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

First of all, thanks for taking the debate. 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. You made mention of the BigTen Network. The BigTen Network is not signing a contract with the BCS. Furthermore, the BigTen Network does not have exclusive rights to broadcast BigTen sports. The ESPN/SEC deal gives ESPN exclusive rights to SEC sports. If you want to see SEC sports, you are forced to watch ESPN, who keep in mind, will be in a contract with the BCS shortly. The very premise that you base some of your argument on, the fact that winning drives TV ratings and higher viewership, is in agreement with my argument. If ESPN owns exclusive rights to SEC broadcasting, ESPN will want it's viewers to watch games on ESPN. The BigTen started its own network, which no doubt, took away a chunk of viewers that would've normally watched games on ESPN. The SEC probably would've started their own network, but ESPN could not let that happen. If the BigTen Network and a virtual "SEC Network" were to both be in broadcast, ESPN would've likely suffered some loss of viewership, as those are two premier football conferences. So ESPN gobbled up the rights to the SEC. If the SEC does well, ESPN will likely profit, as more viewers will watch better teams/games. Generally speaking, who would you rather watch, a game between two teams outside the top 25, or a game between two teams in the top 25? A game that has been hyped up by the media, or a game that has hardly been mentioned? Any positive spin an analyst can put on an SEC team, player, or game, will be benefiting their employer, ESPN. Additionally, do you think Mike Slive (SEC Commissioner) would appreciate ESPN analysts talking negatively about his teams? The SEC is a good football conference. If they don't like what kind of attention ESPN is giving them, maybe they'll pack their bags and start their own network. Do you think ESPN would like that idea? No, they wouldn't, which is why they're going to keep the SEC happy. If ESPN didn't have such a huge influence on the BCS, or signed a contract with the BCS (which would lead anyone to believe that they'd surely want a representative from the SEC in BCS games), this ESPN/SEC contract would be more of an annoyance to some, than an actual problem to the already complicated BCS system. We could all say, "Good for the SEC, they made a great business decision." Unfortunately, we have to look at it and say "The ESPN has an influence on the BCS, why did they just sign a contract, gaining exclusive rights to SEC broadcasting...that is a conflict of interest." And just for the record, and unrelated to any bearing on the debate, we all know that many sports "experts" probably shouldn't even be employed. And as far as voters in polls are concerned, the coaches rarely even vote in their own polls, it's primarily assistants that do that type of thing. And you'd be hard pressed to find the coach of a top team, knowing a whole lot about any team outside their conference, that isn't on their schedule. They simply do not have time to stay "up-to-date" with the teams from a dozen other conferences.