[Jskass]

includes comments about 2020 Olympics and controversy in not selecting Nneka.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...ased-uconn

[Jskass]

includes comments about 2020 Olympics and controversy in not selecting Nneka.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...ased-uconn

[crackpot]

Wow.

Someone had to say it.

[crackpot]

Wow.

Someone had to say it.

[BostonCard]

Also, water is wet and the sun sets in the west.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, water is wet and the sun sets in the west.

BC

[WBB fan]

Good for her!

[WBB fan]

Good for her!

[yvonne]

Nice. I'm glad she said it.

[yvonne]

Nice. I'm glad she said it.

[treetop11]

Another reason that I hope Gino never catches up to Tara!

[treetop11]

Another reason that I hope Gino never catches up to Tara!

[natflblue]

Another reason that I hope Gino never catches up to Tara!

Wow, stuff just can't go away.  Sour grapes from someone who can't take one bad year, so she quits.  Getting used to the Geno negativity, but at least you people are civilized in your comments unlike some other Board I know of.  I have great respect for Tara and the Cardinal program, and yes, I believe Geno will not catch her.  
Just want to wish everyone a safe Holiday, and hope that we are able to meet in the final 4 with fans in attendance.  BTY, UConn has been projected as a 4 seed in the NCAA tourney.  If all our players come back including Paige, this could be very interesting if a #1 has to play us in the sweet 16.  Crazy!

[natflblue]

Another reason that I hope Gino never catches up to Tara!

Wow, stuff just can't go away.  Sour grapes from someone who can't take one bad year, so she quits.  Getting used to the Geno negativity, but at least you people are civilized in your comments unlike some other Board I know of.  I have great respect for Tara and the Cardinal program, and yes, I believe Geno will not catch her.  
Just want to wish everyone a safe Holiday, and hope that we are able to meet in the final 4 with fans in attendance.  BTY, UConn has been projected as a 4 seed in the NCAA tourney.  If all our players come back including Paige, this could be very interesting if a #1 has to play us in the sweet 16.  Crazy!

[lex24]

Not impressed. When you win a bizzillion straight you are going to get the publicity.  Plus, it’s a little difficult to hear whining from ND about exposure.

Also, when you get down to it - how big has UConn been for the growth of womens basketball? Both on the court and in its following?

I’m not a fan of UConn or Geno. But the sour grapes are weak. He’s done a hell of a lot for the woman’s game. He, Pat Summit and Tara.

[lex24]

Not impressed. When you win a bizzillion straight you are going to get the publicity.  Plus, it’s a little difficult to hear whining from ND about exposure.

Also, when you get down to it - how big has UConn been for the growth of womens basketball? Both on the court and in its following?

I’m not a fan of UConn or Geno. But the sour grapes are weak. He’s done a hell of a lot for the woman’s game. He, Pat Summit and Tara.

[jonnyss]

i disagree.

first, it's about nneka. leaving her off the olympic team occurred in the context of geno lobbying year after year to have uconn over-represented on the olympic team.

then, uconn has not been tops in women's basketball since 2015-16. that's 6 years ago, folks - a long time.  stanford football was 10-3 in 2016.

espn has for years broadcast few pac-12 games - though they are improving lately. and, as others have pointed out, the espn website still often doesn't even mention stanford matchups against other top-10 teams.

showing favoritism to parties with whom you have a relationship, as uconn does with nearby espn, in other settings gets tv journalists fired.

[jonnyss]

i disagree.

first, it's about nneka. leaving her off the olympic team occurred in the context of geno lobbying year after year to have uconn over-represented on the olympic team.

then, uconn has not been tops in women's basketball since 2015-16. that's 6 years ago, folks - a long time.  stanford football was 10-3 in 2016.

espn has for years broadcast few pac-12 games - though they are improving lately. and, as others have pointed out, the espn website still often doesn't even mention stanford matchups against other top-10 teams.

showing favoritism to parties with whom you have a relationship, as uconn does with nearby espn, in other settings gets tv journalists fired.

[DC 86]

showing favoritism to parties with whom you have a relationship, as uconn does with nearby espn, in other settings gets tv journalists fired.

