Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I honestly dont know where all this Steeler hatred came from. I personallv dont care too much for Ben cause I think hes an idiot but I respect that team, the players, the coach and the fans. And the fans with their terrible towels and their chants have been one of the best fans in all of football. I've never heard of them to be dirty at all. I've heard that Oakland fans and Eagle fans are the worst, not Steeler nation.
To the person who continues to mention North and South teams...
I really think you're looking waaaayyyyy too into things...
Its so much simpler than that....
Look at the Southern teams. How many southern teams on there have been perennial contenders? you may have tampa one year jacksonville played well a year or two but there isn't much consistency. Not even "America's team" has made any serious noise since the 90s. Now take a look at the northern teams now... There not even comparable.
Obviously, the northern teams with thier consistent playoff experience are gonna be favored more than a team that comes out of nowhere and finishes the season 14-2. Thats great for them, but let's see them prove themselves in the playoffs first before giving them the lombardi trophy.
You don't think their regional interests/preferences show? It's obvious. On Monday Night Football, they referred to the NFC South as "not having a national audience" but implied so with with the NFC North and NFC East.
By a 3-1 ratio, commentators are favoring the Packers over the Falcons. Similarly, the almost always favor northern teams over southern teams, unless the southern team has gone above and beyond in the winning category, far beyond their northern counterparts, such as the Saints in winning last year's super bowl. Yet, the northern teams do not have to do as much to get their vote. This is example of regional bias, which they themselves may even be unaware of. However, it easily comes through with such statements, as mentioned above, considering that northern reporters and analysts outnumber southern ones on the big networks by nearly a 9 to 1 ratio.
Do you really think that there are more northern teams than southern teams? Let's see.
Northern Teams
New England Patriots
New York Giants
New York Jets
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
Cleveland Browns
Cincinnati Bengals
Detroit Lions
Indianapolis Colts
Chicago Bears
Green Bay Packers
Minnesota Vikings
Washington and Baltimore are in borderland area.
Southern Teams
Atlanta Falcons
Carolina Panthers
Jacksonville Jaguars
Miami Dolphins
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans
New Orleans Saints
Dallas Cowboys
Houston Texans
So there's three more northern teams. It's not like there's a large marginal difference in terms of number between the regions. Technically, according to the census bureau, Washington and Baltimore are in the South, but since its really up for debate in this day and time, we'll not include them. St. Louis and Kansas City are borderline territory as well. While yes, they're in the midwest, they're really not northern, per se. You could say the same for Cincinnati, but since it's within Ohio, I'll give it to the north.
That said, the number of teams means nothing. I'm simply referring to the BIASED analysis and favortism that shows through by an overwhelming margin.
"National audience" is just pussyfoot broadcaster speak for "big audience." The Giants have a big audience, not a national audience. No one west of Binghamton gives a damn about them.
As for Green Bay and Atlanta, they're evenly matched teams. The point spread is less than field goal, isn't it? Perhaps people just think Green Bay is going to win.
Also, echoing what the previous poster said about tradition, New England, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and Baltimore are head and shoulders above the rest of the league when it comes to recent success. All four teams HAPPEN to be in the north.
And where's this northern bias with respect to college football? All we hear about is how great the SEC is and how bad the Big Ten and Big East are.
"National audience" is just pussyfoot broadcaster speak for "big audience." The Giants have a big audience, not a national audience. No one west of Binghamton gives a damn about them.
As for Green Bay and Atlanta, they're evenly matched teams. The point spread is less than field goal, isn't it? Perhaps people just think Green Bay is going to win.
Also, echoing what the previous poster said about tradition, New England, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and Baltimore are head and shoulders above the rest of the league when it comes to recent success. All four teams HAPPEN to be in the north.
And where's this northern bias with respect to college football? All we hear about is how great the SEC is and how bad the Big Ten and Big East are.
Much ado about nothing.
Baltimore isn't really a northern city. It's straight-up mid-Atlantic, historically southern, culturally, but now a mixture between northern and southern, though probably more northern these days, but not enough to be a northern city.
