Breaking: ESPN is Not Biased Against Your Favorite Team

by billyzane on May 11, 2008 4:39 PM CDT in News Comment 35 comments

It's a time honored tradition: claiming ESPN is biased against your favorite team. Members of this community indulge in this on a regular basis. For instance, there's the "ESPN is biased against Texas" sentiment, frequently accompanied by the more severe "ESPN hates Texas" accusation, occasionally complimented backhandedly with the "I'm surprised at how unbiased ESPN is being" comment, all supplemented by the rare but endlessly amusing, batshit insane charge, such as "the ESPN/USA Today coaches poll is biased simply by virtue of being associated with ESPN even though no one from ESPN has any vote whatsoever." That one's my favorite.

But not only is it absurd to claim bias against Texas of all schools, it's just not true to claim any bias whatsoever for or against any team. ESPN is not biased against your favorite team. This isn't to absolve ESPN of its sins, which are myriad; it is just to say that ESPN cares about nothing but its bottom line. This focus on the business aspect of its sports empire sometimes seeps into the entertainment and news aspects of the ESPN operation, which is not a good thing, but claims of bias are ridiculous, as today's endless hyping of the OJ Mayo/USC violations demonstrates pretty clearly.

The thrust of the "ESPN is biased against Texas" sentiment stems from the lead-up to the Rose Bowl between USC and Texas during which ESPN held its infamous "Is USC the greatest team of all time?" online poll/fodder for talking heads shows. Undoubtedly, this was a terrible idea to which Texas fans rightfully took offense and from which the team gained strength. But it also lead to a lot of dumb "ESPN is biased in favor of USC" comments as well. These persist to this day, and they're just as dumb today as they were then.

But if that was true, would the network and accompanying website be hammering this "OJ Mayo took benefits while at USC" story nearly as much as it has, including Pat Forde's incendiary column? Hell, the ESPN show "Outside the Lines" is the group that did all the investigatory work to unearth this story. They're the ones that broke it. And that feeds into my point. ESPN is hyping this story to no end precisely because they're the ones behind it. They have no over-arching reverence for USC, just as they have no bias against Texas. If they did have some editorial bias in favor of USC, they would be burying the story to minimize its impact. They wouldn't have even investigated the story in the first place. But their only bias is in favor of ratings. And what gets ratings? Big names, sensational stories, and exclusive content, particularly if those things occur in large media markets.

ESPN focuses a lot of attention on USC because they're hugely successful, have a lot of stars, and are located in the second largest TV market in the country. ESPN focused a lot of attention on Rutgers in their undefeated run 2 years ago not because they have an East Coast bias, but because it was a rags to riches story of a terrible program going on a magical run, combined with the fact that nearby NYC is a largely untapped market for college football and the fact that Rutgers played a lot of games on ESPN that year. Talking a lot about Rutgers and hyping it as a good story had nothing to do with an East Coast bias. It had everything to do with increasing ratings for their broadcasts and hits on ESPN.com. This is the same reason they hype Red Sox/Yankees so much, often to the exclusion of attention to other teams. And lest we forget that when Kevin Durant was here, the Texas basketball team got much more positive attention than such a mediocre team deserved simply by virtue of having a star player with a great story.

Ideally, ESPN would keep its News, Entertainment and Business operations separate, primarily so that the latter two would not affect the editorial decisions made by the News division. That they don't do this adequately enough is the sin of ESPN, not that they have a bias against your favorite team. Can we please place a moratorium on these absurd claims? Talking about how sports is covered is sometimes just as much fun and interesting as talking about the sports themselves, but let's try to do it intelligently. Let's talk about why a story is being reported one way rather than wildly accusing people and organizations of bias every time they disagree with you. Deal?

2 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Good

.......stuff BillyZ. We share the same petpeave. I’m truly amazed at how many college football fans can dream up some form of bias. It is virtually universal amongst upper level Div.1 football and basketball fans.

Here’s my only ESPN bias: "I was personally and professionally offended by her comments. If the situation were reversed, I would have been the lead story on ‘SportsCenter,’ and I would have been fired." – Charlie Weis on Dana Jacobson (the vodka drunk)

--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---

by HornChamps on May 11, 2008 6:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The beast is not biased, it craps on everyone equally.

