The ESPN Conspiracy?

[Dr. Blackheart]

USA Today article on the tangled web...very involved article that is pretty objective

With sister network ABC, ESPN holds at least some of the football and/or basketball TV rights of a vast majority of the NCAA's Division I conferences and all but two of college football's 35 postseason games — including the five games in the top-tier Bowl Championship Series. ESPN is the outright owner and operator of seven lower-level bowls.

"It approaches a monopoly, if it's not literally one," says Stephen Weber, a former member of the NCAA's Division I board of directors who retired as president of San Diego State University in July.

"You always have potential issues when you're in a situation like that."

Can ESPN objectively weigh in on realignment discussions when one conference stands to gain, another to lose, and the network has contractual ties with both? (The ACC and Big East, for example. Or the SEC and Big 12.)

"I suppose it is a conundrum for them," Oklahoma athletics director Joe Castiglione says. "We understand they have multiple partnerships with institutions and other conferences. We all agree there's a concern. I'm just not sure how we do anything about it."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2011-10-27/is-espn-the-force-behind-college-conference-realignment/51019966/1

[muhs03]

USA Today article on the tangled web...very involved article that is pretty objective

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2011-10-27/is-espn-the-force-behind-college-conference-realignment/51019966/1

I like the last quote as it is the only sentence of substance. The federal government has a horrible track record with regard to identifying monopolies early on. I mean....it took European countries to decide that MSFT was a detriment to international commerce. MSFT is a multi-billion dollar company and collegiate conferences...from a relative standpoint...arent worth a crap. Im skeptical of Syracuse though....half the ESPN employees seem to come from there and nevermind the all of the front-office Disney executives. This is why I dont think the WVU lawsuit actually goes to court.

[GGGG]

Just remember, *being* a monopoly isn't against the law.  It is only when a monopoly engages in anti-competitive behavior is when the law is applied.  And I doubt you could call them a monopoly - the SEC, B10 and P12 all have other television partners along with ESPN.  And the fact that ESPN owns a few bowl games is a problem.  Other networks are free to do the same.  Just because more people watch ESPN isn't their problem.

[Pakuni]

Just remember, *being* a monopoly isn't against the law.  It is only when a monopoly engages in anti-competitive behavior is when the law is applied.  And I doubt you could call them a monopoly - the SEC, B10 and P12 all have other television partners along with ESPN.  And the fact that ESPN owns a few bowl games is a problem.  Other networks are free to do the same.  Just because more people watch ESPN isn't their problem.

Is there such thing as a monopoly that isn't anti-competitive? Always thought it was fairly inherent in the term.

And ESPN isn't a monopoly.

[JWags85]

Is there such thing as a monopoly that isn't anti-competitive? Always thought it was fairly inherent in the term.

Well, you can have a natural monopoly.  And its basically the fact that the courts can't prosecute until the monopoly does something which blatantly anti-competitive act.  You could be the only seller of X good in a town, making you a monopoly, but thats not illegal until you use that monopoly status to restrict or inhibit other potential sellers.

[GGGG]

Is there such thing as a monopoly that isn't anti-competitive? Always thought it was fairly inherent in the term.

It is better to say a monopoly can exist, as long as it wasn't obtained by illegal conduct.  (Price fixing, etc.)  For instance, monopolies can exist if they are simply superior at doing business than its competitors.  (eg, one could argue that Google obtained its search market share this way.)  Monopolies can exist when it economically makes sense.  (eg, public utilities.)

[Lennys Tap]

Is there such thing as a monopoly that isn't anti-competitive? Always thought it was fairly inherent in the term.

And ESPN isn't a monopoly.

If you're the last buggy whip manufacturer I guess you're a monopoly - not because of an anti-competitive environment but because making buggy whips isn't very profitable anymore.

[mu03eng]

However, you can get into vertical and horizontal monopolies, you guys are thinking of it as a horizontal when I think they are much closer to being a vertical one.  I don't think that ESPN is a monopoly at this time, but like I said they are close.  They distribute content, they report on that content, and now they are getting into an area where they are at a minimum influencing what the content is.  If they start using that influence to alter the content developers to their advantage and the disadvantage of competitors, they are performing illegal acts(theoretically).  However, ultimately its a moot point because I don't think you could get anyone willing to step out on that legal ledge.

[Pakuni]

It is better to say a monopoly can exist, as long as it wasn't obtained by illegal conduct.  (Price fixing, etc.)  For instance, monopolies can exist if they are simply superior at doing business than its competitors.  (eg, one could argue that Google obtained its search market share this way.)  Monopolies can exist when it economically makes sense.  (eg, public utilities.)

Sure, but it's still, by its nature, anti-competitive. Perhaps not unlawfully so, but inherent in the definition of a monopoly is that no competition to it exists. Ergo, all monopolies are anti-competitive.
And here I shall end my semantical interruption.