As far as college football goes, on average, southern teams are better. Sure, there are some good non-southern teams, namely those in parts of the midwest, but per-capita, the southern schools are dominant, namely the SEC. The northeast doesn't have anything in the way of dominant NCAA BCS school football programs. Penn State is probably the best that there is, and they're not really dominant, though some years they're somewhat good.
You talk about recent success of Indianapolis, and I'll agree with you. I'm not discounting the Colts, Patriots, or the Steelers success. Those are all solid football teams. What it seems to me, however, is that broadcasters show favortism and preference for clearly inferior northern teams, such as Green Bay, Chicago, and Philadelphia over the Falcons, which has a 13-3 record and is the number one seed. I can see a case for the Eagles, which the Falcons have admittedly had trouble with, but not Green Bay or Chicago, both of which the Falcons beat this year. Secondly, the announcers towards the end of the season were talking more of the New York Jets and New York Giants than they did the Falcons, a clearly superior team. This again shows the favortism by northern analysts for northern teams, especially those within the megalopolis, particularly New York teams.
You can act as though such is not the case, but you've got to admit that the Falcons up to this point haven't really been given the respect by the commentators that they deserve.
Baltimore isn't really a northern city. It's straight-up mid-Atlantic, historically southern, culturally, but now a mixture between northern and southern, though probably more northern these days, but not enough to be a northern city.
As far as college football goes, on average, southern teams are better. Sure, there are some good non-southern teams, namely those in parts of the midwest, but per-capita, the southern schools are dominant, namely the SEC. The northeast doesn't have anything in the way of dominant NCAA BCS school football programs. Penn State is probably the best that there is, and they're not really dominant, though some years they're somewhat good.
You talk about recent success of Indianapolis, and I'll agree with you. I'm not discounting the Colts, Patriots, or the Steelers success. Those are all solid football teams. What it seems to me, however, is that broadcasters show favortism and preference for clearly inferior northern teams, such as Green Bay, Chicago, and Philadelphia over the Falcons, which has a 13-3 record and is the number one seed. I can see a case for the Eagles, which the Falcons have admittedly had trouble with, but not Green Bay or Chicago, both of which the Falcons beat this year. Secondly, the announcers towards the end of the season were talking more of the New York Jets and New York Giants than they did the Falcons, a clearly superior team. This again shows the favortism by northern analysts for northern teams, especially those within the megalopolis, particularly New York teams.
You can act as though such is not the case, but you've got to admit that the Falcons up to this point haven't really been given the respect by the commentators that they deserve.
No, I don't. You might consider admitting that you have a chip on your shoulder.
Southern teams are of course better in college -- I'm not arguing the attention given to the SEC is disproportionate (I think you could make that argument, but I don't need to here). I'm just arguing the "northern bias" does not exist in college football, so maybe it doesn't exist like you think it does in the NFL.
They talk about New York teams in the media because New York teams have a bigger audience, not because they don't respect the south. And they refer to the Bears as the luckiest team in the NFL all the time (I've been wondering how the Bears can be luckier than a team that didn't even have to have a winning record to get in the playoffs, but that's another discussion).
No, I don't. You might consider admitting that you have a chip on your shoulder.
Southern teams are of course better in college -- I'm not arguing the attention given to the SEC is disproportionate (I think you could make that argument, but I don't need to here). I'm just arguing the "northern bias" does not exist in college football, so maybe it doesn't exist like you think it does in the NFL.
They talk about New York teams in the media because New York teams have a bigger audience, not because they don't respect the south. And they refer to the Bears as the luckiest team in the NFL all the time (I've been wondering how the Bears can be luckier than a team that didn't even have to have a winning record to get in the playoffs, but that's another discussion).
Where do you think a large percentage of the players drafted by colleges come from? The South. Hence, while there are a lot of southern players playing all over the country, there's a lot more of them playing within their respective states, or nearby states. This is why you see the South dominating in college football. The players in this region are generally better, as football is more related to the culture of the South, than it is for other regions. That is, its of greater importance in the South. The propensity of a greater descendant population from selectively bred slaves also plays a role.
