- 06/20/2011, 03:16AM ET
[b][/b] said 06/20, 03:16 AM
I mean this from a purely business standpoint of the places like SI, or ESPN, that supposedly favor east coast medias and markets. I think favoring the east coast in the sports coverage is a good idea for places like SI or ESPN.
I'm not saying completely ignore the Midwest, West Coast or anywhere else, and I know my argument won't go over so well with many people here, but look at the numbers.
Looking at attendance, 3 of the top 4 in total attendance so far this year in the MLB are the Yankees, Phillies, and Red Sox. The Giants happen to be the other team, and yes, they play on the west coast. As I said, don't completely ignore the west coast, but a bias seems fair when the ratio at the top here is 3:1.
In the NFL, 5 of the top 6 are the Redskins, Giants, and Jets, Eagles, and Ravens (while Oakland happens to be last).
3 of the top 5 in the NBA were the Heat, Knicks, and C's. There is no reporting on hockey, virtually (though there should be), so there is no bias.
Clearly non-east coast teams are at the top as well, but proportionately, many of the largest fan bases, and thereby more viewership of ESPN and SI, and more money, comes from the east.
BringThePain said 06/20, 05:59 PM
Fisrt of all, I can win this TD in one sentence. Here it is.
"East Coast Bias" is a good thing. Thats the topic right? NO BIAS IS A GOOD THING.
There are huge markets on the west coast and very loyal fans. By the same token, they are no more dedicated to there teams than the rest of the country.(SEE VANCOUVER)
Here are the Top 10 in each sport, and yes, they do report for the NHL.
NFL- 1. Dallas 2. Washington 3. NYG 4. NYJ 5. Denver 6. Carolina 7. Baltimore 8. Houston 9. Green Bay 10. New Orleans
NBA- 1. Chicago 2. Portland 3. Cleveland 4. Dallas 5. Miami 6. NY 7. Utah 8. LAL 9. Orlando 10. Golden State
MLB- 1. Philly 2. NYY 3. San Fran 4. Minn. 5. LAA 6. St Louis 7. Boston 8. TX 9. Cubs 10. LAD
NHL- 1. Chicago 2. Montreal 3. Philly 4. Detriot 5. Toronto 6. Calgary 7. St Louis 8. Vancouver 9. Buffalo 10. Washington
So of the Top 10 teams in each sport, 18 of 40 are on the east coast. Although that makes up a little less than 50% of the attendance in the top 10, it is not like the east coast is 70% of the market.
BRING THE PAIN
[b][/b] said 06/20, 10:13 PM
18 out of 40 is about %50, but it's not like the other %50 percent or so is all coming from the Midwest, or the Southwest, or the West Coast. Those three split the remaining %50 percent, and accordingly, split coverage time.
Secondly, I don't think using the top 10 is a good indicator. If you take the 10th best team in the MLB, it's going to be a team that missed the playoffs. If you take the 10th best team in the NFL, it will be a 5 seed in the playoffs, and likely a not so great team. My point is, being in the top 10, moreover being 8th, 9th, or 10th, out of 30 or 32 fanbases, is not as impressive as it sounds.
Next, I know I brought up attendance numbers, but we can't just look at that. A New Yorker is more likely to watch something about a NY team than a team from the west coast, and fact is, New York City's population alone is equal to the population of LA, Chicago, and Houston combined (the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest U.S. cities).
I'm not questioning the fanhood or loyalty of any fans, or of any team. But the fact is, monetarily speaking, you stand more to gain reporting on the biggest markets, which happen to largely be in the east.
BringThePain said 06/21, 11:30 AM
"Secondly, I don't think using the top 10 is a good indicator. If you take the 10th best team in the MLB, it's going to be a team that missed the playoffs."
We were not talking about the best team. We were using attendance #s, which is how you started your argument. So we can do it any way you want to do it. Lets go by the best teams!
Super Bowl- Green Bay vs Pittsburg
NBA Championship- Dallas vs Miami
World Series- San Fransisco vs Texas
Stanley Cup- Boston vs Vancouver
East Coast Teams-2
So you cannot say that the east coast has the best teams either. There is definatly great teams in the other parts of the country. The east coast has a larger population so it is going to have more veiwers and attendance than the rest of the country. But as far as success goes, the playing field is pretty equal.
Here are the past 5 Champions in each league to show you that the east coast isnt as dominant as you think.
NFL- Green Bay, N.O., Pittsburg, NYG, Indy
NBA- Dallas, LAL, LAL, Boston, San Antonio
MLB- San Fran, NYY, Philly, Boston, St. Louis
NHL- Boston, Chicago, Pitt, Detroit, Anaheim
BRING THE PAIN!!!
[b][/b] said 06/21, 11:52 AM
I wasn't saying that east coast teams are better... simply that the top 10 in attendance isn't as prestigious as it sounds, because, for instance, being in the top 10 in the MLB isn't a huge accomplishment because you are outside of the playoffs.
The point I was making was that, in using attendance numbers, you have to realize the sample size, which is just 30. In a group of 30, having a team like the Dodgers, or Warriors, be number 10 sounds more impressive than it is.
Though I'm not saying it's a matter of success, you have to admit "east coast bias" goes away when a team wins a championship. For instance, when the Packers won the SB, or when the Mavs just won, the front headline news and articles on every sports site is about them, while the Heat got so much coverage because of the whole "big 3" saga, not because of their location.
Again, it's not a question of dominance in the sport, simply a numbers game. Sports stations and websites are businesses, who's prime goal is to make money, and as a result, they have to appeal to their biggest audiences, which by and large, as I said last argument, happen to be on the east.
BringThePain said 06/21, 01:57 PM
While I agree with you that there is more money to be made by showing "East Coast" teams on tv, the question was is it a good thing. The answer is no. Do you know why so many people outside of the east coast are Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies fans? Its because thats all they ever show on TV.
I live in central Texas and cant get the Rangers or the Astros sometimes because the Yankees are on ESPN. The NFL is better about showing regional games but the same goes for the Mavs. I saw way too many Heat or Lakers games and couldnt find the Mavs game anywhere.
This is a bad thing. For the casual fan, not being able to see your team play on any given night makes them lose interest quickly. In the long run, losing those casual fans or bandwagon fans is much worse than missing a couple games in the Red Sox-Orioles series.
All in all, while the "East Coast" bias is happening, it shouldnt be. What should be happening is each team should get about the same # of games on national TV. I love it when they show a Warriors vs T-Wolves series on tv. It showcases some players that you would have never known about because the Heat were killing the Kings instead.
[B]BRING THE PAIN!!![B]
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia