(05-10-2012 11:17 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 10:39 AM)Ragu Wrote:  The lack of Tier 3 rights, lower money and no room for growth make this a must for FSU. The ACC deal is a joke.

If FSU feels it has to make a move, it should do what is best for its own program. However, given that the ACC was completely handcuffed by its existing deal, they did very well in their negotiations. By your logic, the SEC deal is a joke as well, and all members of the SEC (like ATM and Mizzou) should be looking to join the B12 to access that better deal.

Lower money is unlikely in the SEC deal. Apples and oranges with the Acc comparison.

(05-10-2012 09:58 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Ok, first off, it is Chip Brown so yes he is going to have a bias. With that being said it doesn't seem to be pushing anything happening for certain.

The points that he listed about what is irritating FSU fans was right on. I have been lurking at some sites for seminole fans and have been watching long enough to even see some posters start off fully against any move from the ACC to now just wanting to leave the ACC. I think the large majority of them would rather be in the SEC, there is no doubt in that. The problem is if there isnt an opening there then what? Many of those discontent with the situation at FSU are SEC first but if that cannot happen then Big 12 second. They want strong games, they do not want to get screwed over every year by how the ACC schedules FSU, they don't think the money difference can be ignored and no matter how much you demonize Texas they respond every time by pointing to North Carolina.

So mock Chip Brown all you like but I have to think that some of you that are doing such here are not spreading your wings and looking around to see if anything he said is actually true.

I don't know what is going on at the top of the pyramid but what he said about those at the bottom of the pyramid was absolutely true. I have been doing a lot less talking lately and a lot more watching. I am thinking that perhaps some of you should be doing the same.

The significant thing about this article is that Chip ignored the talk for months and a couple of weeks ago put out an article saying there was nothing to it.

If i was appealing to fsu from the big 12, i would propose this:


Big 12:

A: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Tulane, FSU

B: OU, Ok state, KU, kSU, ISU, WVU

Academic types might be OK with it + could jump to 14 with lville and miami. It might also take the nd card to get FSU in the big 12, instead of tulane, miami or Lville pop in nd no football with byu football only combo. Of course, chicken and egg with nd and fsu, to get one you to move, you need one already.

If I was proposing to FSU I would ask them to bring along Louisville because it seems like Clemson wants to be viewed as a response to FSU leaving which means they cant leave at the same time.

So the talk about UL and FSU together actually does have some merit IF any of this has any merit at all.

You take Louisville to give WVU their partner and then you promise FSU two partners in the next round after their departure has loosened things up for a couple others.

That is how I would approach it.

(05-10-2012 12:29 PM)bluesox Wrote:  If i was appealing to fsu from the big 12, i would propose this:


Big 12:

A: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Tulane, FSU

B: OU, Ok state, KU, kSU, ISU, WVU

Academic types might be OK with it + could jump to 14 with lville and miami. It might also take the nd card to get FSU in the big 12, instead of tulane, miami or Lville pop in nd no football with byu football only combo. Of course, chicken and egg with nd and fsu, to get one you to move, you need one already.

That's incredibly unappealing.

(05-09-2012 06:14 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The question is simple for FSU:

1. Go to a conference that is pro-football, make more money but not dominate or,

2. Stay in a conference they feel they can dominate and make less money.

Maybe if FSU got into the Sun Belt they would dominate again..Its been awhile since the all mighty FSU dominated the all mighty ACC.

(05-10-2012 12:29 PM)bluesox Wrote:  If i was appealing to fsu from the big 12, i would propose this:


Big 12:

A: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Tulane, FSU

B: OU, Ok state, KU, kSU, ISU, WVU

Academic types might be OK with it + could jump to 14 with lville and miami. It might also take the nd card to get FSU in the big 12, instead of tulane, miami or Lville pop in nd no football with byu football only combo. Of course, chicken and egg with nd and fsu, to get one you to move, you need one already.

They would take Memphis over Tulane.....

@kbohls
Texas, Texas Tech school officials dismiss rumors of FSU/Clemson possible exit to Big 12. "First I've heard of it," one high-up says.

(05-10-2012 04:31 PM)cardshouse Wrote:  Maybe if FSU got into the Sun Belt they would dominate again..Its been awhile since the all mighty FSU dominated the all mighty ACC.

Louisville talking smack?

(05-10-2012 05:18 PM)ShockerBob Wrote:  @kbohls
Texas, Texas Tech school officials dismiss rumors of FSU/Clemson possible exit to Big 12. "First I've heard of it," one high-up says.

Honestly, that's not believable at all. They'd never heard of the rumors? Right...

(05-09-2012 10:55 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 06:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Let's keep in mind this is about two entities who are "in a bind", so to speak, UT and FSU. FSU's monetary problems are known but UT's potential monetary problems keep getting glossed over.

