Rolling Stone Calling out ESPN

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-worldwide-cheerleader-espn-and-the-college-football-playoff-20141028

Nice. Hopefully the voters read this.

RS wrote:ESPN has created such an incestuous bubble of hype that there can be no arguing when these teams lose. "Alabama lost, but it was to Ole Miss...Ole Miss lost, but it was to LSU...LSU lost, but it was to Auburn… Auburn lost, but it was to Mississippi State."

I think that former players, coaches and ADs (who make up all but 2 spots on the committee) can analyze with their eyes and not have ESPN tell them what to think. I'd really lose a ton of respect for guys like Ty, Alvarez, and Osborne, if they give a rats ass what ESPN says. And Condi isn't going to trust anything other than what FoxNews says.

I don't think ESPN is the reason the SEC has 4 of the top 6 spots. Just because a lot of SEC teams are highly ranked doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be. Sure, they all have weaknesses, but so does everyone. I'm not saying that they deserve to have 4 of the top 6, but they probably deserve 4 of the top 10 (not sure who outside of the Top 10 has a claim to be there instead of them). And at least a couple of those are likely to fall out of the Top 6 since they won't all stay as 1 loss teams.

Even if the playoff committee isn't influenced one bit by ESPN I will remain cynical. I am supposed to believe that a huge business isn't possibly going to promote something they have an ownership interest in? And that people's opinions aren't influenced by the media. So it is just a strange coincidence that 4 out of the top 5 teams are from the SEC in all the polls after ESPN makes the biggest business deal in college sports history and they have been pushing it all season. Maybe but color me skeptical.
Hopefully it won't matter in the end. But just wait until if/when one of the SEC powerhouses gets two losses and they start campaigning to have them in the playoff. I don't think that is going to happen, but if it does that is when this whole thing will come under fire.

Condi... Fox news... Fox sports... B1G network.

...??

Profit?

You guys are honestly trying to say that the ESPN SEC shit doesn't influence anything because the committee says they aren't? That's bullshit. It's espn. It's a lot deeper than that. They control/influence a lot more than you think.

Herbie Green wrote:Even if the playoff committee isn't influenced one bit by ESPN I will remain cynical. I am supposed to believe that a huge business isn't possibly going to promote something they have an ownership interest in? And that people's opinions aren't influenced by the media. So it is just a strange coincidence that 4 out of the top 5 teams are from the SEC in all the polls after ESPN makes the biggest business deal in college sports history and they have been pushing it all season. Maybe but color me skeptical.
Hopefully it won't matter in the end. But just wait until if/when one of the SEC powerhouses gets two losses and they start campaigning to have them in the playoff. I don't think that is going to happen, but if it does that is when this whole thing will come under fire.

Of course it's not a coincidence because it's not like it was a random draw. But it's not a coincidence that the SEC has won 7 of the last 8 national titles or whatever it is either. I ****ing hate the SEC, but it has some damn good teams in it. As they play each other, most will get a second lost and likely be out of the running.

Who else is more deserving of being in the Top 6, and who would you drop from the SEC?

TCU who scored 58 points on Baylor......but still LOST?

MSU who has only beaten #15 Nebraska?

Kansas State who has only beaten #18 Oklahoma?

Notre Dame who has only beaten unranked Stanford?

I'd say that you could make a case for MSU or Kansas State (similar resumes in terms of beating a team ranked in the teens and losing to a team ranked in the Top 5) over Alabama who hasn't beaten a ranked team and barely beat Arkansas. But Bama is still a pretty good team, and if they aren't good enough, that will bear out by the end of the year. Same with other SEC teams. There won't be 4 SEC teams in the top 6 come December.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:You guys are honestly trying to say that the ESPN SEC shit doesn't influence anything because the committee says they aren't? That's bullshit. It's espn. It's a lot deeper than that. They control/influence a lot more than you think.

You think Barry Alvarez and Tom Osborne are going to trust what ESPN says over what their own eyes and vast experience and success tells them?

Or are you saying that ESPN paid them off?

MiamiSpartan wrote:


Or are you saying that ESPN paid them off?

Now that is an interesting question. Where are their salaries coming from? It would seem it is essentially from ESPN's exclusive broadcast of the playoff.

Herbie Green wrote:

Now that is an interesting question. Where are their salaries coming from? It would seem it is essentially from ESPN's exclusive broadcast of the playoff.

Of course that would be a cynic's view. If that's the case then we're worse off than ever under the BCS. But it seems like the committee is pretty well respected (and even people that don't respect Condoleeza's politics, still should recognize that, for better or worse, she isn't one to be influenced by the media or outside influences), so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt at this point.

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Of course it's not a coincidence because it's not like it was a random draw. But it's not a coincidence that the SEC has won 7 of the last 8 national titles or whatever it is either. I ****ing hate the SEC, but it has some damn good teams in it. As they play each other, most will get a second lost and likely be out of the running.

Who else is more deserving of being in the Top 6, and who would you drop from the SEC?

TCU who scored 58 points on Baylor......but still LOST?

MSU who has only beaten #15 Nebraska?

Kansas State who has only beaten #18 Oklahoma?

Notre Dame who has only beaten unranked Stanford?

I'd say that you could make a case for MSU or Kansas State (similar resumes in terms of beating a team ranked in the teens and losing to a team ranked in the Top 5) over Alabama who hasn't beaten a ranked team and barely beat Arkansas. But Bama is still a pretty good team, and if they aren't good enough, that will bear out by the end of the year. Same with other SEC teams. There won't be 4 SEC teams in the top 6 come December.

See MSU "only beat #15 Nebraska". That is the only loss Nebraska has so maybe both MSU and Nebraska should be in the top 4 instead of Bama and Mississippi. It becomes a self fullfilling prophecy and everyone is programmed to accept as fact what is only completely subjective.

Herbie Green wrote:Even if the playoff committee isn't influenced one bit by ESPN I will remain cynical.

They watch all the games on TV...so unless it's on mute they are constantly hearing how much everyone but the SEC sucks

There is 0% chance that doesn't have an influence on them

Herbie Green wrote:

Now that is an interesting question. Where are their salaries coming from? It would seem it is essentially from ESPN's exclusive broadcast of the playoff.

By the way, the selection committee is not paid, so that kind of hurts that cynical argument.

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

They watch all the games on TV...so unless it's on mute they are constantly hearing how much everyone but the SEC sucks

There is 0% chance that doesn't have an influence on them

Do you think everyone but the SEC sucks? I don't think that's the case. Most serious fans of any Power 5 team not in the SEC doesn't think that's the case. But these guys that know the game 100 times better than hard core fans are going to think that?

Herbie Green wrote:

See MSU "only beat #15 Nebraska". That is the only loss Nebraska has so maybe both MSU and Nebraska should be in the top 4 instead of Bama and Mississippi. It becomes a self fullfilling prophecy and everyone is programmed to accept as fact what is only completely subjective.

A fair point, though Nebraska did almost lose to McNeese St (which is still worse than Alabama almost losing to Arkansas). And if you think, after watching Nebraska, Alabama, and Ole Miss this year that Nebraska is better than them, that's fine.

The self-fulfilling prophecy is always an issue when you don't have head to head. I just don't think it's ESPN calling the shots on that, because there is enough knowledge and experience on the committee to recognize if a team is good or not. But you don't know for sure until they line up against each other, and with only 4 teams you can't really have that opportunity. That's why I am firmly in the camp that only conference champions should be in the playoff (though that obviously still leaves one team out). Expanding to 8 teams or more is a separate discussion, but also very valid.

MiamiSpartan wrote:
By the way, the selection committee is not paid, so that kind of hurts that cynical argument.

sure they aren't....

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Do you think everyone but the SEC sucks? I don't think that's the case. Most serious fans of any Power 5 team not in the SEC doesn't think that's the case. But these guys that know the game 100 times better than hard core fans are going to think that?

No, but I am a State fan
Here's CC's stats from the Purdue game
Connor Cook 19/37 238 6.4 3TD 1INT 77.6

Here are Blake Sims stats from the Arkansas game
Blake Sims 11/21 161 7.7 2TD 0INT 39.6

Cook was absolutely shit on for 95% of that game - they will not say anywhere near the amount of negative things about Sims/other SEC players all year on ESPN that they did Cook in just that one game.

Lol, I just checked and ESPN has Prescott as the front runner for the Heisman.

Can you imagine what a runaway Mariotta would be if he was in the SEC?

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

No, but I am a State fan
Here's CC's stats from the Purdue game
Connor Cook 19/37 238 6.4 3TD 1INT 77.6

Here are Blake Sims stats from the Arkansas game
Blake Sims 11/21 161 7.7 2TD 0INT 39.6

Cook was absolutely shit on for 95% of that game - they will not say anywhere near the amount of negative things about Sims/other SEC players all year on ESPN that they did Cook in just that one game.

Is the committee ranking QBs, too? If your argument is that ESPN is biased toward the SEC, thank you Captain Obvious. But I thought you were arguing that the committee will believe ESPN even though every non-SEC fan knows they're biased?

Herbie Green wrote:Lol, I just checked and ESPN has Prescott as the front runner for the Heisman.

Can you imagine what a runaway Mariotta would be if he was in the SEC?

Prescott is the QB on the #1 ranked team. He has one more point than Mariota in that poll. Not sure that's any great sign of a conspiracy.

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Is the committee ranking QBs, too? If your argument is that ESPN is biased toward the SEC, thank you Captain Obvious. But I thought you were arguing that the committee will believe ESPN even though every non-SEC fan knows they're biased?

My argument is that the SEC bias influences the committee...

Why SEC Isn't As Great In Football As You Think

If the same things happen in other conferences, however, the collective football media reverse the logic, claiming that if, say, a Mountain West Conference league leader loses to a lower-ranked Mountain West team, this merely proves how bad that losing team is, not how good the Mountain West is. In the same way, if a league leader goes undefeated in the Mountain West, the feat is said to merely demonstrate how weak the conference is, not accepted as proof of the strength of the unbeaten team.

CORNER BLITZ wrote:Why SEC Isn't As Great In Football As You Think

since the start of the BCS era in 1998:

SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8




now there's some domination...

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

since the start of the BCS era in 1998:

SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8




now there's some domination...

None of that counts. They get top recruiting classes. Somehow all recruits in teh south are drawn to the SEC, and none are that interested in the other south in the ACC, except for maybe FSU. How can you continuously bring in top recruiting classes and not dominate?!?!?!

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

My argument is that the SEC bias influences the committee...

And you think Barry Alvarez and Tom Osborne are really going to be influenced by Ed Cunningham ripping on Cook?

But again, I ask the question, if every serious non-SEC fan sees ESPN as bias toward the SEC, why would the committee NOT see it? I just don't see how the committee will be more easily influenced than fans.

The SEC having good football teams has the biggest influence. ESPN being highly invested in the SEC just gives the SEC teams the benefit of the doubt, which basically means that one loss for an SEC team is just a blip on the radar.

MiamiSpartan wrote:
And you think Barry Alvarez and Tom Osborne are really going to be influenced by Ed Cunningham ripping on Cook?

But again, I ask the question, if every serious non-SEC fan sees ESPN as bias toward the SEC, why would the committee NOT see it? I just don't see how the committee will be more easily influenced than fans.

I didn't say they don't see it...I said they are influenced by it

Look at the post below yours. MSU,B1G forum... Just posted that SEC has basically .500 average against other conferences (19-19 v B1G!) and still the first thing is "The SEC having good football teams has the biggest influence."

So a conference that gets 5 classes every four years beats up on each other? Of course they do. And the pundits fawn over it. Question is, why are they not more dominate outside of their conference with that huge built in. advantage.

Herbie Green wrote:Lol, I just checked and ESPN has Prescott as the front runner for the Heisman.

Can you imagine what a runaway Mariotta would be if he was in the SEC?

Can you imagine where MSU would be if they were in the SEC?

I'd say 4, behind Oregon, the other MSU and FSU.  If we were comparing the teams from the SEC to the B1G, we would have played Vandy (compare to Indy with their starting QB's out), Mizzou (comparable to a Purdue), Florida (dumpster fire Michigan) and LSU (Nebraska).

The toughest part of the schedule would be ahead of us, just like most of the teams in the SEC West.  I'm not a fan of the ESPN conspiracy theory unless a 2 loss SEC team is chosen over a 1 loss Conference champion from ANY Power 5 conference.

The fact is there isn't a lot of difference between a #3 Auburn and #11 KSU, who lost mainly because their FG kicker missed some chip shots.  Even though ESPN would make it seem like there is the SEC and everyone else, the real difference between the top teams in the Power 5 conferences is razor thin, within a couple of made FG's one way or the other.

Eventually this will work itself out.  I'll only scream SEC bias if a 2 loss team is selected over a 1 loss team.

The problem isn't ESPN, but the system is FAR TOO subjective.  This needs to simply be a playoff of the 5 Power Conference Champs with 3 at large teams.  That would take some of the subjectivity out of it.

Back to the original point  of the thread, the BIGGEST problem I had with ESPN's coverage Tues nite was they didn't even mention MSU.  If they did, it was in passing.

They talked more about ****ing OSU, who has NO chance of making the playoff, even if they pull an upset against us and win out.  NONE.  So why even talk about them.

Also lots of talk about TCU.  Fu ck TCU.  Any team that scores 58 points in a regulation game (No OT), has a 3 touchdown lead in the final quarter and LOSSES the ****ing game is disqualified from the discussion of playing for a NC.

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

I didn't say they don't see it...I said they are influenced by it

Look at the post below yours. MSU,B1G forum... Just posted that SEC has basically .500 average against other conferences (19-19 v B1G!) and still the first thing is "The SEC having good football teams has the biggest influence."

