ESPN bias

[kshepinthehouse]

Has anyone else noticed the ESPN video entitled "Parker's Epic Fail?" The caption for the video says that Parker makes a great move then misses the dunk. However, the play shown in the video is a play in which he got fouled. Just another example of ESPN bias against Duke.

[Duvall]

It really is frustrating that Duke has to do business with those people for another 12 years.

[moonpie23]

Not to mention ignoring the UNC scandal completely...

[PSurprise]

If you look at ESPN (at least online) with any regularity, you'll notice that the actual highlight and the description/title very rarely actually coincide. I especially appreciate clicking on the link looking for highlights/recap of the game and all you get is a bunch of guys jibberjabbering about something else.

[El_Diablo]

Has anyone else noticed the ESPN video entitled "Parker's Epic Fail?" The caption for the video says that Parker makes a great move then misses the dunk. However, the play shown in the video is a play in which he got fouled. Just another example of ESPN bias against Duke.

They probably just have unpaid interns uploading and captioning the videos. This one was likely a recent UNC grad (and I'm guessing the valedictorian, based on the general lack of typos).

[Mike Corey]

For ESPN to have a systemic bias against Duke makes no sense, given how much Duke benefits from ESPN's coverage--which program is on television more than our Blue Devils? That's thanks to ESPN.

ESPN takes shots at Duke because it is good for business; said shots are not being called from the top, but from the bottom.

[devilnfla]

For ESPN to have a systemic bias against Duke makes no sense, given how much Duke benefits from ESPN's coverage--which program is on television more than our Blue Devils? That's thanks to ESPN.

ESPN takes shots at Duke because it is good for business; said shots are not being called from the top, but from the bottom.

Agreed, see my thread about ESPN. I believe both Jay's know and get this as well. I'm sure unlike Stuart Scott and Scott Vanpelt they needed a little convincing though to be a little bias for Duke opponents.

[Duvall]

For ESPN to have a systemic bias against Duke makes no sense, given how much Duke benefits from ESPN's coverage--which program is on television more than our Blue Devils? That's thanks to ESPN.

ESPN takes shots at Duke because it is good for business; said shots are not being called from the top, but from the bottom.

I don't think this is true at all. It's entirely possible to have a systemic bias against something and still give it heavy coverage - just look at the cable news networks. And the cable news nets have much higher standards than ESPN.

[devilnfla]

I don't think this is true at all. It's entirely possible to have a systemic bias against something and still give it heavy coverage - just look at the cable news networks. And the cable news nets have much higher standards than ESPN.

This

[Mike Corey]

Conceding the point, what evidence is there of a systemic bias against Duke, rather than the individual bias of certain employees?

[OldPhiKap]

I don't think this is true at all. It's entirely possible to have a systemic bias against something and still give it heavy coverage - just look at the cable news networks. And the cable news nets have much higher standards than ESPN.

You must get different cable than I do.

ESPN, like cable news, sells a product aimed at high viewership to drive higher advertising revenues. They will promote, denigrate, or ignore Duke as the dollars command. I would say that ESPN is better than cable news, because there is no pro- or anti- bias like with politically-motivated networks.

ESPN will both promote Jabari Parker and K, and feed the Duke gets all the calls meme, at the same time. Because people pay to hear both.

[brevity]

Conceding the point, what evidence is there of a systemic bias against Duke, rather than the individual bias of certain employees?

That's a good question. Journalism (even sports journalism) generally works off the default mode of being dispassionate. But ESPN has morphed within the past few years into something less journalistic altogether. The executive producer (http://www.thewrap.com/today-show-espn-first-take-jamie-horowitz) of First Take had a personal hand in creating a sports opinion culture that draws more eyes than ESPN's standard sports news culture. His success led to two things: open interest (http://thebiglead.com/2014/01/27/jamie-horowitz-might-leave-espn-for-the-today-show-but-he-wont-be-able-to-take-anyone/) from NBC's Today show, and retention (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/01/29/People-and-Pop-Culture/Horowitz.aspx) by ESPN.

As for Duke, ESPN no doubt recognizes that the most money can be generated by having some opinion about it, and that this opinion should be as emphasized as much as possible. You could call that systemic encouragement of bias. But unless we get another oral history (http://books.google.com/books/about/Those_Guys_Have_All_the_Fun.html?id=x29ezgAACAAJ) of the network that focuses on college basketball, we may never know.

[Mike Corey]

I think you make an excellent point, Brevity.

ESPN's by no means a journalistic outlet: it benefits from creating news on which it can then uniquely report.

This manufactured controversy is manufactured to generate revenues, not out of bias against Duke, IMO.

Reporting on the C*rolina scandal would be journalistically responsible. But ESPN is collectively not a journalistic outlet, though a handful of its programming ("Outside the Lines") at least is on paper.

With traditional television stations--NBC, for example--we benefit as viewers from the delineated operations: NBC News, NBC Sports, NBC's television shows, etc.

ESPN has no such delineations, though perhaps it could. The systemic culture of ESPN is to have as much opportunity for profit-making through its exclusive live coverage of events, and attention-grabbing commentary on such events. Manufacturing controversy out of the events it aired makes good business sense.

That's the bias they've got: They want the $.

[weezie]

ESPN will both promote Jabari Parker and K, and feed the Duke gets all the calls meme, at the same time. Because people pay to hear both.

And frankly, what the heck else out there is as equally interesting? Yeah, swell, wichita state, oooooo, so exciting, go pound on some Div 3 squad! Who, arizona in the borefest Pac12? kansas with Bill Self's expanding waistline and the preening wiggins? ky/looville with their taint? The stumblebums eight miles down the road, who are embarrassing themselves with this crying about rivalry-dating.

So, I'm now going with it: Sure!!! Duke gets all the calls, why shouldn't we?! That's of course how K has won four national titles! Everybody is our rival! Get in line!

[flyingdutchdevil]

I think you make an excellent point, Brevity.

ESPN's by no means a journalistic outlet: it benefits from creating news on which it can then uniquely report.

This manufactured controversy is manufactured to generate revenues, not out of bias against Duke, IMO.

Reporting on the C*rolina scandal would be journalistically responsible. But ESPN is collectively not a journalistic outlet, though a handful of its programming ("Outside the Lines") at least is on paper.

With traditional television stations--NBC, for example--we benefit as viewers from the delineated operations: NBC News, NBC Sports, NBC's television shows, etc.

ESPN has no such delineations, though perhaps it could. The systemic culture of ESPN is to have as much opportunity for profit-making through its exclusive live coverage of events, and attention-grabbing commentary on such events. Manufacturing controversy out of the events it aired makes good business sense.

That's the bias they've got: They want the $.

And this is it. ESPN is a business first, journalism outlet second. ESPN, as many know, is owned by Disney. ESPN and the Disney Channel alone account for more than half of Disney's operating profit. That is ridiculous. Disney needs to bring in fans time and time again. Duke - the most polarized school in college basketball - absolutely helps to do that.

It's called smart business. Smart journalism? Now that's debatable.

[sagegrouse]

Would someone please give us any instances when ESPN has trumpeted the assertion that "Duke gets all the calls?" I can't think of any from the network's basketball reporters and commentators, many of whom have been criticized for fawning over Duke. And shock jocks like Colin Cowherd don't count.

The concept originated with the lamentable Billy Packer -- on CBS -- at the 2001 Final Four.

[Exiled_Devil]

Would someone please give us any instances when ESPN has trumpeted the assertion that "Duke gets all the calls?" I can't think of any from the network's basketball reporters and commentators, many of whom have been criticized for fawning over Duke. And shock jocks like Colin Cowherd don't count.

The concept originated with the lamentable Billy Packer -- on CBS -- at the 2001 Final Four.

