Frank the Tank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18,986
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1866
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
|
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(06-22-2022 02:06 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: (06-20-2022 10:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (06-20-2022 08:47 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: ESPN hates the Big Ten. However, despite the wishful thinking of the pro-SEC honks on this board, they realized we're too strong to be brought down. So they're trying to find a way to use the Big Ten to their advantage.
At the end of the day, I just don't think the conference is better off with a network that has made its biases well known and go, instead, with a combo that can give the conference its unique ecosystem which, therefore, removes the need to play nice with a corporation that is aligned with the anti-North bias.
The Walt Disney Company might be many things, but anti-North isn’t one of them.
Speaking as Big Ten guy, I think a lot of Big Ten fans simply whine too much about supposed ESPN bias. I’m frankly tired of it. The editorial bias on the talking head shows will ALWAYS be for whoever is winning at the time, whether it’s the Yankees, Warriors or, yes, the SEC. If the Big Ten isn’t winning national championships in football or basketball, why on Earth should we ever expect editorial bias in our favor? Unless the Big Ten starts consistently beating the SEC in the playoff games that matter, what leg do we have to stand on here? As a conference, we’re essentially like those teams that are the richest in the sport with the highest payrolls yet don’t win the big one. Those types of entities don’t exactly engender much sympathy with the general public. It’s like expecting ESPN to provide glowing coverage to a Yankees team that loses the division to a Rays team with a fraction of its payroll. No one outside of partisan Yankees fans cares to hear it. I love the Big Ten as much as anyone, but objectively speaking, our performance in the key sports of football and basketball has simply been underwhelming this century considering that we have had the biggest financial advantages of anyone.
Now, financial bias is separate purely about green: whoever makes them money is favored and, on that front, the Big Ten will always be favored and an important property for ESPN or any other network. ESPN might spend entire days serving up hot takes on the Cowboys, LeBron and the Big Ten, but when it comes to actual important part of the schedule in prime time, ESPN badly wants and pays up for all of their respective games.
They don't need the 4-letter monopsony to do that when they have YES. YES is the New York Yankees organ. That's also the beauty of BTN. I don't necessarily want the 4-letter monopsony to heap glowing praise on the conference. If I want to watch Big Ten news then I can tune in there. The 4-letter doesn't really need to hype up properties when they already get subscriber $$$ up the wazoo. They do it BECAUSE OF POLITICS, Frank! They are a political organization masquerading as a sports network. Because you're so in love with Disney you don't want to see it.
This is what I see when I have to watch a Big Ten game on the 4-letter: "Hey, gang. Are you ready for another SEC Saturday? The bestest ever college football for this and every other Saturday in the fall! Best football! Greatest fans! Packed stadiums! Big, hard, fast players! There's no conference like us...I mean... it! Everyone is either SEC or jealous of S-E-C! Look at the great coaches! Bestest coaches and best paid coaches ever! Don't turn the dial! And if that can't satisfy your thirst there's also the complimentary option of the few football brands from the ACC, Big 12, etc., etc., etc.. You know what you came for....
...but first we have to show you our obligated, contracted, boring BigTen game..."
Let's just leave all that nonsense behind and chart our own course. Staying at the 4-letter guarantees being second fiddle.
ESPN hates the Big Ten!
I think this is all confirmation bias: you're bringing in your own perception of how the Big Ten is treated by ESPN and then use any instance that you see as confirmation of that perception. I'm not blaming you - we all do that as sports fans if we are honest with ourselves. That's how we see referees and umps (where they are ALWAYS making bad calls against our own team, no matter who it might be), announcers (e.g. every NFL and MLB fan seems to think that Joe Buck is biased against their team), local reporters (who seem to ALWAYS be negative towards our favorite teams), etc. We are hyper-aware of all the negative things that go against our favorite teams and all of the positive things that go in favor of our rivals, so we all have this internal narrative that everyone is biased against us. It's a universal belief among all sports fans.
What I actually care about for the Big Ten is that it's NOT about us as the hard core committed Big Ten sports fan. Getting maximum value in the marketplace for the long-term is not about people like us. Instead, it's about reaching the casual sports fan and continuing to maximize our viewership among that group. It's about putting us in the same plane as the NFL as opposed to, say, how the NHL was over the past 20 years. Sure, NHL fans knew which channels to turn to in order to watch their games, but the casual fans weren't brought in, which is why the league wanted to get back onto ESPN badly.
It's not that I love Disney, but I think you're greatly underestimating how much more power and, more importantly, stability that they have relative to everyone else in entertainment industry compared to even 6 years ago when the Big Ten signed their last TV contract. Disney bought most of the assets that made FOX a more equal player during the last Big Ten TV contract negotiations - where FOX used to be a multi-platform conglomerate 6 years ago, they essentially have no network effects or synergy with any other properties at all along with no viable standalone streaming service.
The Big Ten fans that complain about ESPN bias are honestly complaining about small time details about on-air personalities and failing to see the much bigger picture. While I trust CBS and NBC to exist in 6 years, the issue that I see is that the reason why they're willing to spend money (and why Wall Street is currently OK with it) is for streaming... and I don't trust that either (a) Paramount+ and/or Peacock will still exist in 6 years or (b) that CBS and NBC are going to have the same ownership in 6 years. In contrast, the Disney that you see today is very likely going to be the same core Disney that you see 6 years from now - I don't think ABC, ESPN or their streaming platforms (whether they continue to be separate entities or combined into one giant Disney+ service) are going anywhere.
As I've stated before, I'm not talking about the #1 and #2 games on OTA. FOX is obviously getting the #1 package and if CBS and/or NBC gets the #2 package, then that's great for the Big Ten. OTA games for the highest profile games should be the goal and I don't disagree with anyone on that front.
What my focus on is where the #3 package goes along with everything else (particularly basketball and streaming rights). We can whine about editorial coverage all day, but the ABC/ESPN/ESPN+ combo is miles ahead in terms of the other media companies on this front. Remember that there are 6, 7 or more (during non-conference weeks) Big Ten games per week on any given Saturday.
We need to understand the TOTAL package, NOT just the top 2 games. At the same time, we also need to have faith that whoever we're putting our brand and exposure into the hands of for the next 6 years (or however long the next contract will be) is actually going to be the same core company by the end of the contract. The only ones bidding that I actually have faith in that being the case are Disney and Amazon. Everyone else is totally in flux. These are global industry issues that dwarf any issue about on-air personalities. Who gives a crap about on-air pundits - this is about long-term money and power in the corridors of Hollywood and beyond and the Big Ten needs to keep its presence there.
|
|