As expected IMO.
Did not see this posted so SIAP
Quote:The Big 12 athletics directors met in Dallas and discussed content distributed on existing and future institutional and conference media platforms.
In previous discussions the Big 12 ADs unanimously agreed that no high school content would be distributed, consistent with NCAA rules. Today, the ADs of the Big 12 Conference unanimously agreed to establish a minimum one-year moratorium on the broadcast of any high school content (or any other content involving prospective student-athletes) via any medium branded as a Conference or member institution platform (and no use will be permitted thereafter unless and until the NCAA determines that such use is permissible). In addition, the ADs recommend the Big 12 Board of Directors strongly request the NCAA Board of Directors establish a national moratorium for a minimum of one year in order for the entire NCAA membership to determine whether such use should be permissible under NCAA regulations. The ADs recognize that this issue is complex and involves a detailed analysis of the recruiting model in many areas, including existing NCAA legislation related to the publicity of prospective student-athletes and the rapidly evolving world of technology. This process will take an extended period of analysis. The Conference will continue to monitor the broadcasting of youth athletics content.
In addition, the ADs learned and acknowledged that there may be contractual opportunities that allow more than one football game to be broadcast on institutions' branded networks. That game could be a Conference matchup. In these instances both member institutions and the Conference office must agree to the selection. Such games would result in additional financial and exposure opportunities for the rest of the membership.
All actions by Conference athletics directors are subject to Big 12 Conference Board of Directors approval.
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=205235905
What I take from this:
1- Nice bluff Ags. Well played by Byrne & Loftin. Unlike the rest of us, you had leverage and used it. OU can't head east w/o OSU and UT knows it.
2- Well played Dodds. Raise the warning flags with BOTH HS and league games and get league games agreed to. Classic negotiation tactic- ask for more than you expect to get and end up where you thought you'd be.
3- Tech @ UT will likely be on the LHN with TTU getting well paid for the inconvenience. Chip Brown confirmed the additional game was Tech, and ESPN will gladly pay to get the help with basic carriage fees.
4- TLN will be able to broadcast additional NCAA inventory provided that they work it out favorably with the Big 12.
5- If I am the AD for Texas State, UTSA, UNT, or a CUSA West TX team with games blacked out... I am gonna pick up the phone and try to work out a deal for some additional regional exposure and some cash.
As you said, pretty much as expected.
As long as Tech has the right to say "screw off" to LHN instead of being forced into it by ESPN, I'm ok with it. They may have to answer to their own angry alums about selling out and being forced to buy a subscription to LHN to watch their game, but at least they have the opportunity to say "no".
Also not surprised that they are deferring to the NCAA for a final ruling. I honestly think its a 50/50 shot for both parties to get their way.
Great catch Sammy. If Texas were smart they would drop this idea of broadcasting high school games. Still, if I were Kansas and Kansas State (even though they have shown that they have the Big East as an option), and especially Baylor and Iowa State I would still be worried right now. But for now they seem to be safe.
So why a 1 year ban and not a long term ban? Are we going to see the same nonsense next year too!
(08-01-2011 06:33 PM)Joey_Niklas Wrote: [ -> ]So why a 1 year ban and not a long term ban? Are we going to see the same nonsense next year too!
If the NCAA bans it we won't see it again. All the 1 year timetable does is allows them to revisit it if other leagues/networks are doing it and the NCAA somehow allows it.
Personally I don't see the NCAA permitting it.
(08-01-2011 06:33 PM)Joey_Niklas Wrote: [ -> ]So why a 1 year ban and not a long term ban? Are we going to see the same nonsense next year too!
Yep. But next year they will also add something else so everyone can be pissed off about about that also.
(08-01-2011 06:47 PM)Sammy11 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 06:33 PM)Joey_Niklas Wrote: [ -> ]So why a 1 year ban and not a long term ban? Are we going to see the same nonsense next year too!
If the NCAA bans it we won't see it again. All the 1 year timetable does is allows them to revisit it if other leagues/networks are doing it and the NCAA somehow allows it.
Personally I don't see the NCAA permitting it.
if other schools see that they can make money off of it, then the NCAA won't ban it
the LHN is just the beginning; you're going to have other large schools put together their own networks and pull the same crap that UT has
(08-01-2011 06:53 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote: [ -> ]the LHN is just the beginning; you're going to have other large schools put together their own networks and pull the same crap that UT has
We already know the Pac-12 network will be available in Austin next year via Time Warner Cable on a sports tier. The LHN launches in a month and not a single carrier has announced that it's being picked up on any tier.
