WHEN THE NEWS leaked that ESPN was suing Conference USA, it had to take some by surprise.
WHEN THE NEWS leaked that ESPN was suing Conference USA, it had to take some by surprise.
The Worldwide Leader in Sports, ruler of all it surveys, taking on little C-USA, one of its heretofore partners?
Doesn't appear to be an even match, does it? Not exactly Grendel versus Beowulf.
In case you missed it, though, ESPN did file a lawsuit in New York federal court asking for damages of at least $21 million or for C-USA to honor an extension the network claims was agreed upon. Conference USA instead announced in January a five-year deal with Fox's networks.
It's not something fans of C-USA schools can simply shrug off. Marshall University's entire athletic budget is $21 million.
"Could this affect us? Yes," said MU athletic director Mike Hamrick. "That said, our conference hasn't sent us any of the details."
The most important detail probably centers on what is known in the biz as an FNFR. That's a first right to negotiate and first refusal.
When ESPN and C-USA signed a five-year deal in 2005 worth $21.9 million, an FNFR provision was included to allow the network to renegotiate in 2010. ESPN apparently believes C-USA didn't adhere to that FNFR.
It's interesting because one wouldn't think Conference USA officials would make a mistake along those lines. League commissioner Britton Banowsky not only has 20 years of experience as a collegiate conference administrator, he's a licensed attorney in Texas.
Of course, just guessing in print, ESPN might have fine legal representation as well.
"I talked to the conference commissioner," Hamrick said. "He briefed us [Wednesday]. He told us not to comment. But I don't know anything to comment on anyway."
Banowsky has said his office "disagrees with the positions [ESPN has] taken" and is "prepared to vigorously defend" itself.
WHEN THE NEWS leaked that ESPN was suing Conference USA, it had to take some by surprise.
The Worldwide Leader in Sports, ruler of all it surveys, taking on little C-USA, one of its heretofore partners?
Doesn't appear to be an even match, does it? Not exactly Grendel versus Beowulf.
In case you missed it, though, ESPN did file a lawsuit in New York federal court asking for damages of at least $21 million or for C-USA to honor an extension the network claims was agreed upon. Conference USA instead announced in January a five-year deal with Fox's networks.
It's not something fans of C-USA schools can simply shrug off. Marshall University's entire athletic budget is $21 million.
"Could this affect us? Yes," said MU athletic director Mike Hamrick. "That said, our conference hasn't sent us any of the details."
The most important detail probably centers on what is known in the biz as an FNFR. That's a first right to negotiate and first refusal.
When ESPN and C-USA signed a five-year deal in 2005 worth $21.9 million, an FNFR provision was included to allow the network to renegotiate in 2010. ESPN apparently believes C-USA didn't adhere to that FNFR.
It's interesting because one wouldn't think Conference USA officials would make a mistake along those lines. League commissioner Britton Banowsky not only has 20 years of experience as a collegiate conference administrator, he's a licensed attorney in Texas.
Of course, just guessing in print, ESPN might have fine legal representation as well.
"I talked to the conference commissioner," Hamrick said. "He briefed us [Wednesday]. He told us not to comment. But I don't know anything to comment on anyway."
Banowsky has said his office "disagrees with the positions [ESPN has] taken" and is "prepared to vigorously defend" itself.
It may seem ESPN is picking on C-USA. But there are a couple of apparent reasons for the lawsuit that aren't directly tied to the sought-after $21 million. And those reasons have nothing to do with filling Tuesday and Wednesday night slots.
It has to do with protecting turf. In this case, the subject is rights turf. See, rights deals are what the television industry revolves around. And it seems ESPN is convinced C-USA was obligated to, first, give the network the first crack at negotiations and, second, allow it to match or surpass any other offer before the sides parted.
If the network felt the FNFR was broken on any level, it had to sue in the name of precedent. Maybe deep down ESPN really didn't care if it lost C-USA to Fox. But it must make sure the legal lines are protected in case a similar situation pops up over a hotter property.
On the other hand, ESPN's filing might indicate Conference USA is a hotter property than one would think.
No, it's not a top-tier league. But it might be among the best of the second tier.
Also, look around. Fox is now being very aggressive in regard to college sports. There's the NBC-Versus partnership. Rebranded CBS is a player. There's the many-headed ESPN family.
There's good old-fashioned competition, which is good for C-USA and Marshall.
If, however, Conference USA loses this lawsuit, it's anything but good for the league and MU.
"If it hurts the conference, it hurts our program," Hamrick said. "At this point, though, the information I have says we feel very comfortable with Conference USA."
The hunch, however, is ESPN's legal team has its own level of comfort.
It's a case that certainly bears watching.
Reach Mitch Vingle at 304-348-4827, mitchvin...@wvgazette.com or follow him at http://twitter.com/MitchVingle.
Get Connected