That's not an apt comparison. ESPN is in the business of broadcasting sports events that people want to see, and of course they're going to promote the events that they broadcast. UConn remains the biggest national brand by far is women's basketball. If Stanford women's basketball brought in the highest ratings then you can be sure that ESPN would show "favoritism" to our program in terms of how much coverage we receive. It's in no way analogous to journalists being biased because of their political leanings.

When ESPN has had rights deals with the NHL they have invested in shoulder programming, run players through their car wash and showed a ton of hockey highlights on SportsCenter. When they don't have a rights deal not so much. Same for World Cup soccer when they had the rights, not so much when they moved to Fox.

ESPN does have a "favoritism" issue in that they are obviously soft on their partners in their reporting. Their relationships with the NFL, NBA and SEC are so lucrative that it impacts their reporting on those leagues. But giving more attention to the most popular teams in each sport is just giving the public what it wants. Same as how they cover the Dallas Cowboys more than any other NFL team even though they haven't won the super bowl in 25 years.

[DC 86]

showing favoritism to parties with whom you have a relationship, as uconn does with nearby espn, in other settings gets tv journalists fired.

That's not an apt comparison. ESPN is in the business of broadcasting sports events that people want to see, and of course they're going to promote the events that they broadcast. UConn remains the biggest national brand by far is women's basketball. If Stanford women's basketball brought in the highest ratings then you can be sure that ESPN would show "favoritism" to our program in terms of how much coverage we receive. It's in no way analogous to journalists being biased because of their political leanings.

When ESPN has had rights deals with the NHL they have invested in shoulder programming, run players through their car wash and showed a ton of hockey highlights on SportsCenter. When they don't have a rights deal not so much. Same for World Cup soccer when they had the rights, not so much when they moved to Fox.

ESPN does have a "favoritism" issue in that they are obviously soft on their partners in their reporting. Their relationships with the NFL, NBA and SEC are so lucrative that it impacts their reporting on those leagues. But giving more attention to the most popular teams in each sport is just giving the public what it wants. Same as how they cover the Dallas Cowboys more than any other NFL team even though they haven't won the super bowl in 25 years.

[Goose]

ESPN is in the business of broadcasting sports events that people want to see, and of course they're going to promote the events that they broadcast.

Correct. ESPN is not journalism, in case anybody thought it was. It is in the entertainment business, and want to maximize their profit. Period.

UConn remains the biggest national brand by far is women's basketball. If Stanford women's basketball brought in the highest ratings then you can be sure that ESPN would show "favoritism" to our program in terms of how much coverage we receive.

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so. Coverage brings recruits, coaching talent, and money. This is just a fact. Never confuse ESPN with some kind of "objective reality". They create the reality that suits them. It is easier to do this if they chose a reality that has some truth behind it, but a good reality distortion field can make up for lots of shortcomings. That is ESPN.

[Goose]

ESPN is in the business of broadcasting sports events that people want to see, and of course they're going to promote the events that they broadcast.

Correct. ESPN is not journalism, in case anybody thought it was. It is in the entertainment business, and want to maximize their profit. Period.

UConn remains the biggest national brand by far is women's basketball. If Stanford women's basketball brought in the highest ratings then you can be sure that ESPN would show "favoritism" to our program in terms of how much coverage we receive.

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so. Coverage brings recruits, coaching talent, and money. This is just a fact. Never confuse ESPN with some kind of "objective reality". They create the reality that suits them. It is easier to do this if they chose a reality that has some truth behind it, but a good reality distortion field can make up for lots of shortcomings. That is ESPN.

[jonnyss]

ESPN is in the business of broadcasting sports events that people want to see, and of course they're going to promote the events that they broadcast.

Correct. ESPN is not journalism, in case anybody thought it was. It is in the entertainment business, and want to maximize their profit. Period.

UConn remains the biggest national brand by far is women's basketball. If Stanford women's basketball brought in the highest ratings then you can be sure that ESPN would show "favoritism" to our program in terms of how much coverage we receive.

