If you cover college sports for ESPN, you’ve got a real problem right now.
The biggest story these days is the conference realignment that’s bringing tectonic shifts to the NCAA landscape, ending century-old rivalries, and setting longtime partners at each others’ throats.
Problem is, ESPN itself is at the heart of why this is happening. Its Longhorn Network deal with the University of Texas kicked off the mess, sending Texas A&M to the SEC because they’re so mad about the deal, which gives Texas $300 million over twenty years, puts a conference game on the network, and wants to show high school games and highlights (ever seen a ticked-off Aggie? It’s not pretty). The idea of a school-only network played a role last year in sending the Nebraska Cornhuskers to the Big Ten. That helped lead Colorado to leave for the Pac-12 and left the Big 12 near death, having lost a quarter of its members, including two premier ones. The instability in the Big 12 and movement toward superconferences surely played a part in the ACC’s recent raiding of the Big East’s Pittsburgh and Syracuse.
The near-destruction of the Big 12 sent Oklahoma scurrying to the Pac-12 in the hopes of finding stability in the west with Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas Tech (don’t ask me why OU, my alma mater, still wants to be in a league with UT, but that’s another story). On Tuesday, the Pac-12 said no thanks, in no small part because it was “appalled” at Texas, which insisted on retaining its $300 million TV deal with ESPN.
How has ESPN covered its own role in the fiasco this week? Poorly.
Here’s Pat Forde’s top yesterday:
In an ideal world, Oklahoma and Texas would return to the Big 12 fold today with heightened humility. They would be freshly thankful for the company they keep. They would pledge to be good working partners with their peers.
Since this is the real world, not the ideal, I assume the chances of that happening are slim.
But the Sooners and Longhorns can at least be encouraged to show some dignity, class and respect to their conference brethren. After threatening to take their talents and problematic TV network to the Pac-12, the Atlantic Coast Conference and everywhere else but South Beach, they’ve really got nowhere else to go but back home.
You’ve embarrassed yourselves and your conference, and now must backpedal faster than Deion Sanders. Your egos and attitudes have helped create a chain-reaction panic from coast to coast. Your infighting needs to end.
Imagine if The Wall Street Journal reported that a hacking scandal had roiled Britain and failed to note News Corp.’s role in it. That’s analogous to what’s happening in this column. ESPN’s network is/was the core issue in the Big 12 turmoil.
That kind of coverage doesn’t deviate much from the ESPN corporate line, which goes like this:
The driving force on realignment lies with the conferences and universities. The Big 12 determined in 2010 to grant each of its schools the ability to create their own networks. As a result, the Big 12 stayed together and the University of Texas made the decision to launch its network. ESPN subsequently won a competitive bid to become its media partner. We have since seen Kansas State and Missouri create opportunities while Oklahoma is exploring its media options. The concept of LHN remains the same as it was 15 months ago.
At least Forde mentioned a “TV network,” though. Ivan Meisel Maisel doesn’t note that angle at all:
The arson inspectors will decide in due time what set off this conflagration. It may have been the arrogance of Texas, or the inability of Texas A&M to deal with that arrogance (you’d think if anyone knew how ). But once the Aggies threw up their hands and began talking to the SEC, they set off an emotional chain reaction that only now has begun to calm.
Ted Miller’s Pac-12 blog post doesn’t mention the Longhorn Network sticking point either, much less ESPN’s role in the mess.
Andy Katz mentions the Longhorn Network, but doesn’t note that his employer owns it.
- 1
- 2
As an Aggie, my view is extremely biased, but I've seen a lot more misdeeds by ESPN than simply failing to disclose their conflict of interest. In many ways, they have been active participants in an attempt to discredit A&M, cover up news that might shed a negative light on the University of Texas, promote the University of Texas above what it deserves, and keep the Big 12 together. There are SO many examples.. The biggest that comes to mind is when ESPN released their preseason Top 25 predictions, and included Texas v. Rice in the mix, despite the fact that neither Texas nor Rice were ranked. After getting called out by a number of journalists and Aggie fans, they quietly removed Texas from the article without admitting fault. Yesterday they published a number of false statistics about A&M. In one instance they claimed that it's the first time two ranked teams have played at Kyle Field in 35 years, when in reality it has happened many many times since then, including last season. They also accused A&M of only forcing one three-and-out on defense, when in reality there have been seven. Their choice not to hold GameDay in College Station this week, which has been criticized by virtually everyone including their own staffers, was no doubt impacted by the current climate. On ESPN's current College Football front page, it describes tomorrow's A&M/OSU game of being a battle of who will be fighting Oklahoma and Texas for the conference championship! Nevermind that Texas is only barely ranked, or that there is another Big 12 team (Baylor) ranked well above Texas with a much more likely shot at the championship.
Again, as an Aggie, I am obviously biased, but it also makes me much more perceptive. This isn't just a matter of ESPN doing sloppy work, it's a pattern of intentional behavior driven by a corporate agenda. Any journalist associated with ESPN right now should be ashamed of themselves.
#1 Posted by Sam, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 01:06 PM
As an Aggie, I too am biased, but I must confess that I am relieved that this sort of issue is being reported (at last) by such a respected entity as the CJR. Though I live in Canada now, my frustration with the manner in which many folks (both in Texas and at ESPN)act more as apologists for the various positions that the University of Texas takes on these issues, rather than as the clear-eyed journalists they purport to be (and which many more careless consumers of media might still believe) has been personally frustrating since I first became aware of it in the 80's. Thank you, CJN for putting the spotlight on a critical issue that will only become more important as "amateur" athletics becomes financed more and more by corporate media monoliths. Good work!
#2 Posted by Glenn, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 02:20 PM
Hey guys. Not an Aggie fan, but a diehard Gator (welcome aboard!). ESPN is not just out to get the Aggies. College Football will always be my number one, but my second favorite sporting event is Indy Car. ESPN will not show highlights, or give it hardly any coverage whatsoever, to not jepordize its coverage of NASCAR. This is even though ABC/ESPN has a deal to broadcast four Indy Car races a year. If you need anything more, all I have to say is Craig James.
#3 Posted by Stitch, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 02:40 PM
To agree with Stitch's comment, I think its safe to say that ESPN has tried its absolute hardest to bury hockey on its network, mostly because they are bitter that hockey went to Versus and legitimized it as a competitor. All of their analysts dismiss it as if they've never heard of it, its pretty silly really. And worst of all, if you look at the numbers hockey is much healthier and more popular then the NBA (and WNBA, haha what a joke they show that still) but will continue to be considered a fringe sport by them until this NBA lockout forces them to show NHL programming every so often for the first time in 9 years.
#4 Posted by guy, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 04:22 PM
To his credit, Tony Kornheiser, with all the inflection that makes him great, made clear mention of the ESPN University of Texas network deal as a major factor in the conference realignment drama during an episode of PTI two days ago.
#5 Posted by Adam Bruns, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 05:03 PM
This is why America needs amateur athletes. So big colleges and big businesses can make big money off them.
#6 Posted by keith roberts, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 05:14 PM
espn has a vested $$$ interest in keeping the big 12 intact because it decreases the role they have played in the conference instability and continues to magnify the role Texas will play in the Big 12 in the future. ESPN would like to become Texas's personal recruiting coordinator, just so the $$$ pours in.
what a joke.
broadcasting over 400 games each year, contracting to the many conferences they now own the broadcasting rights to, it will come as no surprise that the way the Big 10 did (owning their own rights) will eventually force ESPN out. And especially when it becomes obvious that ESPN plays to who pays them.
Please note over that last 10 years how ESPN broadcasters like Forde, May, and others absolutely spit when they hear the name Big 10!
#7 Posted by local too, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 06:15 PM
The challenge ESPN has is not journalistic, but legal. There are major legal issues associated with ESPN encouraging any movement between conferences. For their own reporters to comment on the legal parts of the issue opens them up for a lawsuit from the smaller schools left behind in the Big 12. Ken Starr knows this and that is why he was leveraging Baylor - to keep the Big 12 open and with the Big 12 TV money in whatever form the Big 12 takes, even with Big East folks. These smaller schools, btw, put out money for projects based upon Big 12 football money and have a strong legal case against the cancellation of the contract. So ESPN will comment as little as possible, knowing the legal liability of the very deep pockets of ABC/Disney will fund about a dozen college endowments if they make a mistake. Besides, did they really have journalistic integrity to start?
#8 Posted by Not a UT Fan, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 05:30 PM
The Big 12 members should vote Texas out of the conference then
extend invites to Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas and Texas AM.
The conference will prosper and all be will happy.
