ESPN and its effect on College Athletics

[Jaybird]

So I was having a conversation with some friends about ESPN and the power it seems to have over the college athletics world these days and we got on the topic of the state of College Football today. We were talking about whether the SEC was this dominant and ESPN wanted to get on board or if ESPN got on board and over time they have become this dominant because of the added exposure. There is no question that TV networks are involved in the conference realignment talks encouraging movement that will benefit them. There is also no question networks are in bed with certain conferences/schools and if the schools they are in bed with are better then the more money the networks makes etc. Maybe I am an aluminum foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist but I have a feeling ESPN may be more involved in some of this stuff than we may think.

 

Is the SEC the best conference and because of that ESPN wanted a piece and they had the most resources to get the contract or did ESPN get the contract and because of the added coverage they have become better over time? Or does TV exposure have nothing to do with who is good and who isn't?

 

My question is how much effect has the modern sports programming networks era had on college athletics as it is played on the field? Are teams with more coverage by the likes of ESPN more likely to be better?

 

I am not fully aware as to how things were done in say even the 90's although I would assume they were quite different from today as the TV networks have become much more involved in everything and the money has grown exponentially.

 

What do you think?

[LouisianaHuskerFan]

In my opinion, the SEC is by far the best conference and second place isn't even close. And I don't have all this hatred towards ESPN that some have. I just don't get it and honestly I don't care about it. People just love to hate on whatever or whomever is top dog. Just really annoying.

[Jaybird]

In my opinion, the SEC is by far the best conference and second place isn't even close. And I don't have all this hatred towards ESPN that some have. I just don't get it and honestly I don't care about it. People just love to hate on whatever or whomever is top dog. Just really annoying.

 

 

I never said I hated ESPN. I was just curious what others with more knowledge on the situation over a longer period of time thought about what college athletics has become in the powerful tv network era. There is no question that there are forces at play that were not even thought of 20 years ago.

 

I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the board meetings of TV networks such as Fox, Espn etc as to what all they are considering when they make decisions and how involved they are in the whole process.

[NUance]

Oh, the SEC is the best conference hands down. But ESPN does seem to push the SEC to the forefront quite a bit. They actually propel them to the forefront. By continually blowing smoke up their ass.

[VA Husker Fan]

CBS has had the primary SEC game for the last 10 years or so. What sense does it make for ESPN to overhype the SEC when they don't even carry the best games? In fact, this is the ONLY conference that ABC/ESPN doesn't have first rights to, so even though ESPN signed a big contract to carry other SEC games, they have no financial reason to boost the SEC over any other conference.

 

Here are the current TV deals:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/43239/college-tv-rights-deals-undergo-makeovers

 

BIG12

First-tier rights: $480 million, ESPN , eight years through 2015-16

Second-tier rights: $1.17 billion, FOX, 13 years through 2024-25

Per-year average: $150 million

Per-school, per-year average: $15 million

 

PAC-12

First- and second-tier rights: $3 billion, ESPN/FOX , 12 years through 2023-24

Per-year average: $250 million

Per-school, per-year average: $20.8 million

 

SEC

First-tier rights: $825 million, CBS, 15 years through 2023-24

Second-tier rights: $2.25 billion, ESPN, 15 years through 2023-24

Per-year average: $205 million

Per-school, per-year average: $14.6 million

 

BIG TEN

First-tier rights: $1 billion, ESPN, 10 years through 2016-17

Second-tier rights: $2.8 billion, Big Ten Network, 25 years through 2031-32

Select basketball rights (minimum of 24 games, men’s tournament semifinal and championship games): $72 million, CBS, six years through 2016-17

Football Championship Game: $145 million, FOX, six years through 2016

Per-year average: $248.2 million

Per-school, per-year average: $20.7 million

 

ACC

First-, second- and third-tier rights: $3.6 billion, ESPN, 15 years through 2026-27

Per-year average: $240 million

Per-school, per-year average: $17.1 million

 

BIG EAST

First-tier rights: $200 million, ESPN , six years for basketball through 2012-13; seven years for football through 2012-13

Second-tier rights: Basketball, $54 million, CBS, six years through 2012-13

[Jaybird]

Well it may be for different reasons then but if you DVR college football live for a couple weeks they really seem to focus on a select few teams many of which reside within the SEC. If you have ever listened to Colin Cowherd he repeatedly says that the content on ESPN is not by chance, they have some of the best researchers looking into what to cover and what to leave alone. I find it hard to believe that what they cover and who they choose to concentrate on is just by chance but rather more of an exercise in marketing to get the most bang for their buck and get the most reaction/viewership.

 

I guess we have to remember that they are the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network. With an emphasis on the entertainment. I guess I would personally take more breakdown of film, going over the x's and o's of the game and really learning new things about the sports being covered rather than having them just cover a team because they have a connection with them or their fanbases bring about more advertising dollars etc. I would like to see a more impartial completely news style station that covers sports for the sake of covering the sport in an unbiased manner rather than for entertainment.

[Enhance]

Here's a few things to think about.

 

I don't know if this is still true, but some UNL journalism professors told me a significant portion of ESPN's employees are graduates from big time news colleges, places like Missouri and Northwestern. If I were a grad from one of these schools, why would I be interested in ensuring the SEC gets a lot of tv coverage? Not only am I supposed to be unbiased and objective, but I'm from a different part of the country. So unless we're suggesting that ESPN employees are paid copious amounts of money to ensure the SEC gets a lot of tv coverage, it's ludicrous to suggest they love giving the SEC coverage.

 

Second, the SEC gets a lot of coverage because the SEC is, without question, the best college football conference in America right now. They've won the last six national championships.

 

Now, there are several posters on this forum who can elaborate on this point I'm about to make, but according to some of them, the SEC oversigns like crazy. Furthermore, these schools have tons of money (because they win), the best coaches (because they can pay them), and almost every single one of them have been convicted of recruiting violations. There's no doubt in my mind the SEC is cheating the recruiting system. No doubt at all.

 

Lastly, ESPN is arguably the most sensationalized, full-of-themselves news organization in the world. Sure, they cover all the sports and give us all the action, but they can be over-the-top. For reference, go watch Mark Cuban own Skip Bayless on youtube. On top of that, everybody thinks ESPN hates their school.

 

The SEC is good but it's not because of ESPN. If the Pac-12 or B1G were dominating like the SEC has, they'd be all over our gentleman's sausages too.

[Notre Dame Joe]

SUCKS.

 

It's a complete conflict of interest for the media to own the business and also report its news.

 

 

 

Is the SEC the best conference and because of that ESPN wanted a piece and they had the most resources to get the contract or did ESPN get the contract and because of the added coverage they have become better over time? Or does TV exposure have nothing to do with who is good and who isn't?

 

I think its clear the SEC was good before ESPN got their day games. Mickey soon figured out that Sparty @ NW at 1pm EST wasn't going to bring home the bacon in the long run.

 

 

VA HUsker, you missed a team and a network I'm still tiffed that NBC didn't get the PAC contract because at least there would be some diversity.

 

The biggest problem with ESPN is that they are a monopoly or close to it. I can't understand why CBS, NBC, and FOX can't build respectable cable channels to compete with MIckey's. (I have CBSCS buried on channel 187 with a weak signal and boring ass programming. VS was as interesting as bicycling can be).

 

There shouldn't be one giant company running so much of CFB. There's a reason why the scandals of the decade were broken by tiny outfits like Yahoo Sports.

[Jaybird]

ESPN's coverage of actual College Football games is actually really good. After watching a game on Versus or another smaller network I am glad when I can watch a game back on ESPN or ABC. I just get tired of the soap opera type drama they seem to push on their non actual game programming. It seems as though they make news when it is not there. I guess this happens on all stations with the 24 hour news cycle and 87 channels to fill programming on but I just get tired of it!

[VA Husker Fan]

I hear ya. I used to try to catch any CFB pre-season show or weekly highlights. ESPN has burned me out and I probably watch less of the non-game programming even though there is probably 100x what there used to be.

[Enhance]

Another thing people tend to forget is ESPN is not the only source for up-to-date sports coverage. Yahoo! Sports tends break many of the more interesting sports stories each year. ESPN worked it's way up to it's pedestal, I won't berate them for that. But there's definitely better all-around sports coverage in different places.

[tschu]

Let me just reiterate what VA Husker Fan said - ESPN does not have the first-tier rights to SEC games. Those belong to CBS. Therefore ESPN is actually better off promoting Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, etc games and teams than SEC teams.

 

I'm sure ESPN does have a pretty decent impact on the CFB scene in all kinds of ways though, yes.

[tschu]

Another thing people tend to forget is ESPN is not the only source for up-to-date sports coverage. Yahoo! Sports tends break many of the more interesting sports stories each year. ESPN worked it's way up to it's pedestal, I won't berate them for that. But there's definitely better all-around sports coverage in different places.

 

Definitely. I've watched way less Sportscenter over the last 4-5 years and gone much more to other places like Yahoo and CBS mainly. Lately I can even bypass them and just follow various media members on Twitter. But ESPN still does have the national sports TV market cornered - it's just so easy to tune in to Sportscenter or PTI or College Gameday or what have you.

[mrandyk]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2011-10-27/is-espn-the-force-behind-college-conference-realignment/51019966/1

 

The Boston College AD said that ESPN is who caused the ACC expansion. He quickly took it back, probably because he has to be dying to get his school into the ACC, but ESPN is no doubt playing a much larger role in this than a TV network should be.

[VA Husker Fan]

http://www.usatoday....ment/51019966/1

 

The Boston College AD said that ESPN is who caused the ACC expansion. He quickly took it back, probably because he has to be dying to get his school into the ACC, but ESPN is no doubt playing a much larger role in this than a TV network should be.

BC is already in the ACC. Interesting article though. I suppose if it's all true, someday someone like the Big East coming in on the short end will haul them into court in an anti-trust suit. Or some school president will get their senator to haul ESPN before congress.