If Cowherd doesn't count as a point of bias against Duke, then Dickie V doesn't count as a point for fawning over Duke.

Equally arbitrary distinction.

[sagegrouse]

If Cowherd doesn't count as a point of bias against Duke, then Dickie V doesn't count as a point for fawning over Duke.

Equally arbitrary distinction.

I rarely listen to Cowherd. Not to come across as a naif, but does he advance the notion that the refs are in the tank for Duke?

[Duvall]

Would someone please give us any instances when ESPN has trumpeted the assertion that "Duke gets all the calls?" I can't think of any from the network's basketball reporters and commentators, many of whom have been criticized for fawning over Duke. And shock jocks like Colin Cowherd don't count.

Well, I can think of one ESPN basketball commentator than has been known to suggest that Duke get preferential treatment with mind-numbing repetition. And Scott Van Pelt complains about "Duke refs" on Twitter with some regularity. But the worst offenders came from ESPN.com during the 2006-2007 timeframe - is that enough?

[BlueDevilBrowns]

I rarely listen to Cowherd. Not to come across as a naif, but does he advance the notion that the refs are in the tank for Duke?

Cowherd usually is pro any and all high profile, big market programs, whether pro or college. So, in that sense, he's an admirer of K and Duke.

Now, as far as a representative of ESPN promoting a Duke bias, see Lynn Elmore, Uncle Fester, and the former ESPN commentator Doug Gotlieb.

[devilnfla]

Cowherd usually is pro any and all high profile, big market programs, whether pro or college. So, in that sense, he's an admirer of K and Duke.

Now, as far as a representative of ESPN promoting a Duke bias, see Lynn Elmore, Uncle Fester, and the former ESPN commentator Doug Gotlieb.

I'm about ready to throw our own Jay Williams into that group and I'm on the fence with Bilas.

[sagegrouse]

Cowherd usually is pro any and all high profile, big market programs, whether pro or college. So, in that sense, he's an admirer of K and Duke.

Now, as far as a representative of ESPN promoting a Duke bias, see Lynn Elmore, Uncle Fester, and the former ESPN commentator Doug Gotlieb.

Elmore, Greenberg and Gottlieb have been critical of Duke or rooting for opponents at various times, but have any of these ever, ever, ever suggested that the refs are in the tank for Duke???

[TNDukeFan]

"Source: refs made right call in Cuse-Duke"

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10506018/referees-made-right-call-end-syracuse-orange-duke-blue-devils-game-official-says

[Duvall]

Elmore, Greenberg and Gottlieb have been critical of Duke or rooting for opponents at various times, but have any of these ever, ever, ever suggested that the refs are in the tank for Duke???

That's moving the goalposts. Suggesting that the refs are in the tank for Duke, i.e., that the refs are conspiring to fix games for Duke, would of course get Elmore and company summarily fired, and probably sued. What Elmore *has* suggested is that the refs end up giving Duke an edge, especially at home, and he has said this a lot.

[sagegrouse]

That's moving the goalposts. Suggesting that the refs are in the tank for Duke, i.e., that the refs are conspiring to fix games for Duke, would of course get Elmore and company summarily fired, and probably sued. What Elmore *has* suggested is that the refs end up giving Duke an edge, especially at home, and he has said this a lot.

Not really. There was a subthread suggesting that many commentators have stated that the refs favored Duke. My question, truthfully, is whether anyone at ESPN (overall thread title) has ever done so. You responded that the professional grump and Harvard lawyer, Len Elmore, has said as much in his many comments. Thank you.

[lotusland]

If you look at ESPN (at least online) with any regularity, you'll notice that the actual highlight and the description/title very rarely actually coincide. I especially appreciate clicking on the link looking for highlights/recap of the game and all you get is a bunch of guys jibberjabbering about something else.

I think the object of the caption is to make you click on it. Must be some advertising dollars tied to the number of clicks. I guess it doesn't matter if you are annoyed by the misrepresentation after clicking though. Yahoo does the same thing all the time with their captions.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Elmore, Greenberg and Gottlieb have been critical of Duke or rooting for opponents at various times, but have any of these ever, ever, ever suggested that the refs are in the tank for Duke???

Has Elmore, Greenberg or Gottlieb said the "refs are in the tank for Duke"? No.

However, Gottlieb did say on air during Duke's 2010 title run that an advantage Duke had was that opposing teams had to play less aggressive against Duke due to how Duke Games were officiated differently than games against any other team.

And you know as well as I do, that Lynn Elmore(aka Oscar the Grouch) as for years been critical of the officials during Duke telecasts when it seems to be to Duke's advantage. He's even spouted lines like "Calls like that are why some people think Duke gets all the calls" which is a weak attempt to advance his own conspiracy theory while hiding behind "some people".

As far as Uncle Fester, his thoughts on officiating during Duke games have been quite clear during his time as a coach.

So, you're right, no one has openly suggested any conspiracy for Duke, but there have been a lot of winks, nods, and thumbs up to all the idiots and nuts who do believe it.

[-bdbd]

Would someone please give us any instances when ESPN has trumpeted the assertion that "Duke gets all the calls?" I can't think of any from the network's basketball reporters and commentators, many of whom have been criticized for fawning over Duke. And shock jocks like Colin Cowherd don't count.

The concept originated with the lamentable Billy Packer -- on CBS -- at the 2001 Final Four.

Not sure if this ia what you were looking for, but for me the absolute height of ESPN hysteria over Duke supposedly getting calls came during Reddick's third or fourth year. Top-10 Duke was playing at FSU, in a late game that led directly into Sports Center afterwards. Stew Scott was one of the anchors. One of their lead features came under the header, "Does Duke Get All The Calls?" Obviously Stew and the production team had been working on the 3-4 minute feature for a while. Quoting stats about quantities of the FT's taken by Duke and their opponents over selective windows, and showing examples of calls that went Duke's way and against their opponents. But the feature highlight that they focused on, to try to keep it relevant to the day's action, was a Sheldon Williams blocked shot against FSU that day, with Stew repeatedly asking if it was right that Duke got the no-call... (Editorial note: It was a close play with the ball right at the peak of the trajectory, and call coulda gone either way.) The really funny irony/idiocy about the whole hyperbolic feature was that in that game Duke that had just ended, was that Duke had lost to FSU, which rushed the court after a narrow (causing its own controversy), winning in large part due to the fact that Duke had all 5 starters foul out, and Duke getting called for about 35 fouls, versus about a third of that for FSU... But still, ESPN was doing their damnest to find a call, somewhere, ANYWHERE, that they could still point to in implying pro-Duke favoritism. That was the night I decided that Stew Scott was just a despicable human being (as well as poor journalist). :mad:

Even as an avid sports fan, I think I stopped watching ESPN for about six months after that. :eek:

[77devil]

Would someone please give us any instances when ESPN has trumpeted the assertion that "Duke gets all the calls?" I can't think of any from the network's basketball reporters and commentators, many of whom have been criticized for fawning over Duke. And shock jocks like Colin Cowherd don't count.

The concept originated with the lamentable Billy Packer -- on CBS -- at the 2001 Final Four.

Len Elmore ad nauseum. Fortuneately Len's been on a different beat most of this season.

[TexHawk]

Not really. There was a subthread suggesting that many commentators have stated that the refs favored Duke. My question, truthfully, is whether anyone at ESPN (overall thread title) has ever done so. You responded that the professional grump and Harvard lawyer, Len Elmore, has said as much in his many comments. Thank you.

I was listening to Mike and Mike on the drive in this morning, and the topic of conversation was the Boeheim flip-out. One of them (Greenie, I think), took the the stance of "You know walking into Cameron that Duke is going to get all of the calls, so you need to act appropriately if a call goes against you. If you want to disagree about Duke getting calls, that's fine, but that's a different discussion."