I agree, but there is an offshoot of this argument that I believe has more weight

A lot of the “analyst” for ESPN are paid to say something, just to take up airtime. Inevitably, a lot of that will be BS. Merrill Hodge, Dickie V., Emmit Smith, Colin Cowherd and so many more are some hellish combination of annoying, glaringly narrow minded, unable to speak intelligibly, and questionably prepared that on any given week, any fan may complain that ESPN is biased against their team.

Add that to the fact that there doesn’t seem to be much room for the occasional retraction, despite 24 hour coverage on every known media, and people hold on to individual instances and turn them into the general rule.

by learned hand on May 11, 2008 7:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Talking about two different things

I may not have made this clear enough, but I’m speaking of bias from a general editorial perspective, whereas you’re talking about what individual commentators say to fill airtime and get ratings. I think that the general editorial perspective matters more because that is what drives the style of commentating that goes on. Someone on high decided that what drives ratings (all ESPN seems to care about) was disagreement, controversy and arguments. That’s why these shows exist and why the participants are encouraged to disagree with each other, and in turn you might say that this causes the appearance of bias.

But I don’t think this is necessarily the case. I think blame for the alleging of an ESPN bias lies primarily with the fans rather than the network. The fans are imagining things that don’t exist and while the reason for this is how ESPN operates, fans thinking through ESPN’s motives logically would not come to this conclusion.

by billyzane on May 11, 2008 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You were clear, don't think I was

As a whole I think people tend to consider individual commentators as the voice of the network, which is somewhat absurd objectively, but understandable because people like to create general rules from a sample of individual events.

You take a few ESPN commentators saying something negative against UT institutions – Bill Simmons and Rick Barnes; Merrill Hodge and VY – and many will adopt the notion of a general bias based on a few singular, and far from universal events. That we’re unlikely to see Bill Simmons, Hodge or any other admit they were wrong in their analysis means these impressions will accumulate.

The concept of a general network wide bias – a vast right wings conspiracy against UT – is pretty silly on the face of it, as you point out. A 3+ billion dollar company with 3,500ish employees does not have an agenda or an ax to grind against any team/school/player, and certainly not one of the most popular, wealthy universities in the nation. And I think most folks would understand that if they thought about it in those terms, as you suggest. But they don’t.

They think about it in terms of a few hot air statements, overstated opinions, and uniformed comments, all of which vigerously annoy them when they are made against their team. The compliments paid to Texas, the ones they agree with, don’t form as strong of an impression. When the brain formulates its rule, it takes into account the stronger impressions and we get people who can only remember the bad things said about Texas, the coverage it didn’t get, and think ESPN hates UT.

/That’s all I got, good post BZ

by learned hand on May 12, 2008 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

...I’ve never really looked at it like that. I completely understand what you are saying. I know ESPN, as a company, doesn’t have it out for Texas or any school, but certain mouthpieces on ESPN’s staff may. I think sometimes that is where the feeling of bias comes from.

I wake up in the morning and suffer through Sportscenter at least once, sometimes twice. I do it because it’s the only national sports wrap up show. If there was something better to take its place, I would watch it. My philosophy is to watch ESPN and take as little of what their “experts” say to heart. They are paid to talk. Just take it with a grain of salt.

by afaeguy on May 11, 2008 7:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Durant

And lest we forget that when Kevin Durant was here, the Texas basketball team got much more positive attention than such a mediocre team deserved simply by virtue of having a star player with a great story.

Whoa, I agree with the much more positive attention part, but mediocre? Come on, they were above average at worst.

Nice writing, though.

by jc25 on May 11, 2008 8:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No joke

No kidding. Go on Ohio State or Michigan message boards, and you’ll find out how much ESPN loves the SEC and hates the Big Ten. Go on Florida or Georgia message boards, and you’ll find out how much ESPN loves the Big Ten, overhypes OSU/Michigan, and doesn’t give Florida/Georgia (depending on the site) enough credit.

As the only true giant in the countryside, it takes arrows from all directions.

by Year2 on May 11, 2008 8:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

espn unbiased...

I agree to a point, but the reason I doubt that it loves USC more than normal is b/c of Reggie Bush. When the allegations came out about him, there was no coverage of it anywhere…I just think they didn’t want the team they said was the best ever to lose their Heisman winner and make them look even dumber than they did.

by vy til i die on May 12, 2008 12:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

do you remember who broke the bush story?

it was Yahoo Sports, not ESPN. Yahoo Sports beat the story into the ground because it was theirs, and ESPN downplayed it a bit (but not the extent that there was no coverage anywhere—that’s just factually incorrect) because they didn’t want to send online readers to Yahoo and because they weren’t the ones with the informants and thus the exclusive content. It’s got nothing to do with USC. I don’t buy your reasoning at all.

The same thing happened with Barry Bonds a while back. Someone came out with a book about Barry Bonds’ steroid use and ESPN downplayed it not because they have some great love for Barry but because they had a deal to be the exclusive provider of excerpts of a different Bonds expose that was scheduled to occur a week later. When the excerpts posted online, ESPN then beat the Bonds story into the ground.

by billyzane on May 12, 2008 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

re:

I guess I should read yahoo sports b/c “all” my info that I used to get was from espn (sportscenter) and by saying what i said, i look pretty dumb right now…thanks for the info

by vy til i die on May 13, 2008 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Theyre a business....

Their purpose is to make money. TV networks make money by how many viewers they have. So if they get more viewers by hitting the beehive with a stick, they’ll do it. It’s just like wrestling.

That’s right. Dollar signs, people.

by the other Andrew on May 12, 2008 12:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Focusing on like/dislike bias?

It’d be a waste of effort to suggest a corporation the size of ESPN would have any bias towards individual teams on any level. However, that alone doesn’t mean ESPN doesn’t show bias in reporting. You touched on the “east coast bias” amongst others.

I’m not saying the Rutgers story wouldn’t have been reported had it been another school. Any time there’s an unexpected team making an undefeated run ESPN is all over it. A lot of the bias comes from which stories ESPN would prefer to cover. As you said, ratings drive reporting. With this said, LA and NY will get more coverage. This comes with both the good and the bad coverage. If there was a better story right now, it’d still take the back burner to anything big relating to USC or the NY market.

Simply accepting that larger markets will get more coverage as a business principle does not negate the suggestion of bias. In fact, it’s more of a suggestion of bias. The bias of ESPN has nothing to do with their feelings over a team. Yet, the bias controls the network.

by natasftw on May 12, 2008 6:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

We agree on all points, I think

I don’t disagree with you. The whole point of this column was in fact to say that ESPN is “biased” (not quite the right word, I don’t think, but whatever) in favor of ratings. I’m not quite sure where you think our disagreement lies.

by billyzane on May 12, 2008 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Basic definition

Reading what you’ve said since my post, I’m guessing our disagreement is simply in the definition of “bias.”

You take it as a statement of like/dislike. I take the preference to cover any markets as a form of bias. With two equal stories, the one in their market of preference will get the airtime. While that doesn’t mean they dislike the other market, nor story, it remains bias in my mind.

That’s where terms such as “East Coast Bias” derive from.

Either way, it’s not a big deal. I’m not going to be able to convince you that the preference, based on a desire for ratings or otherwise, is a bias. You’re not going to be able to convince me that the reasoning for the bias negates the bias.

We agree that ESPN couldn’t care less about any specific teams. That’d take too much effort.

by natasftw on May 13, 2008 1:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My thoughts exactly

A lust for ratings is certainly a source for bias. The example that should hit home for most Texas fans would be the proliferation of Reggie Bush highlights on SportsCenter in 2005, which many believe played a significant role in the Heisman voting.

Of course there was more coverage for USC that season, and it had everything to do with ratings. USC were the defending champs, they play in Hollywood (or close to it), they were either the valiant “Men of Troy” or the “great villains” (depending on your perspective), and they have a hot-shot, media friendly coach. So ESPN ratings analysis simply dictated that Reggie Bush receive more airtime than Vince Young. I understand the logic completely. However, my understanding of this economic principle does not exempt ESPN’s behavior from the accusation of bias, as, regardless of the reason, a bias literally exists.

BZ, I suspect that you don’t disagree with this point, so I would then question the intent (or at least the usefulness) of this post. I may be a bit naive, but when people suggest that ESPN exhibits a bias, it is precisely this kind of bias that they are noting. It seems that you are simply disagreeing with the source of the bias, and not that a bias exists.

