Texas gets $300 Million from ESPN for Longhorn Network

• sleeper

  

  Big 12 = Dead
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  ytownfootball;644108 wrote:Honestly, I put more of the blame of screwing college football on ESPN. How the hell are we supposed to get any type of balanced coverage when the leader in sports news is able to pimp their product?
  

  
  This.
  
  
  So much for "subjective" / "unbiased" coverage. It's bad enough already with how hard ESPN blows the SEC.
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  thedynasty1998;644117 wrote:First off, ESPN wouldn't have done this if it wouldn't have benefited them. So we can't really question this as a business decision.
  

  
  GTFO.
  
  
  Because all business decisions work out the way they are planned, right?
• SportsAndLady

  

  It may benefit ESPN more economically, rather than monetarily. Meaning, they might have done this to keep Fox or CBS or any other media corporation away from this deal. They were also able to set the market value at 300 million, a number a lot of corporations simply cannot afford. I have heard some rumblings about an Oklahoma Sooners Network in the works, I highly doubt there are many media corporations that could afford a $300 million Sooners Network. ESPN will snatch that up, as well.
• vball10set

  hell, I'm surprised Phil Knight hasn't underwritten an Oregon Ducks network, or T. Boone Pickens an Oklahoma State Cowboys network...who knows where this could go??
• ytownfootball

  

  Am I the only one to notice that since the inception of the BCS that this whole network affiliation thing has exploded? It really is pitting the haves against the have nots more and more. Maybe it would have transpired without the BCS but I don't think so, and a play-off would probably make it worse.
  
  I don't like where this all seems to be heading, more like the pro game, but I don't see a return as the money is too big.
• SportsAndLady

  

  ytownfootball;645525 wrote:I don't like where this all seems to be heading, more like the pro game, but I don't see a return as the money is too big.

  
  It is strikingly similar to the YES! Network and the NY Yankees, isn't it?
• vball10set

  SportsAndLady;645528 wrote:It is strikingly similar to the YES! Network and the NY Yankees, isn't it?

  
  indeed it is
• ytownfootball

  

  Eh, just easier to blame fucking Notre Dame and nbc I guess.
• krambman

  

  ytownfootball;645525 wrote:Am I the only one to notice that since the inception of the BCS that this whole network affiliation thing has exploded? It really is pitting the haves against the have nots more and more. Maybe it would have transpired without the BCS but I don't think so, and a play-off would probably make it worse.
  
  I don't like where this all seems to be heading, more like the pro game, but I don't see a return as the money is too big.

  
  I actually think that it would be worse without the BCS. It used to be that the NCAA regulated all television deals for all NCAA sports. In the early 1990's (or maybe it was the late '80's, I'm not sure) the NCAA gave up that control and allowed schools and conferences to negotiate their own TV deals. Before this, the big schools like Texas, Ohio State, and Notre Dame would only be seen on TV outside of their own region maybe twice a season. This is what allowed Notre Dame to have their deal with NBC putting them on national television every home game.
  
  The NCAA gave up control of TV deals at the same time as the rise of cable television. The fact that most Americans now have some form of cable or dish, combined with the acquisition of ESPN by Disney allowing it to grow into what it is now, has led to where we currently are. Yes, the NCAA giving up the TV rights to the schools and conferences created a huge gap between the haves and have-nots. The Bowl Alliance (the predecessor to the BCS) made this gap even larger. Under that system only schools from the SEC, Big XII, Big East and ACC could win the coaches trophy (this is why Michigan was co-champs in 1997 because the Big Ten and Rose Bowl were not part of the Bowl Alliance so they could only win the AP title). Under the BCS these major bowls were now opened to teams like Boise State and TCU who never would have been allowed to play in any of these major bowls under the old system. Now the non-automatic conference get nearly $25 million a year to share. That's money they never would have received under the old system, so it's actually closing the gap.
  
