Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 17, 2011 11:58:58 GMT -5
We are not going to be in a position to "burn bridges" with anyone, nor do we want to. Even if ESPN starts behind the 8-ball in any negotiations, at the very least we should be able to use them to drive up the price with anyother interested parties; also, if it is in the business interests of ESPN, it will pay to get the product. The type of "forward thinking" that many have accurately idenftified as critical at this point cannot include grudges that could end up leaving money on the table. That said - I would desperately hope that FoxSports, Comcast/NBC/Versus, CBS/CSTV would outbid ESPN so we could tell the Mothership where it can stick its ACC ;D I don't think the Big East should burn bridges with anyone including ESPN, I'm just commenting based on recent events.
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by hoyaboya on Oct 17, 2011 12:04:46 GMT -5
We are not going to be in a position to "burn bridges" with anyone, nor do we want to. Even if ESPN starts behind the 8-ball in any negotiations, at the very least we should be able to use them to drive up the price with anyother interested parties; also, if it is in the business interests of ESPN, it will pay to get the product. The type of "forward thinking" that many have accurately idenftified as critical at this point cannot include grudges that could end up leaving money on the table. That said - I would desperately hope that FoxSports, Comcast/NBC/Versus, CBS/CSTV would outbid ESPN so we could tell the Mothership where it can stick its ACC ;D I don't think the Big East should burn bridges with anyone including ESPN, I'm just commenting based on recent events. 100% agree. The bridges have already been burned. ESPN's actions show this very clearly. ESPN is doing anything in its power to make the Big East go away. While I'd love to ultimately have the Big East on ESPN as often as possible and certainly include ESPN in the next round of TV negotiations, ESPN wants the Big East to cease to exist and is trying to facilitate that as much as possible.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 17, 2011 12:24:44 GMT -5
OK, let's say the Big Easat adds some new FB teams, manages to hang on... and maybe even look a little stronger.
At that point, as Michael Corleone would say, "It ain't personal Sonny, it's business."
ESPN would be treated like any other provider.
We should remember though, that just as the college sports landscaped continues to change dramatically, so too does and will the Sports TV landscape. Those old enough to remember know that CNN was the first, 24 hour cable news network. Everyone said Ted Turner was out of his mind. Today you have CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and CNBC, Bloomberg, BBC America, Al Jazeera... et al.
ESPN and the BE started together in a mutually beneficial relationship that has lasted decades. But there is no guarantee that will continue forever -- one of the reasons ESPN is trying SO HARD to destroy the BE.
But IF -- big IF -- we can survive this, the BE will become the #1 sports property available to anyone who wants to start something New. The two most likely newcomers would be: 1. NBC/VERSUS/COMCAST 2. FOX Networks
If we sign with another Sports net, would ESPN NOT cover highlights from BE games? If you have 9 teams good enough to get NCAA invitations (as we did this year not including Pitt and Cuse), ESPN would look ridiculous if they ignored 5-10 top 25 teams. Boise State is a Top 5 FB team. Can they afford to ignore them?
On the other hand, if they are trying to kill off their potential competitors mentioned above -- that could make an ESPN-BE deal worth vastly more. And a little payback can feel pretty good too.
Finally, I would ask every legal expert we have -- including Paul Tagliabue, former chief counsel to the NFL before he became commissioner -- how strong our case vs. ESPN is right now, and take it to them all the way. We either win the case outright, or strengthen our hand in the next negotiation.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Oct 17, 2011 12:27:52 GMT -5
They seem to do a pretty good job of ignoring the Pac-10 (or 12 or whatever it will be in five years) on SportsCenter, not to mention the entirety of the NHL.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 17, 2011 13:07:39 GMT -5
They don't ignore the NHL, they just give it an American (not Canada/Boston/Minnesota/Michigan) dose of coverage. I love hockey, but I'd say if anything they cover it beyond its true place numbers-wise in the American sports pantheon.
They do seem to ignore the Pac X but I think that's just a timezone thing as much as anything.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Oct 17, 2011 13:46:23 GMT -5
They seem to do a pretty good job of ignoring the Pac-10 (or 12 or whatever it will be in five years) on SportsCenter, not to mention the entirety of the NHL. Totally true - ESPN is the overlord of sports at the moment. Look at their respective treatment of the NBA and NHL - in the years since their NBA deal kicked in, their coverage of the leauge has increased a hundredfold. In the years since their NHL deal expired, their coverage of that league has dropped to next to nothing. They are due for a fall - hope the Big East figures out a way to land at whatever outlet/media is going to inevitably rise up to successfully challenge the four letter network.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Oct 17, 2011 13:49:36 GMT -5
You can't seriously expect them to cover the NBA and NHL in anything like the same way given how much more popular basketball is than ice hockey in this country. They largely ignore US Men's soccer coverage and yet they broadcast almost all of their games.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 17, 2011 13:53:50 GMT -5
Another major disadvantage of something with Fox Sports or NBC/Comcast is that it wouldn't provide as many opportunities for games on television, since there would be only one outlet. Now, we get nearly every game on television in some form - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU or ESPN3. While NBC could surely do an online deal like ESPN3, they aren't going to have multiple networks like ESPN.
