(08-30-2012 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Well, I guess I'm the resident ESPN defender, so let's take a step back.

Out of all of those items listed, only The Decision was a serious journalistic error in judgment. However, this Yahoo! bashing didn't even articulate the real reason why it was a failure, which was that the business side of ESPN crossed the line to create a program that was clearly news-worthy but the actual journalists at ESPN couldn't control any of the questioning. The fact that Jim Gray came out with scripted questions that were vetted by LeBron's camp was what was a serious lapse in journalistic standards. In contrast, Yahoo!'s complaint about the "hype" is ridiculous. LeBron's impending free agency was one of the biggest ongoing stories in sports for over 2 years straight. The amount of time that the non-ESPN-owned WSCR in Chicago talked about LeBron moving during that period was talked about as much as actual Chicago sports news and places like WFAN in New York pimped LeBron rumors, too. The number of website hits, Twitter follows and newspapers sold off the backs of crazy LeBron rumors is incalculable. Even 60 Minutes and Nightline, the two most respected news programs on network TV (not even sports-related), felt the need to spend entire episodes interviewing LeBron months before the Decision because there was so much incredible casual news viewer interest in that story. The Decision ended up getting a TV rating on par with the WORLD SERIES that year. ESPN might be an effective hype machine, but you don't draw that type of rating unless there are a LOT of people obsessed with that story.

I have never understood the criticism about ESPN's hockey coverage other than hockey fans are disproportionately overrepresented among the blogging/message board crowd compared to their numbers in the general American public (and I say this as someone that loves hockey). There are not that many casual fans of hockey, so some people see the number of intense hockey fans on the Internet being comparable with the number of, say, intense NBA or NASCAR fans on the Internet and come to the incorrect conclusion that the casual fan interest in the NHL is on par with the NBA or NASCAR (and I say this as someone that would gouge my eyeballs out before watching a full NASCAR race). Flip on any sports talk radio station in a major market that aren't owned by ESPN and the likelihood is that they'll be talking way more about Tim Tebow or LeBron than the local hockey team. ESPN is only *reflecting* the viewers' tastes in those instances. I'm personally 1000 times more likely to watch the NHL than NASCAR, but I understand that the NHL draws a fraction of the ratings that NASCAR does (much less the NBA or MLB) so NASCAR is going to get more airtime whether I like it or not. The PGA, tennis and even ultimate fighting all draw larger amounts of viewers compared to hockey, too. Even the English Premier League games on Fox and ESPN last year drew larger numbers than NHL regular season games (and EPL is definitely considered to be a "niche" audience in the US). There is no ratings information anywhere that could ever objectively support a large amount of hockey coverage on SportsCenter outside of the Stanley Cup Finals.

I didn't see anything objectionable about ESPN's Penn State coverage, either. The Yahoo! article was flat out wrong about the night of the Penn State riots - ESPN carried all of it live, so I'm not sure what the heck they were talking about. ESPN has spent as much time as any news organization on the story, including uncovering the fact that Mark Emmert originally told Penn State that it was going to receive the death penalty in what was a legitimately excellent piece of reporting from Outside the Lines. That criticism is completely unwarranted.

Tim Tebow is a top story for all sports media entities, just as CNN, Fox News and MSNBC often jump on the same stories and regurgitate them over and over and over. (See Casey Anthony, Trayvon Martin, and the latest teenage blonde girl that gets kidnapped on vacation in a South American country.) I'd be perfectly happy if I never went another day in my life seeing any Tim Tebow news stories, but don't be naive to think that this is ESPN-centric. Every single other sports media outlet (whether TV, radio or Internet) has been pounding this Tebow story for a long time. CBS and NBC went completely out of their way to hype up late-season Broncos games last year along with juggling schedules and time slots to showcase him. They all LOVED Tebow and they'll ride that horse as long as he draws TV viewers.

For conference realignment, most people know my stance about that. I don't buy ESPN conspiracy theories regarding conference realignment one iota except for the fact that ESPN's heavy incentive is to PREVENT conference realignment and to disperse power among leagues. So, I think there was a strong motivation of ESPN to prevent Texas from moving to the Pac-16 by offering up the Longhorn Network. Everything else is conjecture and taken out of context.

Finally, First Take is a terrible show and Skip Bayless is an even more terrible TV personality. However, the sole purpose of that show (just like any pundit show) is for shock value. If people want to argue that Skip Bayless shouldn't be spouting his garbage on a show that is supposed to have some type of journalistic standards such as SportsCenter or Outside the Lines, then that makes sense. However, First Take has never been sold as anything other than the equivalent of a sports radio screamfest that happens to be on TV. Once again, I personally don't like that crap, but a lot of people obviously do since CBS felt the need to spend a lot of money to bring another piece of garbage in Jim Rome over to its own network.

