Why would ESPN deliberately try to destroy UConn athletics?

[AZHuskiePop]

This has been alluded too in a numeber of threads but I think a candid discussion on the motives of ESPN blocking us from P5 status is a worthy subject.
Do the talking heads go out of their way to denigrate UConn at every turn?
In fact if true it's really a big story if not nationally than certainly in Connecticut.
Maybe even a worthy political issue.
What exactly were UConn's concession to ESPN in negotations for the AAC contract?
What exactly did we give up?
What are tier 3 rights and how much are they worth
What type of rating did UConn men and women and provide ESPN ?
Can they be translated into $$$$
What beyond money are ESPN's motives in downgrading UConn?
If it's possible to monetize the effect of blocking us from advanvancing we could have more certainty in their motives

 

[mike012]

They don't like Malloy and want to make him look bad.

 

[SubbaBub]

Would ESPN try to keep UNC in the ACC? Would they care if Wake Forest left?

If keeping UConn in the Big East/AAC meant that the league could survive, then it makes sense for them.

If keeping the XII at 10 teams saves them spending $500M for zero benefit to them, then it makes sense for them.

What doesn't make sense is allowing Cuse, Pitt, UL leaving ahead of us knowing that the BE would collapse nor allowing UC, Mem, directional FL, to leave knowing the AAC will collapse.

I don't think they were too involved in 2003, we're very involved in 2011, and are clearly involved in 2016.

 

[John Greene]

I can think of three reasons:

1 They hate the state in which most of them live and work.
2 They hate the school many of their children attend or will attend.
3 They are only trying to "destroy UConn" in the imagination of some BYers.

You chose the correct answer.

 

[Ldandy]

I'm not sure that ESPN is deliberately trying to destroy UCONN Athletics, but I'm not sure they are doing the program an favors either. The issue as I see it is that they are getting premium content at bargain bin pricing. If they can avoid paying 25 million for something they are currently getting at 2.5 I think they do it at all cost.

 

[imonaboat]

Fwiw i asked a uconn alum that worked as an editor at espn why in the world it felt like espn hated us so much. Her response boiled down to the fact that syracuse has a great communications program and espn hired them like crazy. From there once the syracuse grads become influential within espn they just push an anti-uconn agenda

 

[Fairfield 1st]

I am absolutely in the "Hate ESPN" camp-just a quick look at that rat McMurphy's twitter feed supports a belief that there is something up with how ESPN looks at UCONN... but I think its the journalistic side of the house that cares little for us.. the business side knows our value and wants us on the cheap... that is the world we live in.. I don't like that they have hand over us...that's why the recent talk about going to New BE/FS1 for hoops is spicy... it lets ESPN know we cannot sustain in current situation and we will not let our most valuable properties wither and die

ESPN is not deliberately trying to destroy UCONN-they are business people looking to maximize value and minimize cost for quality content.. it sucks, but it is what it is

 

[Fairfield 1st]

Fwiw i asked a uconn alum that worked as an editor at espn why in the world it felt like espn hated us so much. Her response boiled down to the fact that syracuse has a great communications program and espn hired them like crazy. From there once the syracuse grads become influential within espn they just push an anti-uconn agenda

For Christ sakes their new AD was a direct hire from ESPN

 

[jostar1]

This was posted on Landthieves a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was interesting because it was the first time I've read the theory that the lawsuit ticked off ESPN:

"That's essentially true, although I would quibble with the destruction part. ESPN did pick it apart. But, they did so because at the time the BTN was still independently owned and Delany was eyeballing those markets. So ESPN picked off what they perceived to be the most likely targets of the Big 10 and stored them in the only conference in which they owned 100% of the rights and one that was the the lowest paid of the power conferences, the ACC. They took Syracuse to keep the BTN directly out of New York. They took Pittsburgh rather than W.V.U. because they both are in that market area but Pitt was AAU. They took Boston College because of the large market and the number of Big 10 alums in the area. Miami was a market move but was not a move against the BTN as much as it was the taking of what was then a stronger brand. Remember, Delany had balked at an ESPN offer as well and that was part of the impetus for the BTN. ESPN figured that by sewing up that product they would gain more leverage over the Big 10, and if not it would prevent them from expanding into a more profitable area for marketing. But anyway you choose to look at it ESPN clearly muscled conferences and schools.

