Estimated read time: 6-7 minutes
The disinformation campaign aimed at the Pac-12 Conference jump-started again on Wednesday. CBS Sports reported from the Fiesta Summit spring meetings in Arizona that ESPN was "out" as a Tier 1 option for the Pac-12 Conference's media rights.
"Murky future," said the headline.
"If ESPN is not interested," read the body of the piece, "… there doesn't appear to be an obvious brand-name suitor for the league."
Among the unnamed sources mentioned in the report was a "Big 12 administrator" who offered in a quote that this was the first time ESPN had publicly confirmed that it wanted nothing to do with the Pac-12's primary rights.
Trouble is, it wasn't accurate.
Reporters from The Athletic and Sports Illustrated quickly torpedoed the report. Nicole Auerbach of The Athletic tweeted: "The Pac-12 and ESPN met as recently as today." Ross Dellenger of SI.com, followed with: "ESPN remains in negotiations with the Pac-12 for its primary TV package."
I reached a member of the Pac-12 CEO Group on Wednesday evening who told me that it only "took a few minutes to refute the BS." Additionally, a second source told me Thursday that ESPN executives were disappointed when they saw the report. It wasn't at all accurate.
College athletics has become high-stakes stuff. The modern major conference media-rights deals scale from $300 million to $1 billion annually. There are plenty of whispers and conflicting agendas. Also, there are a lot of third parties happy to be along for the ride. One high-profile consulting firm currently working behind the scenes, for example, bills its clients $60,000 a month.
I've vowed to give you sourced, in-depth reporting and commentary. I'm not here to paint a rosy picture of the Pac-12. The conference has a steep climb in front of it. Mistakes have been made. I'm here for you — my readers — not for clicks or to perpetuate someone else's tired agenda.
Part of the job is sorting through those competing agendas, vetting unnamed sources and doubling back to ensure what you're being told is accurate. As journalists, we're only as good as our sources. You've got to report the truth — not just serve as a relay for information that invested parties want thrown out there.
In March, I received a telephone call from a gentleman named Clark Williams at the Big 12. He's a vice president in charge of brand management. It was a curious call because I hadn't reached out to the Big 12.
Williams introduced himself. He mentioned his work in Major League Baseball and the NBA. He asked me about my reporting background and complained about his allergies. He positioned the call as a "get to know you" but before we hung up, Williams questioned me about a column I'd written that cast some light on the Big 12's relationship with a powerful consulting firm.
As my father once told me, "The free lunch is never really free."
I've been critical of the some of the Big 12's strategies and tactics in the last eight months. It has felt heavy handed at times. This week's CBS Sports report citing "a Big 12 administrator" as the source is just a small part of a troubling trend. One that I wish would take a nap.
I happen to think the college athletics eco-system is better off with the ACC, Pac-12 and Big 12 all healthy and well-funded enough to keep the surging Big Ten and SEC in view of the front windshield.
A month after my first call with Williams, I received a text message from him. It read: "Hey John! What's up my friend, Clark Williams here from the Big 12. Have a somewhat random question for you, let me know if you have a minute!"
I called.
Williams proceeded to tell me he read something on Reddit from anonymous poster who claimed I'd reported something inaccurate and critical about the Big 12. Williams said he'd hunted for it but came up empty. He told me he sifted through my radio-show archives, listened back to the weekly podcast I do with Jon Wilner, and read my columns.
"I couldn't find it anywhere," he said.
If there's something I've actually written or said that is inaccurate, I want to know about it. I told Williams that. But I'm not in the business of refuting things that I didn't report. I suspect Williams wanted me to know he was paying close attention to what I was reporting about the Big 12. Or maybe it was a brush-back pitch for some of my previous critical coverage. Who knows? But he was hassling me over something I didn't report. It felt a little manipulative. I told him as much.
I don't know who CBS Sports is leaning on for its sourcing. But the entity appears to be openly rooting for the downfall of the Pac-12. I find that odd for a news agency. Particularly when so many high-level Pac-12 sources have gone on the record to underscore how dedicated they are to the conference.
Phil DiStefano, Colorado's chancellor, is the latest to go public. He told USA Today he thought "there's a very good possibility" the Pac-12's media deal would put the conference in the No. 3 spot among the Power 5 conferences, ahead of the Big 12 and ACC.
"We're committed to the Pac-12," DiStefano said. "What I've said along with the other presidents and chancellors is we're not going to even think about going anywhere, none of us, until we see what kind of offer we get, and that's still being worked out. And I'm confident it's going to be fine."
Then came the CBS Sports report.
Maybe the source cited in the news story is rooting for the downfall of the Pac-12 for the sport of it. Or maybe it's more insidious. I'm told by a credible source that ESPN's position was misrepresented to the CBS Sports reporter.
It's no secret that the Big 12 would love to poach Colorado, Arizona and maybe Arizona State. To do that, however, would require the Pac-12 to end up with a media-rights deal so subpar that it left those schools little choice but to defect.
The reports in recent months about Ion and CW being engaged in negotiations with the Pac-12's rights are an interesting study. They were also false. Those familiar with CW were particularly amused. CW had one early conversation with the Pac-12 last summer, but hadn't talked with the conference in several months. That network cut a deal to broadcast LIV Golf but hired outside consultants to negotiate it. CW doesn't have an in-house executive with sports-programming expertise.
I'm told that ESPN, Apple and Amazon all continue to expresss interest in carrying Pac-12 games. FS1 also needs to fill some important Pacific Time Zone windows. I'm told by a reliable source that — "yes" — FOX is also still engaged with the Pac-12.
I don't know if ESPN is going to end up the Tier 1 partner for the Pac-12, but it still makes the most sense. These are strange times. Bob Thompson, the retired Fox Sports Networks president, told me that the layoffs, restructuring and economic pressures currently plaguing the industry are a "minor" factor in these kinds of negotiations.
"Got to have programming," Thompson said.
For real.
Read more of columnist John Canzano exclusively at JohnCanzano.com.