Anyway, ESPN deserves to the ripped to shreds for the journalistic limitations that they placed on themselves with The Decision. I also wish they would fire Skip Bayless (along with Screamin' A. Smith, Dookie V and Chris Berman), but the fact that the American public has continuously shown that it is more likely to respond to screamers as opposed to thoughtful analysis (and this isn't just about sports - look at every single political talk show on the air on the cable news networks) is honestly society's fault.

You really don't think ESPN had a hand in the last ACC raid? The Big East turns down ESPN and publicly state that they are going to try the open market and a month later a conference in no real trouble of being raided decides to take two schools who don't improve their FB power and since you and everyone else has said realignment is all about FB why would this move make sense besides to destabilize the league and get the product for cheaper than before?

Then you have a sitting AD of an ACC school openly bragging about how ESPN told them who to take, except he was able to block UConn and get Pitt instead. HELLO!!! MCFLY!!!

(08-30-2012 02:45 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Here was ESPN's latest hit on the Big East (from yesterday).

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8314631

Seriously? That was a preview? They made fun of the league then showed that they had no idea what they were talking about when they were asking why Boise would go to the Big East. Then turning it around like the Big East fans were being unreasonable and butt hurt by the stupid things he was saying. What a douche!

(08-30-2012 08:37 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:45 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Here was ESPN's latest hit on the Big East (from yesterday).

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8314631

Seriously? That was a preview? They made fun of the league then showed that they had no idea what they were talking about when they were asking why Boise would go to the Big East. Then turning it around like the Big East fans were being unreasonable and butt hurt by the stupid things he was saying. What a ******!

It's hillarious... how their hyperbole contradicts their expert status. Especially when they pretend not knowing who is coming into the Big East, when SUPPOSEDLY they are paid college sports experts (i.e. it is their business to know).

They come off as a couple of monkeys. Why should we listen if they "don't know"?

(08-30-2012 10:21 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 08:37 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 02:45 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Here was ESPN's latest hit on the Big East (from yesterday).

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8314631

Seriously? That was a preview? They made fun of the league then showed that they had no idea what they were talking about when they were asking why Boise would go to the Big East. Then turning it around like the Big East fans were being unreasonable and butt hurt by the stupid things he was saying. What a ******!

It's hillarious... how their hyperbole contradicts their expert status. Especially when they pretend not knowing who is coming into the Big East, when SUPPOSEDLY they are paid college sports experts (i.e. it is their business to know).

They come off as a couple of monkeys. Why should we listen if they "don't know"?

I totally agree... Monkeys is all espn have now. No prefessionalsim here (espn) anymore.

(08-30-2012 08:31 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  You really don't think ESPN had a hand in the last ACC raid? The Big East turns down ESPN and publicly state that they are going to try the open market and a month later a conference in no real trouble of being raided decides to take two schools who don't improve their FB power and since you and everyone else has said realignment is all about FB why would this move make sense besides to destabilize the league and get the product for cheaper than before?

Then you have a sitting AD of an ACC school openly bragging about how ESPN told them who to take, except he was able to block UConn and get Pitt instead. HELLO!!! MCFLY!!!

Nope. The BC AD's comments are one of the most overblown things that I've seen in this entire conference realignment process. Here's the quote:

Quote:"We always keep our television partners close to us," he said. "You don't get extra money for basketball. It's 85% football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do. This was football; it had nothing to do with basketball.''

People continuously take this quote out of context and surmise that ESPN "told" the ACC to take Pitt and Syracuse specifically. All that I see here is a confirmation of what people have been saying on this board for many years: that TV networks are paying premiums for football as opposed to basketball.

Plus, even if we put on our tin foil hats and believe the conspiracy theories that ESPN had a hand in this, then what was the point of adding Syracuse as opposed to, say, West Virginia if it was "85% football money"? Why would they care at all about UConn, as has been suggested elsewhere (who has built a solid program fairly quickly but has no historical football credentials)?