[jv001]

I was listening to Mike and Mike on the drive in this morning, and the topic of conversation was the Boeheim flip-out. One of them (Greenie, I think), took the the stance of "You know walking into Cameron that Duke is going to get all of the calls, so you need to act appropriately if a call goes against you. If you want to disagree about Duke getting calls, that's fine, but that's a different discussion."

Greenie's a whimp, :cool: GoDuke!

[Duke71]

Would someone please give us any instances when ESPN has trumpeted the assertion that "Duke gets all the calls?" I can't think of any from the network's basketball reporters and commentators, many of whom have been criticized for fawning over Duke.

I don't know where you draw your personal line on reporters and commentators. I don't have any bone to pick with you whatsoever. I'm only responding to your question. I don't consider Mike & Mike as "shock jocks", so I think this morning's example has relevance in speaking to your point.

To my surprise, Mike Greenberg clearly said so during his extended discussion with his on-air partner, Mike Golic, during this morning's Mike & Mike simulcast's rehashing of the Jim Boeheim meltdown.

To his credit, Mike Greenberg dismissed the importance of "Duke getting all the calls at home" having played any crucial role in Boeheim's unleashing of his own personal Cameron Craziness, but nonetheless Greenberg did in passing say that there is no question that the common ESPN viewer perception that "Duke gets all the calls at home" is spot on (I don't recall Mike's exact words).

I was indeed taken aback to hear him articulate that viewpoint publicly on air. At least while I was watching - I didn't nearly stick around for the entire broadcast - Greenberg's partner, Mike Golic, did NOT weigh-in any agreement, nor disagreement, with Greenberg's assertion. For the record, Golic and Greenberg both thought that this particular call at the end of the game was a "bad/wrong" call, but I didn't hear Golic himself make any blanket assertions about Duke getting all the calls at home.

However, despite all that, I find it disingenuous of our own rabid, die-hard fans to call out bias when they see it elsewhere while cultivating any notions that our very own Duke fans themselves aren't tainted by that same four letter word. Yes, it comes with the territory of being a never-say-die fan. But I simply remind all of us here on DBR - myself included - that passing off analysis as if it was not in the hands of faux objectivity is a slippery slope to perch opinions on.

[sagegrouse]

I don't know where you draw your personal line on reporters and commentators. I don't have any bone to pick with you whatsoever. I'm only responding to your question. I don't consider Mike & Mike as "shock jocks", so I think this morning's example has relevance in speaking to your point.

To my surprise, Mike Greenberg clearly said so during his extended discussion with his on-air partner, Mike Golic, during this morning's Mike & Mike simulcast's rehashing of the Jim Boeheim meltdown.

To his credit, Mike Greenberg dismissed the importance of "Duke getting all the calls at home" having played any crucial role in Boeheim's unleashing of his own personal Cameron Craziness, but nonetheless Greenberg did in passing say that there is no question that the common ESPN viewer perception that "Duke gets all the calls at home" is spot on (I don't recall Mike's exact words).

I was indeed taken aback to hear him articulate that viewpoint publicly on air. At least while I was watching - I didn't nearly stick around for the entire broadcast - Greenberg's partner, Mike Golic, did NOT weigh-in any agreement, nor disagreement, with Greenberg's assertion. For the record, Golic and Greenberg both thought that this particular call at the end of the game was a "bad/wrong" call, but I didn't hear Golic himself make any blanket assertions about Duke getting all the calls at home.

However, despite all that, I find it disingenuous of our own rabid, die-hard fans to call out bias when they see it elsewhere while cultivating any notions that our very own Duke fans themselves aren't tainted by that same four letter word. Yes, it comes with the territory of being a never-say-die fan. But I simply remind all of us here on DBR - myself included - that passing off analysis as if it was not in the hands of faux objectivity is a slippery slope to perch opinions on.

"Reporters and commnetators" wasn't intended to make a distinction, rather to lump the major on-air performers on ESPN. Greenie's statement is puzzling, since I doubt he believes it. I suspect he was using it to set up his "what did you expect" point to Boeheim.

[szstark]

While channel surfing Sunday, I caught about 5 minutes of Sports Center. They advertised Monday night's game of Syracuse vs. Maryland and the announcer said "maybe they won't get jobbed this time". Bias? What bias?

[Duke71]

Greenie's statement is puzzling, since I doubt he believes it. I suspect he was using it to set up his "what did you expect" point to Boeheim.

I tend to very much agree with your speculation being a likely scenario. Greenie is a tortured soul unfairly blessed with OCD. I disagree with another poster's characterization of him as being a wimp. (the poster probably would like to view him that way because the poster may privately fancy himself to be a GoDuke bully and it fits his drive-by narrative)

Greenie is a real life poster child for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) much like the fictional Monk was on the eponymous TV show "Monk". When Greenie is setting up a point that he wants to make, he gets visibly antsy and even fidgets. I worked for over 11 years with someone who was out of the closet about his own OCD demons, and I've learned much about the meaning of OCD fidgeting.

Greenie fidgeted a lot as he made the point about "Duke getting all the calls at home". The audio listeners weren't treated to the fidgeting, but the TV viewers were.

BTW, the Photoshopped Boeheim memes circulating on the Internet are absolutely hilarious:

http://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/index.ssf/2014/02/syracuses_jim_boeheim_in_memes_a_

[MaxAMillion]

I am curious...is ESPN biased against any other schools or is it just Duke? It seems most fans think ESPN is always biased against their school. I work with PSU grads who think ESPN was biased in how they covered the Paterno scandal. Kirk Herbstreit had to leave Columbus because of how fans thought he was biased against OSU even though he is a graduate. I think sometimes the listener or viewer can let their own bias affect what they here. If someone says something negative about their favorite team or school then they are biased. That is how Jay Bilas became this analyst in Duke fans minds who hates the basketball program. I never bought that for a second. Bilas is just critical of what he sees on the floor. He criticized Boeheim for coming on the floor and taking away any opportunity SU had of winning the game. If Bilas said something similar about K all hell would break loose among Duke fans.

I think ESPN (like most websites) looks to create traffic. They will make controversial headlines to help with that traffic. They also have a ton of talking heads who look to make controversial statements to generate attention. I believe that is the motivation rather than bias. Fans just don't want to hear anything negative about their school. I do find it funny how some of the same Duke fans who get upset with the opinions of ESPN analyst will turn around and post negative things themselves about the way the team plays.

[Matches]

ESPN is biased in favor of things that get eyes on the television and/or clicks on the website.

People have strong feelings, both pro and con, about Duke, and they get incensed quickly over the "Does Duke get all the calls?" stuff. Incensed = ratings and clicks. Controversy = ratings and clicks.

ESPN is neither biased for nor against Duke. Individual announcers or commentators may be, but the network as a whole is not. The network consistently will push the most controversial angle of any story in order to drive the media engine. In doing so, arguably it contributes to people forming strong opinions pro or con, which can become a vicious cycle and probably has on the Duke Ref topic. (Put another way, would people feel anywhere near as strongly as they do about Tim Tebow if it wasn't for Skip Bayless?)

[wilson]

ESPN is biased in favor of things that get eyes on the television and/or clicks on the website.

People have strong feelings, both pro and con, about Duke, and they get incensed quickly over the "Does Duke get all the calls?" stuff. Incensed = ratings and clicks. Controversy = ratings and clicks.