  The rise of new TV networks has also helped close the gap. Conference like the WAC and MAC have games regularly being nationally televised. With so many networks now carrying college football games (ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, CSTV, Fox Sports, Versus) the minor conferences, or have-nots) get more coverage. Without all of these networks and contracts those teams would never been seen on national television and it would probably be difficult to find them on TV even in their local region. Has it made the rich richer? Absolutely, but don't think that the small guys have been left in the dust, because it could certainly be much worse for them.
• krambman

  

  Sorry for writing an essay.
• vball10set

  krambman;645567 wrote:Sorry for writing an essay.

  
  that's okay, we're used to it
• enigmaax

  ytownfootball;645525 wrote:Am I the only one to notice that since the inception of the BCS that this whole network affiliation thing has exploded? It really is pitting the haves against the have nots more and more. Maybe it would have transpired without the BCS but I don't think so, and a play-off would probably make it worse.
  
  I don't like where this all seems to be heading, more like the pro game, but I don't see a return as the money is too big.

  
  I imagine the BCS is going to go away, but not necessarily in favor of a playoff. ESPN will eventually run the postseason and as long as there is money in a bowl setup, that will remain. The difference will be that instead of conference champs being tied to particular bowls, certain schools will be tied to them. Maybe a resurgence of the Cotton Bowl where Texas is always the host - with ESPN being the major negotiator to bring other top ranked teams in for a postseason matchup.
  
  If Texas goes independent, I think a few major schools will follow suit - pending ESPN's willingness to throw money at them. Hell, they paid BYU enough to go independent and will be involved in their scheduling, why wouldn't they try to pull Southern Cal or someone like that out? Eventually, the powerhouses are going to realize that there's more money to be made by not sharing equally with conference bottom dwellers.
  
  The good thing may be that with ESPN in charge, they actually do decide they could promote a playoff of sorts with all their big name clients. I don't know if it'd be the ideal type that everyone assumes - there will probably still be low rent programs left out.
• ytownfootball

  

  krambman;645567 wrote:Sorry for writing an essay.

  I don't doubt that the little guys have benefited from expanded TV coverage. What concerns me moving forward is that there currently exists a written formula to include smaller market teams should they be good enough. With ESPN holding the cards they have very little chance of being included come bowl season. There may be some formula that is implemented, but you know damn well that ESPN won't be nearly as accommodating as the BCS, at least I doubt it.
  

  enigmaax;645593 wrote:I imagine the BCS is going to go away, but not necessarily in favor of a playoff. ESPN will eventually run the postseason and as long as there is money in a bowl setup, that will remain. The difference will be that instead of conference champs being tied to particular bowls, certain schools will be tied to them. Maybe a resurgence of the Cotton Bowl where Texas is always the host - with ESPN being the major negotiator to bring other top ranked teams in for a postseason matchup.
  
  If Texas goes independent, I think a few major schools will follow suit - pending ESPN's willingness to throw money at them. Hell, they paid BYU enough to go independent and will be involved in their scheduling, why wouldn't they try to pull Southern Cal or someone like that out? Eventually, the powerhouses are going to realize that there's more money to be made by not sharing equally with conference bottom dwellers.
  
  The good thing may be that with ESPN in charge, they actually do decide they could promote a playoff of sorts with all their big name clients. I don't know if it'd be the ideal type that everyone assumes - there will probably still be low rent programs left out.

  There is little doubt that USC et al will be keeping a close eye out on how things pan out for Texas. I don't see how it could go badly. The thing that is interesting to me is how this goes forward. There was and still is a move toward Superconferences. That may actually be obsolete thinking with more Big Boys going independent. That's what I don't want.
• Al Bundy

  krambman;645566 wrote:I actually think that it would be worse without the BCS. It used to be that the NCAA regulated all television deals for all NCAA sports. In the early 1990's (or maybe it was the late '80's, I'm not sure) the NCAA gave up that control and allowed schools and conferences to negotiate their own TV deals. Before this, the big schools like Texas, Ohio State, and Notre Dame would only be seen on TV outside of their own region maybe twice a season. This is what allowed Notre Dame to have their deal with NBC putting them on national television every home game.
  