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so. Coverage brings recruits, coaching talent, and money. This is just a fact. Never confuse ESPN with some kind of "objective reality". They create the reality that suits them. It is easier to do this if they chose a reality that has some truth behind it, but a good reality distortion field can make up for lots of shortcomings. That is ESPN.

question: is there similar favoritism across sports? the patriots have been dominant over the last 15 years (and, like uconn, not in the last 2-3 years).  do the patriots get double the press of other teams? do the announcers strongly favor the patriots when they play?  when the duke men play basketball, do the announcers favor duke? does duke get an excess of their grads on the olympic team? does duke get double the press of other highly ranked teams?

[jonnyss]

ESPN is in the business of broadcasting sports events that people want to see, and of course they're going to promote the events that they broadcast.

Correct. ESPN is not journalism, in case anybody thought it was. It is in the entertainment business, and want to maximize their profit. Period.

UConn remains the biggest national brand by far is women's basketball. If Stanford women's basketball brought in the highest ratings then you can be sure that ESPN would show "favoritism" to our program in terms of how much coverage we receive.

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so. Coverage brings recruits, coaching talent, and money. This is just a fact. Never confuse ESPN with some kind of "objective reality". They create the reality that suits them. It is easier to do this if they chose a reality that has some truth behind it, but a good reality distortion field can make up for lots of shortcomings. That is ESPN.

question: is there similar favoritism across sports? the patriots have been dominant over the last 15 years (and, like uconn, not in the last 2-3 years).  do the patriots get double the press of other teams? do the announcers strongly favor the patriots when they play?  when the duke men play basketball, do the announcers favor duke? does duke get an excess of their grads on the olympic team? does duke get double the press of other highly ranked teams?

[lex24]

ESPN is in the business of broadcasting sports events that people want to see, and of course they're going to promote the events that they broadcast.

Correct. ESPN is not journalism, in case anybody thought it was. It is in the entertainment business, and want to maximize their profit. Period.

UConn remains the biggest national brand by far is women's basketball. If Stanford women's basketball brought in the highest ratings then you can be sure that ESPN would show "favoritism" to our program in terms of how much coverage we receive.

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so. Coverage brings recruits, coaching talent, and money. This is just a fact. Never confuse ESPN with some kind of "objective reality". They create the reality that suits them. It is easier to do this if they chose a reality that has some truth behind it, but a good reality distortion field can make up for lots of shortcomings. That is ESPN.

question: is there similar favoritism across sports? the patriots have been dominant over the last 15 years.  do the announcers strongly favor the patriots when they play?  when the duke men play basketball, do the announcers favor duke? does duke get an excess of their grads on the olympic team?

Of course there is.  Baseball:  Yankees. Red Sox.  Football: Cowboys, Packers. Basketball:  any team LeBron is on.  

College Football :  Alabama, Norte Dame. 

And as for announcer favoritism. Everyone thinks national announcers favor the other team. I’ll use myself as an example. During Giants-Dodgers series, I thought the broadcasters were so biased that I synched the Giants radio feed. They probably weren’t nearly as biased as I believed. Because, of course, I’m tremendously biased!

But in College mens hoops - definitely Duke.  For a long time.

Money talks. ESPN pushes teams that draws the largest audience.

As for Geno, he may be a jerk. But I don’t think there is anyone that has helped promote the womens game as he and UConn. America LOVES dynasties. When they set the record for consecutive wins it was great advertising for the womens game.

[lex24]

ESPN is in the business of broadcasting sports events that people want to see, and of course they're going to promote the events that they broadcast.

Correct. ESPN is not journalism, in case anybody thought it was. It is in the entertainment business, and want to maximize their profit. Period.

UConn remains the biggest national brand by far is women's basketball. If Stanford women's basketball brought in the highest ratings then you can be sure that ESPN would show "favoritism" to our program in terms of how much coverage we receive.

