(01-24-2016 06:24 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 05:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Would #3 work? Would the P3 be okay with one of them (SEC) getting 2 teams in the CFP?

P3 is what the Big 10 and Pac 12 want. Voting control.

There's some truth to this as well. I imagine though that voting ratios for passage of new rules would require more than 2/3rds. That way nobody could gang up on another. 3/4's is probably a good rule of thumb.

Comcast offered a 50-50 deal for an SECN. The presidents were leery of going off free tv at 11:30am and ESPN offered fat money to not do it until ESPN saw the model really works.

(01-24-2016 09:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Comcast offered a 50-50 deal for an SECN. The presidents were leery of going off free tv at 11:30am and ESPN offered fat money to not do it until ESPN saw the model really works.

The model is changing but there is still good money to be made off of the cable. There will be a workaround if and when it is needed. These are clearly two entities that have profited by their association with one another.

(01-24-2016 06:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 05:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 05:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 05:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm sorry but there is not a feud between ESPN and The Big Ten just because The Big Ten is working with Fox on The BTN. If that was the case then there would also be a feud between The PAC and ESPN because the PAC has sold T1 rights to Fox as well as pushed their own Network to have T1 rights too.
The Big Ten and ESPN are quite close. Hell, The Big Ten has T1 rights with ESPN only right now. The SEC cant even say that. I would highly suggest not listening to SEC folks that feel the need to try and present this false reality.

The issues between Delany and ESPN were quite well documented at the time H1. I acknowledged that both continued to do business with one another. I'm sorry if it doesn't represent your story line.

There is a difference between issues and simply having a difference of opinion during business negotiations. I am sorry if that doesn't represent your story line. You don't actually respond to the other facts presented in my post. ESPN and The Big Ten are quite close. They are not run by children, they can have disagreements and still be close. You act like ESPN and the SEC are in bed together and yet ESPN doesn't even have T1 rights to The SEC. Facts like that are what causes cracks in the foundation of a relationship.

ESPN wasn't in the business of helping conferences create conference networks at the time of the creation of The BTN while FOX was desperate to get involved in anything they could. They were willing to take the risk. If anything ESPN would now be grateful for The Big Ten doing this because they were able to sell the concept of The SEC Network to Disney thanks to Delany and The Big Ten.

That...is reality.

The BTN did help them sell the SECN to Disney. There ends the factual part of your post.

You admit that while at the same time trying to say that The Big Ten and ESPN do not have a strong relationship? You must not be keeping a straight face behind that keyboard. You have some seriously wishful thinking. Gotta step out of that SEC mentality sometimes.

(01-24-2016 09:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 06:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 05:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 05:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 05:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm sorry but there is not a feud between ESPN and The Big Ten just because The Big Ten is working with Fox on The BTN. If that was the case then there would also be a feud between The PAC and ESPN because the PAC has sold T1 rights to Fox as well as pushed their own Network to have T1 rights too.
The Big Ten and ESPN are quite close. Hell, The Big Ten has T1 rights with ESPN only right now. The SEC cant even say that. I would highly suggest not listening to SEC folks that feel the need to try and present this false reality.

The issues between Delany and ESPN were quite well documented at the time H1. I acknowledged that both continued to do business with one another. I'm sorry if it doesn't represent your story line.

There is a difference between issues and simply having a difference of opinion during business negotiations. I am sorry if that doesn't represent your story line. You don't actually respond to the other facts presented in my post. ESPN and The Big Ten are quite close. They are not run by children, they can have disagreements and still be close. You act like ESPN and the SEC are in bed together and yet ESPN doesn't even have T1 rights to The SEC. Facts like that are what causes cracks in the foundation of a relationship.

ESPN wasn't in the business of helping conferences create conference networks at the time of the creation of The BTN while FOX was desperate to get involved in anything they could. They were willing to take the risk. If anything ESPN would now be grateful for The Big Ten doing this because they were able to sell the concept of The SEC Network to Disney thanks to Delany and The Big Ten.

That...is reality.

The BTN did help them sell the SECN to Disney. There ends the factual part of your post.

You admit that while at the same time trying to say that The Big Ten and ESPN do not have a strong relationship? You must not be keeping a straight face behind that keyboard. You have some seriously wishful thinking. Gotta step out of that SEC mentality sometimes.

I've been waiting forever to say this:

"You are setting up a STRAW MAN H1. I said they had a relationship of convenience essentially. But the issue is Delany and ESPN had their issues.


Relationship business wise yes. Lovey dovey, hardly. The issue is the original impetus for the BTN was Delany's ill feelings about a low ball offer and a flippant remark and ESPN's irritation with the BTN's initial independence and now their relationship with FOX.

Now that was fun!

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/j...title-game

CBS Sports article said the ACC voted in favor of the proposal...is this a typo?

(01-24-2016 09:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 09:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Comcast offered a 50-50 deal for an SECN. The presidents were leery of going off free tv at 11:30am and ESPN offered fat money to not do it until ESPN saw the model really works.

The model is changing but there is still good money to be made off of the cable. There will be a workaround if and when it is needed. These are clearly two entities that have profited by their association with one another.

And when the model changes to a demand and willingness to pay model TAMU and Mizzou will look even better as additions and the huh Nebraska ain't got a big market talk becomes laughable.