A few thoughts about this line of thinking:
I understand why the people here would make that connection since ESPN is right in your backyard. I also understand that most people here will believe that whatever mechanism is used to get UConn into a power conference is an inherently good mechanism, regardless of the consequences of how the sausage is made.
However, I don't think anyone outside of Connecticut is really making the connection between ESPN and the plight of its home state neighbor of UConn... and the thing is that if people actually did, it actually would NOT be favorable to UConn at all. While people might hate ESPN's real or perceived hand in conference realignment and how much it controls the sports world in general, there's some base level rationalization that it's pursuing the maximization of power and profits just like any other corporation. That's not necessarily popular in this increasingly populist political environment, but there's still a certain level of understanding there. On the flip side, if ESPN were found to be pushing UConn to join the ACC (or Big Ten or any other conference) in order to curry political favor for receiving tax breaks from the state of government of Connecticut, then that would be a tstorm beyond belief. It would NOT look good to the rest of the nation for either ESPN or UConn. Once again, you may not care as long as you get into a power conference, but rest assured there would not be ANY sympathy for UConn on the state tax break front. The only thing worse than ESPN meddling with conference affairs for profit is ESPN meddling with conference affairs for political gain.
Plus, you have to look at it like a politician. Within the UConn constituency, gaining entry into a power conference is probably #1, #2 and #3 on the priority list of things that need to get done and you probably believe that politicians in the Connecticut statehouse ought to agree with you, but many worthy causes have failed politically because their respective constituencies don't nearly have as much influence as they'd like to think. (Just look at what happened to all of the proposed gun control measures in Washington with bills that actually polled incredibly well with the general public.) From an economist's standpoint, how much does the state gain by the UConn athletic department receiving $20 million more per year in TV money compared to a more profitable ESPN that adds 100, 200 or 300 more jobs to the state economy (and those people hired in turn pay taxes, buy houses, shop in stores and eat in restaurants, which in turn spurs more job growth)? Is a more flush UConn athletic department really going to spur more job growth or is that money really just going to largely go to a handful of high profile coaches? I'm sure you'll find plenty of professors at UConn itself (much less the general populace that doesn't have any connection to UConn) that would testify that the money in college sports is frivolous and that all of that TV money won't go to furthering the school's academic mission. I'm not saying that I agree with that line of thinking and all of you probably have logical retorts to that argument (e.g. higher profile sports are a way to attract more student applicants with better academic credentials, etc.), but that's an undercurrent that's definitely out there (and I'd imagine that to be the case even more so in an area of the country where Ivy League and private school grads are more highly concentrated compared to the rest of the US).
At the same time, I've worked in corporate law long enough that there is *no* company that's too large to leave where it's based. From my Chicago office, I can see the Boeing headquarters across the street, and that's a company that's many times larger than ESPN (and is even bigger than the entire Disney empire overall) that had a whole lot more sunk physical location costs in the Seattle area compared to what ESPN has in Bristol. Boeing had an open bidding war between several large cities for its headquarters (and on the flip side of the size scale, even companies smaller than ESPN have been able to get major cities to do the same). If there's a location that's cheaper, ESPN can leave a whole lot easier than some people here are giving them credit for (such as expanding ESPN's own facilities in Charlotte, which can offer cheaper land and lower taxes compared to New England). ESPN has the lion's share of the leverage here because absolutely no politician wants to see such a large company with so many jobs leave the state on his/her watch (especially with the current moribund economic conditions).
The upshot is that what might be "obvious" to the commenters on this message board ("ESPN should be doing everything to help a public school in the state that's giving it tax breaks") can be perceived very differently by fans and economists across the country and the politicians and non-UConn-connected citizens of Connecticut. At the end of the day, UConn still needs to show that it's ultimately the best expansion addition to a power conference regardless of political help.