If your intent was to proclaim that “ESPN does not hate your team,” then it seems a fruitless pursuit, as anyone irrational enough to believe that is not going to be persuaded simply because you have told them so, and further, any such person is unlikely to be baited into any sort of serious, intellectual debate.

by BrooklynHorn on May 12, 2008 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree with the term "bias"

I don’t think that more extensive coverage of a certain team equates with bias. Bias occurs when all of that coverage is positive to the exclusion of legitimate negative news that could be covered as well. Extensive coverage of a team is just favoritism of attention, not favoritism of a value judgment (positive or negative) of that team. At the core of “bias” is a value judgment. And none exists here.

You could make the argument that any publicity is good publicity and thus attention=bias, but I just don’t buy that argument. I’m pretty sure that the news of all of Texas’ arrests last season was bad publicity.

by billyzane on May 12, 2008 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Arguing semantics

I think what you mean to say is that you don’t think ESPN is intentionally manipulative or biased with an intent of malice. And the point of your post is that you believe that others do.

per american heritage dictionary
bias – A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment

I don’t think any of us can make the argument that ESPN’s ratings agenda does not fit that definition.

by gwh65 on May 12, 2008 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the point i'm making

is that the business decision to cover these teams is completely impartial to the teams themselves. and that’s what’s driving the decision to cover these teams, not some editorial decision. there is no judgment being made that is not impartial and beyond that, there is absolutely no value judgment being made at all so there’s nothing to be “partial” to. and if there’s nothing to be biased about, then there is no bias.

So I guess at least one of us can make that argument. (helpful hint: when speaking to a lawyer, never start a sentence with “no one can make the argument…”)

by billyzane on May 12, 2008 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But now you're just back to my original point

A literal bias does exist (by definition). ESPN has a preference, or an agenda, to show certain highlights and not others. This is not based on a cold, mechanical algorithm so much as it’s a human decision based [in essence] on greed and [for-the-record] on accountability to the share-holders.

But to exhibit NO preference at all would be unwise on their part, at least from a business standpoint, about which I believe we are both in agreement.

My point is that I believe most of the readers of this site to understand this, at least on some level, even if they have not accepted it. When someone complains that ESPN has a bias, it is often this exact financial consideration to which they are referring. And if that is the case, then you are not so much arguing that they are WRONG about the existence of a bias, so much as you are trying to justify ESPN’s need for the bias (or preference…if you prefer).

by BrooklynHorn on May 12, 2008 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I understand what you're saying

Though I’m still not sure I agree. But there’s not much else either of us can say at this point.

The take-home point of what I wrote was that we need to discuss why certain things happen intelligently (which I think the BON community has failed to do in regards to ESPN’s coverage in the past), and I believe we’ve done that, even if we disagree on this discreet point.

by billyzane on May 13, 2008 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

F*ck ESPN and their East Coast bias

too many damn lawyers on this website
;-)

by brentmcd on May 13, 2008 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

billyzane is biased against people wanting to believe espn is biased.

On a serious note, I agree with the commenter above who said it is the individual talking heads that are biased, but that is going to happen in the current state of sports reporting which is more sport opinion than anything else.

by cliffaudit on May 12, 2008 9:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I just get frustrated

That I feel there is a lack of coverage of Texas sports. Im sure a large part of that is from sitting on the inside looking out, but during college football season, and basketball too for that matter, never seems to get as much air time as other programs.

Again that can all be tied to money as well, though I thought our fanbase was one of the larger ones. Probably just a perception issue.

Also, I saw some of Dead Calm on one of Mark Cuban’s channels this weekend, BillyZ has once again freaked my shit out.

by BoddickerIsClutch on May 12, 2008 9:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

We should schedule some interesting games

If you want to be on TV, you have to play games that everyone wants to see, not just Texas fans. Yes, we have more of them than just about anyone else and that’s why during last season’s conference schedule (read: series of beatdowns), we got a lot of air, but it simply isn’t going to get us on ESPN and ABC when we’re playing TCU and OU is playing Miami. We’ll probably have trouble getting around Kansas at South Florida this year, considering we’ll probably be playing UTEP in the desert, or an Arkansas team that scored ten points against Middle Teagarden State in their opener. Our conference schedule ought to get us some nice coverage this year, but don’t be surprised if you have to pay $35 again to watch us beat the tar out of (or look like crap against) FAU, and we end up with Texas @ UTEP on sucky Versus or FSNSW. Oh, and Rice? You wanna watch Rice? Ha! Hahahahaha! HAAhahaha-I’mkiddingthey’realwaysonTV.

