ESPN's 15-Year TV Broadcasting Deal with the SEC

Thanks, Con! My opponent opens his R2 argument by stating, "Maybe I should've been more clear about my motive for disagreeing with the contract. Some of your argument is related to a business being able to do what it wants. I agree with you. My issue with this Goliath of a contract is the conflict of interest regarding ESPN, the SEC, and the BCS." To me, this seems contradictory and non-sensical. On one hand Con is saying that he understands a business should be able to do what's in its best interest, but then in the next sentence he says that they shouldn't. Well which is it? It seems that Con recognizes the fact that this deal SHOULD be allowed, but because he thinks it gives an advantage to one particular conference, that he doesn't want it to. However, unfortunately this debate isn't about what Con wants but rather if this deal should be allowed to take place. So when he responds by saying that he agrees it SHOULD be allowed from a business aspect, this presents quite a predicament for his case. If Con's argument is meant to point out a conflict of interest, number one I've already responded to all of the conflict of interest arguments in the last round, and number two I'm unsure if he means to say that the conflict of interest implies that this deal should not go through. However, my entire argument is about how and why the deal should be allowed regardless of any alleged conflict, and Con's understanding about their business right to do so (even if there IS a little bit of a conflict) is what's confusing. Also, I've made many arguments regarding why the conflict of interest isn't as real as Con would like you to believe. Back to my arguments: The first point I brought up was about how prohibiting this deal would be unfair to the viewers and fans around the country who would appreciate (and are willing to pay for) this extra SEC coverage. Instead of responding to Point 1 directly, Con mentions this reality in his round by saying that he agrees (well, more like acknowledges the reality) that the SEC's success has made them a conference that people want to watch, and uses that to drive his argument that ESPN will therefore have essentially a monopoly on SEC games. But I say... so what? First, this doesn't respond to my point whatsoever about how the fans WANT to watch a lot of SEC games, so prohibiting this deal would essentially be punishing them. Second, other channels have the rights to other conferences and yet Con does not seem to see that as an issue. Why? Because those other networks don't have a contract with the BCS. ESPN does. However, it makes perfect sense that ESPN would want a contract with the BCS, because Con and I both acknowledge that they are 'the' place for sports; a contract with the BCS would make sense regardless of what teams went to the BCS. Furthermore, said contract between ESPN and the BCS has little to no merit based on my other points and observations in the last round that Con ignored. More about that later. Point 2 noted how government involvement in prohibiting this deal was unnecessary, and that trying to do so would bring up other "equality" issues such as ESPN and other networks showing D1 games but not DII games. Con never responded to this issue. The point here is that the goal isn't to cover all conferences equally, but rather show the games that the viewers want to see. That's beneficial for both the business (ESPN) and the fans. In response to my third point about coaches having a general idea of what teams are good and which aren't, Con responded by saying that this is not entirely true and many times the coaches themselves aren't the one casting the votes. This indicates that Con has issues with the entire voting system in general, because this would be true regardless of whether the contract existed or not. Point 4 was where I mentioned how ESPN experts can't just make stuff up about which teams are great or not great, because the numbers will speak for themselves. I also pointed out how it would be in their best interest to be honest not only to preserve their credibility, but because covering more teams means more fans are satisfied and that more fans will tune in. Besides, if another conference started to emerge as elite, then there's no reason why ESPN couldn't just as easily enter into a contract with them as well sometime in the near future. Point 5 is where I mentioned that ESPN wouldn't have a problem talking negatively about the SEC; a point which Con ignored and continued to talk about further in R2. I'd recommend he therefore read my fifth point again to see my rebuttal on the issue. I was particularly displeased that Con didn't respond to my 6th point regarding this being a great opportunity for schools in the SEC who will benefit from this deal, making them greater contenders in their own conference to challenge teams like UF and LSU who typically dominate. My 7th point was how about the BCS, after all, was just a game, and my 8th point discussed how in the end, it's the players and their performance which would largely determine their reputation - not just their money and game coverage. As I've said, if the teams do well, they WILL be talked about. I watch ESPN all the time and they always mention teams I've never seen but that are doing well (for instance in the PAC - a conference I'm not too familiar with). That brings me to my next point: the fans. Just because I don't really know the PAC, for instance, doesn't mean they don't have their own fan base or fans who won't vote. So with all due respect, Con not only ignored a great deal of my arguments, but his points have had little to no relevance at all. For instance, he spends the majority of R2 talking about how ESPN would profit if the SEC did well, because people would want to tune into their games. Well obviously! That's the whole point of the deal in the first place! It also has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged conflict of interest regarding the BCS. He also contradicts himself a lot in an attempt to make a faux point. For instance, he asks if you'd rather watch a game that has been hyped up by the media (an SEC game) or a game that has hardly been mentioned. However, he has already acknowledged that people want to watch winning teams (and the SEC is good, which is why they made this deal in the first place) meaning people would have wanted to watch SEC games anyway without the media hype. Con also mentions that ESPN analysts will have an incentive to talk about the SEC positively, and that speaking negatively might end their contract. This, again, is a huge stretch. I've already pointed out in the last round how the numbers will speak for themselves; an analyst isn't going to sit there and talk positively about a team that's doing poorly (See: Point 4). Talking negatively about the SEC also in no way implies that the SEC would withdraw their contract either. They don't expect analysts to lie, and quite frankly I'm really not sure where my opponent is getting this idea - especially when I explained in the last round how and why that would not be the case. Moreover, Con's point about the SEC possibly starting their own network isn't exactly reliable, because it's in their best interest to stick with ESPN; that's why they chose that route in the first place. Plus, Con makes it seem as if the SEC has made ESPN their daddy. That's not true. They're going to do their job regardless of their contract. Con hasn't proven otherwise, and like I said I've explained why (mostly in R1). Con also writes that ESPN would want one from the SEC to advance to the BCS because of their contract with them. This first of all ignores my point that ESPN has contracts with other conferences as well (!!!), and the fact that ESPN has rights to the BCS meaning they're going to show the game regardless of who makes it there. Hopefully my opponent can clarify some things in the next round. Good luck!