Ok, so the committee will be influenced by ESPN, but most fans are not?

TBF, the records against other conferences since 1998 is in a different context, as the "OMG, the SEC is so totally awesome" lovefest is a more recent phenomenon. No one was talking about the SEC in the late 90s and early 00s as FSU, Oklahoma, USC and Miami were the dominant forces. That's a more recent phenomenon, but has a lot to do with winning however many straight national titles that they did prior to last year. And the SEC has won something like 65-70% of its bowl games the last 5 years. They're a top heavy league, but the top is what's under discussion. Still no one has given any logical reason as to why guys like Barry Alvarez, Tom Osborne, and Ty Willingham would be influenced by ESPN. Just because the SEC was voted high doesn't mean they're listening to ESPN. I trust guys like that to be able to evaluate a football team on their own.

Still no one has given any logical reason as to why guys like Barry Alvarez, Tom Osborne, and Ty Willingham would be influenced by ESPN. Just because the SEC was voted high doesn't mean they're listening to ESPN. I trust guys like that to be able to evaluate a football team on their own.

Those guys are only 3 of the votes. We don't know how they voted, and maybe its possible that they were the ones to convince the rest of the reps, that OSU and Neb should be ranked.

Herbie Green wrote:

See MSU "only beat #15 Nebraska".  That is the only loss Nebraska has so maybe both MSU and Nebraska should be in the top 4 instead of Bama and Mississippi.  It becomes a self fullfilling prophecy and everyone is programmed to accept as fact what is only completely subjective.

Yeah- back in the day when Nebraska was in the Big8/12 they would have been #10 at the beginning of the year and #5 when undefeated and walking into Spartan Stadium. Then after losing to MSU would have dropped to 10.

But now that they are in the Big 10, everything is discounted involving Nebraska and its opponents.
- See final year in Big 12  2010 Pre season #8 coming off 10-4 season (lost 3 of last 4 and went 10-4)  Ranked 19
- 2011 First Year in Big 10 Preseason #10 coming off 10-4  finished 9-4, Ranked 24
- 2012 coming off 9-4  they were #17  Finished 10-4 and was ranked #24

As it is CLEAR TO SEE- Same Results but diminished value and this lower rankings. And from the team that the MEDIA WAS ALL SAYING WAS GOING TO DOMINATE THE BIG TEN!!!! Remember? That was the god damn assumption by the Media- just like when Penn State came in.  Other than that 1994 team, PSU has not done shit.

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

since the start of the BCS era in 1998:

SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8




now there's some domination...

That's a good list.  SEC bias that assumes the conference is great top to bottom is the real problem.  The artificially inflated strength of schedule puts them in the driver's seat for the National Championship every year.  Is Alabama good?  Sure.  As are a few other SEC teams.  The rest of them are just like the rest of the country.  

When Fowler or Musburger open their fat mouths about it, it just proves that there is a bias.  "Deal with it. They’re the best."  Real hard-hitting well thought out defense of your network there, guys.

And yes, I think the Committee can be influenced by all the fluffing of the SEC, whether they realize it or not.

Also, the fact that Mizzou (really?) and A&M (long the whipping boy of the state of Texas) could come in and basically dominate the league should tell you all you need to know.

I'm having a hard time seeing MSU in the playoff after seeing the rankings, even if we win out. Maybe it's the shitty weather, but I'm not optimistic.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:I'm having a hard time seeing MSU in the playoff after seeing the rankings, even if we win out. Maybe it's the shitty weather, but I'm not optimistic.

Can you link me a post in which you are optimistic?
First off MSU needs to win out the season, second win the championship game. The SEC teams are going to knock each other out. The Mississippi's might have started out hot and then maybe they revert to themselves, weren't they both around .500 last year? Bama can only use the excuse of being disappointed about not making the Championship game, for so long, they haven't beaten a ranked team since last year. 

FF prediction - Auburn, Oregon, KSU, MSU

InTenSity wrote:
Those guys are only 3 of the votes. We don't know how they voted, and maybe its possible that they were the ones to convince the rest of the reps, that OSU and Neb should be ranked.

I mentioned those three as the most recognizable names, but 8 members of the committee played or coached at the college level (9 before Manning quit), and two others work (or worked) in college athletic departments. So I think more than just those three should have a pretty good understanding of college football without ESPN telling them what to think. I just think that if fans outside of the SEC know that there is SEC bias in what ESPN reports, then surely people who have worked in the game know that and can cut through the BS.

Wouldn't it be more illogical to say that the media could not have influence over people?

Herbie Green wrote:Wouldn't it be more illogical to say that the media could not have influence over people?

Does ESPN influence you?