When the B.C. president spoke about these matters a lid suddenly shut off all talk directly implicating the WWL. UConn's lawsuit was more of an offense to ESPN than it was to ACC although the ACC was pretty ticked too. Naming the ACC was a round about way to implicate ESPN without naming one of the important businesses in the state of Connecticut directly. I would say since that move hasn't helped the Huskies. So not only did the Big East suffer the ire of the Mouse, but so has the Big 10, and Connecticut."

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I know keeping the B12 from expanding saves them huge dollars.
But the costs to them would be the same regardless of the schools chosen ,so that cost can't possibly be the reason for supporting the addition of any other school.

What I'm looking for is the actual financial loss to them if we leave the AAC.
Is it really enough for them to block us , if B12 exspansion is going to happen?
The answer is always in the money for any business.

 

[CL82]

I can think of three reasons:

1 They hate the state in which most of them live and work.
2 They hate the school many of their children attend or will attend.
3 They are only trying to "destroy UConn" in the imagination of some BYers.

You chose the correct answer.

Really? Those are the only three reasons you could come up with? Let me add a possible fourth: It is in their economic best interest to do so.

I don't think anyone believes that the talking heads at ESPN, or their executive management stay up at night trying to envision ways to hurt UConn. I do think they are entirely ambivalent if the course of action that maximizes their bottom line hurts the University.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I am absolutely in the "Hate ESPN" camp-just a quick look at that rat McMurphy's twitter feed supports a belief that there is something up with how ESPN looks at UCONN... but I think its the journalistic side of the house that cares little for us.. the business side knows our value and wants us on the cheap... that is the world we live in.. I don't like that they have hand over us...that's why the recent talk about going to New BE/FS1 for hoops is spicy... it lets ESPN know we cannot sustain in current situation and we will not let our most valuable properties wither and die

ESPN is not deliberately trying to destroy UCONN-they are business people looking to maximize value and minimize cost for quality content.. it sucks, but it is what it is

I doubt the dichotomy ,the talking heads are told what drum to beat by the business side.
That was apparent when the goal was the destruction of the Big East

 

[UConn Dan]

This was posted on Landthieves a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was interesting because it was the first time I've read the theory that the lawsuit ticked off ESPN:

"That's essentially true, although I would quibble with the destruction part. ESPN did pick it apart. But, they did so because at the time the BTN was still independently owned and Delany was eyeballing those markets. So ESPN picked off what they perceived to be the most likely targets of the Big 10 and stored them in the only conference in which they owned 100% of the rights and one that was the the lowest paid of the power conferences, the ACC. They took Syracuse to keep the BTN directly out of New York. They took Pittsburgh rather than W.V.U. because they both are in that market area but Pitt was AAU. They took Boston College because of the large market and the number of Big 10 alums in the area. Miami was a market move but was not a move against the BTN as much as it was the taking of what was then a stronger brand. Remember, Delany had balked at an ESPN offer as well and that was part of the impetus for the BTN. ESPN figured that by sewing up that product they would gain more leverage over the Big 10, and if not it would prevent them from expanding into a more profitable area for marketing. But anyway you choose to look at it ESPN clearly muscled conferences and schools.

When the B.C. president spoke about these matters a lid suddenly shut off all talk directly implicating the WWL. UConn's lawsuit was more of an offense to ESPN than it was to ACC although the ACC was pretty ticked too. Naming the ACC was a round about way to implicate ESPN without naming one of the important businesses in the state of Connecticut directly. I would say since that move hasn't helped the Huskies. So not only did the Big East suffer the ire of the Mouse, but so has the Big 10, and Connecticut."

In 2011, wasn't ESPN's picks Syracuse and UConn. "They told us who to add. I didn't want Conencticut because it's a matter of turf. We are the New England school. yada yada so I said let's take Pitt instead because they had interest from the Big 12 (not the B1G 10 like that poster said - duplication with Penn State?). "

I really don't think ESPN is out to get UConn because they floated us and 'Cuse to the ACC in 2011, but as others have said they aren't looking to do us a $25million a year favor either.