In regard to the LHN, this was the last word I could find on it's distribution so far from wiki (so I suppose there could be updated distribution):

The channel has yet to reach agreements with the major providers in Texas: Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Charter Communications, AT&T U-verse, DirecTV and Dish Network. Time Warner Cable has declined to officially comment on carriage talks, but sources familiar with the negotiations said the parties remain far apart. It is unknown where Comcast and Dish Network are at in negotiations.

When asked whether they'll carry the channel, DirecTV issued the following statement: "We've had discussions with ESPN about Longhorn Network, but we have no plans right now to carry it.

We understand Longhorn has other programming that may be of value to a small segment of our customers, but two UT football games do not constitute a network. We're happy to carry those two games under the considerable fees we already pay ESPN for programming that includes the Big 12. Given the dynamic situation in college football conferences today, we'll wait and see how it all shakes out before we decide what we will or won't carry."

That other content was Texas high school football games until both the Big 12 momentarily put a stop to it and then the NCAA ruled on it and killed it.

From the initial announcement of the Longhorn Network, ESPN had made it known that they desired to broadcast up to 18 high school football games per season. The idea caused quite an uproar among the other conference schools due to possible ethical and recruiting violations. During an August 1, 2011, meeting of all Big 12 athletic directors, it was decided that the issue of broadcasting high school football games on the network would be postponed for one year. This would allow time for the NCAA to rule on the matter. On August 11, 2011, the NCAA ruled that no school or conference network would be permitted to broadcast high school sports or any other high school programming, effectively bringing the issue to a close.

When the news of LHN came out around the same time there was discussion of a PTN coming about on top of the already established BTN, there was a Sports Journal or Sports Business article that asked media experts what college related network would not be around in 5 years - the consensus winner was the LHN.

Personally, I think even conference networks could have problems down the road in an a la carte environment, but the government still has way too many fringe networks it wants to keep running content that a la carte would likely make untenable so I don't foresee this for another decade or so.

Interesting times indeed.

Who cares? Texas gets paid and will get paid either way.

Not if the network goes belly up. Will they get paid by some other avenue (not ESPN) for their 3rd tier rights? Sure, no different than how others are getting paid now, such as Florida getting about $10 million a year.

But if they lose the prestige of having their own network operated by ESPN, that's a hit to their ego. Not to mention the bruised ego for attempting the network and being snickered at in anti-Texas sports articles for its failures. UT doesn't have the thick skin of the Irish who seem to brush away the criticisms of annually lower and lower football ratings on NBC as just another day in the office.

In the meantime, as the BTN grows to exceed what Texas gets for those third tier rights plus having an equity share in the BTN which is an asset right now worth $127,500,000 to each of the twelve members you can bet the Longhorns (both athletically and academically) will get roving eyes again, just like they have had for two summers in a row now.

It's only a matter of time.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-11-2012 01:06 AM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 05:18 PM)ShockerBob Wrote:  @kbohls
Texas, Texas Tech school officials dismiss rumors of FSU/Clemson possible exit to Big 12. "First I've heard of it," one high-up says.

Honestly, that's not believable at all. They'd never heard of the rumors? Right...

Yeah it seems credible until that little statement of first that they have heard of it. Really? Your schools have been smack dab in the middle of all the realignment drama going on for a couple years now and with everyone across the country talking about this possibility these officials havnt once heard about it?

They would have been better off not saying that. I have to admit that does sound a bit cover upish. They would have been better off just saying they dont know anything about that.

(05-11-2012 01:57 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 10:55 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 06:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Let's keep in mind this is about two entities who are "in a bind", so to speak, UT and FSU. FSU's monetary problems are known but UT's potential monetary problems keep getting glossed over.

In regard to the LHN, this was the last word I could find on it's distribution so far from wiki (so I suppose there could be updated distribution):

The channel has yet to reach agreements with the major providers in Texas: Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Charter Communications, AT&T U-verse, DirecTV and Dish Network. Time Warner Cable has declined to officially comment on carriage talks, but sources familiar with the negotiations said the parties remain far apart. It is unknown where Comcast and Dish Network are at in negotiations.

When asked whether they'll carry the channel, DirecTV issued the following statement: "We've had discussions with ESPN about Longhorn Network, but we have no plans right now to carry it.

We understand Longhorn has other programming that may be of value to a small segment of our customers, but two UT football games do not constitute a network. We're happy to carry those two games under the considerable fees we already pay ESPN for programming that includes the Big 12. Given the dynamic situation in college football conferences today, we'll wait and see how it all shakes out before we decide what we will or won't carry."

That other content was Texas high school football games until both the Big 12 momentarily put a stop to it and then the NCAA ruled on it and killed it.