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so. Coverage brings recruits, coaching talent, and money. This is just a fact. Never confuse ESPN with some kind of "objective reality". They create the reality that suits them. It is easier to do this if they chose a reality that has some truth behind it, but a good reality distortion field can make up for lots of shortcomings. That is ESPN.

question: is there similar favoritism across sports? the patriots have been dominant over the last 15 years.  do the announcers strongly favor the patriots when they play?  when the duke men play basketball, do the announcers favor duke? does duke get an excess of their grads on the olympic team?

Of course there is.  Baseball:  Yankees. Red Sox.  Football: Cowboys, Packers. Basketball:  any team LeBron is on.  

College Football :  Alabama, Norte Dame. 

And as for announcer favoritism. Everyone thinks national announcers favor the other team. I’ll use myself as an example. During Giants-Dodgers series, I thought the broadcasters were so biased that I synched the Giants radio feed. They probably weren’t nearly as biased as I believed. Because, of course, I’m tremendously biased!

But in College mens hoops - definitely Duke.  For a long time.

Money talks. ESPN pushes teams that draws the largest audience.

As for Geno, he may be a jerk. But I don’t think there is anyone that has helped promote the womens game as he and UConn. America LOVES dynasties. When they set the record for consecutive wins it was great advertising for the womens game.

[DC 86]

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so.

But why should they, as opposed to just jumping on board what is already the biggest brand? Ironically, if ESPN decided to make Stanford their marquee brand and most heavily promoted women's basketball program that would actually demonstrate favoritism, since we haven't achieved the on-court success that UConn has. UConn has objectively has won the most championships, played in the most final fours, had the most elite players, and subjectively they are led by a head coach who's outspoken and quotable. If there was no ESPN UConn would still be the most recognizable program and Geno would still be by far the best known and most loved/hated coach in the game. It seems rational that ESPN would focus on UConn as their flagship program. To build up a different program as the primary focus of coverage would be irrational, and evidence of favoritism.

---

question: is there similar favoritism across sports? the patriots have been dominant over the last 15 years (and, like uconn, not in the last 2-3 years).  do the patriots get double the press of other teams? do the announcers strongly favor the patriots when they play?  when the duke men play basketball, do the announcers favor duke? does duke get an excess of their grads on the olympic team? does duke get double the press of other highly ranked teams?

Answer: yes. The women's basketball universe if far shallower than the NFL or men's basketball universe so it may not be "double" but of course marquee programs get much more coverage than others, that's inarguable. Count how many Patriots game are assigned to CBS's #1 team (Nantz/Romo). More to the point count how often the Cowboys have been in the NBC Sunday prime time game despite not being an elite team for decades.

Duke (men) has been far less dominant than UConn (women) yet they get an enormous amount of coverage; the most in the sport. Some googling along the lines of "Dick Vitale Duke homer" and "Jay Bilas Duke biased" will reveal the public perception on this subject.

I don't have access to network-level data, but just for fun I googled "Duke Basketball" (which last won the title in 2015) and "Villanova Basketball" (champions in 2016 and 2018). Duke: 83 million hits, Villanova: 13 million hits. This is an imperfect proxy, but surely correlates to national media coverage to a large degree.

[DC 86]

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so.

But why should they, as opposed to just jumping on board what is already the biggest brand? Ironically, if ESPN decided to make Stanford their marquee brand and most heavily promoted women's basketball program that would actually demonstrate favoritism, since we haven't achieved the on-court success that UConn has. UConn has objectively has won the most championships, played in the most final fours, had the most elite players, and subjectively they are led by a head coach who's outspoken and quotable. If there was no ESPN UConn would still be the most recognizable program and Geno would still be by far the best known and most loved/hated coach in the game. It seems rational that ESPN would focus on UConn as their flagship program. To build up a different program as the primary focus of coverage would be irrational, and evidence of favoritism.

---

question: is there similar favoritism across sports? the patriots have been dominant over the last 15 years (and, like uconn, not in the last 2-3 years).  do the patriots get double the press of other teams? do the announcers strongly favor the patriots when they play?  when the duke men play basketball, do the announcers favor duke? does duke get an excess of their grads on the olympic team? does duke get double the press of other highly ranked teams?

