What I struggle to reconcile RE: ESPN

[IthacaMatt]

NONSENSE ! Do folks really believe that ESPN conspired to help the Big East fail? Those who believe that are probably in the camp with those who dispute Obamma's birthplace. Or the same folks believe the Oliver Stone JFK conspiracy. Or perhaps they even believe that Roosevelt knew in advance that the Germans were going to bomb Pearl Harbor and didn't tell anone!! Nonsense I say to all who believe ESPN wants the Big East to fail.

Or perhaps they just look at what happened - the Big East turned down ESPN's under-market contract and threatened to take their contract to the open market. Then Pitt and Syracuse announce for the ACC within weeks, it seemed. And then Gene DeFilipo at BC talked about how ESPN told them what to do.

 

[CL82]

I think this is more likely to be close to the truth than Waylon's continuing hypothetical economic analysis. The fact that the ACC asked ESPN "what if" we raided the Big East does not show that ESPN did anything more than answer its question or want it to happen. And, despite that DeFilippo's comments are enough to allow the Big East a good chance at a law suit, it's not like I truly believe that the part in which he put responsibility on ESPN was true. No more than I believe that he single handedly kept UConn out of the ACC.

I actually do believe that BCU's actions kept us out. The ACC was moving quickly and vocal opposition can be enough to change group think. I can see the "Well we have opposition to UConn. Any opposition to Pitt? Hearing none, we'll reach out to Cuse and Pitt." scenario playing out. Your point that couldn't have done it without allies on the issue is, of course, accurate. It is interesting to note that they'll be losing at least one of those allies, if FSU leaves.

 

[freescooter]

I actually do think that ESPN had some influence in the ACC's last expansion and some of the other moves that have been made...whether it was direct (eg add Pitt & Syracuse) or more a reponse to requests (ie, if we add Syracuse & UCONN vs Syracuse & Pitt which is better?). I suspect the latter and that is what Gene DeFillipo meant when he said ESPN 'told them what to do." Same with the other conference moves. they weren't sorry to see them happening as long as they had a large piece of the action. But I doubt ESPN quite expected things to get so out of control. Wouldn't be the first time this kind of thing happened where a move suddenly snowballed and the end result wasn't what anyone expected (anyone remember when Travellers was part of Citigroup for a few years in the 1990s?). I have a suspicion that ESPN did want certain of these moves, but didn't expect things to spiral so out of control...

 

[IthacaMatt]

Of course. Most contracts are like that in life.

It's still a horrible deal for the ACC, though.

"In life?" Hardly, at least in my experience.

 

[whaler11]

Exactly. Hell, Waylon talking about how expensive this is for ESPN and that it doesn't help them in the long-run...HELLOOOOOOO...doesn't that prove they aren't moving the chess pieces? You would think so, wouldn't you?

Occam's Razor. That's my MO.

Waylon's?

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld/Waylon?​

I certainly don't think they are moving chess pieces, but there is no way they aren't providing some influence. Simply by being the major source of revenue for almost every conference alone means their valuations of the properties determine a large part of the equation.

 

[businesslawyer]

I actually do think that ESPN had some influence in the ACC's last expansion and some of the other moves that have been made...whether it was direct (eg add Pitt & Syracuse) or more a reponse to requests (ie, if we add Syracuse & UCONN vs Syracuse & Pitt which is better?). I suspect the latter and that is what Gene DeFillipo meant when he said ESPN 'told them what to do." Same with the other conference moves. they weren't sorry to see them happening as long as they had a large piece of the action. But I doubt ESPN quite expected things to get so out of control. Wouldn't be the first time this kind of thing happened where a move suddenly snowballed and the end result wasn't what anyone expected (anyone remember when Travellers was part of Citigroup for a few years in the 1990s?). I have a suspicion that ESPN did want certain of these moves, but didn't expect things to spiral so out of control...

I'm not sure if (and to what extent) we're disagreeing but I will make the following point: if the ACC asked ESPN "how much is our contract worth with Syracuse and UConn and how much is it worth with Syracuse and Pitt" and ESPN answered it is worth more the second way, it is just not fair to say that ESPN caused the expansion. No more than Donkin Donuts causes me to have a Donut by letting me know through advertisements what is available.

 

[freescooter]

I'm not sure if (and to what extent) we're disagreeing but I will make the following point: if the ACC asked ESPN "how much is our contract worth with Syracuse and UConn and how much is it worth with Syracuse and Pitt" and ESPN answered it is worth more the second way, it is just not fair to say that ESPN caused the expansion. No more than Donkin Donuts causes me to have a Donut by letting me know through advertisements what is available.

Right. I don't think we really do disagree on this. I suspect that ESPN did let the ACC know that they would do better if they expand, and responed to inquiries or some similar process as to which potential expansion targets were better than others,maybe even added some additonal intellegence about who might be available, but depite Gene D's comments I don't think they ran the expansion process. I do think they are not as happy with the direction it is heading.

 

[CL82]

I'm not sure if (and to what extent) we're disagreeing but I will make the following point: if the ACC asked ESPN "how much is our contract worth with Syracuse and UConn and how much is it worth with Syracuse and Pitt" and ESPN answered it is worth more the second way, it is just not fair to say that ESPN caused the expansion. No more than Donkin Donuts causes me to have a Donut by letting me know through advertisements what is available.

I'm not sure if (and to what extent) we're disagreeing but I will make the following point: if ESPN suggested to the ACC to take two Big East teams so that it would destabilize the Big East and then promised to reward the ACC with more money on it's TV deal for doing so, I don't think it is fair to say ESPN did not deliberately try to influence the ACC to harm the Big East.

See what I did there? I set up a hypothetical that I have no way of knowing is accurate and then used it to justify an opinion. It has no factual basis but it seems persuasive on a message board at first glance.