The following is all pure opinion on my part and any similarity to real life, well you decide.
I think that ESPN is very much aware of their own situation as a business. They are a company that was founded approx 30 years ago now (a little more) which was founded on the concept of broadcasting basketball games that weren't showing up on the major networks. In the 30 years since, they've taken the business model that they came up with in that trailer parked in the dirt lot across from the access road to Lake Compounce from West Street, and they've built that same model up into a global sports news reporting and sports broadcasting platform.
THe problem they face, is that they never changed the model from what they came up with in that trailer. They simply keep adding channels, when they want to broadcast more content and/or reach new people, and they've farmed out regional broadcasting to affiliates and they for 3 decades have battled broadcasting companiers for access on each additional channel on their basic carrier packages for viewers, after first battling companies to carry ESPN on their basic package in the first place, rather than having to pay extra for additional espn channels. What movie was it - the dodgeball one - where the joke was the Ocho - espn 8.
ESPN people, I think, know that they can't keep adding channels. The online world, and the streaming world is the direction they've got to go now if they want to reach a wide range of people, there is no where else for them to go. The ESPN broadcasting model, works poorly for reaching regional, target audiences for sports broadcasts, especially when sports events are occuring simultaneously, and the online world doesn't seem to capable of doing that either, although the streaming of the NCAA tournament online seems to have gone really well for CBS this year.....but I wonder what productivity in office buildings cubicles in the country was like in March.....through the floor.....I bet......
basketball broadcasting and football broadcasting is not the same, and I can't begin to see how streaming online is going to fit into football, that's for the ESPN people to figure out. FOr basketball, it seems to be working for CBS, but in football, I only see it dilutes the potential viewership rather than increasing it. We'll see.
Because, when it comes to the actual business of sports and broadcasting, regional viewership is becoming extremely important.
All of that said, I believe that a year ago, the ACC(motivated by ESPN) simply had the intent of significantly weakening the Big East conference to strenghten it's own BASKETBALL presence on the east coast in competition with the Big East, and at the same time pad their own football conference against the movement occuring at the time. Nobody is telling me that PItt and Cuse were added to the ACC to strenghten the football league.
ESPN interest in weakening the big east would be to avoid the rise of competition in broadcasting in sports, as they've cornered nearly every major broadcasting realm in sports - with the model they created 32 years ago, AND they are very much aware of their business model deficiencies, and what the rise of competition may do to expose it.
I do believe that had Syracuse and UConn been invited to the ACC - we would have gone with Cuse, and the Big East would not have survived as an athletic league, never mind weakening, Buh-bye big east. But UConn got hung up in expansion committee for the ACC b/c of certain committee member's efforts from Chestnut Hill, and the ACC settled on Pitt.
Even still, the big east nearly died, and it appears that the major television networks have uncovered ESPN's weakness in the sports broadcasting world.
We'll see what ESPN comes up with for the Big EAst in September.