Answer: yes. The women's basketball universe if far shallower than the NFL or men's basketball universe so it may not be "double" but of course marquee programs get much more coverage than others, that's inarguable. Count how many Patriots game are assigned to CBS's #1 team (Nantz/Romo). More to the point count how often the Cowboys have been in the NBC Sunday prime time game despite not being an elite team for decades.

Duke (men) has been far less dominant than UConn (women) yet they get an enormous amount of coverage; the most in the sport. Some googling along the lines of "Dick Vitale Duke homer" and "Jay Bilas Duke biased" will reveal the public perception on this subject.

I don't have access to network-level data, but just for fun I googled "Duke Basketball" (which last won the title in 2015) and "Villanova Basketball" (champions in 2016 and 2018). Duke: 83 million hits, Villanova: 13 million hits. This is an imperfect proxy, but surely correlates to national media coverage to a large degree.

[Goose]

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so.

But why should they, as opposed to just jumping on board what is already the biggest brand?

True, but history didn't start today. UConn has been receiving the benefits of preferential coverage for a long time. It is undoubtedly true that choosing UConn as a focus was smart, but doing so also helped ensure the situation would persist as long as possible.

Ironically, if ESPN decided to make Stanford their marquee brand and most heavily promoted women's basketball program that would actually demonstrate favoritism, since we haven't achieved the on-court success that UConn has. UConn has objectively has won the most championships, played in the most final fours, had the most elite players, and subjectively they are led by a head coach who's outspoken and quotable.

Promoting Stanford over anybody else would indeed show favoritism. However, promoting ANYBODY, including UConn over everybody else is equally showing favoritism. Not that this is "bad". ESPN wants to make money. Giving the audience what it wants (and shaping the audience wherever possible) is in ESPN's interest.

If there was no ESPN UConn would still be the most recognizable program and Geno would still be by far the best known and most loved/hated coach in the game. It seems rational that ESPN would focus on UConn as their flagship program. To build up a different program as the primary focus of coverage would be irrational, and evidence of favoritism.

I doubt that. ESPN has delivered major hype over many years. I can't imagine how anyone can argue that has had minimal effect. I do believe that ESPN has the "right" and will in fact hype whoever they think benefits them the most. Whoever that is will be receiving the benefit of favoritism, and that benefit is substantial in the case of ESPN. As far as building up a different program, I would not be at all surprised to see that happen in the not too distant future. Once ESPN is convinced that UConn is no longer the future, they very quickly won't be. Falling from grace in the sports business is surprisingly easy.

[Goose]

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so.

But why should they, as opposed to just jumping on board what is already the biggest brand?

True, but history didn't start today. UConn has been receiving the benefits of preferential coverage for a long time. It is undoubtedly true that choosing UConn as a focus was smart, but doing so also helped ensure the situation would persist as long as possible.

Ironically, if ESPN decided to make Stanford their marquee brand and most heavily promoted women's basketball program that would actually demonstrate favoritism, since we haven't achieved the on-court success that UConn has. UConn has objectively has won the most championships, played in the most final fours, had the most elite players, and subjectively they are led by a head coach who's outspoken and quotable.

Promoting Stanford over anybody else would indeed show favoritism. However, promoting ANYBODY, including UConn over everybody else is equally showing favoritism. Not that this is "bad". ESPN wants to make money. Giving the audience what it wants (and shaping the audience wherever possible) is in ESPN's interest.

If there was no ESPN UConn would still be the most recognizable program and Geno would still be by far the best known and most loved/hated coach in the game. It seems rational that ESPN would focus on UConn as their flagship program. To build up a different program as the primary focus of coverage would be irrational, and evidence of favoritism.

I doubt that. ESPN has delivered major hype over many years. I can't imagine how anyone can argue that has had minimal effect. I do believe that ESPN has the "right" and will in fact hype whoever they think benefits them the most. Whoever that is will be receiving the benefit of favoritism, and that benefit is substantial in the case of ESPN. As far as building up a different program, I would not be at all surprised to see that happen in the not too distant future. Once ESPN is convinced that UConn is no longer the future, they very quickly won't be. Falling from grace in the sports business is surprisingly easy.

