First of all the Steelers aren't New York or Washington. It's Pittsburgh. We're more Mid-Atlantic than East Coast. Second, 80% of the fans at the game were Steeler fans. Third, let's face it, there are way more Steeler fans in the US & World than there are Seahawks fans. And please let's not forget that football is a business. When money is involved there are going to be biases. What annoys me is the media overall picked the Seahawks to win more than the Steelers. And to think the refs wanted Pittsburgh to win is ridiculous. Everytime I hear an excuse I just shake my head. Don't make excuses Seattle, work on getting better. It took the Steelers a long time to finally put it all together considering Cowher has been in the playoffs 10 out of his 14 seasons as the head coach.
I don't see how this disproves the media bias towards the Steelers. They have have picked Seattle to win, but the ads and the marketing were definitely for the Steelers. It may have been a business decision, but that does not mean it wasn't there...
No way to really disprove.... I think my point is more that it's more purely about money, not about location specifically.
A few points. I aplogize for getting philosophical and using alot of analogies but that just yours truly I am reminded of that old real estate adage; Location, location, location! Where you are is very important. Does that carry over to the NFL? I don't know. The reason many in the media choose the Steelers is they went with the Devil they know versus the devil they didn't. Outside of Microsoft, Coffee, & Grunge how many people know that much about Seattle? Then there is always the time zone difference between Seattle and the east coast. The steel city is east of the Mississippi River therefore in the eastern US and a damn sight closer to the east coast (where the media is based) then Seattle. Frasier has left the building. LOL I agree that the NFL is a business but that IMO is weak justifcation to explain why the Pittsburgh won. If the same teams win over & over then less people will be interested and revenue will shrink. I can't help but wonder if this controversy was created in order to generate buzz, increase interest, & eventually pump up the bottom line. That is just not right right IMO. The NFL already has a great product and should not need to result to dirty tricks to further their greed. After all, that's what Enron & Bernie Ebbers are for. Right?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steelerfan_2005)</div><div class='quotemain'>No way to really disprove.... I think my point is more that it's more purely about money, not about location specifically.</div> Yeah well there are more people on the East coast. More people = More money.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawk)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steelerfan_2005)</div><div class='quotemain'>No way to really disprove.... I think my point is more that it's more purely about money, not about location specifically.</div> Yeah well there are more people on the East coast. More people = More money.</div> Wouldnt it be smarter to go after both coasts/. Oh yeah it would, and they do. Like you said more people = more money
I don't think the media has a bias against the Seahawks because Seattle is on the west coast. I think the media has a bias against the Seahawks because they are the most boring franchise in NFL history. If they had the least little bit of personality or played at an exceptionally high level, I'm sure the media would pay more attention to them. I've never seen a lack of media coverage where the Raiders or 49ers are concerned. This has clearly been the Seahawks best season, but they have never been really dominant in winning the worst division in the weaker conference.
I tend to agree that the media hops on the best story. Dominant teams with character and a storied past definitely get more coverage because people will watch and support it more. $$$ don't ever forget that this sport that we all hold dear comes down to these symbols and what they stand for.
