Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA, has spent a professional lifetime studying politics, media and biases, and when it comes to big East Coast cities and their sporting teams, there’s little to debate.
“We Arkansans and Oklahomans sometimes call people from Boston or New York ‘Yankees,’ which we mean as a synonym for ‘rude, Northern person,’ ” Groseclose said. “Hank Williams Jr. might have said it best: ‘If heaven ain’t a lot like Dixie, I don’t want to go. . . . You can send me to hell or New York City. It’d be about the same to me.’”
In the oft-times insular world of pro sports, the nation’s attitudes for New York and Boston are no secret. The successes of their teams serve as inspiration for taunts and barbs. Road trips in the NFL are merely sleepovers in a lion’s den. . . .
The successes of the sports teams serve as kindling, while the more potent fuel for many is a perceived overexposure of East Coast teams. And critics point to a singular culprit.
“Ask anyone in Chicago, Detroit, Iowa, Minnesota — it just feels like a large portion of the country gets ignored,” said Steve “Sparky” Fifer, a sports talk radio host for WSSP-AM in Milwaukee. “So it’s not necessarily a hatred or dislike for the team specific teams, it’s the dislike for ESPN and the coverage they provide. From a fan perspective, if you turn on ESPN during the baseball season, good luck seeing Brewers highlights. Right now, regardless of how good the Knicks are, you’ll see Knicks and Celtics every night.”
John Ourand, who covers media and television for the SportsBusiness Journal, said “East Coast bias” is a real phenomenon but not necessarily a true bias. Television’s decision-makers don’t favor particular teams; they favor money, he said.
“There are markets that have teams and people follow that passion whether they like them or hate them,” Ourand said. “Even when you hate them, you’re watching.”
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 06, 2012 at 12:05 AM (#4054336)I remember in the 1980s and 1990s when the Chicago and Detroit basketball franchises were getting no attention at all.
And are there ANY professional sports teams in Iowa?
"To this day, I consider Goldwater one of my political heroes. Four others are Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Four other heroes, in addition to being successful politicians, are true scholars: Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, and Dick Cheney.[1]"
[1] Gingrich, Gramm, and Armey earned PhDs—Gingrich in history, and Gramm and Armey in economics. All three began their careers as professors. Although Cheney was never a professor, nor obtained his PhD, he was once enrolled in the political science PhD program at University of Wisconsin. Unlike 66% of political science professors in the Ivy League, and 56% of the political science professors at Harvard, Cheney has published in the top academic journal in political science, the American Political Science Review. Another academic credential of Cheney is the fact that he has an Erdos number. Named after the great mathematician, Paul Erdos, who was famous for his prolific scholarship and his numerous co-authors—an Erodos number is calculated as follows. All of Erdos’s coauthors have an Erodos number of one. Anyone who has co-authored with one of Erdos’s coauthors has an Erdos number of two. Anyone who has co-authored with a co-author of one of Erdos’s coauthors has an Erdos number of three. And so on. Cheney’s Erdos number is no more than seven. He wrote his American Political Science Review article with Aage Clausen, who has coauthored with Greg Caldeira, who has co-authored with me, who has co-authored with Keith Krebiel, who has co-authored with John Ferejohn, who has co-authored with Peter Fishburn, who has co-authored with Erdos.
Luckily (or not), the only thing that matters is publishing papers. We had an interesting discussion at a research group about the reality show contestant who is also pursuing a Ph.D. in epidemiology at one of the best schools for public health in the country. She would almost certainly be in the running for high profile faculty positions upon finishing, assuming that she did some interesting work. We were mostly discussing how the hiring process might go, given that some people would know about this woman's (short) bout of fame and how that would reflect on the department, whether if she were a marginal candidate but from her school, whether someone would want the baggage (or if they would go for her, specifically because she would have some name recognition).
We were somewhat unanimous in our opinion that if she was publishing in top journals, no one would care, because in academics, this has become almost a tautology.
Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA, has spent a professional lifetime studying politics, media and biases,
I'll bet there are a few million people out there who wish they could get paid for a "job" like that. It sounds almost as good as "consulting."
You can't make this stuff up.