#9 Posted by Echotech, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 08:44 PM
Really? Obscuring their own role?
Pretty rich coming from Columbia, you know, CONSIDERING MISSOURI WAS THE FIRST SCHOOL TO GO PUBLIC WITH WANTING TO CHANGE CONFERENCES BACK IN DECEMBER 2009!
Sheesh, what a ridiculous basis for a story if you actually know the history. And the idea that the Longhorn Network is what pushed Nebraska or Texas A&M out is a total joke.
Big Red Today Article
That article will tell you what you need to know about Nebraska's leaving. Completely blows up that terribly erroneous assumption. And oh yeah, it's from a Nebraska source.
Texas A&M Weekly Wednesday
And that release by Texas A&M AD Bill Byrne blows up the terribly erroneous assumption about their motivation. The Aggies have been aware of the Longhorn Network for a very long time and never worried about it until they saw the amount and the partnership with ESPN. THE AGGIES HAVE BEEN AND STILL ARE RESEARCHING AN AGGIE NETWORK.
But congratulations for adding your two cents to the echo chamber.
#10 Posted by Brett, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 12:31 AM
Please, when will the Texas apologists just go away...go count your money or whatever. Texas' greed and arrogance killed the Big 12 (it's dead but some of them are in serious denial...the reported agreement, if it comes to fruition will only delay it's demise). Nebraska's move was a homerun (athletically, fiscally, research money-wise, culturally). CU going West made a lot of sense culturally and they've wanted it forever...travel will be another issue for their already strapped athletic department. The Aggie move to the SEC is great...they had the kahunas to make the move and congratulations to them! The move will help them with recruiting in Texas. University of Texas' actions will hurt them in the long run...they are becoming the most hated team in the country. While I'm a Husker fan I used to live in Texas and have always respected the university, their fans and--until the past two years or so--their athletic department...no longer. When the Big 12 finally dies UT will have a big problem especially with their non-football athletic teams. Too bad, they had it all and blew it big time!
#11 Posted by steve lamb, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 01:22 AM
Brett, in comment #10:
You've got the wrong "Columbia." And I'm pretty sure this university is happy with its current athletic conference, even if it doesn't get all that much attention from ESPN.
#12 Posted by Clint Hendler, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 09:24 AM
Your story lost all credibility and sense of fairness with three words..."my alma mater"...referring of course to OU. By the way, when Nebraska and Colorado left the Big 12, the Longhorn Network did not even exist. So how, then, was that the reason they left? Please check your facts!
#13 Posted by jake, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 11:30 AM
Ryan, you're so good at calling out when a media narrative gets a ways off the facts that it's surprising here you buy in to the evil-LHN meme (the warrant at the heart of your arguments on ESPN disclosure). A tectonic shift to superconferences was "kicked off" by the LHN? Nebraska was frustrated at being outvoted on partial qualifiers by the other 11 back in the '90s, and A&M tried going to the SEC when the SWC broke up in '96. This narrative provides great cover for schools who have a very strong interest in not being blamed for being bad partners themselves.
The LHN is at heart a third-tier rights sale -- and no conference, not even the Pac-12, shares third-tier rights equally. This narrative depends on people being surprised by the amount, though at $15M a year it's not shockingly different from similar third-tier sales before (Kansas/UNC basketball; and Ohio State sold its third-tier rights for $11M a year two years ago. Nebraska sold millions in third-tier rights in 2009 and shared none of it with the Big 12 that it was about to depart.)
Maybe the posts on ESPN that upset you are leaving out the LHN as the "sticking point" because ... it's not the sticking point?
(I'm with you partway on disclosure issues -- but then, CBS News doesn't interrupt every report on realignment by saying "CBS benefits financially from showing SEC games" either.)
#14 Posted by Jason, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 02:45 PM
Interesting column, however I think you need to add wildly inaccurate and blatantly irresponsible "reporting" to ESPN's list of misdeeds in the B12 realignment saga.
They're continuous and breathless repeating of baseless tweets and reports fed the panic machine, and nearly created the realignment they so seemingly desired. Nice try, ESPN.
With Fox holding the B12 contracts, it makes you wonder if there was yet another ulterior motive by ESPN. Blow up the conference, pick up the big pieces, and maybe, just maybe, see if you can control the superconferences and promote a playoff. Big bucks, plus you knock a competitor down a few notches.