 

[Northbound]

Because everybody needs a hobby

 

[Drew]

Also when VPI/Miami/BC went to the ACC the BTN wasn't even in existence

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This was posted on Landthieves a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was interesting because it was the first time I've read the theory that the lawsuit ticked off ESPN:

"That's essentially true, although I would quibble with the destruction part. ESPN did pick it apart. But, they did so because at the time the BTN was still independently owned and Delany was eyeballing those markets. So ESPN picked off what they perceived to be the most likely targets of the Big 10 and stored them in the only conference in which they owned 100% of the rights and one that was the the lowest paid of the power conferences, the ACC. They took Syracuse to keep the BTN directly out of New York. They took Pittsburgh rather than W.V.U. because they both are in that market area but Pitt was AAU. They took Boston College because of the large market and the number of Big 10 alums in the area. Miami was a market move but was not a move against the BTN as much as it was the taking of what was then a stronger brand. Remember, Delany had balked at an ESPN offer as well and that was part of the impetus for the BTN. ESPN figured that by sewing up that product they would gain more leverage over the Big 10, and if not it would prevent them from expanding into a more profitable area for marketing. But anyway you choose to look at it ESPN clearly muscled conferences and schools.

When the B.C. president spoke about these matters a lid suddenly shut off all talk directly implicating the WWL. UConn's lawsuit was more of an offense to ESPN than it was to ACC although the ACC was pretty ticked too. Naming the ACC was a round about way to implicate ESPN without naming one of the important businesses in the state of Connecticut directly. I would say since that move hasn't helped the Huskies. So not only did the Big East suffer the ire of the Mouse, but so has the Big 10, and Connecticut."

That is a great story, except the lawsuit timeline is off by 7 years.

 

[Fairfield 1st]

This was posted on Landthieves a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was interesting because it was the first time I've read the theory that the lawsuit ticked off ESPN:

"That's essentially true, although I would quibble with the destruction part. ESPN did pick it apart. But, they did so because at the time the BTN was still independently owned and Delany was eyeballing those markets. So ESPN picked off what they perceived to be the most likely targets of the Big 10 and stored them in the only conference in which they owned 100% of the rights and one that was the the lowest paid of the power conferences, the ACC. They took Syracuse to keep the BTN directly out of New York. They took Pittsburgh rather than W.V.U. because they both are in that market area but Pitt was AAU. They took Boston College because of the large market and the number of Big 10 alums in the area. Miami was a market move but was not a move against the BTN as much as it was the taking of what was then a stronger brand. Remember, Delany had balked at an ESPN offer as well and that was part of the impetus for the BTN. ESPN figured that by sewing up that product they would gain more leverage over the Big 10, and if not it would prevent them from expanding into a more profitable area for marketing. But anyway you choose to look at it ESPN clearly muscled conferences and schools.

When the B.C. president spoke about these matters a lid suddenly shut off all talk directly implicating the WWL. UConn's lawsuit was more of an offense to ESPN than it was to ACC although the ACC was pretty ticked too. Naming the ACC was a round about way to implicate ESPN without naming one of the important businesses in the state of Connecticut directly. I would say since that move hasn't helped the Huskies. So not only did the Big East suffer the ire of the Mouse, but so has the Big 10, and Connecticut."

Were this true, I am sure $270 million in tax breaks over 10 years would smooth that over..

 

[LoyalFanCT]

The state of CT did not elect ESPN. It is a company. We did elect Gov. Malloy -- so we should be demanding answers from him -- and find out what he is doing in connection with ESPN.

 

[uc1974]

Consider that it takes little talent to be a "talking head" on ESPN or anyplace else. If your boss tells you to create a heretofore nonsense moniker like "Power 5", you do it. If management told staff to emphasize "Doofus 3" they would find a way to do it. To expect ESPN to act logically or fairly is to expect my 3 month old granddaughter to speak fluent Thai. Expect nothing from ESPN and you won't be disappointed (apologies to Jay Bilas and a very very few others).