ESPN is neither biased for nor against Duke. Individual announcers or commentators may be, but the network as a whole is not. The network consistently will push the most controversial angle of any story in order to drive the media engine. In doing so, arguably it contributes to people forming strong opinions pro or con, which can become a vicious cycle and probably has on the Duke Ref topic. (Put another way, would people feel anywhere near as strongly as they do about Tim Tebow if it wasn't for Skip Bayless?)This is exactly right. Another way to think about it: None of us here like ESPN's supposed bias, and yet, here we are discussing it ad nauseam, in no fewer than four active front-page threads. ESPN doesn't care if we're upset with them; as long as we're devoting attention to their journalistic choices and tone, they win.

[sagegrouse]

ESPN is biased in favor of things that get eyes on the television and/or clicks on the website.

People have strong feelings, both pro and con, about Duke, and they get incensed quickly over the "Does Duke get all the calls?" stuff. Incensed = ratings and clicks. Controversy = ratings and clicks.

ESPN is neither biased for nor against Duke. Individual announcers or commentators may be, but the network as a whole is not. The network consistently will push the most controversial angle of any story in order to drive the media engine. In doing so, arguably it contributes to people forming strong opinions pro or con, which can become a vicious cycle and probably has on the Duke Ref topic. (Put another way, would people feel anywhere near as strongly as they do about Tim Tebow if it wasn't for Skip Bayless?)

"I hate Duke!" has a real punch. "I hate Carolina" or "I hate Kentucky" is blah. "I hate UCLA!" is gibberish. Moreover, the former two conflate the states with the universities. It's all in the euphonics -- "sounding good."

Thirty straight years (almost) of being good makes Duke a punching bag for every dufous who wants to sound an uninformed opinion about CBB.

[alteran]

I don't think this is true at all. It's entirely possible to have a systemic bias against something and still give it heavy coverage - just look at the cable news networks. And the cable news nets have much higher standards than ESPN.

I agree totally with this except for the part about standards.

[alteran]

Well, I can think of one ESPN basketball commentator than has been known to suggest that Duke get preferential treatment with mind-numbing repetition.

You're gonna have to narrow that down.

[alteran]

ESPN is biased in favor of things that get eyes on the television and/or clicks on the website.

People have strong feelings, both pro and con, about Duke, and they get incensed quickly over the "Does Duke get all the calls?" stuff. Incensed = ratings and clicks. Controversy = ratings and clicks.

ESPN is neither biased for nor against Duke. Individual announcers or commentators may be, but the network as a whole is not. The network consistently will push the most controversial angle of any story in order to drive the media engine. In doing so, arguably it contributes to people forming strong opinions pro or con, which can become a vicious cycle and probably has on the Duke Ref topic. (Put another way, would people feel anywhere near as strongly as they do about Tim Tebow if it wasn't for Skip Bayless?)

IMHO, this line of argument is completely begging the question. (To be clear, you are NOT the only person making this argument, and the following is directed at this school of argument, not you specifically.)

I, and I suspect all of the people griping, don't give a flying tarheel whether ESPN takes cheap shots at Duke 1) because it is monetarily advantageous, or 2) because they hate our guts. What I care about is them taking the cheap shots.

For the record, I'm a bit paranoid and thin-skinned (I am a trained professional, please do not try this at home), so I know a significant part of my feelings about ESPN are tinted by that. My gut feeling is that there's more to this than just my feelings, though-- I feel pretty sure there is a longstanding pattern of picking on Duke WAY more than any others, even if I tend to exaggerate it in my own mind.

But discussing ESPN's motives is a red herring that consistently misses the point.

[dyedwab]

For the record, I'm a bit paranoid and thin-skinned (I am a trained professional, please do not try this at home), so I know a significant part of my feelings about ESPN are tinted by that. My gut feeling is that there's more to this than just my feelings, though-- I feel pretty sure there is a longstanding pattern of picking on Duke WAY more than any others, even if I tend to exaggerate it in my own mind.

But discussing ESPN's motives is a red herring that consistently misses the point.

This is the key point. I don't really care what's in the mind of various ESPN personalities, or other media personalities. I care about the effect. And I agree that there is probably a long standing pattern. I wish that Duke sports information would spend some time looking at this - I've believed for a long time that the "anti-Duke" messages coming from the media has a marginal, but tangible effect on, some parts of the basketball program (yes, we still do well on everything. It's possible to do exceedingly well despite being marginally disadvantaged)

The end-of-game controversy provides nearly perfect information about how some media personalities feel about Duke. The no-call on Rodney and the charge call on Fair occurred in similar enough circumstances. Many who griped about the Fair call, which IMHO was a more marginal call, were silent about the Hood non-call. That would certainly suggest that the issue, to those folks," wasn't "poor officiating," or "refs inserting themselves into the game" or "yeah, but that was a really egregious bad call" but rather who the call benefitted.

That is useful information going forward.

[Mike Corey]

I care about the effect. And I agree that there is probably a long standing pattern. I wish that Duke sports information would spend some time looking at this - I've believed for a long time that the "anti-Duke" messages coming from the media has a marginal, but tangible effect on, some parts of the basketball program (yes, we still do well on everything. It's possible to do exceedingly well despite being marginally disadvantaged)

I would suggest that DukeBluePlanet, for example, has many benefits, one of which being that it allows Duke to create its own connection with people and to bypass the traditional avenues of delivering stories about their athletes. I do not believe this was a conscious motivation; I do believe it has gone a long way in pushing back against the potential effects of the anti-Duke meme.

[jv001]

This is the key point. I don't really care what's in the mind of various ESPN personalities, or other media personalities. I care about the effect. And I agree that there is probably a long standing pattern. I wish that Duke sports information would spend some time looking at this - I've believed for a long time that the "anti-Duke" messages coming from the media has a marginal, but tangible effect on, some parts of the basketball program (yes, we still do well on everything. It's possible to do exceedingly well despite being marginally disadvantaged)

The end-of-game controversy provides nearly perfect information about how some media personalities feel about Duke. The no-call on Rodney and the charge call on Fair occurred in similar enough circumstances. Many who griped about the Fair call, which IMHO was a more marginal call, were silent about the Hood non-call. That would certainly suggest that the issue, to those folks," wasn't "poor officiating," or "refs inserting themselves into the game" or "yeah, but that was a really egregious bad call" but rather who the call benefitted.

That is useful information going forward.

There's not way to confirm this, but I think all the media attention to "Duke get's all the calls" has in a small way affected Duke in an overall negative way. When Billy Packer and Len Elmore began their tirade on the air about Duke receiving the benefit of calls, it seems to me that Duke doesn't get the benefit of the 50/50 calls like they used to. But again it could be my Dark Blue Slant on this topic. GoDuke!

[Matches]

This is the key point. I don't really care what's in the mind of various ESPN personalities, or other media personalities. I care about the effect. And I agree that there is probably a long standing pattern. I wish that Duke sports information would spend some time looking at this - I've believed for a long time that the "anti-Duke" messages coming from the media has a marginal, but tangible effect on, some parts of the basketball program (yes, we still do well on everything. It's possible to do exceedingly well despite being marginally disadvantaged)



Possible, but on the whole I'd say ESPN has a very positive effect on our program. Having 80%+ of our games nationally televised is a huge recruiting tool. What some see as picking on us, I see as a consequence of the amount of attention given to us, and overall I think that attention is a positive thing.

I mean, the media's stupid in general, right? On this I suspect we can agree. ESPN's got about 60 hours of airtime to fill a day with stuff other than games, it seems - inevitably they're going to fill most of it with dumb stuff, because there's not enough not-dumb stuff to fill all that air. I'd say the positive effect of them devoting so much of that time to us outweighs the negative effect of potential backlash during games (i.e. refs overcorrecting).

