(01-03-2019 11:37 AM)MSTiger02 Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 11:14 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 10:33 AM)MSTiger02 Wrote:  I don't always like what Herbie says either but I think you're missing the point. He isn't promoting a conference he's telling you that if they promoted a conference it would be about who brings the eyeballs. The National brands who also have gargantuan alumni bases. I have no problem with what he said. Those schools bring the most eyeballs. He's stating their neutrality not the other way around.

Are they amongst the schools that bring the most eyeballs? Sure. But so are LSU, UGA, Fla, FSU, etc. It isn't hard to name them, but he had a hard time naming 7 and then admitted he might have "missed 1 or 2" and then mentions PSU to get his list at 8. Do I believe he was making a comprehensive list? No. But when he instinctively winds up giving us a list of 8 that includes 3 Big Ten teams, 2 Big 12 teams, ND, only 1 SEC team (a HUGE headscratcher), and the second head scratcher Southern Cal over any other top SEC team or even FSU. Are the Trojans top 12-15? Very likely, but not Top 8. If you want to believe it isn't a conference bias I am okay with that. But there is some reason why only a single SEC team was mentioned and no mention of FSU, while 5 of the 8 either are in the Big Ten or have a long history with that conference.

To me, while it may not be intentional bias, its at best ingrained subtle bias that he may not even be aware of.

Cheers,
Neil

I would probably say that in the context you already have an SEC team that's a draw and SEC versus BIG TEN is the historically the money maker. It's not just the teams but the matchup. Is he a former big ten QB who grew up in big ten countries? Sure, but I don't take it as a diss like overt homerism.

Well this is going round and round. So if you were tell me who you believe are the best programs who rate well off the top of your head, are you telling me YOU would only name 1 SEC team and zero ACC teams?

Meanwhile, if you replied and named FSU, Clemson, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Texas you would think that fine and not expect to be called out on any southern team homerism/bias at all?

Now imagine you have access to ALL of the data ESPN has and you cover ALL of potential programs that would make the list and you still don't put any other Big Ten team on the list other than Ohio State. You wouldn't expect fans from other Big Ten teams to find your listing even more suspect than average joe making the list?

I've already made it obvious that he gets under my skin and conceded in the prior post that the list was not meant to be comprehensive.
You can have the last word in this exchange f you like. I'll read it but will likely not respond.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-03-2019 12:05 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 11:37 AM)MSTiger02 Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 11:14 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 10:33 AM)MSTiger02 Wrote:  I don't always like what Herbie says either but I think you're missing the point. He isn't promoting a conference he's telling you that if they promoted a conference it would be about who brings the eyeballs. The National brands who also have gargantuan alumni bases. I have no problem with what he said. Those schools bring the most eyeballs. He's stating their neutrality not the other way around.

Are they amongst the schools that bring the most eyeballs? Sure. But so are LSU, UGA, Fla, FSU, etc. It isn't hard to name them, but he had a hard time naming 7 and then admitted he might have "missed 1 or 2" and then mentions PSU to get his list at 8. Do I believe he was making a comprehensive list? No. But when he instinctively winds up giving us a list of 8 that includes 3 Big Ten teams, 2 Big 12 teams, ND, only 1 SEC team (a HUGE headscratcher), and the second head scratcher Southern Cal over any other top SEC team or even FSU. Are the Trojans top 12-15? Very likely, but not Top 8. If you want to believe it isn't a conference bias I am okay with that. But there is some reason why only a single SEC team was mentioned and no mention of FSU, while 5 of the 8 either are in the Big Ten or have a long history with that conference.

To me, while it may not be intentional bias, its at best ingrained subtle bias that he may not even be aware of.

Cheers,
Neil

I would probably say that in the context you already have an SEC team that's a draw and SEC versus BIG TEN is the historically the money maker. It's not just the teams but the matchup. Is he a former big ten QB who grew up in big ten countries? Sure, but I don't take it as a diss like overt homerism.

Well this is going round and round. So if you were tell me who you believe are the best programs who rate well off the top of your head, are you telling me YOU would only name 1 SEC team and zero ACC teams?

Meanwhile, if you replied and named FSU, Clemson, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Texas you would think that fine and not expect to be called out on any southern team homerism/bias at all?

Now imagine you have access to ALL of the data ESPN has and you cover ALL of potential programs that would make the list and you still don't put any other Big Ten team on the list other than Ohio State. You wouldn't expect fans from other Big Ten teams to find your listing even more suspect than average joe making the list?

I've already made it obvious that he gets under my skin and conceded in the prior post that the list was not meant to be comprehensive.
You can have the last word in this exchange f you like. I'll read it but will likely not respond.

Cheers,
Neil

Here is the last word then. In context, this particular statement is neither wrong nor biased. That's my take and of course you are entitled to yours. I mean no ill will. I just disagree.

If ESPN had their way for ratings they’d put Ohio St, Michigan, ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and USC in. Those are traditional powers that rate the best. May have missed one or two. Penn St as well.

"In context, this particular statement is neither wrong"


Yes, it absolutely is wrong. I posted a few stats proving that.

(01-03-2019 01:13 PM)nole Wrote:  If ESPN had their way for ratings they’d put Ohio St, Michigan, ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and USC in. Those are traditional powers that rate the best. May have missed one or two. Penn St as well.

