Well, this is interesting. From USC's website...
ESPN Radio and the University of Southern California (USC) today announced a multi-year agreement in which the network will have exclusive national broadcast rights for all home Trojans football games.
This marks ESPN Radio's first nationally exclusive broadcasting agreement with a college football program and only the second such agreement in the industry (Notre Dame and IMG Sports).
"We have had a long relationship with USC which has proven to be an excellent one in many ways," says Tim McCarthy, Sr. Vice President, ESPN Radio Play by Play & Talent Planning. "We will work closely with USC to develop ancillary marketing opportunities to touch USC fans everywhere."
ESPN Radio will present USC games on up to 300 affiliates nationwide. 710 ESPN Los Angeles (KSPN) has been the flagship station of the USC Football Radio Network (Fresno to San Diego) since 2006.
So 300 ESPN Radio affiliates across the country will be airing USC football games this fall. ESPN and USC have always had a tight relationship, with the network relentlessly hyping up the Trojan machine during the Pete Carroll era. (Remember the awful debates declaring the 2005 USC team the greatest ever before they lost the national title game?) Now, those questions of Trojan-friendly bias are going to reach a fever pitch since the university and ESPN are officially business partners.
This could create a lot more issues when USC has a 4 PM eastern game as opposed to a 10 PM eastern game. At 4 PM on the east coast, there are plenty of games starting that would gain a lot more local interest than USC. Penn State's games are broadcast on an FM and an AM station in State College, and the AM station is an ESPN Radio affiliate. So if the Penn State and USC games started at the same time, would the affiliate really air the USC game? That would probably cause riots.
This whole situation reminds me of the Longhorn Network, but on a national level, albeit on the radio. If you want to draw a comparison, this contract is very similar to NBC's television deal with Notre Dame, with national rights to all home games. However, NBC doesn't drive the national sports conversation like ESPN does. If you think that ESPN getting in bed with another school for a deal like this isn't going to lead to even more questions of favoritism, you're out of your mind. At least ESPN can do the next sensible thing and hire Colin Cowherd as their USC pre and post game host.
@pink_funk will read in the am. Thanks kiddo
@AlexSalta Wow, missed that one. Rovell is an old friend and while I don't know Sandomir, I respect him a lot. I'll reserve comment.
@awfulannouncing. you biased the polling by giving your opinion before the poll.
Douche vs lesser douche?? Well let's see..grown men fighting on Twitter over unwritten rules. Of course the lesser douche will win this one!!
@Ourand_SBJ I wonder if Rovell changed his tweeting habits now that he shows direct replies in his timeline. Is he more confrontational?
Put anti-Rovell sentiment aside here. What he did was perfectly fine, initially. If what he says is true, then he did his own reporting and confirming, as any good journalist would have done, AND he credited the reporter who first reported it, as we would like to see done everywhere.
Sandomir is right in that the way Rovell spread his message did come off a little arrogant, though. But I'm fine with it. What gets me is how Rovell feels compelled to RT what Sandomir is arguing to him, and throw his own input in before the RT, thus talking down to Sandomir in front of all of his followers. If he could just simply reply to Sandomir so we didn't all have to see it, that would have been mroe appropriate.
Of course, I didn't write the rules of Twitter, right?
@awfulannouncing Great summary
Yeah, it's not like Rovell didn't credit the guy. From his first tweet on the subject, Rovell mentioned Sandomir. All above board. As much as this kills me, Rovell did nothing wrong here. Sandomir comes across as the asshole who throws a fit for no reason.
@awfulannouncing Some networks use 'confirmation' as a way to avoid giving direct credit.
@awfulannouncing Sandomir's report was confirmed by Richard and his paper already.
@asolomon6 gracias, if being the Larry Merchant of Twitter fights is our ceiling, it's still been a good ride
@PaulPabst but if that network obtains the information on their own are they obligated to credit somebody else just because they were first?
@Ourand_SBJ Definitely entertaining to a point. Just feel like at some point they should've cut the chord. Both seemed overly sensitive.
@CorkGaines yes if someone else reports it first.
@PaulPabst who was first is something that only reporters care about
@PaulPabst as long as they dont claim to be first, I dont see why it is an obligation if the material isnt stolen