[flyingdutchdevil]

Possible, but on the whole I'd say ESPN has a very positive effect on our program. Having 80%+ of our games nationally televised is a huge recruiting tool. What some see as picking on us, I see as a consequence of the amount of attention given to us, and overall I think that attention is a positive thing.

I mean, the media's stupid in general, right? On this I suspect we can agree. ESPN's got about 60 hours of airtime to fill a day with stuff other than games, it seems - inevitably they're going to fill most of it with dumb stuff, because there's not enough not-dumb stuff to fill all that air. I'd say the positive effect of them devoting so much of that time to us outweighs the negative effect of potential backlash during games (i.e. refs overcorrecting).

This. Over and over again. Matches and I may be in the minority, but I firmly believe that ESPN is doing a service - and not a disservice - to Duke by being on ESPN twice a week. We are in North Carolina, a market that really isn't that big. Durham is the 83rd largest market in the US. And somehow, everyone knows us for basketball. I thank ESPN for that, even if the exposure comes with a few negative externalities.

[jv001]

Possible, but on the whole I'd say ESPN has a very positive effect on our program. Having 80%+ of our games nationally televised is a huge recruiting tool. What some see as picking on us, I see as a consequence of the amount of attention given to us, and overall I think that attention is a positive thing.

I mean, the media's stupid in general, right? On this I suspect we can agree. ESPN's got about 60 hours of airtime to fill a day with stuff other than games, it seems - inevitably they're going to fill most of it with dumb stuff, because there's not enough not-dumb stuff to fill all that air. I'd say the positive effect of them devoting so much of that time to us outweighs the negative effect of potential backlash during games (i.e. refs overcorrecting).

Most of the media from the tarheel journalism school would probably be in the stupid group. Wonder how many of those students were in the AFM studies, :cool: ? GoDuke!

[PSurprise]

I can see both sides of this issue, for ESPN does give Duke a lot if publicity, some if which positive, some of it not. I just think it's interesting that Duke seems to be unique in the way ESPN covers them. Are there other teams (in all sports) that get this type of treatment? And more specifically, in college? I understand some of the loathsomeness of teams like the Dallas Cowboys or the Yankees, but I don't see the football or baseball anchors or analysts saying the same thing as the collegeBB anchors/announcers say about Duke. Or do they and I'm missing something?

[alteran]

I would suggest that DukeBluePlanet, for example, has many benefits, one of which being that it allows Duke to create its own connection with people and to bypass the traditional avenues of delivering stories about their athletes. I do not believe this was a conscious motivation; I do believe it has gone a long way in pushing back against the potential effects of the anti-Duke meme.

Great point. Duke Blue Planet is great. I have heard that it was largely created because folks within Duke itself felt like Duke was getting the short end in a lot of media presentation, and they felt like Duke needed to be more proactive in "getting our story out."

FWIW, I do think things have improved significantly since the JJ era, one of the reasons this "controversy" with Boeheim cheeses me off is I feel like history might be repeating itself.

[johnb]

if opposing fans and players and coaches want to worry that Duke has the power to influence refs, then let them chew on that distraction while we win games.

One thing we do--as do other teams--is to figure out how to work the rules as much as possible. Charges are a good example--we have long been at the forefront of the Battier school of defending the drive by getting the feet planted rather than trying to actually block the shot. I would find it annoying, too, if the charge rule hadn't historically benefited us more than just about any other team.

btw, I don't view journalists as stupid. It is hard to fill up an hour or two (or a column or two). For example, if I lined up all of my comments on DBR (do-able I suppose), I think I'd like some of the comments, be bored by a big chunk, and somewhat horrified/annoyed by still others.

Some of the announcers don't strike me as particularly sharp (often revealed by their perpetuating hackneyed observations of others), but even the best of the bunch (eg, Bilas) regularly repeat themselves--they are performers, after all, and there are a limited number of ways you can describe basketball to a general audience. As an(other) aside, I watched the Auburn-FSU game from two of the different vantage points afforded by the tv station (normal, and coaches), and while the coaches intrigued me for a few minutes (including their non-PC comments), it was not as enjoyable to me as listening to the more mainstream announcers.

[-jk]

Posted this elsewhere: "Proof" that Syracuse (http://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/index.ssf/2014/02/does_duke_basketball_really_get_more_foul_calls_at _home_just_do_the_math.html#incart_flyout_sports) gets all the calls!

-jk

[bedeviled]

The conspiracists can pad their Eamonn Brennan file with his blog entry for today (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/94563/game-plan-jim-boeheim-internet-meme). In it, his link to the recap/boxscore is listed under the tagline: Duke's win hinges on late block call. Comical. It's obviously erroneous as the call was not a block. But, it's a blog, an opinion piece, and his stated opinion is that the play was a block. It does highlight, though, how ESPN, where most of the content comes from "columnists" and "contributors," is sensationalism, not journalism.

Edit: BTW, the blog is uninteresting and not worthy of clicking my link ;)

[Duvall]

The conspiracists can pad their Eamonn Brennan file with his blog entry for today (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/94563/game-plan-jim-boeheim-internet-meme). In it, his link to the recap/boxscore is listed under the tagline: Duke's win hinges on late block call. Comical. It's obviously erroneous as the call was not a block. But, it's a blog, an opinion piece, and his stated opinion is that the play was a block. It does highlight, though, how ESPN, where most of the content comes from "columnists" and "contributors," is sensationalism, not journalism.

Edit: BTW, the blog is uninteresting and not worthy of clicking my link ;)

It's funny to see all the commentary from sports "journalists" that lack even a superficial understanding of the actual rules.

[TruBlu]

Would someone please give us any instances when ESPN has trumpeted the assertion that "Duke gets all the calls?" I can't think of any from the network's basketball reporters and commentators, many of whom have been criticized for fawning over Duke. And shock jocks like Colin Cowherd don't count.

The concept originated with the lamentable Billy Packer -- on CBS -- at the 2001 Final Four.

While there may be no "Duke gets all the calls" outright statement, there sure seems to be more "Duke" calls being questioned than "opponents" calls being questioned.

For example, for the Syracuse game, I watched the replay after getting home from Cameron. There were 7 calls/no-calls questioned by Dickie V and Jay. 5 of those 7 were calls that the announcers claimed went in Duke's favor. Only 2 of those 7 were calls that the announcers claimed went in Syracuse's favor (one of those was the ridiculous intentional foul on Dawkins; the other was a casual "he may have shuffled his feet before the foul" statement).

I do not have the time nor energy to go back and review more games, but I believe this ratio would hold true of most games. The impression left in the mind of "haters" and even casual observers would be that Duke gets most of the calls.

And yes, our old friend Billy Packer started this crap.

[cwiley]

I read DBR every day, but hardly ever post. I've been a Devils fan since 1977 when I moved to NC in junior high and couldn't bring myself to root for the Heels or the Wuffies, but since I didn't go to Duke as an undergrad, so I don't have any connections to most posters--I did spend 90-93 there in grad school--a pretty fair time to hang around.

Anyway, I find this thread kind of silly. ESPN may be second only to K in helping to build this program over the past 30 years. No one gets as many prime ESPN network slots as does Duke. Vitale: "people accuse me of being a Duke lover, but what's not to love?" K's positive attributes (his philanthropy) are gushed over on every broadcast, and his weaknesses glossed over.

Do they stoke some controversy to drive ratings? Yes. But they wouldn't do that if Duke weren't the single most discussed, watched, and argued about program in the country. Duke should have to pay for the kind if PR they've received from ESPN. Heck, even the rivalry has been promoted by espn. Duke-Carolina is the best rivalry in the country, but the fact that fans across the country recognize that is due in large part to espn.

[Edouble]

While there may be no "Duke gets all the calls" outright statement, there sure seems to be more "Duke" calls being questioned than "opponents" calls being questioned.