[BostonCard]

It’s a chicken/egg question.  How much did ESPN hype contribute to UConn’s rise, and how much did UConn’s rise merit ESPN hype?  While I think that UConn would have been good regardless, I can imagine that ESPN raised UConn’s salience among recruits, and UConn could use its media exposure as a way to lure recruits, especially those from far away.  Come to UConn, they would say, and your parents and friends will be able to watch you on TV.

I think the PAC-12 network (and other conference networks) have mitigated that somewhat, though it will always be an advantage to say that they will be able to get exposure.  Still, for the parents of an east coast kid, being able to subscribe to sling and get the PAC-12 network and be able to watch most games mitigates the availability of UConn games on ESPN.  Consequently, we have seen recruiting really tick up in the PAC-12.

BC

[BostonCard]

It’s a chicken/egg question.  How much did ESPN hype contribute to UConn’s rise, and how much did UConn’s rise merit ESPN hype?  While I think that UConn would have been good regardless, I can imagine that ESPN raised UConn’s salience among recruits, and UConn could use its media exposure as a way to lure recruits, especially those from far away.  Come to UConn, they would say, and your parents and friends will be able to watch you on TV.

I think the PAC-12 network (and other conference networks) have mitigated that somewhat, though it will always be an advantage to say that they will be able to get exposure.  Still, for the parents of an east coast kid, being able to subscribe to sling and get the PAC-12 network and be able to watch most games mitigates the availability of UConn games on ESPN.  Consequently, we have seen recruiting really tick up in the PAC-12.

BC

[DC 86]

If there was no ESPN UConn would still be the most recognizable program and Geno would still be by far the best known and most loved/hated coach in the game.

I doubt that. ESPN has delivered major hype over many years.

You doubt that the program with by far the most national championships, the most final fours, the most WNBA #1 picks, etc. would be the most recognizable program in the country?

[DC 86]

If there was no ESPN UConn would still be the most recognizable program and Geno would still be by far the best known and most loved/hated coach in the game.

I doubt that. ESPN has delivered major hype over many years.

You doubt that the program with by far the most national championships, the most final fours, the most WNBA #1 picks, etc. would be the most recognizable program in the country?

[Goose]

You doubt that the program with by far the most national championships, the most final fours, the most WNBA #1 picks, etc. would be the most recognizable program in the country?

We can't know, because during the entire period where they did the vast majority of those good things they benefited from ESPN hype. Back in the "early days" one could argue Tennessee should have received the most hype but even back then it was clear that UConn was ESPN's preferred team. Many attributed it just to proximity. There is no doubt at all that their ESPN presence has helped recruiting at UConn, and that matters a lot. It also matters that the general public, who may not have been totally aware of many things UConn has accomplished are reminded of it continuously. This continues despite the fact UConn has not won a Championship since 2016.
There is no doubt UConn is a very successful program. However, it is a matter of degree. In the absence of ESPN I am arguing 1) UConn would probably have fewer championships/final fours etc. (recruiting advantages) and 2) the public would be much less aware of "how good the are". So,  IMHO without ESPN UConn would be one of the most recognizable programs in the country, but basically not so different from many other programs.

[Goose]

You doubt that the program with by far the most national championships, the most final fours, the most WNBA #1 picks, etc. would be the most recognizable program in the country?

We can't know, because during the entire period where they did the vast majority of those good things they benefited from ESPN hype. Back in the "early days" one could argue Tennessee should have received the most hype but even back then it was clear that UConn was ESPN's preferred team. Many attributed it just to proximity. There is no doubt at all that their ESPN presence has helped recruiting at UConn, and that matters a lot. It also matters that the general public, who may not have been totally aware of many things UConn has accomplished are reminded of it continuously. This continues despite the fact UConn has not won a Championship since 2016.
There is no doubt UConn is a very successful program. However, it is a matter of degree. In the absence of ESPN I am arguing 1) UConn would probably have fewer championships/final fours etc. (recruiting advantages) and 2) the public would be much less aware of "how good the are". So,  IMHO without ESPN UConn would be one of the most recognizable programs in the country, but basically not so different from many other programs.