--Horn Brain--

by Horn Brain on May 12, 2008 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Compared with 98% of other teams

UT is on TV as much or more.

Football, to be covered more we need to have a contract like ND. Look at almost any other program and they have games that are just not available on TV period.

Basketball, we had a lot of games on TV this year, but it is dictated by the Big 12 TV contract, which is just not as good as the ACC or the Big East. At least we don’t have the Pac 10 contract.

by Wells on May 12, 2008 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dont mean games televised

I mean discussion about the team by media.

Gameday, if they aren’t at Austin, spends 1 minute on UT giving straight picks, while we get short stories about other schools, or montages of whatever-U.

Again, Im sure its just because I want UT coverage, that I perceive a lack.

by BoddickerIsClutch on May 12, 2008 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

I think the problem some people have is that they can’t understand that the job of a media operation is NOT to be a fa of their favorite program, so they therefore will not receive the same coverage/opinions of a fan.

by Beergut on May 12, 2008 11:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think it's more generalized

And by that I mean it’s more than a bias by ESPN, and it’s more than a bias against The University. I think that there is a general bias in the United States of America against the State of Texas and it’s inhabitants/adherents. I’ve spent a lot of my post-UT life outside of Texas, and outside of the country. Oddly enough, non-Americans are more positive overall about Texas than non-Texan-Americans. No doubt there’s some backlash against El Presidente (and it would surprise me zero if some peoples’ disdain for Mack Brown comes purely from his vague resemblance to W), but I got this kind of negative feedback before the current administration ever took office. There’s a lot of prejudice in this country towards Texas, for whatever reason, and it’s not surprising to believe that it shows up in the national media as well.

In the end, I agree with BZ’s argument re: ESPN, those dodos simply follow the “big” story/money (if they’re not inventing it themselves, a la “Who’s Now”) with little regard to favoring one team over another. Unfortunately, the “big” story happens to be the Yankees/Red Sox of the sports world a lot more often than it’s the Royals/Brewers. That said, we Texans always have an uphill climb when it comes to public perception and that shouldn’t be ignored.

So take that.

by Kahuna on May 12, 2008 12:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Problem

The reason there’s been less coverage of Texas is that to outsiders, the ‘Horns just haven’t been that interesting since Vince Young left.

The first half of 2006, I remember an explosion of “Wow, look how good Colt McCoy is! And what a name! It’s perfect for a Texas quarterback!” statements. Despite that, Ohio State handled Texas a bit too well and OU won the Big 12 South. That was that for ‘06.

As for 2007… When y’all got blown out by K-State at the end of September and then lost to OU the next week, that was the end of national interest for 2007. The Big 12 storylines from there on out were Oklahoma leading the South, Kansas and Missouri winning a surprising number of games, the Franchione Firing Countdown, and “I’M A MAN! I’M FORTY!” There really wasn’t room for Texas.

It’s not fair, but the perception I have picked up on is that Mack Brown can’t win without Vince Young, and VY was the only reason UT broke through OU’s hegemony of the Big 12 South.

You can quote me as many records and stats as you want to refute me, and that’s fine; that won’t change the fact that the above is the national perception. Oklahoma has won the South 6 of the past 8 years, so until you win the division more, you’re Tennessee of the 1990s: a great program that won a national title, but the also-ran in your own division (like Tenn. was to Florida).

For the record, the past few years I was attending the University of Florida and now I live in Charlotte, NC. I play no favorites when it comes to the Big 12, except that I like to watch Texas Tech’s passing game. It comes from being raised on Spurrier football.

by Year2 on May 12, 2008 12:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thread jumping

You don’t suppose John Bianco treats ESPN the same way as the Daily Texan? It could be that we get bad press because we give bad press. Another possibility is that we get bad press because we deserve it, as indicated by the persistent criminal behavior of our players and boosters.