For example, for the Syracuse game, I watched the replay after getting home from Cameron. There were 7 calls/no-calls questioned by Dickie V and Jay. 5 of those 7 were calls that the announcers claimed went in Duke's favor. Only 2 of those 7 were calls that the announcers claimed went in Syracuse's favor (one of those was the ridiculous intentional foul on Dawkins; the other was a casual "he may have shuffled his feet before the foul" statement).

I do not have the time nor energy to go back and review more games, but I believe this ratio would hold true of most games. The impression left in the mind of "haters" and even casual observers would be that Duke gets most of the calls.

And yes, our old friend Billy Packer started this crap.

I may have to keep track of this during our next game. My curiosity is piqued.

[tendev]

Among the college basketball fan population the number of Duke "haters" or at least people who want to see Duke lose clearly exceeds the number of fans of Duke. And if you believe that this same proportion of "haters" or "not-likers" exists at ESPN and at any other organization, which I believe (and it may be even greater at ESPN because many of their on air personalities commentators came from other ACC schools), then it follows that they would more easily jump on the Duke gets all the calls meme. Let's face it, there are few objective journalists out there. They all have difficulty biting their tongues in an effort to be objective and their employers just don't care any more. Ratings is what matters not objectively. In fact, objectivity leads to lower not higher ratings. Let them carry on with it. It means that Duke is winning. Note that no one says that Duke football gets all the calls. Not yet anyway. That may be coming later.

[Indoor66]

Among the college basketball fan population the number of Duke "haters" or at least people who want to see Duke lose clearly exceeds the number of fans of Duke. And if you believe that this same proportion of "haters" or "not-likers" exists at ESPN and at any other organization, which I believe (and it may be even greater at ESPN because many of their on air personalities commentators came from other ACC schools), then it follows that they would more easily jump on the Duke gets all the calls meme. Let's face it, there are few objective journalists out there. They all have difficulty biting their tongues in an effort to be objective and their employers just don't care any more. Ratings is what matters not objectively. In fact, objectivity leads to lower not higher ratings. Let them carry on with it. It means that Duke is winning. Note that no one says that Duke football gets all the calls. Not yet anyway. That may be coming later.

I guess my reaction this all this "haters" BS is: So What? The nay sayers have no real influence. I do not believe the refs are actually influenced by this crap. I do not think they are so shallow. They are men and women trying to do the best they can. Spending time complaining about what others think of us is a fruitless waste of energy.

Next Play.

[Billy Dat]

From @dukeblueplanet
ESPN's top-rated games this season:
1. Duke at Syracuse
2. Kentucky v. MSU
3. Syracuse at Duke (2.8 million households)

If there is ever a Duke mention or angle in any ESPN story, or any other online news outlet story, you can be sure that every attempt will be made to include Duke in the headline or an image of a Duke player or K. I have been suckered into clicking on numerous stories that had so little to do with Duke for these very reasons.

[Billy Dat]

Exhibit 1,234,567

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/hotsportstakes-jim-boeheim-could-learn-from-the-coach-k-way/

[The Gordog]

Not sure if this ia what you were looking for, but for me the absolute height of ESPN hysteria over Duke supposedly getting calls came during Reddick's third or fourth year. Top-10 Duke was playing at FSU, in a late game that led directly into Sports Center afterwards. Stew Scott was one of the anchors. One of their lead features came under the header, "Does Duke Get All The Calls?" Obviously Stew and the production team had been working on the 3-4 minute feature for a while. Quoting stats about quantities of the FT's taken by Duke and their opponents over selective windows, and showing examples of calls that went Duke's way and against their opponents. But the feature highlight that they focused on, to try to keep it relevant to the day's action, was a Sheldon Williams blocked shot against FSU that day, with Stew repeatedly asking if it was right that Duke got the no-call... (Editorial note: It was a close play with the ball right at the peak of the trajectory, and call coulda gone either way.) The really funny irony/idiocy about the whole hyperbolic feature was that in that game Duke that had just ended, was that Duke had lost to FSU, which rushed the court after a narrow (causing its own controversy), winning in large part due to the fact that Duke had all 5 starters foul out, and Duke getting called for about 35 fouls, versus about a third of that for FSU... But still, ESPN was doing their damnest to find a call, somewhere, ANYWHERE, that they could still point to in implying pro-Duke favoritism. That was the night I decided that Stew Scott was just a despicable human being (as well as poor journalist). :mad:

Even as an avid sports fan, I think I stopped watching ESPN for about six months after that. :eek:

I do that every year after basketball season!

[The Gordog]

While there may be no "Duke gets all the calls" outright statement, there sure seems to be more "Duke" calls being questioned than "opponents" calls being questioned.

For example, for the Syracuse game, I watched the replay after getting home from Cameron. There were 7 calls/no-calls questioned by Dickie V and Jay. 5 of those 7 were calls that the announcers claimed went in Duke's favor. Only 2 of those 7 were calls that the announcers claimed went in Syracuse's favor (one of those was the ridiculous intentional foul on Dawkins; the other was a casual "he may have shuffled his feet before the foul" statement).

I do not have the time nor energy to go back and review more games, but I believe this ratio would hold true of most games. The impression left in the mind of "haters" and even casual observers would be that Duke gets most of the calls.

And yes, our old friend Billy Packer started this crap.

1000 times this - is what cheeses me off about Jay. He basically throws Duke under the bus, as do all the color guys on ESPN. If he doesn't want to pick Duke before the game, that's fair, he's entitled to his opinion, but I have been noticing this trend for years.

[jv001]

1000 times this - is what cheeses me off about Jay. He basically throws Duke under the bus, as do all the color guys on ESPN. If he doesn't want to pick Duke before the game, that's fair, he's entitled to his opinion, but I have been noticing this trend for years.

It's as if ESPN tells their guys to take a little jab at Duke every time you get a chance. I would think that Jay would be man enough to tell them to stick it. Jason Williams(I'll call him Jay when he stops coping the unc guys) is worse than Jay Bilas. GoDuke!

[rasputin]

While there may be no "Duke gets all the calls" outright statement, there sure seems to be more "Duke" calls being questioned than "opponents" calls being questioned.

For example, for the Syracuse game, I watched the replay after getting home from Cameron. There were 7 calls/no-calls questioned by Dickie V and Jay. 5 of those 7 were calls that the announcers claimed went in Duke's favor. Only 2 of those 7 were calls that the announcers claimed went in Syracuse's favor (one of those was the ridiculous intentional foul on Dawkins; the other was a casual "he may have shuffled his feet before the foul" statement).

I do not have the time nor energy to go back and review more games, but I believe this ratio would hold true of most games. The impression left in the mind of "haters" and even casual observers would be that Duke gets most of the calls.

And yes, our old friend Billy Packer started this crap.

Of course, if it's Elmore mouthing off, all 7 of 7 questioned calls will have been in Duke's favor.

[cwiley]

I figured out my problem with all this: I actually believe in Duke exceptionalism. And so I find it disheartening to hear Duke fans whine like UK and NCSU (and some UNC) fans that that the media is out to get us, including Bilas and JWill. I never want to sound like an UK fan. I think we're better than that.

[jv001]

I figured out my problem with all this: I actually believe in Duke exceptionalism. And so I find it disheartening to hear Duke fans whine like UK and NCSU (and some UNC) fans that that the media is out to get us, including Bilas and JWill. I never want to sound like an UK fan. I think we're better than that.

I see by some of your previous posts, you mean what you say when defending the media. I admire you for being thick skinned. I guess you can call me thin skinned when it comes to media bias toward Duke basketball. It seemed to begin with Billy Packer and picked up steam with Digger. Now it's carried over to Len Elmore, who never misses a chance to throw a dig in. I have to admit that Digger has mellowed a little. Probably because he fears Bob Knight might take him to the wood shed. I guess you'll have to call me a whiner. GoDuke!