ESPN is definitely a two edged sword. They're the golden goose, but then they're also on the verge of ruining college sports. One thing is for sure: they don't care one bit about the impacts to student athletes, especially those in the non-revenue sports.
#15 Posted by Cyclone alum, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 03:24 PM
YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ESPN makes more $$$$$$ off of college sports than anyone PERIOD! Of course they want conference re-alignment. Of course they want 4 magas that they can control (via TV $$$$). Of course they want to use this for a playoff system they can control. Of course they want colleges to pay players etc and soforth. They want to convince fans and boosters that they'll be on the outside looking in if they don't get on the bandwagon.
ESPN, the network I love to hate.
They're now doing the same thing to high school sports.
#16 Posted by GoldenChain, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 03:28 PM
Great article.
ESPN needs competition because they are out of control.
They think they are the story as opposed to reporting the story.
Forde is a clown and always has been.
#17 Posted by Dave Anson, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 03:36 PM
Dear Hack,
Why is it always the case that the ACC "raids" while teams in other conferences "leave" to go elsewhere. Stick your Big East affinity or your lack of effort to strive toward objectivity where you integrity should be.
#18 Posted by chris, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 03:42 PM
Brett, in comment #10
Ignoring for the moment that the Columbia in question is Columbia University, Mizzou was not the first school to go public with its desire to move conferences. That would be Colorado or even Nebraska, considering that Tom Osbourne started waving his hand when rumors of Mizzou's interest started heating up. Missouri never said anything officially about wanting to go to the Big Ten. ESPN first reported the rumors of Big Ten expansion in December 2009 and Mizzou was one of five targets named, including Syracuse, Notre Dame, Rutgers and Pitt. So if Mizzou is responsible for all of this, then by your criteria, those other four schools are also guilty by association.
#19 Posted by David, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 04:35 PM
Notice how the ESPN pretty much has decided the Mountain West Conference doesn't exist after since the league completed its agreement with ESPN and went elsewhere?
ESPN has agendas all over the place and doesn't like being scorned. That is a major problem for media who take a creed to be OBJECTIVE.
ESPN is not objective at all ... you can't trust anything you see on the network due to all their conflicts of interest.
The P in ESPN does not stand for Professional. Not even close.
#20 Posted by Biased ESPN, CJR on Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 07:10 PM
Not to mention that the Syracuse-Pitt move is related to ESPN as well since the ACC and Big East both have contracts with ESPN for TV. And we all know that TV contracts and the money they bring in are the key reason those schools jumped.
That their writers then spent the last week lambasting Syracuse and Pitt for leaving is silly and of course they never mentioned their own involvement.
#21 Posted by NunesMagician, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 10:15 AM
ESPN would love nothing more than to turn CFB into their own version of WWF. They pick the winners, losers, matchups, decide who gets ranked where. It's why I NEVER watch it for anything other than live events, and any comments I hear their, I consider their source. They have become a sports version of the mainstream media. Doesn't mean they are bad, just very, very biased.
#22 Posted by Brent, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 12:23 PM
Boycott all ESPN talk shows and internet sites. Watch only live sports.
#23 Posted by Joe Brunt, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 12:54 PM
Gracie Blackburn has clearly watched a different ESPN than I did. I have watched many of the ESPN reports on conference realignment, and they rarely ever mention the Longhorn Network. And when they do, they rarely ever mention that ESPN owns the Longhorn Network. I wish I could say that, as a working journalist, I'm disappointed in a "news" organization blatantly spinning. But I've sadly come to expect nothing more from ESPN.
#24 Posted by cocknfire, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 01:47 PM
This is clearly not about the amount of money but instead about the winner of business and that begs the question if FOX, CBS or Comcast had won the would there be this much concern about a channel that few folks get to see?
What was the University of Texas supposed to do? Leave money on the table and pick another provider? Would any university have done that when they can pump a portion of the revenue back to the academic side of the house?
#25 Posted by Shirtonbackwards, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 01:53 PM
A Google search for ESPN & "Texas A&M" returned 10.4 million hits. ESPN & "Texas Longhorns" returned 4.5 million hits. Hmmmm.
#26 Posted by nova9047, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 02:39 PM
ESPN's Michael Wilbon points the finger at the university presidents in his laughable column, "Fooball kills Big East Basketball Tradition," last week (http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/id/7001193/football-kills-big-east-basketball-tradition):
"You wonder how the presidents of universities, right now the biggest hypocrites on the planet, could have the gumption to lecture anybody on the concepts of honoring commitment and having integrity when as a group these days they have precious little, if any."