Bob Costas (Queens, New York)<--------NORTHERNER
Tony Dungy (Jackson, Michigan)<-------NORTHERNER
Rodney Harrison (Markham, Illinois)<---------NORTHERNER
Peter King (Springfield, Massachusetts)<----------NORTHERNER
Dan Patrick (Mason, Ohio)<-----------NORTHERNER
Well, what do you know, ALL NORTHERNERS. It's amazing how the South has so little representation for the NFL in the commentator/analysis booth.
Pathetic, considering that the South is the most populated region of the country, is a football stronghold, and is home to one-third of the population of the United States.
Let's see, of the four big networks, northerners outnumber southerners 34-5 in the commentary booth.
Let's do the math. Northerner to Southerner ratio is 87:13, or 87%-13%.
Nah, no way their inherent bias, that with which has been with them since childhood, considering their favorite teams and their regional identity, could be seen on national television. No way that could come through, considering that they outnumber southerners by such an overwhelming margin. Give me a break. Many of you refuse to admit what's so blatantly seen.
Where do you think a large percentage of the players drafted by colleges come from? The South. Hence, while there are a lot of southern players playing all over the country, there's a lot more of them playing within their respective states, or nearby states. This is why you see the South dominating in college football. The players in this region are generally better, as football is more related to the culture of the South, than it is for other regions. That is, its of greater importance in the South. The propensity of a greater descendant population from selectively bred slaves also plays a role.
That's quite an understatement. I say that not to be quarrelsome, I just think that if you take that factor out, the Midwest and South are quite similar. Many areas of the Midwest are better. Heavily German Catholic areas, for example Cincinnati and the farm towns of western Ohio, produce excellent football players and teams. There is some terrific football played in the West, too. The Northeast does lag behind.
There's absolutely no debate that the South produces the most football players per capita. Absolutely no debate. I just think it's lazy to say that because the number of media people doesn't match that, that the media is "biased" against the south and isn't giving the Falcons a chance.
Why did you choose Costas, Dungy, Harrison, King, and Patrick? It's completely unclear to me. Where is this list of 34 northerners and five southerners, and why did you only post five northerners from it? I can think of five southerners off the top of my head -- Cris Collinsworth, Tom Hammond, Jimmy Johnson, Terry Bradshaw, and Phil Simms.
Not to mention, do you honestly, deep down, believe someone from Mason, Ohio or Jackson, Michigan is "biased" toward the Packers over the Falcons? I really think you're off in outer space here, I'm sorry.
That's quite an understatement. I say that not to be quarrelsome, I just think that if you take that factor out, the Midwest and South are quite similar. Many areas of the Midwest are better. Heavily German Catholic areas, for example Cincinnati and the farm towns of western Ohio, produce excellent football players and teams. There is some terrific football played in the West, too. The Northeast does lag behind.
There's absolutely no debate that the South produces the most football players per capita. Absolutely no debate. I just think it's lazy to say that because the number of media people doesn't match that, that the media is "biased" against the south and isn't giving the Falcons a chance.
Why did you choose Costas, Dungy, Harrison, King, and Patrick? It's completely unclear to me. Where is this list of 34 northerners and five southerners, and why did you only post five northerners from it? I can think of five southerners off the top of my head -- Cris Collinsworth, Tom Hammond, Jimmy Johnson, Terry Bradshaw, and Phil Simms.
Not to mention, do you honestly, deep down, believe someone from Mason, Ohio or Jackson, Michigan is "biased" toward the Packers over the Falcons? I really think you're off in outer space here, I'm sorry.
Look back a few pages. The other networks are listed. NBC was simply the last I posted.
While I appreciate the commentary provided here the last several posts, we're getting way off topic here, which is the NFL playoffs. Let's get it back there.
The comments regarding north-south logistics are valid and should be discussed. But on a different thread. Thank you.
The Steelers are just toying with the Ravens in the half that matters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
