No Love for the West Coast?

[Sadat X]

Is there a bias in the sports media against west coast teams?

I ask this after watching about 80% of the pundits on radio and TV pick OU to win the Orange Bowl, with a good chunk of them saying it won't be close. The line opened at USC -3 and finished as a USC -1 in the week of hype before the game.

What do you guys think? Is this an isolated incident or part of a larger trend?

[tech]

I think it probably would have been different if Cal had not gotten hammered in the Holiday Bowl.

[billyjex]

I believe it's part of a national trend, that has been going on for years. You can see it in the way ESPN structures it's highlights, in the way college teams are ranked nationally, etc. It's because the majority of sports journalists 1) are on the east coast, and 2) the games are later on the west coast and are not broadcast on the east coast or are too late for many people.

Look at Cal. They had a lackluster performance at Southern Miss that was basically their only national TV game. Because of that they dropped enough in the polls for Texas to get into the Rose Bowl. People voting, and the sports nation at large decided Cal was overrated because of one game. They didn't see Cal's dominant performances in nearly every game this year like people in California did.

Now, I know, they got hammered by Texas Tech.. but I don't think their heart was in it.

Anyways.. the pac 10 will be forever underrated.

[scott8]

I totally agree, as a west coaster who has lived in NY, it is amazing how many sports radio broadcasters will talk down west coast heisman candidates and admit how little they have actually watched them play.
My favorite argument that kept popping up yesterday was that USC would get killed because they had the easier schedule via the Pac-10. But didn't they win every game? They might have had an easier schedule, but they never lost, so why did an easier schedule translate to a lesser team? Just my rant, but I did clean up yesterday. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[babigm]

Well, the obvious answer why it would translate to a lesser team was because both of them (as well as Auburn) had unbeaten seasons. Since you couldn't use wins/losses, you have to look at the quality of the teams they won or lost too. It doesn't necessarily mean the team with the harder schedule is better, all things equal, but it's a logical indicator.

Cal was the team that held up USC's strength of schedule, and when they stunk up the Holiday Bowl to a lower caliber Big 12 team, while Texas (OU's big seeded victory) had a good showing against a much tougher opponent...it made OU look better.

While their may be a West Coast bias, you can't take USC's success or OU's miserable failure, as indicitive of the strength of the Pac-10 or the Big 12. Actually, the Pac-10 as a whole didn't do so well in the bowls, so maybe there was a reason for the bias, at least this year.

[Michael Davis]

The generally accepted media bias does not translate to prognosticators picking a team from the Midwest to beat a team from the West.

-Michael

[lawfive]

If this is so, then it should be a nice arbitrage opportunity.

Happy hunting!