But Wilbon's here to lecture you.
ESPN and Texas' deal is never mentioned.
#27 Posted by J.M., CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 02:54 PM
ESPN analysts don't have to mention the LHN and that ESPN owns it. Because every 3rd commercial on that network does it for them.
#28 Posted by Stemp, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 02:59 PM
If you are going make a relevant comparison you have you use similar parameters (name and masscot) and use relevant results. There are lots of websites that have the keywords ESPN and Aggies due to the move to the SEC, but this doesn't show or disprove the ESPN bias.
#29 Posted by Stemp, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 03:09 PM
The problem with the 5-7 Network started when their president admitted to wanting to broadcast high school games showcasing TEXAS COMMITS. It got worse when they attempted to coerce Texas Tech into getting their game with the gay cows shown on their network and threatened not to televise any of their games on ESPN if they didn't. They reached an agreement to broadcast their game against Kansas. They had to make a concession to Fox allowing Big Fox to show 1 Big 12 game in order for that to happen, BUT they don't share any of the rights for that SECOND tier game.
#30 Posted by David, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 03:22 PM
There is also strong suspicion that ESPN encouraged the ACC to grab Pitt and Syracuse from the Big East by promising to boost their contract behind the scenes. ESPN has been angry at the Big East for several months because that league rejected an undervalued offer to renew its contract early. The Big East wants to go to the open market next year, instead, and get a contract reflecting its true value.
NBC is interested in transforming Versus into a full fledged NBC Sports Network. The possibility of Big East football and basketball joining the NHL in anchoring a legitimate competitor might just be too much for ESPN to bear, so executives there could have decided to ruin the Big East now, preventing those schools from getting a big contract while bringing their BCS bid into question just like a few years ago.
#31 Posted by Reiko, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 04:20 PM
I hate texas as much as the next guy, but the non-Nebraskan media has this idea that Nebraska left due to the upcoming Bevo network. That is totally not correct, nebraska was working on their own network too. There are a million reasons why NU left, the LHN was not one of them.
#32 Posted by Husker, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 05:59 PM
Brett in #10
Others have already commented on it, but thought I'd give a link in case you missed it.
From the Mission Statement of The Columbia Journalism Review "
http://www.cjr.org/about_us/mission_statement.php
" ...Founded in 1961 under the auspices of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, CJR examines day-to-day press performance as well as the forces that affect that performance. ..."
This is not some report out of Columbia, MO.
#33 Posted by Jeff, CJR on Tue 1 Nov 2011 at 07:41 PM
The multitude of arguments as for what caused the turmoil in the Big 12 all have merits and inconsistencies equally. Yet one argument is irrefutable. The reason why the Longhorn Network is actually taking off when many others did not comes from the fact that the University of Texas, as well as ESPN, has far more financial gains to be made than the other schools who had once or are currently looking at their own networks. The Longhorns are currently the most valuable football program according to Forbes. The reason for this is sadly not because UT has the best football program or because UT has the best football record or even because UT is the best school in nation, interestingly Texas A&M actually is the preferred school among employers according to the Wall Street Journal. The ultimate spark that set the Big 12 ablaze is the fact that there are hordes of UT fans that have no ties to the school in any way, will never attend the university, and simply support it because over the years it has established a name brand status.
The University of Texas is a great school, but the fact that the media and public treat it identically to brands like Coach, Porsche, and Apple, a product that deserves more respect and value simply because of a name, is a detriment to the integrity and respect of what UT ultimately is and should be thought of as: a place of higher learning and research.
UT may suffer in the future as a result of the Longhorn Network or it may emerge from the fall of the Big 12 stronger, but in the end the truth is that UT has lost the respect of a dignified institution and now holds that of an overpriced name brand that people want to support as a result of some image.
#34 Posted by Taylor, CJR on Thu 19 Jan 2012 at 01:24 AM
It's really hard for me to understand why ESPN would do something like this. Sports networks are already struggling to get enough viewers to make a profit from their contracts... You would definitely think ESPN would try as hard as they could to get a concrete viewing audience.
#35 Posted by Matt Anderson, CJR on Mon 23 Jul 2012 at 12:28 PM