Trenchbroom":2fgm2ewb said:
Anyone who would argue that the East Coast bias against the Seahawks is a lie, look no further. Hell, Tampa Bay made the cover in their (our) inaugural year!
Unbelievable.
East Coast bias?
Oakland: 1968
LA Rams: 1961
San Diego: 1963
San Francisco: 1954
Now, maybe you can make the argument that there was a more significant East Coast bias back in the 60s through perhaps the 80s, and West Coast teams had to do more to merit a cover. But to be blunt, from the late 80s through the early 2000s, what did the Seahawks do to deserve a cover, really? If you're not good, you don't get covered for the most part. Notice that the Steelers didn't get a cover until 1971, and they'd been around for about 40 years before that.
I'd argue that the bias toward the East Coast in the past doesn't exist now, but the effects of it still do. Teams that were embraced in the past became fan favorites and therefore received more coverage. And that status has remained while teams like the Seahawks have to get by more on merit because they don't have that link to the storied past. If Seattle can maintain their current level of excellence and grab a couple more Lombardis, they'll reach that level, too (it will help that we are keeping Sherm and Wilson long-term... those marketable faces help increase the team's visibility).
