A rather logical "conspiracy theory": ESPN/TV, Big East/BCSConferences, UConn...

[clmssun]

http://www.landthieves.com/board/sh...erEnding-Story&p=990713&viewfull=1#post990713

The publisher of LandThieves (Oklahoma) tweeted about this and posted this on the LandThieves forum. LandThieves asserts that the text was sent to him in an e-mail by someone else, anonymous.

Conspiracy Kitty should enjoy this!

But seriously, I think there is some logic in this analysis of how ESPN and the other TV networks have manipulated the BigEast and other BCS conferences; it also has a tidbit specific to UConn...

 

[UConn990411]

Here's the nugget for you lazy duck*s who don't feel like reading through the entire post:

Speaking of the ACC, do not be surprised to see UConn as the next addition to the conference even if they do not lose anyone else. The governor of Conn has called in a favor. There has been speculation that ESPN received a large tax break from the state and is now being told it is time to return the favor. Just like Rockefeller did with WVU and McConnell did with UL. ESPN now sees the ACC as an eventual avenue to Notre Dame. Losing control of the ACC could potentially mean losing Notre Dame to the B1G. Just like every conference, ESPN feels Notre Dame is a big prize.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Should have held out the rebate until ESPN delivered us to the AC...what's our leverage now?

 

[ThetaZoo]

Should have held out the rebate until ESPN delivered us to the AC...what's our leverage now?

CT doesn't hold out tax breaks. You promise to bring 10 or more jobs to CT you get a tax break. No further questions.

 

[upstater]

ESPN is telling the Big12 it will not give more money if it adds FSU and Miami, because ESPN wants to preserve the ACC.
ESPN told the Big12 to take Syracuse or other BE schools because this is not a big loss to the ACC and would not hurt the conference.
ESPN told Slive at the SEC to take UNC and Duke because they are very valuable properties.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

It makes some sense. The advantage ESPN has over Fox is their financial base. Basically, ESPN gets $400 million or so per MONTH ($4.8 billion per year) for subscriber fees ALONE for ESPN, that's before ESPN2, ESPNNews, ESPNU, etc, and their subscriber fees. And all of that is before they sell a single dollar of advertising. FOX, as a network, gets no subscriber fees, and even if they started a network, it wouldn't be able to come close to the amount of money ESPN can charge per month. You pay your cable company, who pays ESPN, $4 per month to have ESPN.

 

[whaler11]

Speculation - or it's been trumpeted from the mountain they are part of the First Five.

 

[HuskyFan16]

People are ruining the English language. That was a very liberal use of the word "logical."

 

[BarkingDog]

Speculation - or it's been trumpeted from the mountain they are part of the First Five.

Just for the record: The state gave ESPN a combination of loans ($17.5 million), tax breaks ($6 million) and grants ($1.2 million) totaling about $25 million.
When you consider that ESPN has revenues of about $3.5 billion per quarter, it doesn't seem like a whole lot from the company's perspective. For a state facing budget deficits, it's an enormous giveaway to a company that hardly needs it.

 

[noeynox]

ESPN is telling the Big12 it will not give more money if it adds FSU and Miami, because ESPN wants to preserve the ACC.
ESPN told the Big12 to take Syracuse or other BE schools because this is not a big loss to the ACC and would not hurt the conference.
ESPN told Slive at the SEC to take UNC and Duke because they are very valuable properties.

Yeah, that got a little confusing. So espn is banking on the fact that DUKE AND UNC will turn down the SECs superior money because those two ARE THE ACC?

So Malloy called in a favor? Other than espn being in CT, what makes him different than the governor of Idaho or Wyoming? I mean he has no leverage right?