Why won't people cover this team?

by BigBlueShoe on Oct 18, 2007 2:48 PM EDT in Analysis Comment 25 comments

For some reason, corporate media continues to act the dunce.

It's nice to see the champs get a little love from the national media, but truth be told I kind of resigned to the fact that a lack of media coverage for the Colts is just part of the business. It's stupid, yes. Media should report on what is relevant, not what will sell them more ads. As John Czarnecki accurately states:

Without question, the Colts suffer from being in Indianapolis. It's all about location, location and location. Indianapolis isn't a sports media market unless you're talking auto racing or maybe college basketball. It's like we have forgotten that the Colts even exist, let alone just won a Super Bowl.

What's pathetic about all this is the Colts are indeed the second most popular team in the NFL right now. They have more support than the New York Giants, the San Francisco 49ers, and the Miami Dolphins. Yet, because these markets are bigger, they tend to get more coverage than a team that is more popular in America.

Yes folks, media corporations in America are indeed THAT dumb.

This goes back to SB Nation's excellent Small Market Roundtable series, where several SB Nation writers (including your's truly) wrote articles expressing a fan's POV on many small market topics, including the media and small market teams. Emphasizing large markets over small markets has doomed the MLB, and it will soon doom the NBA. The World Series will feature Colorado, a small market in the MLB, and perhaps Cleveland, another small market. This will kill MLB's post-season ratings, which are already in the toilet, and make Bud Selig and cigar chomping TV executives sweet. Rather than promote the event itself (it's the friggin' World Series for godsakes), FOX and the MLB promote these silly big market franchises like the Yankees (yawn), Red Sox (boring), Cubs (I'm asleep), and the Giants (I'm now brain dead). That not to disrespect the fans of those clubs, but for someone like me in the Midwest I could give a crap about the dumb Red Sox v. Yankees rivalry. I know it means a lot to people on the East Coast, where the corporate headquarters for the MLB is located.

NEWSFLASH: Not everyone lives over there. I, and about 25 million other people, could give a crap about the damn Red Sox and Yankees.

Small markets winning championships, like St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Tampa Bay, have been the lifeblood of the modern NFL. Teams like Carolina and Tennessee have been to Super Bowls in the last 8 years, and teams like Indy (knocking off Chicago) and Tampa Bay (knocking out Oakland) have shown small market teams can beat large market teams. Yes, I consider Oakland a large market. It's the Bay Area. If you can't sell ticket in that market, you're an idiot. This knowledge that small markets can take down large ones instills hope for fans, who come back each and every year not just hoping but KNOWING there team has a chance. That's all fans ask for: A chance to root for a winner.

So, it's good the Colts are getting some recognition, but it is by no means fair coverage. Don't get me wrong. Small market coverage is far better in the NFL than the MLB or NBA, but that isn't saying much. Professional baseball died in America a long time ago, and the NBA is slowly circling the drain as well. The NFL is in better shape, but chew on this: The Cowboys, a team that has sucked for 10-plus years and hasn't won a playoffs game since Bill Clinton's first term as President, get more media coverage than the Colts. That's sad. Again, that's not a swipe at Terry and Cowboy Nation, but the Cowboys have been bad for a long time now. Yet, you still see a ton of Cowboys coverage. It's nuts.

I harp on this topic not because I feel the Colts are getting disrespected, but because I have taken note of how the MLB, the NBA, and the NHL have utterly failed with their respective sports. The NFL continues to crush these other leagues because their product, at the small market level, is better nurtured and promoted. That said, I'm still not satisfied as to the extent of the small market influence on how the sport is covered by external media sources. Thing like NFL Network help, but it's not a full solution. If Indianapolis has the second most popular team in football, you'd logically expect to see more media attention. Sadly, that's not the case. I really hope the NFL corrects this and doesn't follow down the same, tired path that doomed leagues like the MLB.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Good Call

Great stuff, BBS. It also bears repeating that most of the writers live on the coasts. It clearly isn't a conspiracy or malicious agenda these guys have, its just that they probably aren't going to dig out a story in the great midwest when you have so many teams bunched up there on the East Coast.

But the NFL is completely different than the other leagues. Green Bay has a team with a historic legacy and enormous pride and noteriety. Green Bay!

by clownsaw on Oct 18, 2007 2:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

you're wrong Big Blue

The Cowboys sucked from 1997 through 2002, the Chan Gailey, Dave Campo dark ages. Once Parcells came here, he turned the franchise around and now they are the best NFC team and in case you forgot beat your 8-0 Colts last season and hung tough with the Pats for 3 qtrs. So 10+ years is completely incorrect, more like 6 years.

