Cowboys - no matter how much they suck and no matter how mediocre their QB is they will always get more coverage that any team.
Others would be the Eagles, Jets and Pitt.
As good as the Packers are, they get less coverage than any of these teams.
As soon as people realize that the MSM, particularly the sports media, isn’t in the business of journalistic integrity but rather in the business of drawing readers/viewers/subscribers/whatever, the happier everyone will be.
Teams that A) reside in large markets, B) have large (inter)national fan bases that may or may not mostly consist of bandwagon fans, C) have a penchant for controversy, D) are ever referred to as a “Dream Team” or otherwise “win” free agency with a big player signing(s) and/or E) have a flamboyant owner/GM who understands the value of their team always being in the spotlight on their bank accounts; will always get the coverage because if there’s one thing people love more than to love on their favorite team, it’s to hate on someone elses.
It’s worse with college football, because of Notre Dame.
And also individual players are overexposed. Despite Aaron Rodgers’ remarkable start, he doesn’t get 1/3 the coverage that Tom Brady does. And before you point out the “3 Super Bowls” for Brady, keep in mind that the Pats haven’t won the SB since 2005.
I think the whole NFC East gets more coverage than necessary as far as the football’s concerned. Obviously the historic success of 3 of the franchises, plus population of those cities/areas (do I have it right that Washington was the team the people in the South historically followed before the Falcons, and then Panthers and Titans came about?) means they’ll get a disproportionate amount of coverage, which I understand.
The Cowboys are the number one manifestation of this. I will never, ever understand why. It can’t be only because of the “America’s Team” thing, though. That was an NFL promo thing that few people have ever actually seen. So why are the Cowboys so popular? The TV show Dallas, maybe? It’s not like there was a mass exodus from Dallas or anything (see below).
I do understand Pittsburgh’s widespread fanbase, though. After the steel industry collapsed the population of Pittsburgh was reduced by slightly more than half, and the diaspora took the Steelers with them. Even so, they get the coverage they deserve given that they make the playoffs almost every year and of late have made the Super Bowl three times. Win and you get coverage, it’s pretty simple. Having a national fanbase helps.
Green Bay does get less attention than some teams, and they should get more. Then again, how much coverage did they get when Brett Favre was the quarterback? Loads. Anyway, now that they’ve won the Super Bowl again they’re getting considerable coverage. Part of their problem is location. Trying to crack the northeast is a fool’s errand, the fanbases up here are brutal. They’re within spitting distance of the Vikings and Bears, they’re from the smallest NFL market, go down the list. They will get coverage only as long as they win or until they get some new controversial figure.
The Eagles have their own ESPN reporter permanently assigned to them. (Sal Paolantonio) Maybe other teams have their own “guy” at ESPN, but he’s the one I notice.
In an unexpected turn, we agree. I understood it in the early 90’s, but the amount of press and hype they have each and every year is mind boggling. I think part of the allure though is that they attract both lovers and haters, like the Yankees. Outside of the Patriots, I don’t think any team is more hated and their losses more celebrated, than the Cowboys. The other thing is that they attract the casual fan. With Jerry Jones, the Cheerleaders, the signing of big name free agents, I think the casual fan knows them more than any other team.
Yeah, their fans are all incredibly fat, stupid, and lazy. Hence the “widespread”. 
The Steelers, at the least, are usually relevant on the national stage. Many franchises just kinda sit in the middle of the pack, maybe occasionally getting above water for a year or two. But the Steelers generally are relevant more often than not.
I’m more than happy to have everybody talking about any other team than the Packers. Let Romo’s mistakes be picked over, let the Dream Team have to look themselves in the mirror, let the Lions roar for once. The Packers will just keep to the business of winning games.
Probably a number of reasons.
-
While they’ve had a few down cycles (late 1980s, late 1990s), they’ve been, overall, a pretty good franchise for most of the past 45 years. They’ve won five Super Bowls (second only to the Steelers), and appeared in eight Super Bowls overall (better than any other team).
-
Going back to the 1970s, they’ve probably been more effective at marketing themselves than any other team has been. That probably leads the football fan who doesn’t have a “home town team” to be more likely to follow the Cowboys.
-
Speaking of the 1970s, don’t underestimate how big a draw the cheerleaders were back then. Seriously. They had their own prime-time network TV specials.