Look - I understand the psychology here. Many people here naturally want to believe that the Big East was *so* important to ESPN that it would rather destroy that league via flagrant violations of antitrust law than let it go to another competitor. In a backwards way, that validates the thinking that the Big East is still a power player because ESPN deemed it important enough to destroy. The reality is that what ESPN is currently paying for the entire Big East package (football and basketball) each year is what it's paying for about one quarter of one Monday Night Football game. That's why I don't buy the tin foil hat theories. ESPN has let plenty of much higher sports profile properties go to competitors (NCAA Tournament, MLB playoffs, NFL Sunday Night Football, Olympics, the entire NHL, etc.), yet the Walt Disney Company is specifically willing to risk Sherman Act violations in order to destroy a conference whose TV contract is literally a rounding error compared to its NFL, MLB and NBA contracts? Heck, even if the the Big East ends up receiving the highest pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking amounts from Comcast, that would *still* be a rounding error in comparison to ESPN's revenues. As a result, that makes no sense at any level, whether it's business or legal. I know that won't dissuade many people here from believing what they want to believe in thinking that a gargantuan global enterprise such as the Walt Disney Company would engage in illegal behavior simply based on emotional pettiness for a contract amount that they could pay for with a week's worth of interest on their bank account, so it is what it is.

Also, I just have a complete and utter hatred of conspiracy theories. It's lazy and myopic thinking that continuously shifts the blame to "the others that are out to get us" as opposed to looking internally and fixing their own problems that are the REAL issues.

You don't have to buy it...

I think most people are making their judgements based on a throng of events, rather than the small window you are describing. Shady dealings go on everyday, in all walks of life, and they aren't always made in sound judgement. In fact, they usually aren't.

(08-31-2012 09:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, I just have a complete and utter hatred of conspiracy theories. It's lazy and myopic thinking that continuously shifts the blame to "the others that are out to get us" as opposed to looking internally and fixing their own problems that are the REAL issues.

1. It's not about what ESPN is paying the conference now, but what they would have to pay later. The Big East turned down their offer and said they were going to the open market which would mean ESPN would have to pay more for what it wants. Big East basketball. Soooo ESPN tells ACC to take the two best Big East BASKETBALL teams. Cuse and UConn...BUT the BC AD being a real mouth breather blocks UConn so they go with another BBall power in Pitt. ESPN pays less for what it really wanted after all. ESPN then gets to low ball a hurting Big East with weak leadership and gets the rest at a bargain basement price after publicly lambasting the conference for a year straight.

2. Multiple people who used to work for ESPN have come out after leaving the "World Wide Leader" and have spoken about how cut throat they actually are. So after many people have said this PRIOR to what happened to the Big East, why is it so hard to believe that ESPN would do something shady to us?

3. No one is saying the Big East has no problems. We knew we had problems prior to the raid. No one was saying how good we had it this time last year, well maybe Cuse and Pitt behind closed doors. My point is, this isn't a conspiracy theory because we can't accpe tour own shortcomings. Hell we've been aware of our short comings for YEARS! Do you know why? Because ESPN reminds us of them every other day.

4. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't watching you.

If the Big East ends up with NBC, I hope they provide something like ESPN3.com. As much disdain as I have ESPN, the ESPN3/WatchESPN online service is really outstanding, IMO. Whoever our media rights partner ends up being, I hope they are being proactive and will having something similar ready to roll out by the fall of 2013.

(08-31-2012 12:19 PM)Knightshift Wrote:  If the Big East ends up with NBC, I hope they provide something like ESPN3.com. As much disdain as I have ESPN, the ESPN3/WatchESPN online service is really outstanding, IMO. Whoever our media rights partner ends up being, I hope they are being proactive and will having something similar ready to roll out by the fall of 2013.

NBC has this, they were streaming live coverage of the olympics. It looked good.

(08-31-2012 10:02 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  You don't have to buy it...

I think most people are making their judgements based on a throng of events, rather than the small window you are describing. Shady dealings go on everyday, in all walks of life, and they aren't always made in sound judgement. In fact, they usually aren't.

Ding!

(08-31-2012 10:02 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  You don't have to buy it...

I think most people are making their judgements based on a throng of events, rather than the small window you are describing. Shady dealings go on everyday, in all walks of life, and they aren't always made in sound judgement. In fact, they usually aren't.

That's the very definition of a conspiracy theory: the argument that a chain of events are linked together by some type of outside force/factor/entity. Is ESPN influential? Absolutely if only because their TV revenue drives much of college football. Is ESPN the wizard behind the curtain pulling the strings of all of these entities? That's where my beliefs diverge.

Plus, let's face it - this is all irrelevant as to what ESPN did or didn't do. The ACC didn't need ESPN to tell them who is most valuable from the Big East. They did that research themselves (just like the Big Ten and SEC and Big 12) and they do it constantly regardless of the wishes of ESPN. The Big East does the exact same thing with respect to C-USA and MWC schools - they don't need ESPN or Comcast to tell them who would be most valuable. That's what guys like Chris Belivaqua are for and why conferences hire them.