And of course they're always going to get more coverage than the Colts as they are the leagues most storied franchise, they are the Yankees of the NFL.

Other than winning SB V and becoming good this decade, the Colts have historically been one of the worse teams in the league. Popularity wise, you might be second to us, but really, its not even close. They don't call the Cowboys America's Team for nothing. Did you realize that almost half of all Cowboys fans that attend Cowboys home games don't even live in the State of Texas? They are from all over the country. I wonder how many Colts fans outside of the State of Indiana attend Colts home games? I'm willing to bet its not close to half.

If you go over to BTB, most of the bloggers live outside of Texas. So there is a reason the media covers the Cowboys more and its never going to change.

by Terry on Oct 18, 2007 3:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Here's my point, Terry

The media should not cover teams because those teams, per say, are popular. They should cover the teams that actually accomplish something. The Cowboys have done nothing to warrant any significant coverage in 10 years. They've been to the playoffs three times in ten years, winning ZERO games. Yet, there Ed Werder of ESPN is, covering his "beat" for ESPN: The Cowboys.

Meanwhile, a team like the Colts keeps winning lots of games, has the Michael Jordan of football on the roster, and a coach that's known all over the country. You'd think, logically, they would get more coverage... and consequently get more out-of-state fans.

Promoting teams like the Yankees, rather than covering all of the MLB, doomed the ratings for the MLB playoffs and has, in large part, doomed the MLB. I don't want to see the NFL go down that road.

Oh, and please, you're not "the Yankees of the NFL." The Cowboys have 5 titles. So do the Steelers and 49ers.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Oct 18, 2007 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see what your saying Blue

and agree that the Colts deserve more coverage but I think it is naive to think that it is going to change. Personally, I have done more in the past two years than Tom Cruise but he is obviously going to get more coverage because he is "popular."

by johnnyU on Oct 18, 2007 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well...

The only reason it won't change is because of the media. Why do people like the Giants, 49ers, Packers, and Cowboys? Because the media shoves them down your throat. If the current Colts team was still in Baltimore, don't you think that ESPN would cover the Colts about 50x more?

I bet Chad Pennington gets mentioned on ESPN twice as much as Manning does, and he sucks.

by the21eraser on Oct 18, 2007 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let people, and ESPN,

have the Giants, 49ers, Packers, and Cowboys. We will take the SuperBowl Champion Colts. I will agree though, it is tiresome to hear about Penningtons shoulder and his inability to through a football 6 yards.

by johnnyU on Oct 18, 2007 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're being too idealistic Big Blue

The reality of life is that the media is that they are like any other other business in America, they want to make money, lots of money. They do that by covering subjects and topics that people will want to see and read.

If the Cowboys are the most popular team, then of course the media will want to appeal the most fans. It has absolutely nothing to do with covering the teams that have had recent success, thats being really naive.

BTW, we are the Yankees of the NFL, in addition to 5 SB titles, yes matched by the 49ers and Steelers, the Cowboys have played 8 SBs, most on NFL history, and as evidenced by this blog and BTB, are the most loved and hated team in the league, just like the Yankees.

Also, media coverage isn't the reason why MLB sucks, its lack of revenue sharing which will always exsist in the NFL. So it doesn't matter which teams gets all the media coverage in the NFL, they will stay the king of all major pro sports for a very long time to come.

by Terry on Oct 18, 2007 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do have a couple of problems with this...

"Other than winning the Super Bowl and becoming good this decade" ...What more do you need than a SB Ring and a decade of being a good team? We are the DEFENDING SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS. As far as I'm concerned, we're the best team in the league until someone proves otherwise.
Who calls the Cowboys "America's Team"??? I don't get it. The only people I've ever heard this from are Cowboys fans and ESPN. Everyone else could care less.
The most storied franchise? Yanks of the NFL? Have you ever heard of the Packers?

You missed the whole point of this article. Why should the Cowboys get more coverage than the Colts? They have fans that travel to see their games? They used to be good, and now they're a decent team playing in a terrible conference? They "hung tough" with the Pats for 3 quarters?