-
And, yes, Dallas was a cultural phenomenon in the late 1970s and early 1980s…in an era when the Cowboys were a very good team. There was probably an effect there.
Ed Werder spends an awful lot of time in Dallas, too.
This is exactly it. Even though the results have not been there, the attention remains because people care, be it as fans (I was honestly amazed at how many people I saw in Cowboys jerseys at a grocery store in NJ yesterday) or as people who love to watch them suffer.
I don’t like a single thing about Jerry Jones, but I have to admit that he’s done a masterful job at keeping his team’s name out there in the public’s eye. He may not know how to run a football team, but he’s a savvy business man and all the publicity, good and bad, is probably the single most important reason his franchise is the most valuable in the NFL and has been for a long time.
[QUOTE=kenobi 65;143190274) And, yes, Dallas was a cultural phenomenon in the late 1970s and early 1980s…in an era when the Cowboys were a very good team. There was probably an effect there.[/QUOTE]
Don’t forget Debbie!
WRT to Paolantonio and Werder: I believe they covered them as local reporters before coming to ESPN. (Same with Michael Smith/Wendi Nix and the Patriots)
LOL! That’s true, however…it’s one of a handful of pornos (Deep Throat is the only other one I can think of off the top of my head) that had any sort of awareness among non-porn-watching Americans (or, at least, those who wouldn’t admit that they watch porn). 
And, it absolutely capitalized on the popularity of the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders in that era.
The Lions have sucked so bad I think most of the rats leaving the sinking ship of Detroit were fairly glad to put the team behind them. But the Red Wings follow that model closely. Widespread coverage, and recent success gives huge support around the country often filling up other teams stadiums with Red and white, and a lot of TV appearances (well as much of “a lot” as hockey ever gets…
At least it’s not as bad as baseball coverage. ESPN might as well be called the Red Sox channel.
I’ve given this screed before, but here goes…
EVERY sport has one team that almost everyone either loves or hates, and that ALWAYS gets a lot of attention, whether it’s good or bad.
In baseball, it’s the Yankees.
In the NFL, it’s the Dallas Cowboys.
In the NBA, it’s the Boston Celtics.
In college football, it’s Notre Dame.
In college basketball, it’s Duke.
Are there other teams that get more exposure than they deserve, for long periods of time? Yes- but in most cases, that attention will dwindle away to nothing once the team is no longer any good.
The Jets are overexposed and overhyped now, no question about it. But 5 years ago, NOBODY paid the Jets any attention. And in 5 years, if Rex Ryan is fired, Sanchez is out of football, and the team is in 4th place, NOBODY will pay them any mind then, either. It’s very different with the Cowboys! When the Cowboys are good, the media trumpets their success. And when they’re bad, the media dwell on their every failing.
In the same way, when the Texas Longhorns or Alabama Crimson Tide are great, they got a LOT of exposure- maybe too much. When they’re bad for long stretches, they get very little media attention. It’s different with Notre Dame. When they’re good, the media gve them too much hype. And when they’re bad, every headline screams, “WHAT"S WRONG WITH THE IRISH?”
Many teams get too much attention when they’re good. The Cowboys are the one NFL team that gets way too much attention whether they’re good or not.
astorian, I agree with your post except the Lakers are the love 'em/hate 'em team in the NBA. Nobody cared or thought about the Celtics from the time Reggie Lewis died until 2007 when Garnett arrived, and the Lakers won 3 titles, and lost a couple, in that time. Take Sports Guy away from Boston, and I think they’d have far less coverage and thought in people’s minds today. I don’t know off the top of my head, but I’d guess that from '92-'96 was the only time where the Lakers didn’t have a top-5 player in the league since seemingly the beginning of time. Kobe now, Shaq, Magic, Kareem, Jerry West, Wilt, Baylor…we’re back to the 60s since they had a superstar, and I’m probably missing someone.
I’m pretty sure that the biggest export from Michigan, in the last 15 years, has been Red Wings fans.
This year and last its the Jets. They are already on their 2nd of 5 prime time games this year.
QFT. In the ad agency where I worked in Chicago, it seemed like every other person there was (a) from Michigan, (b) a UM or MSU alum, and (c) a Red Wings fan. They were often Tigers fans, too, but most of them had apparently given up on the Lions by that point. 
Not quite true. There was a gap between Wilt/West and Kareem in the 70s, and between Mikan and Baylor in the 50s, in addition to the Rick Fox Era.