What does this mean? It means that Georgetown-Villanova would almost certainly end up on television, but we could end up with a situation where our less important games are not on television. Additionally, if programs like UCF, SMU, etc. are weak, that will mean less important games and less television coverage. I still think ESPN is probably the best landing spot for the Big East, but they still need to go to the other networks to see what's out there.
It's tough to evaluate legal claims without knowing more facts, but I really think any lawsuit against ESPN is going to be a tough sell. What claims are there? Maybe tortious interference with business relations or contractual relations? Even with the best facts, such a claim would be a tough thing to win. Potentially, claims against Pittsburgh's President might be better, but they don't really get us anywhere.
What is the purpose of a lawsuit? The odds of getting money out of this are low and doing a great job and prosecuting such a case with quality legal counsel could easily run hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Will the Big East want to use its money that way? I doubt it.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 17, 2011 13:54:00 GMT -5
You can't seriously expect them to cover the NBA and NHL in anything like the same way given how much more popular basketball is than ice hockey in this country. They largely ignore US Men's soccer coverage and yet they broadcast almost all of their games. I agree with you, bin, but they did provide more time to hockey and the time was in earlier program blocks when they had the contract.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 17, 2011 14:10:59 GMT -5
Another major disadvantage of something with Fox Sports or NBC/Comcast is that it wouldn't provide as many opportunities for games on television, since there would be only one outlet. Now, we get nearly every game on television in some form - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU or ESPN3. While NBC could surely do an online deal like ESPN3, they aren't going to have multiple networks like ESPN. What does this mean? It means that Georgetown-Villanova would almost certainly end up on television, but we could end up with a situation where our less important games are not on television. Additionally, if programs like UCF, SMU, etc. are weak, that will mean less important games and less television coverage. I still think ESPN is probably the best landing spot for the Big East, but they still need to go to the other networks to see what's out there. It's tough to evaluate legal claims without knowing more facts, but I really think any lawsuit against ESPN is going to be a tough sell. What claims are there? Maybe tortious interference with business relations or contractual relations? Even with the best facts, such a claim would be a tough thing to win. Potentially, claims against Pittsburgh's President might be better, but they don't really get us anywhere. What is the purpose of a lawsuit? The odds of getting money out of this are low and doing a great job and prosecuting such a case with quality legal counsel could easily run hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Will the Big East want to use its money that way? I doubt it. There are any number of possible legal claims against ESPN, Pitt, Syracuse, and the ACC, most stemming from breach of contract, tortious interference, and breach of fiduciary duty claims. There were contracts in effect between the Big East and Pitt, Cuse and ESPN at the time of all these events. Your concerns about cost for a lawsuit are valid. Legal representation would not come cheap. However, the Big East will not need to win these claims in court, as I suspect -- based simply on the public statements of the BC AD -- a complaint will very likely survive a motion to dismiss; and a simple round of discovery will uncover enough documents that will be sufficiently embarrassing so as to motivate those defendants to pony up and settle, rather than risk the negative publicity. Furthermore, Pitt and Cuse want to exit the Big East in an expedited manner, this provides a forum in which that can be negotiated. That allows us to leverage our legal claims into that settlement discussion, thereby extracting the largest possible amount from them in releasing them from the 27 month waiting period. In addition, it goes without saying that the ACC and ESPN also want them out of that waiting period, so they may be convinced to help out in any settlement that would release them from liability and get Cuse and Pitt out of the Big East faster. I'd say the possibility of getting money out of this are relatively good.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 17, 2011 14:17:14 GMT -5
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by hoyaboya on Oct 17, 2011 14:25:02 GMT -5
Great find. I think arguably Comcast/NBC Sports, as a specific example, could offer more opportunities to distribute Big East content than somebody like ESPN. As the owner of each of the content (Big East programming), networks (NBC Sports/regional Comcast stations/networks to be founded and named later) and distribution channel (Comcast cable), Comcast/NBC is in a more unique position than ESPN even. There's potentially a business model out there that's a win-win for the Big East and NBC's fledgling sports network competitor to ESPN.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 17, 2011 15:23:06 GMT -5
Another major disadvantage of something with Fox Sports or NBC/Comcast is that it wouldn't provide as many opportunities for games on television, since there would be only one outlet. Now, we get nearly every game on television in some form - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU or ESPN3. While NBC could surely do an online deal like ESPN3, they aren't going to have multiple networks like ESPN. That was the point I was attempting to address with the comparison to the 24 Hour News Channels. Today's TV landscape is not and will not be TOMORROW's TV Landscape. It is constantly changing. ESPN has been a big $$ maker for Disney. Others want to share in that pie. FOX and NBC/Comcast are the most likely to be expanding their sports offerings and channels.... also looking into other distribution opportunities like Internet sites. We have no idea how the technology and business models will develop over the next 5-10 years. But however they develop, CONTENT IS KING! And the Big East has top quality content that is not committed beyond next year. IF the BE can hold together, they will become THE most valuable sports entity -- at least for a time. It's like Free Agency. Take MLB. Does anyone think Carl Crawford is the one of the best players in the game? how about AJ Burnett? Of course not, but they were the best names AVAILABLE at the time so they got the giant contracts. IF the BE holds together and is available for TV sports networks next year, they will become more valuable because they will be the only ones in play at that time. If NBC is trying to build VERSUS into the NBC Sports Network, one of the best things they could do would be to sign a deal with the BE and then promote the hell out if it on BOTH channels..... NBC and NBC Sports Channel (nee Versus) as well as Bravo, The Golf Channel, multiple Regional Sports Channels, E Entertainment TV, CNBC and MSNBC... and probably others, plus new channels they could add. And, if they have less content than ESPN, then BE games could be featured more prominently. Sports media and Sports TV is changing as we speak and will continue to, so the BE could be in a GREAT place -- IF (big IF) they can cobble together a strong collection of schools with high level sports programs, especially in Football and Basketball. AND - we'd still have the Big East Tournament in the Media Capitol of the world. There are clearly some VERY big hurdles facing the BE right now, but ESPN is not the only game in town.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 17, 2011 15:38:27 GMT -5
And, if they have less content than ESPN, then BE games could be featured more prominently. It has certainly been a benefit to the SEC to be the featured CFB league on CBS on Saturdays, versus the B10/B12/Pac regional conglomeration on ABC/Disney. Big East basketball on NBC every weekend could theoretically be a great thing for the league. Everything's still very hypothetical for now, but there's still a decent chance this all works out well for Georgetown in the end.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 17, 2011 15:39:43 GMT -5
One more thing. NBC has that football deal with Notre Dame. Does it help, impact any potential BE deal? Well, not directly, but it can't hurt. AND it could become an important additional factor as things unfold a few months and a few years down the road.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 17, 2011 15:51:31 GMT -5
AustinHoya03 - I am aware of Versus' change to the NBC Sports Network, but I think my main point is still valid. What's more visible - ESPN in 100 million households or NBC Sports Network? I agree that NBC Sports Network could grow like MSNBC, Fox News, etc., but the fact is that it's still one outlet and it would be unlikely that more than a handful of Big East games would be on NBC itself. Part of the benefit of ESPN is that it is a draw for sports fans in general, many of whom watch Big East games. Keep in mind you and I aren't the key viewers - we are going to seek out games wherever they are on television. It's the exposure we get beyond core fans that really benefits the Big East, and ESPN maximizes the potential to do that. However, I do agree that NBC provides some intriguing opportunities, we'll just have to see what happens. As I said in my original post, I do think the Big East should cast a wide net and try to find the best deal possible. If that is with the NBC Sports Network, then I would support the move, even if it meant a bit less exposure in the short term. However, I do think the Big East needs to be careful and ensure that any deal will involve coverage of nearly all Big East basketball games on television, in some form. To some degree, this discussion is largely academic. While I think these concerns are valid from the Big East's perspective, ultimately, the Big East will go wherever the biggest pot of cash resides.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,352
Member is Online
|
Post by calhoya on Oct 17, 2011 16:17:12 GMT -5
A simple question--aside from the blustery comments of the Boston College AD, is there any credible evidence out there that ESPN is trying to destroy the big East? Seriously, from reading the posts here, it seems like others are aware of much more information about this than i have seen or heard.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Oct 17, 2011 17:43:45 GMT -5
You can't seriously expect them to cover the NBA and NHL in anything like the same way given how much more popular basketball is than ice hockey in this country. They largely ignore US Men's soccer coverage and yet they broadcast almost all of their games. Remember how the US womens soccer team was rammed down our throats all summer? Remember which network carried the Women's World Cup? Hmmmm. As for NBA vs NHL, yes of course basketball is a more popular sport (though attendance figures for each sport are far closer than you'd think). Instead of arguing that, though, I honestly need to ask: Do you really not think ESPN devotes more coverage to the leagues it covers and with which it has business interests? I can't imagine anyone doesn't agree with that premise.
|
|
superan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by superan on Oct 17, 2011 18:09:18 GMT -5
A simple question--aside from the blustery comments of the Boston College AD, is there any credible evidence out there that ESPN is trying to destroy the big East? Seriously, from reading the posts here, it seems like others are aware of much more information about this than i have seen or heard. It's all circumstantial evidence at this point: 1. Big East turns down ESPN's $1 billion offer over 6 years in order to solicit competing bids from NBC/Versus and others. A wholly expected negotiating tactic. 2. ESPN realizes they can save $1billion and prevent other media competitors from entering the college sports landscape by nudging Syracuse/Pitt/UConn/WVA/Rutgers/Louisville/Notre Dame to leave the Big East and join other conferences like the ACC for which ESPN already has deals with. 3. ESPN's plan worked, Big East pushed to the edge.
|
|
harlemhoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by harlemhoya on Oct 17, 2011 18:22:22 GMT -5
|
|