[daveduke76]

Exhibit 1,234,567

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/hotsportstakes-jim-boeheim-could-learn-from-the-coach-k-way/

Great article I really liked the conclusion -
"The seasons pass and the successes pile up, and Coach K just gets a little better every year. Like a fine wine.

And Boeheim? I don’t know. All I saw Saturday was sour grapes."

[cwiley]

I see by some of your previous posts, you mean what you say when defending the media. I admire you for being thick skinned. I guess you can call me thin skinned when it comes to media bias toward Duke basketball. It seemed to begin with Billy Packer and picked up steam with Digger. Now it's carried over to Len Elmore, who never misses a chance to throw a dig in. I have to admit that Digger has mellowed a little. Probably because he fears Bob Knight might take him to the wood shed. I guess you'll have to call me a whiner. GoDuke!

I posted once the other day, and haven't for years before that, I don't think. But I spend a lot of time on IC, UK Rivals site, and others. Today there was a thread on IC about how Bruce Pearl hates UNC for a comment he made about Roy and set plays. Fortunately there were some other posters who said that Pearl could say this without hating Roy. Bilas and JWill are getting paid to be analysts, not Duke fans. They love Duke. Let 'em be. Duke doesn't need fawning fanboys on the air. Duke gets more positive press on ESPN than any other program in America. I'm convinced of that. At the same time, we get some "Duke gets all the calls" junk. I hate that. And I don't think it is true. Some Duke fans pass over all the positives because they sound obvious. See the DBR thread on Coaches and officials. Some Duke fans there are saying that K rides the refs too hard and is way too blue in his language while doing it. I never hear about that on ESPN.

Again, my mantra is this: "if you sound like a UK fan, then you're doing it wrong." (I live in Kentucky)

[oakvillebluedevil]

Great article I really liked the conclusion -
"The seasons pass and the successes pile up, and Coach K just gets a little better every year. Like a fine wine.

And Boeheim? I don’t know. All I saw Saturday was sour grapes."

Just to be clear folks, this article is supposed to be sattire, aimed at being the "worst sports column on earth."

I appreciate the subtle sarcasm and how it makes fans absolutely lose it in the comments section (Sharp writes one of these every week and the comments are typically the funniest part - though language NSFW).

Not the biggest fan of how he makes light of Boeheim's actions though by sarcastically chastising them.

[daveduke76]

Just to be clear folks, this article is supposed to be sattire, aimed at being the "worst sports column on earth."

I appreciate the subtle sarcasm and how it makes fans absolutely lose it in the comments section (Sharp writes one of these every week and the comments are typically the funniest part - though language NSFW).

Not the biggest fan of how he makes light of Boeheim's actions though by sarcastically chastising them.

Well he suckered me in, I liked what he said about Coach K, I think he has gotten better through the years

[Billy Dat]

ESPN has built the Duke brand as much as K. The exposure we get, good and bad, helps recruiting immensely simply because we are always on TV, largely because of ESPN. Now that K has recruiting humming again, thanks to Team USA and Jeff Capel and embracing of one-and-dones, we will continue to be loaded up until K decides to hang it up.

The Haters are as important to us as the Lovers, because it means we are always in the conversation, and ESPN is the bellows that stokes the flame.

[jv001]

I posted once the other day, and haven't for years before that, I don't think. But I spend a lot of time on IC, UK Rivals site, and others. Today there was a thread on IC about how Bruce Pearl hates UNC for a comment he made about Roy and set plays. Fortunately there were some other posters who said that Pearl could say this without hating Roy. Bilas and JWill are getting paid to be analysts, not Duke fans. They love Duke. Let 'em be. Duke doesn't need fawning fanboys on the air. Duke gets more positive press on ESPN than any other program in America. I'm convinced of that. At the same time, we get some "Duke gets all the calls" junk. I hate that. And I don't think it is true. Some Duke fans pass over all the positives because they sound obvious. See the DBR thread on Coaches and officials. Some Duke fans there are saying that K rides the refs too hard and is way too blue in his language while doing it. I never hear about that on ESPN.

Again, my mantra is this: "if you sound like a UK fan, then you're doing it wrong." (I live in Kentucky)

I'll have to think this over, I don't ever want to be accused of sounding like a Tar Heel fan :cool: GoDuke!

[dukefan1980]

Don't you love the headline on ESPN about our victory over Va Tech: No. 6 Duke rallies to beat Va. Tech. If someone had not watched the game, they would expect that Duke was down at some point in this game. Instead, we go up 24-4 and coast to an easy victory. The game, in my opinion, was never in doubt. If anything, the headline should be: Va Tech rallies to make it a decent game vs. Duke.

[cruxer]

I don't know if ESPN is biased but the blogger who covers Duke is a UNC alum. So there's that....

-c

[91_92_01_10_15]

Duke gets more positive press on ESPN than any other program in America. I'm convinced of that.

I would be interested in any evidence you might have for this statement, or even some examples. Although I would agree that Duke gets more exposure than any other program, and that in itself is positive, positive press on ESPN is not something I notice much.

In general, while I agree with you that, as representatives of Duke, we have an obligation to be classy in mixed company (e.g. when we are with UNC or UK fans), I think of the DBR boards as a place where we can rationally discuss things like whether chronic complaining about Duke has resulted in changes in how the media covers us or how the officials referee us. We are, after all, amongst friends here, are we not? With the exception of Wheat, that is. J/k, Wheat. You are an acceptable example of your kind. ;)

[sagegrouse]

I would be interested in any evidence you might have for this statement, or even some examples. Although I would agree that Duke gets more exposure than any other program, and that in itself is positive, positive press on ESPN is not something I notice much.

In general, while I agree with you that, as representatives of Duke, we have an obligation to be classy in mixed company (e.g. when we are with UNC or UK fans), I think of the DBR boards as a place where we can rationally discuss things like whether chronic complaining about Duke has resulted in changes in how the media covers us or how the officials referee us. We are, after all, amongst friends here, are we not? With the exception of Wheat, that is. J/k, Wheat. You are an acceptable example of your kind. ;)

Here's some evidence. There was a poll that asked who was the best freshman player. Jabari led in 46 of 50 states. IIRC, Aaron Gordon led in AZ, and Andrew Wiggins led in Kansas. Two states were undecided. Lots of positive coverage of Duke, I would conclude. And ESPN is by far the largest source of hoops coverage.

[devilnfla]

Listening to Bobby Knight do the UK/Arkansas game got me thinking, how has he not done any of the Duke games this year? If he has it was early in the season and I don't remember it. I really like him and Reece Davis in the booth.

[Marc81]

Listening to Bobby Knight do the UK/Arkansas game got me thinking, how has he not done any of the Duke games this year? If he has it was early in the season and I don't remember it. I really like him and Reece Davis in the booth.

Yeah he did do one at the beginning of the season. He is very knowledgable and insightful.

[DukeDiva]

Knight is only doing 1 SEC game a week (Thursday game).

[cwiley]

I would be interested in any evidence you might have for this statement, or even some examples. Although I would agree that Duke gets more exposure than any other program, and that in itself is positive, positive press on ESPN is not something I notice much.


I know this will sound circular, but just listen to the broadcasts. Duke is everywhere on ESPN. Every Duke game there is segment on how great K has done as the USA coach. If one were only going by ESPN broadcasts, K is closer to beatification than being crowned greatest basketball coach ever. When they broadcast Kansas, they don't go on and on about Self in the same way. They constantly talk about what great kids the Duke players are. Shane Battier is simply the greatest human being ever. There is lots and lots and lots of positive Duke press. It's so commonplace that you don't even notice it anymore. Get out a notebook on the next ESPN game, and just write down positive things that are said during the broadcast and look over the list when its over. Just try it.

