CL82
NCAA Woman's Basketball National Champions
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 61,603
- Reaction Score
- 235,522
I think it was a result in 'investment' in a prior decision. There is a tendency to take the next incremental step to make a prior business decision that didn't pan out more profitable. The first step leads to the next and so on until you reach the point where the mistakes of initial decision are obvious and unavoidable.That is why I sometimes think the idea they manuipulated changes is overstated.
If they did - they cost themselves a lot of money and some valuable content. Made some horrible decisions along the way.
This is more evidence that the outcomes don't align with what seems like logical business outcomes - and saying ESPN would just value the Big 12 purely some day sort of ignores everything we've seen where the money being paid doesn't always align with what things are 'worth'
Although, I haven't chimed in on the discussion yet, I agree that ESPN would remember the Big 12 thumbing their nose at them, just as the Big 12's current expansion is a product of ESPN doing the same to them by giving the ACC a linear network after denying the same to Big 12. The relationship between the two will likely continue to degrade until business need forces one or both to set it aside.