ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[Scooch]

There is a lot of certainty about ESPN's motives here from people who really have no idea. Maybe everyone should dial back their certainty.

 

[Moontan]

Maybe everyone should dial back their certainty.

That's not happening here. People are opinionated and don't want to kill this thread nor this board.

 

[Scooch]

That's not happening here. People are opinionated and don't want to kill this thread nor this board.

Opinions are great! Who doesn't love opinions?!

It's just that a bunch of people who have never set foot in Bristol, CT stating as fact a bunch of things about ESPN is the height of silliness.

 

[WoadBlue]

orange79 is agreeing with me that it is to their financial advantage (profit) to continue to underpay the ACC. Yes, they don't want it to die completely, but they don't want to have to pay them as much as they pay the SEC. That's indisputable, or they would have helped the ACC in the past, like they helped save the Big 12 (but did not help save the Pac-12). The evidence is out there that they manipulate conferences to ESPN's financial advantage. With player unions and pay scales coming, ESPN wants conference consolidation. Fewer parties to negotiate with.

KEY points: ESPN indeed over paid the Big 12 to keep it together, conveniently until the SEC could persuade Texas and OIU to join, and so never be left to join the BT (and be on Fox). ESPN then refused to offer nay help to the Pac, which left is with its neck tied to a railroad track. There ewer reports that the ACC offered to take 6 Pac schools, and that ESPN refused to fund that. And that move then meant that the BT got Oregon and Washington.

Why would ESPN prefer to have the value of Oregon and Washington on Fox rather than on ESPN in the ACC? And at the same time riddle us how come ESPN has been loathe to do anything to calm ACC waters?

 

[IthacaMatt]

KEY points: ESPN indeed over paid the Big 12 to keep it together, conveniently until the SEC could persuade Texas and OIU to join, and so never be left to join the BT (and be on Fox). ESPN then refused to offer nay help to the Pac, which left is with its neck tied to a railroad track. There ewer reports that the ACC offered to take 6 Pac schools, and that ESPN refused to fund that. And that move then meant that the BT got Oregon and Washington.

Why would ESPN prefer to have the value of Oregon and Washington on Fox rather than on ESPN in the ACC? And at the same time riddle us how come ESPN has been loathe to do anything to calm ACC waters?

I would say that ESPN sees little value in the Oregon and Washington State markets compared to California, and to a lesser extent Arizona.

 

[WoadBlue]

I would say that ESPN sees little value in the Oregon and Washington State markets compared to California, and to a lesser extent Arizona.

Do you mean the states of OR and WA, or Wazzou and Oregon State U? Nobody sees value in the latter. But the former are indeed worth a great deal.

 

[kcsu]

In 10 years, I think most college sports will be streamed. For ESPN, the enemy is not FOX, but cord cutting.

10 years is an eternity

 

[JimBoston]

10 years is an eternity

Yes, 10 years is an eternity, but if you are a corporation signing LT contracts, you have to have a view of the future.