And FTR, I think K is a great coach and Battier is one of my all-time favorites.

[sagegrouse]

Has anyone else noticed the ESPN video entitled "Parker's Epic Fail?" The caption for the video says that Parker makes a great move then misses the dunk. However, the play shown in the video is a play in which he got fouled. Just another example of ESPN bias against Duke.


It really is frustrating that Duke has to do business with those people for another 12 years.


I don't think this is true at all. It's entirely possible to have a systemic bias against something and still give it heavy coverage - just look at the cable news networks. And the cable news nets have much higher standards than ESPN.


I'm about ready to throw our own Jay Williams into that group and I'm on the fence with Bilas.


I know this will sound circular, but just listen to the broadcasts. Duke is everywhere on ESPN. Every Duke game there is segment on how great K has done as the USA coach. If one were only going by ESPN broadcasts, K is closer to beatification than being crowned greatest basketball coach ever. When they broadcast Kansas, they don't go on and on about Self in the same way. They constantly talk about what great kids the Duke players are. Shane Battier is simply the greatest human being ever. There is lots and lots and lots of positive Duke press. It's so commonplace that you don't even notice it anymore. Get out a notebook on the next ESPN game, and just write down positive things that are said during the broadcast and look over the list when its over. Just try it.

And FTR, I think K is a great coach and Battier is one of my all-time favorites.

I'm with you, CWiley. College basketball needs Duke and other teams that are consistently good from year to year. Those are strong "brands," and Duke is triply strong because of winning consistently, Coach K, and the intangibles that go along with a top ten school being a top five athletic program.

I am probably clueless, but I don't hear any bias whatsoever on any of the telecasts. Yeah, Len Elmore is a grump, but he grumps at everything. Yeah, if Duke (or anyone else) is way ahead, the announcers seem to be pulling for the trailing team. I think this is Sports Broadcast 101: How to keep the viewers from changing the channel.

Sage
'My fave as a commentator, who has moved networks, is Bill Raftery, who both was knowledgeable and made it sound like the kids on the floor were playing a "game," not a life-and-death struggle. There were no portentous statements -- just hoops'

"Others disagree, but I find Johnny Miller insufferable because he dwells on the negative. Two years after the Tiger Slam, Miller was intoning portentously (use a word three times, and it is yours) that Tiger would never be as good again. Well, yeah -- compared to the greatest run ever in the history of pro golf, but since then TW has been player of the year about five teams, and no one else is close"

[moonpie23]

as colin cowherd says, "duke moves the needles"......

[cwiley]

Yeah, if Duke (or anyone else) is way ahead, the announcers seem to be pulling for the trailing team. I think this is Sports Broadcast 101: How to keep the viewers from changing the channel.


Sagegrouse, totally agree with this. Just like coaches lie about opponents to try to keep their players focused: "UNC-Wilmington has a lot of experienced seniors and are very well coached. We'll have to play our best to win this one. Don't be fooled by their 5-21 record."

[MCFinARL]

I know this will sound circular, but just listen to the broadcasts. Duke is everywhere on ESPN. Every Duke game there is segment on how great K has done as the USA coach. If one were only going by ESPN broadcasts, K is closer to beatification than being crowned greatest basketball coach ever. When they broadcast Kansas, they don't go on and on about Self in the same way. They constantly talk about what great kids the Duke players are. Shane Battier is simply the greatest human being ever. There is lots and lots and lots of positive Duke press. It's so commonplace that you don't even notice it anymore. Get out a notebook on the next ESPN game, and just write down positive things that are said during the broadcast and look over the list when its over. Just try it.

And FTR, I think K is a great coach and Battier is one of my all-time favorites.

Well, okay, but Shane Battier IS simply the greatest human being ever, right? :D

More seriously, the thing here that I know I agree with without even thinking about it is the Coach K hagiography--yes, he is a great coach, yes, he has done a great job with the Olympic team. But it's repeated endlessly and goes way over the top--have to think this kind of talk just exacerbates Duke hate.

As Sage notes, generally speaking broadcasters are looking to keep viewers tuned in, and will say what they think will have that effect. Duke has a very high Q score, love 'em or hate 'em. And broadcasters will feed the beast one way or the other.

Plus, most sports broadcasters seem to have a pathological fear of silence, and there is often a lot of silence to fill--so if there is nothing especially noteworthy going on to discuss, they are likely to fall back on some common themes, whether it's "Coach K is amazing" or "Duke gets all the calls."

[jv001]

I'm with you, CWiley. College basketball needs Duke and other teams that are consistently good from year to year. Those are strong "brands," and Duke is triply strong because of winning consistently, Coach K, and the intangibles that go along with a top ten school being a top five athletic program.

I am probably clueless, but I don't hear any bias whatsoever on any of the telecasts. Yeah, Len Elmore is a grump, but he grumps at everything. Yeah, if Duke (or anyone else) is way ahead, the announcers seem to be pulling for the trailing team. I think this is Sports Broadcast 101: How to keep the viewers from changing the channel.

Sage
'My fave as a commentator, who has moved networks, is Bill Raftery, who both was knowledgeable and made it sound like the kids on the floor were playing a "game," not a life-and-death struggle. There were no portentous statements -- just hoops'

"Others disagree, but I find Johnny Miller insufferable because he dwells on the negative. Two years after the Tiger Slam, Miller was intoning portentously (use a word three times, and it is yours) that Tiger would never be as good again. Well, yeah -- compared to the greatest run ever in the history of pro golf, but since then TW has been player of the year about five teams, and no one else is close"

Agree with all except Len Elmore, who seems to have a genuine dislike for Duke. I see and hear some old Billy Packer Duke hate when I was listening to Elmore. I now mute Lennie and listen to Bob Harris on radio. You and I think alike when it comes to Johnny Miller. I hate to hear his commentary on golf telecasts. He probably made the most stupid comment of all time during his early playing days. So much as saying, he would be the one to overtake Jack Nicklaus as the best player in the game. Well, we know how that turned out. GoDuke!

[cwiley]

More seriously, the thing here that I know I agree with without even thinking about it is the Coach K hagiography--yes, he is a great coach, yes, he has done a great job with the Olympic team. But it's repeated endlessly and goes way over the top--have to think this kind of talk just exacerbates Duke hate.


You have a point, but kind of funny that this thread begins with ESPN is biased against Duke and that feeds Duke hate to ESPN praises Duke (K) so much that it feeds Duke hate.

[alteran]

I am probably clueless, but I don't hear any bias whatsoever on any of the telecasts. Yeah, Len Elmore is a grump, but he grumps at everything. Yeah, if Duke (or anyone else) is way ahead, the announcers seem to be pulling for the trailing team. I think this is Sports Broadcast 101: How to keep the viewers from changing the channel.

You know, the odd thing I've noticed is that Elmore calls things negatively against Duke when the game is close. When there is a big Duke lead, he tends to start being complementary.

Just my impression.

One place I really see what looks like ESPN bias is in what I'll call officiating replays. Plays where it's not a spectacular dunk, or an amazing pass, or at a critical juncture of the game and it's natural to show a replay-- just a routine part of the game where a whistle is blown. It's fairly common to see ESPN queue up a replay of an uninteresting section of the game for the sole intention of saying, "look, that's a bad call that went in Duke's favor."

I honestly do not recall them ever queuing up a similar replay just to say, "look, there's a call that went against Duke."

Again, I'm specifically talking about replays shown for the sole purpose of questioning the call.