(08-03-2012 05:37 PM)HR_Poke Wrote: No one seems to consider if no one bids against NBC why would they shell out that much money.
I tend to agree with you, but I'll give the answer I've come up with, given that so many people and sources are telling me I'm wrong:
The people making the decisions are not really acting in the interests of NBC, they are acting in their own personal interests. If you're the director of NBC Sports, and you get Big East football for $5M per team per year, maybe you made a smart deal, but you're still the head of a distant-second-place network to ESPN. On the other hand, if you pay the Big East a price comparable to the ACC, then you're the head of a slightly plausible challenger to ESPN's dominance. Which gets you a better table at that fancy restaurant all the TV executives go to?
Second, consider the "I'll Be Gone, You'll Be Gone" factor. It's often better for a career in media to fail at a higher level than to succeed at a lower level. Failing at a high level gets noticed--you were a big bold risktaker. Succeeding at a lower level doesn't get as much attention.
If you're a Comcast shareholder, you want to drive a hard bargain and get the most Big East content for the least money. If you're the Comcast executives in charge of Big East sports, you want to make a deal that makes NBC Sports a big deal, and you a big shot by association.