"In context, this particular statement is neither wrong"


Yes, it absolutely is wrong. I posted a few stats proving that.

Yes, it is wrong if his intent is to give us a complete measured list of every team that draws more viewers than Clemson.

if

(01-03-2019 01:36 PM)MSTiger02 Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 01:13 PM)nole Wrote:  If ESPN had their way for ratings they’d put Ohio St, Michigan, ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and USC in. Those are traditional powers that rate the best. May have missed one or two. Penn St as well.

"In context, this particular statement is neither wrong"


Yes, it absolutely is wrong. I posted a few stats proving that.

Yes, it is wrong if his intent is to give us a complete measured list of every team that draws more viewers than Clemson.

if

He stated 'rates the best'.

It is NOT a list that rates the best. It is wrong. Your interpretation is wrong.

(01-03-2019 02:23 PM)nole Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 01:36 PM)MSTiger02 Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 01:13 PM)nole Wrote:  If ESPN had their way for ratings they’d put Ohio St, Michigan, ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and USC in. Those are traditional powers that rate the best. May have missed one or two. Penn St as well.

"In context, this particular statement is neither wrong"


Yes, it absolutely is wrong. I posted a few stats proving that.

Yes, it is wrong if his intent is to give us a complete measured list of every team that draws more viewers than Clemson.

if

He stated 'rates the best'.

It is NOT a list that rates the best. It is wrong. Your interpretation is wrong.

nope

Neil, I agree with you. The SEC has a high % of the top watched games each year even though the few B1G games included on the list can be rated higher, but may not be the most watched game of that year. So Herbstreets comments are way off target.

The anti ACC bias on ESPN is even noted among SEC fans, though it is not always noted derisively, but sometimes humorously. There is not a lot of deepening love by SEC fans for ESPN. Most don't like having the BigTen inserted regularly into the Finebaum show.

And what pisses me off the most with regard to Herbstreet and a few other ESPN analysts is that they look and sound authoritative but spew drivel quite frequently. By God, we have enough of that out of our politicians! When I'm trying to escape what has become the stupidity and lies of real world events, the last thing I want to see or hear on a Saturday morning escape is more of the same. I'm sick and tired of hearing things that are unsubstantiated and sometimes flat out a lie, being passed off as the truth.

ESPN in my opinion uses its own statements to justify keeping the ACC low balled. I find that to be almost criminal, but lay the blame on folks like Swofford who should at least raise a ruckus about it, and should never have used every feeble excuse to only lengthen your servitude to them.

I'm hoping the SEC either re-ups with CBS or sells its T1 to anybody but ESPN.

But let me add one of my own pet peeves. I'm sick of their commentators glossing lousy calls by officials and refusing to show replays of bad calls, and I'm even sicker of them talking about every damned thing under the sun while play is ongoing. I'm there to watch a game, not to discuss off field minutia, not to see 15 to 20 minutes of celebrity crap, or watch their internal advertisements for events outside of what I'm there to see.

But hey that's just me. I'm mostly a happy old guy. I love my garden, my muscadine vines, long walks, my pets, and most of all my family, and I once loved my sports almost as much as those. But that was back in the day of Kirk Gowdy and Pee Wee Reese, Keith Jackson, Howard Cosell, Frank Gifford, and Dandy Don Meredith. and Dizzy Dean. Those guys added to the enjoyment of the games. These ESPN guys abosofrigginlutely do not, they detract from it.

(01-03-2019 02:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Neil, I agree with you. The SEC has a high % of the top watched games each year even though the few B1G games included on the list can be rated higher, but may not be the most watched game of that year. So Herbstreets comments are way off target.

The anti ACC bias on ESPN is even noted among SEC fans, though it is not always noted derisively, but sometimes humorously. There is not a lot of deepening love by SEC fans for ESPN. Most don't like having the BigTen inserted regularly into the Finebaum show.

And what pisses me off the most with regard to Herbstreet and a few other ESPN analysts is that they look and sound authoritative but spew drivel quite frequently. By God, we have enough of that out of our politicians! When I'm trying to escape what has become the stupidity and lies of real world events, the last thing I want to see or hear on a Saturday morning escape is more of the same. I'm sick and tired of hearing things that are unsubstantiated and sometimes flat out a lie, being passed off as the truth.

ESPN in my opinion uses its own statements to justify keeping the ACC low balled. I find that to be almost criminal, but lay the blame on folks like Swofford who should at least raise a ruckus about it, and should never have used every feeble excuse to only lengthen your servitude to them.

I'm hoping the SEC either re-ups with CBS or sells its T1 to anybody but ESPN.

But let me add one of my own pet peeves. I'm sick of their commentators glossing lousy calls by officials and refusing to show replays of bad calls, and I'm even sicker of them talking about every damned thing under the sun while play is ongoing. I'm there to watch a game, not to discuss off field minutia, not to see 15 to 20 minutes of celebrity crap, or watch their internal advertisements for events outside of what I'm there to see.

But hey that's just me. I'm mostly a happy old guy. I love my garden, my muscadine vines, long walks, my pets, and most of all my family, and I once loved my sports almost as much as those. But that was back in the day of Kirk Gowdy and Pee Wee Reese, Keith Jackson, Howard Cosell, Frank Gifford, and Dandy Don Meredith. and Dizzy Dean. Those guys added to the enjoyment of the games. These ESPN guys abosofrigginlutely do not, they detract from it.