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

Thanks, Con, for starting this debate. 1. The SEC has dominated recent BCS games winning the last 4 championships, and 6 of the last 12. As such, it makes sense that their fan base has expanded throughout various parts of the country. My opponent noted that ESPN is 'the' place for sports, and many fans buy expensive sports packages offered through ESPN and their cable companies to watch their favorite teams play. Obviously, the most popular and 'favorite' teams are often the teams that win. Those are the games that fans want to see, even if they are not fans of the teams themselves. After all, the SEC has proven to be one of the most elite NCAA football conferences, so obviously people want to watch the games that they play. Con's proposal of banning this contract would mean that SEC games therefore become less available to fans all over the country who want to watch them. And why should this be the case? Sports consultant Neal Pilson notes, "ESPN has made the business judgment that SEC football is a very exciting product that will find a market in non-traditional SEC cities" [1]. Another notes, "This deal gives us an opportunity to associate ourselves with the preeminent athletic conference in the country. With all due respect to other conferences, there's a passion and a fervor here that is unique." In short, this move makes sense. 2. Con's proposal is essentially a government takeover that has little to no relevance with the lives of people in our every day society. I'm assuming he'd want the government involved; who else would be relevant in prohibiting a business contract? Regardless, trying to enforce this type of prohibition would mean that ESPN would have to limit the same opportunities for any other schools or conference. This does not make sense for them from a business point of view, and ESPN is indeed a business. Imposing unnecessary restrictions will change ESPN entirely and even bring up other inequality issues. For instance, why not televise more DII games? Why limit most exposure to DI teams? The answer is obvious: because that's what fans want to see and are willing to pay for. Business 101. 3. Con mentioned how the teams who advance to the BCS are chosen, which include votes from fans and coaches. His argument is that extra exposure for SEC teams will give them an advantage for votes in both of these areas. However, coaches are absolutely aware about what other teams are doing; after all they prepare to play against those teams or at least hear about them and know what's going on. Coaches don't ONLY rely on ESPN analysts, and Con shouldn't assume that fans are ignorant enough to ignore other teams. By the way - ESPN will obviously still report on other teams, especially if they're successful. 4. While Con notes that ESPN sports analysts are "experts" in quotes - implying that he does not agree with their credentials - what he conveniently ignores is that these "experts" would be out of a job if their opinions weren't relevant, insightful and justified. For instance, if a so-called expert goes on about how good UF is, it's probably because the team went 8-0 in their conference. Obviously no "expert" is going to ignore that reality, just as one couldn't say that an SEC team like Vanderbilt was doing well after going 0-8 in the conference. So, keep in mind that CNN analysts merely relay the facts and the numbers speak for themselves. Win-loss ratio and other figures help them come up with their analysis. In other words, Con's argument that these analysts are biased is hardly accurate. If a team is good, these analysts are going to say it because it's in their best interest to do so. If they reported misinformation or didn't mention teams that were outstanding, it would hurt them and their reputation. Therefore, Con's statement, "The SEC will look better than it is, tarnishing the judging system and human component of the BCS" is not entirely true. ESPN analysts can't just make stuff up or throw out random numbers. The teams from all conferences will speak for themselves. 5. Con writes that the ESPN analysts "would also not dare to shine too much of a negative light on SEC teams, as they're in a contract with the conference." I would argue that ESPN has little incentive to speak unnecessarily favorably of the SEC conference; the contract merely allows ESPN to have a bunch of access to the games, and televise those games nationwide. Whether the SEC goes to the BCS or not is of little to no relevance, because ESPN is going to cover the teams that go to the BCS regardless of their conference. Not to mention that ESPN has contracts with other conferences too! 6. While Con's point has merit in noting that some SEC schools such as Florida will actually be expanding their budget from this exposure while other schools must tighten their budget, he ignores the fact that the less visible teams in the SEC - such as Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi and Auburn - will now be getting more exposure so that they can expand their recruiting. In short, Con wants to prohibit the advancement of some schools because he thinks other schools that will also benefit shouldn't get the luxury, and through no fault of their own to boot. When you think about it, Pro wants to punish these teams (the players, coaches, schools and fans) and for what? Because they were too marketable? That's bogus. If these teams have the opportunity to succeed and expand, then to try and hinder that opportunity is poor sportsmanship in my book. 7. That brings me to my next point. Football: it's just a game. These salary increases and this additional exposure is really about the BCS games according to Con's first round argument. In other words, he suggests infringing upon perfectly legal business opportunities between ESPN and these schools because he's upset that perhaps there might be a slight advantage to one particular conference in terms of who does and does not make it to the BCS. I don't think the outcome of a college football game is reason enough to interfere with people's right to profit or prosper in a legal and reasonable manner. 8. Another issue I have is that I don't think money is or should be as much of a factor in college as it is in professional sports, and even there that argument annoys me. For example, I'm a life-long Yankee fan and how many times have I heard that the Yankees "bought" their championships with their high payrolls. However, the reality is that each player (and each coach) on each team has the ability to work hard, improve and win. Obviously richer schools have better recruitment opportunities, but so what? All players are on the same level, and what they do once they get there regardless of their college perks (or salary for professional players) is up to them. If players in Vanderbilt aren't as good as the players in UF, then they should practice and get themselves to that level instead of complaining about it. Money doesn't win games. Players win games. And I can guarantee that if a team was successful with great numbers, they would get ESPN exposure regardless of their conference. 9. I also think Con does not give fans enough credit. Don't you think fans would get tired of seeing the same teams advance to the BCS games every year? I think it's safe to say that people appreciate variety and often even vote for the under-dogs anyway. 10. You'll notice that Con conveniently ignores other factors, such as the Big Ten having its own 24 hour sports channel available on most major cable carriers which grosses about $66M for the league per year, as well as the league's 10 year, $1 billion contract with ABC/ESPN. So... other conferences can do stuff like this, but not the SEC? And what about when Notre Dame for the longest time dominated the air waves by having every one of its games nationally televised?! Hmm... What gives? [1] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...