My interpretation is that in September 2011, the feeling was that there was a good-to-strong possibility that the vision of 4 16-team superconferences was going to come to fruition (remember that the Big 12 was still reeling from defections, Texas was looking around again and Notre Dame couldn't be trusted), so the ACC chose to mark its territory to make sure that it was in position to make the leap to 16 in a structured (as opposed to chaotic) way before Texas did anything crazy. So, the ACC chose the 2 schools that brought the most overall TV value and fit their academic standards (and it obviously always liked Syracuse considered that they originally wanted to add them in 2003). To think that the Big East turning down ESPN's offer was the impetus for this is seriously giving the Big East too much credit.

This can't be emphasized enough: one year ago, we were looking at conference realignment Armageddon. The Big East turning down the ESPN offer was the LAST thing on anyone's mind at that point. Now, the story might have turned out differently if the ACC had waited a couple of weeks until the Pac-12 made its public announcement that it wasn't going to expand (AKA "We're not talking to Texas and Oklahoma anymore"), but if you were running the ACC, would you have taken that chance? Probably not considering how many people here believe that being "proactive" in and of itself is a virtue.

(08-31-2012 02:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Now, the story might have turned out differently if the ACC had waited a couple of weeks until the Pac-12 made its public announcement that it wasn't going to expand (AKA "We're not talking to Texas and Oklahoma anymore"), but if you were running the ACC, would you have taken that chance? Probably not considering how many people here believe that being "proactive" in and of itself is a virtue.

Believe the ACC invited Pitt and Cuse to get to 14...knowing full well that they might be losing FSU and one other school (Clemson or Va Tech)..which would have put them back at 12 again.

The $$$ that ESPN and ACC Commish "promised" its members would come if they would just expand to 14 teams...isn't really there...so not sure the ACC accomplished much...especially till 2021...when all the incoming years, ACC teams will be receiving less than $17 Million per year in TV $$$.

(08-31-2012 02:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-31-2012 10:02 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  You don't have to buy it...

I think most people are making their judgements based on a throng of events, rather than the small window you are describing. Shady dealings go on everyday, in all walks of life, and they aren't always made in sound judgement. In fact, they usually aren't.

That's the very definition of a conspiracy theory: the argument that a chain of events are linked together by some type of outside force/factor/entity. Is ESPN influential? Absolutely if only because their TV revenue drives much of college football. Is ESPN the wizard behind the curtain pulling the strings of all of these entities? That's where my beliefs diverge.

Plus, let's face it - this is all irrelevant as to what ESPN did or didn't do. The ACC didn't need ESPN to tell them who is most valuable from the Big East. They did that research themselves (just like the Big Ten and SEC and Big 12) and they do it constantly regardless of the wishes of ESPN. The Big East does the exact same thing with respect to C-USA and MWC schools - they don't need ESPN or Comcast to tell them who would be most valuable. That's what guys like Chris Belivaqua are for and why conferences hire them.

My interpretation is that in September 2011, the feeling was that there was a good-to-strong possibility that the vision of 4 16-team superconferences was going to come to fruition (remember that the Big 12 was still reeling from defections, Texas was looking around again and Notre Dame couldn't be trusted), so the ACC chose to mark its territory to make sure that it was in position to make the leap to 16 in a structured (as opposed to chaotic) way before Texas did anything crazy. So, the ACC chose the 2 schools that brought the most overall TV value and fit their academic standards (and it obviously always liked Syracuse considered that they originally wanted to add them in 2003). To think that the Big East turning down ESPN's offer was the impetus for this is seriously giving the Big East too much credit.

This can't be emphasized enough: one year ago, we were looking at conference realignment Armageddon. The Big East turning down the ESPN offer was the LAST thing on anyone's mind at that point. Now, the story might have turned out differently if the ACC had waited a couple of weeks until the Pac-12 made its public announcement that it wasn't going to expand (AKA "We're not talking to Texas and Oklahoma anymore"), but if you were running the ACC, would you have taken that chance? Probably not considering how many people here believe that being "proactive" in and of itself is a virtue.

Can you emphasize that ESPN controls 100% of the ACC TV rights?

Do you think that ESPN was playing into the perception that everyone was moving to 4 super conferences?

Maybe the ACC saw the Pac-12 TV deal and knowing it was stuck in a bad long term deal and was open to the idea of expansion.

ACC: "Hey ESPN how can we get more TV money?"

ESPN: "Well ACC you can take a couple of Big East teams like Cuse and UConn."

G. DeFlippo: "NO UCONN!!!!!!"

ESPN: "Okay, how about Pitt?"

ACC: "Pitt's okay"

G. DeFlippo: "Me no hate Pitt"

ESPN: "Great, then it's settled."