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

This was posted on Landthieves a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was interesting because it was the first time I've read the theory that the lawsuit ticked off ESPN:

"That's essentially true, although I would quibble with the destruction part. ESPN did pick it apart. But, they did so because at the time the BTN was still independently owned and Delany was eyeballing those markets. So ESPN picked off what they perceived to be the most likely targets of the Big 10 and stored them in the only conference in which they owned 100% of the rights and one that was the the lowest paid of the power conferences, the ACC. They took Syracuse to keep the BTN directly out of New York. They took Pittsburgh rather than W.V.U. because they both are in that market area but Pitt was AAU. They took Boston College because of the large market and the number of Big 10 alums in the area. Miami was a market move but was not a move against the BTN as much as it was the taking of what was then a stronger brand. Remember, Delany had balked at an ESPN offer as well and that was part of the impetus for the BTN. ESPN figured that by sewing up that product they would gain more leverage over the Big 10, and if not it would prevent them from expanding into a more profitable area for marketing. But anyway you choose to look at it ESPN clearly muscled conferences and schools.

When the B.C. president spoke about these matters a lid suddenly shut off all talk directly implicating the WWL. UConn's lawsuit was more of an offense to ESPN than it was to ACC although the ACC was pretty ticked too. Naming the ACC was a round about way to implicate ESPN without naming one of the important businesses in the state of Connecticut directly. I would say since that move hasn't helped the Huskies. So not only did the Big East suffer the ire of the Mouse, but so has the Big 10, and Connecticut."

This take is almost entirely false.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

One thing people need to realize is that there is quite a bit of distance between "deliberately trying to destroy" and "doing nothing to assist".

The ACC's selection of Pitt over UConn and later Louisville over UConn were each unique situations that would not occur today. Couple ESPN have done something in our favor in either case? I imagine they could have. Would they have been able to justify assisting us as an intelligent business decision in either case? Most likely not, which is why they can publicly take the position that they have not directly done anything to hurt us, any damage we may have suffered was collateral damage from actions taken by other conferences while ESPN merely conducted business in their best interests subsequent to those actions.

That said, I personally believe that ESPN sees UConn as the only true brand in the AAC and if the conference loses any two other members, replacing them with reasonable warm bodies would return the same product. Without UConn, from a presentation perspective, the AAC is basically CUSA+. The product they currently own at a large discount will become little value at little cost, something that would be neither a benefit nor detriment whether they own it or discard it.

 

[mavblues]

I can think of three reasons:

1 They hate the state in which most of them live and work.
2 They hate the school many of their children attend or will attend.
3 They are only trying to "destroy UConn" in the imagination of some BYers.

You chose the correct answer.

I do not agree with, nor do I like, the content of this post.

One dislike for you.

 

[ASweet3781]

Fwiw i asked a uconn alum that worked as an editor at espn why in the world it felt like espn hated us so much. Her response boiled down to the fact that syracuse has a great communications program and espn hired them like crazy. From there once the syracuse grads become influential within espn they just push an anti-uconn agenda

I worked there as a production assistant about 10 years ago and I can confirm this. We had to go around and meet with coordinating producers and it seemed every other one was a Syracuse grad and even some St. John's (the guy from Stump the Schwab). Many of the PA's came from midwest/south schools. I remember a lot of Notre Dame, Michigan State, UNC, UCLA, and smaller northeast schools like Quinnipiac. So while the company is located in CT, the makeup of many of the employees including the higher ups comes from all over the country where there would not be a interest in UConn's future.

 

[The Funster]

Not a surprise that Cuse fans would try to accomplish off the field and court what their program can't do on them.

 

[billybud]

What additionally fuels the ESPN conspiracy theorists was the wording of the Boston College AD...

His words were construed to fit the fantasy...and because he admittedly did not want NE competition, folks took off with it and forgot the context.


“We always keep our television partners close to us,’’ he said. “You don’t get extra money for basketball. It’s 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do. This was football; it had nothing to do with basketball.’’

Sure...ESPN said.."look, the money is now in football"....Swofford has said the same. Don't think that all media contract partners do not advise on value of proposed entrants.

And, UConn was known as a basketball school and the football was not that highly considered. Syracuse was a Miami "must"...thier football wasn't great.

I know, I know..Huskies think that the football was good....but I have listed how an outsider might see it....