I find this to be true only in the offseason. The overwhelming majority of articles posted from the beginning of spring training through the end of the regular season are about baseball. I think that the "problem" is that people get used to killing time in here during baseball season and then need to keep coming back to the community, even though there's nothing to talk about. Other sports would be a natural starting point (although it's obvious that the "second" sport of many people here is quite varied, which is why football, basketball, hockey, and soccer get different audiences in each thread.
Not true! They also talk about soccer here, and nobody accuses that of being a sport.
Not quite. The theme of the article referenced in this thread also could have applied to any Yankees-Red Sox series.
Of course there are negatives to both places. I am not, by nature, a northeasterner and sometimes find them grating in large number or when disagreements arise. But they see me differently, too. Having never been to Oklahoma, many of them think my birthplace backward, boring and devoid of beauty. Their loss. My friends who have visited with me have also loved it.
Basically, earth is cool and people, by and large, awesome. Don't let the jerks get you down.
Also, this guy appears to live and work in Los Angeles. He may have forgotten but we Oklahomans don't like LA anymore than we do New York. If I took him to my hometown and simply identified him as "UCLA professor", he would not get many free drinks.
And she also embodies, or appears to, what I was saying. She loves LA and NY and they love her but she still loves OK and they love her, too. It just isn't that hard to get along and enjoy all types of places. I mean, I couldn't live in NY or LA - the crowds and the rush is just too much for my day to day zen. But there are times it's just what you need.
Most provincial and self-regarding regions: Strongest regional biases I've encountered are from New England and the Deep South. Texas and NYC are up there as well.
Sure, in North America. These places have nothing on Europe.
Soon every area with an accent will print their own stamps and have their own flag, isn't it wonderful?
I can't believe Belgium is still a country!
Who wants to talk about other sports when you can talk about politics and alcoholism and rape?
Also, there's a Primate with an Erdos number? Cool.
This.
I've seen some of Groseclose's work. It's poorly reasoned and politically biased. His attempted defenses of the work spoke poorly of his intellectual ability.
All that's true, but facts seldom get in the way of a good persecution complex.
No, it's b/c they were really good in the '70's when the league was coming into its own, with MNF, merger, etc. Likewise, the Steelers and Dolphins have outsized national fan bases/media exposure.
Yes, quite a lot. Minor league baseball and hockey for sure, arena football too. Maybe some other professional sports as well.
Sadly, this isn't atypical.
Cute, sexy, little blondes will get free drinks wherever they go. College Professors, whether from UCLA or Iowa or anywhere else, will not. Unless they are cute, sexy, little blonde college professors.
Pro Tip: You can avoid 80% of Yankee "rudeness" by not lingering in the immediate vacinity of doorways or staircases and by knowing what you want to order by the time you get to the front of the line, and an additional 15% by declining to say things like "I believe visiting the place that you live is more or less the same as suffering eternal damnation."
Cute, sexy, little blondes will get free drinks wherever they go. College Professors, whether from UCLA or Iowa or anywhere else, will not. Unless they are cute, sexy, little blonde college professors.
If you can't get free drinks as a college prof, you aren't doing it right.
True. However, I still think 75% of the people on this board couldn't name ANY of the professional sports teams based in Iowa.
According to Wikipedia:
There are 4 Class A baseball teams, one AAA team (did not know that), and an independent baseball team.
There is one D-League basketball team.
There are a bunch of football teams that play in some leagues I didn't know existed.
As well, there are a slew of extremely low-level/independent hockey teams.
But can anyone name one of them off the top of their heads?
In summary, why would any of these teams expect to get ESPN coverage?
The Iowa Energy are in the D-league - I've watched them play on TV. They've got a swingman, Marqus Blakely, that ought to get another shot at the show.
What do I win?
So produce something like Los Angeles's entertainment, San Francisco's technology, or New York's finance, and you'll get your attention. You don't get limelight for putting out sausage, clunky cars, corn, or whatever the heck Minnesota does.
I think Clint Eastwood just squinted at you.
When do pitchers and catchers report? It's got to be pretty soon, no?
Mariners report on Saturday. That's the earliest (by a week, I believe, due to their opening against the A's in Japan).
That's going to make it a lot harder for baseball to rationalize the shitty ratings they always get for the World Series these days.
The list was part of yesterday's "Dugout" thread. The Mariners report on the 11th and just about everyone else is the 18th to the 20th.
Most viewers thanks to population growth, but not highest rated which is percentage based. Super Bowl XVI in 1982 was the highest rated.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main