[DC 86]

You doubt that the program with by far the most national championships, the most final fours, the most WNBA #1 picks, etc. would be the most recognizable program in the country?

We can't know, because during the entire period where they did the vast majority of those good things they benefited from ESPN hype. Back in the "early days" one could argue Tennessee should have received the most hype but even back then it was clear that UConn was ESPN's preferred team. Many attributed it just to proximity. There is no doubt at all that their ESPN presence has helped recruiting at UConn, and that matters a lot. It also matters that the general public, who may not have been totally aware of many things UConn has accomplished are reminded of it continuously. This continues despite the fact UConn has not won a Championship since 2016.
There is no doubt UConn is a very successful program. However, it is a matter of degree. In the absence of ESPN I am arguing 1) UConn would probably have fewer championships/final fours etc. (recruiting advantages) and 2) the public would be much less aware of "how good the are". So,  IMHO without ESPN UConn would be one of the most recognizable programs in the country, but basically not so different from many other programs.

We'll have to disagree with regard to the which is the cause and which is the effect. My recollection is that Tennessee indeed was the marquee program that received the most media coverage from ESPN and others, until UConn started to dominate the rivalry and the women's college basketball landscape as a whole.

You ascribe a lot of UConn's success to ESPN coverage, while I ascribe a lot of ESPN's interest in the women's game to the fact that UConn's dominance (and their multiple long winning streaks) were easy stories to promote, and that Geno's combative and polarizing personality made him a great hero/villain to bring attention to the game.

[DC 86]

You doubt that the program with by far the most national championships, the most final fours, the most WNBA #1 picks, etc. would be the most recognizable program in the country?

We can't know, because during the entire period where they did the vast majority of those good things they benefited from ESPN hype. Back in the "early days" one could argue Tennessee should have received the most hype but even back then it was clear that UConn was ESPN's preferred team. Many attributed it just to proximity. There is no doubt at all that their ESPN presence has helped recruiting at UConn, and that matters a lot. It also matters that the general public, who may not have been totally aware of many things UConn has accomplished are reminded of it continuously. This continues despite the fact UConn has not won a Championship since 2016.
There is no doubt UConn is a very successful program. However, it is a matter of degree. In the absence of ESPN I am arguing 1) UConn would probably have fewer championships/final fours etc. (recruiting advantages) and 2) the public would be much less aware of "how good the are". So,  IMHO without ESPN UConn would be one of the most recognizable programs in the country, but basically not so different from many other programs.

We'll have to disagree with regard to the which is the cause and which is the effect. My recollection is that Tennessee indeed was the marquee program that received the most media coverage from ESPN and others, until UConn started to dominate the rivalry and the women's college basketball landscape as a whole.

You ascribe a lot of UConn's success to ESPN coverage, while I ascribe a lot of ESPN's interest in the women's game to the fact that UConn's dominance (and their multiple long winning streaks) were easy stories to promote, and that Geno's combative and polarizing personality made him a great hero/villain to bring attention to the game.

[natflblue]

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so.

I am a UConn fan, but also a WBB fan.  I would love to see Stanford, I would love to see Oregon, Arizona and Oregon State.  The time zone is one problem since a 7:00 game in California would be a 10:00  game in the east.  ESPN doesn't seem to want these games that start that late.  It's funny though, I can remember the days of "Big Monday" and "Super Tuesday" on the mens side, which was a triple header, but as far as the women they don,t want to show anything they don't see as a big win for them.  This brings me to the second problem, which is the PAC12 network.  Some of us don't mind staying up late to watch, but the PAC12 network is not available to many streaming systems. I have YouTubeTV, so on this system I get the SEC network, the ACC Network, as well as the BIG.  If the PAC12 wants more exposure, they should lighten up their TV package and allow the rest of us to view the top teams that we usually don't get to see.  





But why should they, as opposed to just jumping on board what is already the biggest brand?

True, but history didn't start today. UConn has been receiving the benefits of preferential coverage for a long time. It is undoubtedly true that choosing UConn as a focus was smart, but doing so also helped ensure the situation would persist as long as possible.

Ironically, if ESPN decided to make Stanford their marquee brand and most heavily promoted women's basketball program that would actually demonstrate favoritism, since we haven't achieved the on-court success that UConn has. UConn has objectively has won the most championships, played in the most final fours, had the most elite players, and subjectively they are led by a head coach who's outspoken and quotable.

Promoting Stanford over anybody else would indeed show favoritism. However, promoting ANYBODY, including UConn over everybody else is equally showing favoritism. Not that this is "bad". ESPN wants to make money. Giving the audience what it wants (and shaping the audience wherever possible) is in ESPN's interest.

If there was no ESPN UConn would still be the most recognizable program and Geno would still be by far the best known and most loved/hated coach in the game. It seems rational that ESPN would focus on UConn as their flagship program. To build up a different program as the primary focus of coverage would be irrational, and evidence of favoritism.

I doubt that. ESPN has delivered major hype over many years. I can't imagine how anyone can argue that has had minimal effect. I do believe that ESPN has the "right" and will in fact hype whoever they think benefits them the most. Whoever that is will be receiving the benefit of favoritism, and that benefit is substantial in the case of ESPN. As far as building up a different program, I would not be at all surprised to see that happen in the not too distant future. Once ESPN is convinced that UConn is no longer the future, they very quickly won't be. Falling from grace in the sports business is surprisingly easy.

[natflblue]

It is important to recognize that "biggest brand" is heavily influenced by what ESPN covers and how it covers it. ESPN could probably make Stanford, Notre Dame, or just about anybody else that is halfway credible the "biggest brand" if they wanted to do so.

I am a UConn fan, but also a WBB fan.  I would love to see Stanford, I would love to see Oregon, Arizona and Oregon State.  The time zone is one problem since a 7:00 game in California would be a 10:00  game in the east.  ESPN doesn't seem to want these games that start that late.  It's funny though, I can remember the days of "Big Monday" and "Super Tuesday" on the mens side, which was a triple header, but as far as the women they don,t want to show anything they don't see as a big win for them.  This brings me to the second problem, which is the PAC12 network.  Some of us don't mind staying up late to watch, but the PAC12 network is not available to many streaming systems. I have YouTubeTV, so on this system I get the SEC network, the ACC Network, as well as the BIG.  If the PAC12 wants more exposure, they should lighten up their TV package and allow the rest of us to view the top teams that we usually don't get to see.  





But why should they, as opposed to just jumping on board what is already the biggest brand?

True, but history didn't start today. UConn has been receiving the benefits of preferential coverage for a long time. It is undoubtedly true that choosing UConn as a focus was smart, but doing so also helped ensure the situation would persist as long as possible.

Ironically, if ESPN decided to make Stanford their marquee brand and most heavily promoted women's basketball program that would actually demonstrate favoritism, since we haven't achieved the on-court success that UConn has. UConn has objectively has won the most championships, played in the most final fours, had the most elite players, and subjectively they are led by a head coach who's outspoken and quotable.

Promoting Stanford over anybody else would indeed show favoritism. However, promoting ANYBODY, including UConn over everybody else is equally showing favoritism. Not that this is "bad". ESPN wants to make money. Giving the audience what it wants (and shaping the audience wherever possible) is in ESPN's interest.

If there was no ESPN UConn would still be the most recognizable program and Geno would still be by far the best known and most loved/hated coach in the game. It seems rational that ESPN would focus on UConn as their flagship program. To build up a different program as the primary focus of coverage would be irrational, and evidence of favoritism.

I doubt that. ESPN has delivered major hype over many years. I can't imagine how anyone can argue that has had minimal effect. I do believe that ESPN has the "right" and will in fact hype whoever they think benefits them the most. Whoever that is will be receiving the benefit of favoritism, and that benefit is substantial in the case of ESPN. As far as building up a different program, I would not be at all surprised to see that happen in the not too distant future. Once ESPN is convinced that UConn is no longer the future, they very quickly won't be. Falling from grace in the sports business is surprisingly easy.