I was listening to the Dan Patrick show on ESPN radio today, and Dan had Keith Olbermann on as a guest. At one point, Dan asks Keith if there is an East Coast biased in sports, and Keith flat out responds, "No." He then went on to say that in this day and age with cable t.v. and ESPN showing teams from all over, blah, blah, blah. Um, that's crap. ESPN either shows the Yankees or Red Sox, and if it's not one of those team, then that's b/c there's some other big time game going on (i.e. Sox v. Tigers). Olbermann also said that he does think that it's harder for the media to accept a non-east coast team at first, but after a while, they embrace them as much as the Red Sox or Yankees. Gimme a break... At least Dan Patrick said that he does think there's an East Coast biased, and that all you have to do is watch what teams are focused on during SportsCenter to know that. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the majority of us will vote "yes" but I just want to see if any of yall think that there isn't, and if you do, then why?

I definately believe that the East Coast teams get more coverage, but I also believe that there is a reason for that, they sell. Yeah we don't care in Chicago, but in terms of merchandise, ticket sales, etc, the Yankees and Red Sox are always at the top of the list.

It's kind of a double-edged sword too. They probably were the top-sellers before ESPN really started going that way with their coverage, but ESPN pimping the teams on that coast has had to help a lot too.

Yeah, that's true. I guess they are running a business, but I doubt showing less Red Sox and Yankees games on TV would lose them that much money. I mean, people that like them already like them, so why not try to open up coverage for other teams. I'm not saying they have to show a Royals-Padres game, but at least show more big time games from other teams. I guarantee their ratings wouldn't suffer much, if at all.