  The NCAA gave up control of TV deals at the same time as the rise of cable television. The fact that most Americans now have some form of cable or dish, combined with the acquisition of ESPN by Disney allowing it to grow into what it is now, has led to where we currently are. Yes, the NCAA giving up the TV rights to the schools and conferences created a huge gap between the haves and have-nots. The Bowl Alliance (the predecessor to the BCS) made this gap even larger. Under that system only schools from the SEC, Big XII, Big East and ACC could win the coaches trophy (this is why Michigan was co-champs in 1997 because the Big Ten and Rose Bowl were not part of the Bowl Alliance so they could only win the AP title). Under the BCS these major bowls were now opened to teams like Boise State and TCU who never would have been allowed to play in any of these major bowls under the old system. Now the non-automatic conference get nearly $25 million a year to share. That's money they never would have received under the old system, so it's actually closing the gap.
  
  The rise of new TV networks has also helped close the gap. Conference like the WAC and MAC have games regularly being nationally televised. With so many networks now carrying college football games (ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, CSTV, Fox Sports, Versus) the minor conferences, or have-nots) get more coverage. Without all of these networks and contracts those teams would never been seen on national television and it would probably be difficult to find them on TV even in their local region. Has it made the rich richer? Absolutely, but don't think that the small guys have been left in the dust, because it could certainly be much worse for them.

  I get what you are saying with some of the advantages in the current system for the small guys, but I am not sure that they didn't have it better under the old system. Miami and FSU were small guys 30 years. They were offered bids to major bowls when they had great seasons. Everything now is predetermined where the winner of this conference goes here, and the third place team in this conference goes here, etc. Under the current set up, I don't see the small guys going on the great runs over a 10-15 year period that small guys did under the old system.
• enigmaax

  Al Bundy;645651 wrote:I get what you are saying with some of the advantages in the current system for the small guys, but I am not sure that they didn't have it better under the old system. Miami and FSU were small guys 30 years. They were offered bids to major bowls when they had great seasons. Everything now is predetermined where the winner of this conference goes here, and the third place team in this conference goes here, etc. Under the current set up, I don't see the small guys going on the great runs over a 10-15 year period that small guys did under the old system.

  
  A couple of differences between the small guys, Miami and FSU of 30 years ago, and the small guys as we think of them today. One, Miami and FSU were independent as small guys which enabled them to schedule aggressively. They took some lumps some years and won big in other years, which earned them their spots. A lot of bowls (though there were many less bowls) were still tied to conferences, but there were enough strong independents who played major conference-type schedules to fill the other slot. When they started getting the big time bowl invites, they weren't really small guys anymore.
  
  Now, those small guys who want in on the pie play a weak conference schedule and pin all their hopes (and in some cases, whine their way in) by winning one or two big games where "big" may simply mean "a BCS/AQ school regardless of record". It isn't the same risk today, but there is a much greater reward.
  
  BYU's Holiday Bowl national championship was certainly an anomaly - and they were stuck in that bowl game because of their conference tie-in. National title or not, they didn't take in much bread with that success. Also, no one cried when Fresno State was undefeated and barely in the top 25 in the mid-80s. Now, Boise wins their first game and people are saying, "what else do they possibly have to prove?" The overall landscape has improved for everyone which leads me to think the gap has definitely closed.
• Al Bundy

  enigmaax;645688 wrote:A couple of differences between the small guys, Miami and FSU of 30 years ago, and the small guys as we think of them today. One, Miami and FSU were independent as small guys which enabled them to schedule aggressively. They took some lumps some years and won big in other years, which earned them their spots. A lot of bowls (though there were many less bowls) were still tied to conferences, but there were enough strong independents who played major conference-type schedules to fill the other slot. When they started getting the big time bowl invites, they weren't really small guys anymore.
  
  Now, those small guys who want in on the pie play a weak conference schedule and pin all their hopes (and in some cases, whine their way in) by winning one or two big games where "big" may simply mean "a BCS/AQ school regardless of record". It isn't the same risk today, but there is a much greater reward.
  
  BYU's Holiday Bowl national championship was certainly an anomaly - and they were stuck in that bowl game because of their conference tie-in. National title or not, they didn't take in much bread with that success. Also, no one cried when Fresno State was undefeated and barely in the top 25 in the mid-80s. Now, Boise wins their first game and people are saying, "what else do they possibly have to prove?" The overall landscape has improved for everyone which leads me to think the gap has definitely closed.