I want to hear fair reporting about good teams. You don't hear anything about Jacksonville or Tennessee and I'd venture to say they're just as good as they Cowboys are. It makes me hate teams like the Cowboys and Giants even more when I have to hear about them non-stop when we have one of the best franchises in the League and I have to read local papers or blogs to get any sort of news. I have to go now... Sportscenter will be coming on and I heard that Tony Romo farted today. I'm sure ESPN will have a reporter on scene.

by the21eraser on Oct 18, 2007 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jax and Tenn, you got to be kidding?

The Cowboys might not be quite as good as the Pats or Colts at this time, but they're way better than the Jags and Titans for crying out loud.

I don't think there is any question they are the third best team in the league.

by Terry on Oct 18, 2007 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Terry

Who did the Colts defeat in SB V? ;) Seriously though, I agree with that assessment. The Cowboys will always be "Americas Team"...whatever that means. I could honestly care less if we are viewed as being popular or a media darling. Just keep on winning games and that BS takes care of itself.

by johnnyU on Oct 18, 2007 4:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

sorry to be

off topic again BBS but no radio show today either?

by metalmilitia on Oct 18, 2007 7:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I was about to ask

the same thing. Can we have one tonight? Please?

by shake n bake on Oct 18, 2007 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

MLB and the NBA ain't doomed

The NHL is. But the MLB and the NBA ain't. So people ain't watching as much? But people watch lots of "Deal or no Deal". The way I see it, there are still people buying, so they won't stop selling... As for the NHL... Well, the league just plain suck. They should stop everything, and try a new start, I don't know...

Walk on, walk on With hope in your heart And you'll never walk alone You'll never walk alone

by MerryGoByeBye on Oct 18, 2007 8:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

NHL

The NHL is barely behind the NBA in league attendance... and recently one year was actually ahead of it.

The last thing they need to do is stop everything... the trend is upward, but it just shouldn't be considered a Top 4 league anymore. Crosby has a chance at bringing it back, but I don't think that will happen. My opinion is that it doesn't appeal to a lot of fans because there isn't a strong base in the United States in places where there isn't ice (besides Texas.)

Mark Cuban made a good point once about the NHL... the North American TV audience is just a big as the NBA's... it just so happens to be that a majority of it is up in Canada. The NBA includes their Canadian numbers, so why don't they include them for the NHL?

Anyway, this is not a hockey site, but you should read up before you start spouting things off that you don't know too much about.

by DallyDrake on Oct 18, 2007 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NHL

I live in Brazil, so I actually don't know how many people give a crap about hockey in the USA. I know about from what I read. And every single time I try to read something about hockey, I get to read one of those "NHL is in trouble" articles. So if it ain't in trouble, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound harsh on hockey fans, because I like the sport, and find it to be as much fun to watch as the other 3 big ones.

But, as you said, the NHL can't be considered a Top 4 league anymore. So something isn't working, right?

Walk on, walk on With hope in your heart And you'll never walk alone You'll never walk alone

by MerryGoByeBye on Oct 18, 2007 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

The only thing not working is Wayne Gretzky isn't playing anymore. It's not in trouble, but it just should never be considered in the same league as the other 3. It's a niche sport.

by DallyDrake on Oct 19, 2007 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Unless I miss something, they stopped making hockey movies as well. But that's in the bright side. :)

Walk on, walk on With hope in your heart And you'll never walk alone You'll never walk alone

by MerryGoByeBye on Oct 20, 2007 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's Just Play Colt's Football...

Bottom line is as long as the Colts keep winning, I could care less about what the worldwide leader and the other national media outlets/pundits have to say. Personally, I think this is exactly what Coach Dungy and the rest of the team hope for, staying under the radar until the playoffs start. Let Tom Brady and the Pats have all the attention they want...didn't work out so well for us in '04 with all the TD record hype right?

One game at a time...go horse.

by burc on Oct 19, 2007 12:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Being the best NFC team

is like being the funniest sitcom on CBS.

by beckmania on Oct 19, 2007 12:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I got news for you

if you take NE and Indy out of the equation, the NFC is just as good as the AFC from top to bottom if not better.

Pats and Colts are the only reason why the AFC is considered better.

by Terry on Oct 19, 2007 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NFC-AFC

You're right that the real gap between the conferences is at the top. You take out the Colts Patriots and Steelers along with the 3 top NFC teams Thats where. The remaining 13 in each conference are pretty even, slight edge to AFC. http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/136/afcnfccomparisonux1.gif

thanks to some guy on Football Outsiders that made/posted that

by shake n bake on Oct 19, 2007 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs