(06-29-2019 06:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 08:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 07:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  As usual, just like politics, everybody interprets things based on their own belief sets.

Go back and read the specific wording in the HC article:

The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. A source said the clause is specifically tied to five schools (Houston, Cincinnati, Central Florida, Memphis and South Florida), which UConn was not included.

So, the HC is agreeing with the SBJ, BUT adds that its source says that clause is tied specifically to 5 schools, and not UConn. The SBJ doesn't go that far.

Seems pretty simple. You either believe the HC or not, but it does NOT negate the SBJ version, just clarifies it.

I think it's clear the HC writer misinterpreted the SBJ article. Because that article says that ESPN could renegotiate if *UConn* left. Not just if some random "member" leaves. Here's the tweet from the SBJ author advertising his article, and he says UConn specifically:

https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/11...4410135553

So that means that if the HC writer has a source that says that ESPN can renegotiate only if five schools leave, of which UConn is not one, then the HC writer is contradicting the SBJ article, not merely clarifying it.

BUT, I don't think the HC writer HAS any such source. The wording of the quote you provide doesn't indicate that the source he references is *his* source. Rather, it sounds like the source is the one from the SBJ article. Just re-read your quote - at no point does his language transition from citing the SBJ article to citing a source of his own. If he was, he likely would have said something like this to distinguish his reporting from the SBJ reporting- "The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. But a source I contacted says that the clause is specifically tied to five schools ...". But he never does that.

No, his language implies that when he talks about the "source", he is still making reference to the SBJ article he just cited. And that makes sense, because in the SBJ article, the author DOES in fact talk about the five schools the HC writer mentions. Here's a quote from the SBJ article. It's behind a paywall but Yahoo has quoted it:

"The 12-year, $1 billion media rights deal that was signed in March carries a composition clause that gives ESPN the right to renegotiate its terms if any of the schools leave the conference. The network inserted the clause in case the AAC’s football powerhouse — UCF — left for a bigger conference. Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston and USF also were seen as likely AAC schools to be poached by bigger conferences if realignment took hold again."

See? The SBJ article says that the *motivation* for ESPN to put in the clause was indeed fear that five schools in particular - UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston, or Cincy - might leave. BUT crucially, he also says the clause was not written to only apply to those schools, but to any school that leaves.

I think the HC writer just misinterpreted the SBJ article. He wrongly thought that the SBJ writer was saying that the clause was limited to five schools.

1) The HC writer says he has a source. 2) As the long time UH beat writer, the HC writer has direct and regular access to the UH athletic director 3) The article includes other direct quotes from the UH AD that are obviously from that day 4) But you dont think he has a source?

Look---his source could be wrong---but your claim that he has no source is based on pretty much nothing. We have two writers with two different sources that disagree. That literally happens almost everyday on the evening news. Political talking head shows have made a cottage industry out it.

As I explained, he doesn't actually say that. There's nothing about the structure of the sentence that makes it clear that he, the HC writer, has a special source. And, as I explained, if he did, then his source is *contradicting* the SBJ article, and that's something a reporter would want to highlight, as it represents a new piece of crucial information that goes above and beyond what someone else has reported.

But the HC writer doesn't do that. He doesn't point out that "his source" contradicts/refutes what SBJ said. He even confuses Triple A in to thinking he isn't contradicting the SBJ article, when he actually is.

Granted, confusing Triple A isn't hard to do, but still, as I said, any reporter with new information is going to highlight that. This reporter apparently didn't even know that the SBJ article specifically says ESPN can renegotiate based on UConn. There's no reason to think he has a source independent of the SBJ source. You are just assuming he does, based on vague wording.

Who cares. The TV contract is going to be pretty much exactly as first reported back in March.