  In the 80's 7 of the 10 AP champs were not part of what would go on to become BCS conferences. With the way the money and bowls are set up today, I would be shocked if we see something like that again in the near future. I think many schools that never received attention before were given the chance to get that attention through the growth of cable TV. I'm not sure Miami and FSU would have become more than regional programs with cable. The big conferences caught on and regained control of things. The 80's are the only decade in the post WW2 era that wasn't dominated by the power conferences.
• goosebumps

  

  Al Bundy;645749 wrote:In the 80's 7 of the 10 AP champs were not part of what would go on to become BCS conferences.

  
  What are you talking about?
  
  AP champs starting in 80 and going to 89.
  
  Georgia
  Clemson
  Penn State
  Miami
  BYU
  Oklahoma
  Penn State
  Miami
  Notre dame
  Miami
  
  I count 2 and really ND is heavily affiliated with the BCS so really just BYU
• ytownfootball

  

  Penn State was still independent.
• goosebumps

  

  I guess I misread his post, I apologize. They weren't currently part of a BCS conference. Neither was Miami. so 7 is correct.
• Al Bundy

  goosebumps;646901 wrote:I guess I misread his post, I apologize. They weren't currently part of a BCS conference. Neither was Miami. so 7 is correct.

  
  I was just trying to point out that the big conferences never want to see a decade like that again, and they have taken steps to make it extremely unlikely that we will see that again.
• krambman

  

  Al Bundy;647323 wrote:I was just trying to point out that the big conferences never want to see a decade like that again, and they have taken steps to make it extremely unlikely that we will see that again.

  
  There weren't really big conference back then like there are now. The Big Ten and Pac-10 were pretty much it. The SEC only had 10 members, the conference was in transition (with the old guard like Bear Bryant on the way out), and it wasn't nearly the conference it is today. The ACC was definitely a basketball conference at the time as was the Big East. The Big Eight hadn't risen to power yet. Nearly everyone in the Southwestern Conference were in trouble with the NCAA. Outside of the Rose, Orange, and Sugar, most of the rest of the bowls were on the same level, and few had specific conference affiliations. There were also a lot more independents at the time.
  
  Conference expansion/realignment after that decade had little to do with the big conference not wanting to see that happen again because the big conferences didn't really exist yet. It happened because the schools already in conference and the schools that were independent realized that there was more money to be made by working together. It was simply a different era, and the expansion then, probably more than anything (the BCS, television deals, ESPN, etc.) is what has led to the disparity between haves and have-nots.
• Little Danny

  

  Here is an interesting conference from 70's and 80's: The Metro
  
  Cincinnati
  Florida State
  Georgia Tech
  Louisville
  Memphis
  St. Louis* (basketball only)
  South Carolina
  Southern Miss
  Tulane
  Virginia Tech
  
  Sure most of those teams were not the teams at that time they would later become, however, one has to think if they did progress anyway that would be a decent all sports conference.
• krambman

  

  Little Danny;647600 wrote:Here is an interesting conference from 70's and 80's: The Metro
  
  Cincinnati
  Florida State
  Georgia Tech
  Louisville
  Memphis
  St. Louis* (basketball only)
  South Carolina
  Southern Miss
  Tulane
  Virginia Tech
  
  Sure most of those teams were not the teams at that time they would later become, however, one has to think if they did progress anyway that would be a decent all sports conference.

  
  Like the Big East at the time the Metro was organized primarily as a basketball conference.
• Al Bundy

  krambman;647581 wrote: It was simply a different era, and the expansion then, probably more than anything (the BCS, television deals, ESPN, etc.) is what has led to the disparity between haves and have-nots.

  
  This is exactly why I think it was easier for the little guys in the past. I might be wrong, but I don't see any of the little guys (such as Miami or FSU of 30 years ago) stepping up to become national powers year in and year out. I also disagree about the Big Eight not being a power. Oklahoma and/or Nebraska were in the title mix almost year in the 80's.