From the initial announcement of the Longhorn Network, ESPN had made it known that they desired to broadcast up to 18 high school football games per season. The idea caused quite an uproar among the other conference schools due to possible ethical and recruiting violations. During an August 1, 2011, meeting of all Big 12 athletic directors, it was decided that the issue of broadcasting high school football games on the network would be postponed for one year. This would allow time for the NCAA to rule on the matter. On August 11, 2011, the NCAA ruled that no school or conference network would be permitted to broadcast high school sports or any other high school programming, effectively bringing the issue to a close.

When the news of LHN came out around the same time there was discussion of a PTN coming about on top of the already established BTN, there was a Sports Journal or Sports Business article that asked media experts what college related network would not be around in 5 years - the consensus winner was the LHN.

Personally, I think even conference networks could have problems down the road in an a la carte environment, but the government still has way too many fringe networks it wants to keep running content that a la carte would likely make untenable so I don't foresee this for another decade or so.

Interesting times indeed.

Who cares? Texas gets paid and will get paid either way.

Not if the network goes belly up. Will they get paid by some other avenue (not ESPN) for their 3rd tier rights? Sure, no different than how others are getting paid now, such as Florida getting about $10 million a year.

But if they lose the prestige of having their own network operated by ESPN, that's a hit to their ego. Not to mention the bruised ego for attempting the network and being snickered at in anti-Texas sports articles for its failures. UT doesn't have the thick skin of the Irish who seem to brush away the criticisms of annually lower and lower football ratings on NBC as just another day in the office.

In the meantime, as the BTN grows to exceed what Texas gets for those third tier rights plus having an equity share in the BTN which is an asset right now worth $127,500,000 to each of the twelve members you can bet the Longhorns (both athletically and academically) will get roving eyes again, just like they have had for two summers in a row now.

It's only a matter of time.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think ESPN is going belly up. So they have to keep paying. What they do with the network is their choice.

(05-11-2012 01:57 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 10:55 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 06:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Let's keep in mind this is about two entities who are "in a bind", so to speak, UT and FSU. FSU's monetary problems are known but UT's potential monetary problems keep getting glossed over.

In regard to the LHN, this was the last word I could find on it's distribution so far from wiki (so I suppose there could be updated distribution):

The channel has yet to reach agreements with the major providers in Texas: Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Charter Communications, AT&T U-verse, DirecTV and Dish Network. Time Warner Cable has declined to officially comment on carriage talks, but sources familiar with the negotiations said the parties remain far apart. It is unknown where Comcast and Dish Network are at in negotiations.

When asked whether they'll carry the channel, DirecTV issued the following statement: "We've had discussions with ESPN about Longhorn Network, but we have no plans right now to carry it.

We understand Longhorn has other programming that may be of value to a small segment of our customers, but two UT football games do not constitute a network. We're happy to carry those two games under the considerable fees we already pay ESPN for programming that includes the Big 12. Given the dynamic situation in college football conferences today, we'll wait and see how it all shakes out before we decide what we will or won't carry."

That other content was Texas high school football games until both the Big 12 momentarily put a stop to it and then the NCAA ruled on it and killed it.

From the initial announcement of the Longhorn Network, ESPN had made it known that they desired to broadcast up to 18 high school football games per season. The idea caused quite an uproar among the other conference schools due to possible ethical and recruiting violations. During an August 1, 2011, meeting of all Big 12 athletic directors, it was decided that the issue of broadcasting high school football games on the network would be postponed for one year. This would allow time for the NCAA to rule on the matter. On August 11, 2011, the NCAA ruled that no school or conference network would be permitted to broadcast high school sports or any other high school programming, effectively bringing the issue to a close.

When the news of LHN came out around the same time there was discussion of a PTN coming about on top of the already established BTN, there was a Sports Journal or Sports Business article that asked media experts what college related network would not be around in 5 years - the consensus winner was the LHN.

Personally, I think even conference networks could have problems down the road in an a la carte environment, but the government still has way too many fringe networks it wants to keep running content that a la carte would likely make untenable so I don't foresee this for another decade or so.

Interesting times indeed.

Who cares? Texas gets paid and will get paid either way.

Not if the network goes belly up. Will they get paid by some other avenue (not ESPN) for their 3rd tier rights? Sure, no different than how others are getting paid now, such as Florida getting about $10 million a year.

But if they lose the prestige of having their own network operated by ESPN, that's a hit to their ego. Not to mention the bruised ego for attempting the network and being snickered at in anti-Texas sports articles for its failures. UT doesn't have the thick skin of the Irish who seem to brush away the criticisms of annually lower and lower football ratings on NBC as just another day in the office.

In the meantime, as the BTN grows to exceed what Texas gets for those third tier rights plus having an equity share in the BTN which is an asset right now worth $127,500,000 to each of the twelve members you can bet the Longhorns (both athletically and academically) will get roving eyes again, just like they have had for two summers in a row now.

It's only a matter of time.

Cheers,
Neil

Just wrong.