It is worth noting that other UT sports do not have this problem. The basketball team got great press last season and UT baseball has always been a press favorite.

Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.

by Caradoc on May 12, 2008 5:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, but...

As you noted, ESPN still has preferences as far as ratings and “sensational” stories are concerned. I would agree that they do not necessarily prefer teams in themselves, although individual commentators do, but they still annoyingly lift teams on pedestals that are more media friendly (USC and Notre Dame). People find ESPN exasperating sometimes because they’ll blow stuff out of proportion while ignoring other important bits of information just to try to catch people’s eyes. Not to mention the fact they employ many idiots, such as Skip Bayless and Scoop Jackson.

I typically enjoy ESPN, but I do and will criticize their stupid mistakes, which includes their biased reporting. I don’t make too big a deal out of this because no one is perfectly neutral, but that is nonetheless the ideal they should be striving for.

Like I said, though, I agree that ESPN does not necessarily hate this team or that team. It is amusing to see how SEC people talk about ESPN disrespecting the SEC when virtually every single individual commentator (who do not represent the entire organization) says the SEC is the strongest conference in the nation in football. It is likewise amusing that Ohio State fans get mad at the criticism they get when they’ve been thumped twice in a row in the NC game. Uh, that’s not “bias,” fellas. That’s just getting criticism rightfully deserved for giving us crappy title games.

by TheElusiveShadow on May 13, 2008 1:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The BSPN bias definitely appies

in pro sports. Not nearly as much in college sports.

by goingforthecorner on May 13, 2008 6:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I realize this is coming a bit late

but this is something that has been bothering me and I feel needs to be said.

For a website that has historically taken pride in its sense of community, I think the tone of your post is inappropriate for “frontpage” content. To an even greater degree, the post is inappropriate to be coming from an editor. Specifically, focusing on certain individuals’ comments in order to “make fun of them” is nothing short of mean-spirited. The point of your post could have been made just as easily without referring to those comments as “absurd”, “ridiculous”, and “dumb”. Furthermore, it’s counterproductive to denigrate members of this community that hold opposing views by telling them they should “try to do it intelligently”.

For the record, I don’t particularly disagree with the point of your post, but I do feel that if you are trying to foster intelligent discussion, insulting people is a terrible way to open the table.

by gwh65 on May 14, 2008 11:47 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

Fair point

I hadn’t even thought about BZ intending it that way, so your point didn’t even occur to me. (Nor I’m sure to BZ, who I’m sure wasn’t trying to belittle anyone.)

But you’re right that this is a community, and we don’t put down others in the community to make a point. I’d guess BZ wasn’t really thinking about it that way himself, but your point is taken.

Thanks for speaking up.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on May 14, 2008 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

PB's right

The goal of the post was certainly not to make fun of any individuals; it was to point out where I think those individuals were going about discussing this matter in an unproductive manner. I was saying: instead of talking about it unproductively (i.e. ESPN hates Texas and is biased in favor of USC), let’s talk about it productively (i.e. why does it appear to us that way and is there a better explanation). I used the previous comments as examples of the unproductive way to talk about it. To me, this is the same thing as saying “let’s talk about yards per carry instead of yards per game because that’s a more productive way to think about the quality of a rushing attack” and then giving examples of comments discussing yards per game in a way that distorts what they’re purporting to measure.

That said, I did not have to link to the specific comments, and while I don’t think it was wrong to do so in this case, I understand where you are coming from. What I didn’t do a good job of was making clear that I was not “making fun” (which was also, obviously, a poor choice of words) of these specific commenters themselves. but rather of the knee-jerk reactions of their comments that very often (though not always) arise from very real circumstances perceived by many commenters. Because one’s reaction to ESPN’s coverage comes from a more emotional place than does one’s use of yards per game over yards per carry, I think the critique caused you to perceive it as more of an insult than it was meant to be. I apologize for not being more delicate in that regard.

And I appreciate you taking the time to say your piece. It never hurts to self-reflect and you’re right that the community here is paramount. I’ll try to do a better job of prospectively anticipating reactions such as yours to my posts in the future.

by billyzane on May 14, 2008 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs