this weekend that, over time, could prove to alter their coverage of professional sports forever. For years, the network has been operating under the apparently erroneous assumption that baseball was played exclusively in the cities of New York and Boston. Research now shows that the sport is played professionally all over the country: on the West Coast, in the Midwest and in the South. After a careful review of highlights shown by the network over the past couple of years, SSNN has discovered that the Yankees and Red Sox were actually playing against many of the previously undiscovered franchises. “It is mind boggling that we could have made such an incredible oversight. We promise to look into teams like the Seattle Mariners, San Diego Padres and Oakland Athletics. As soon as we find out what an Athletic is, we promise to share it with the world in one of our earth-shattering SportsCenter exposés,” an ESPN representative announced on Sunday. “These things don’t happen overnight, but eventually we hope to incorporate baseball teams all over the country into our normal coverage of MLB.”

Jpup
12-30-2008, 12:36 PM
ESPN used to show a ton of Cleveland games. I got so sick of watching the Indians and Red Sox. I don't think they actually show a ton of Yankees games anymore. Now, they do talk about them all the time. Anyone in the Northeast except for Pittsburgh gets covered very well. It also seems that would include Minnesota and the Chicago clubs.