I think it goes to show that single school networks are not the way to go.
Any conference with a network won't be able to do QUITE what LHN wants to do as 1) you can't have your own network if everyone has already agreed to give their Tier 3 rights to the conference as in the PAC and B10 and 2) it will be equal sharing (ie, every school gets a chance to "host" a game they want") which will just make the big inequity of the B12 (That LHN prevents everyone else from maximizing their T3 rights) all the more obvious.
Any way you slice it, the B12 is ALWAYS going to be an unhappy marriage. Its like that married woman you know that just won't leave her abusive spouse for fear of being alone.
(08-01-2011 05:58 PM)Sammy11 Wrote: [ -> ]As expected IMO.
Did not see this posted so SIAP
Quote:The Big 12 athletics directors met in Dallas and discussed content distributed on existing and future institutional and conference media platforms.
In previous discussions the Big 12 ADs unanimously agreed that no high school content would be distributed, consistent with NCAA rules. Today, the ADs of the Big 12 Conference unanimously agreed to establish a minimum one-year moratorium on the broadcast of any high school content (or any other content involving prospective student-athletes) via any medium branded as a Conference or member institution platform (and no use will be permitted thereafter unless and until the NCAA determines that such use is permissible). In addition, the ADs recommend the Big 12 Board of Directors strongly request the NCAA Board of Directors establish a national moratorium for a minimum of one year in order for the entire NCAA membership to determine whether such use should be permissible under NCAA regulations. The ADs recognize that this issue is complex and involves a detailed analysis of the recruiting model in many areas, including existing NCAA legislation related to the publicity of prospective student-athletes and the rapidly evolving world of technology. This process will take an extended period of analysis. The Conference will continue to monitor the broadcasting of youth athletics content.
In addition, the ADs learned and acknowledged that there may be contractual opportunities that allow more than one football game to be broadcast on institutions' branded networks. That game could be a Conference matchup. In these instances both member institutions and the Conference office must agree to the selection. Such games would result in additional financial and exposure opportunities for the rest of the membership.
All actions by Conference athletics directors are subject to Big 12 Conference Board of Directors approval.
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=205235905
What I take from this:
1- Nice bluff Ags. Well played by Byrne & Loftin. Unlike the rest of us, you had leverage and used it. OU can't head east w/o OSU and UT knows it.
2- Well played Dodds. Raise the warning flags with BOTH HS and league games and get league games agreed to. Classic negotiation tactic- ask for more than you expect to get and end up where you thought you'd be.
3- Tech @ UT will likely be on the LHN with TTU getting well paid for the inconvenience. Chip Brown confirmed the additional game was Tech, and ESPN will gladly pay to get the help with basic carriage fees.
4- TLN will be able to broadcast additional NCAA inventory provided that they work it out favorably with the Big 12.
5- If I am the AD for Texas State, UTSA, UNT, or a CUSA West TX team with games blacked out... I am gonna pick up the phone and try to work out a deal for some additional regional exposure and some cash.
It'll be interested to see what ESPN says about it. Despite Beebe's huffing and puffing I'm not sure they really care about what he says. ESPN is the one that has a financial stake in the LHN. If they feel the only way they can get distribution is by airing high school games I'm not sure there is not a whole lot the Big 12 can do about it. Beebe babbled on about there being a moratorium on high school games about 10 days ago and the LHN and ESPN proceeded to enter into a contract with Brenham a couple days later.
Truth be told, if ESPN feels that they are going to lose out financially by this decision they won't sit idly by and let Dan Beebe dictate the terms on THEIR network. Should be interesting to see how this plays out. It's not over by a long shot.
So is this "A&M to the SEC!" stuff dead now?
(08-01-2011 07:14 PM)KnightTower Wrote: [ -> ]So is this "A&M to the SEC!" stuff dead now?
Of course it isn't.
(08-01-2011 07:13 PM)x97 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 05:58 PM)Sammy11 Wrote: [ -> ]As expected IMO.
Did not see this posted so SIAP
Quote:The Big 12 athletics directors met in Dallas and discussed content distributed on existing and future institutional and conference media platforms.
In previous discussions the Big 12 ADs unanimously agreed that no high school content would be distributed, consistent with NCAA rules. Today, the ADs of the Big 12 Conference unanimously agreed to establish a minimum one-year moratorium on the broadcast of any high school content (or any other content involving prospective student-athletes) via any medium branded as a Conference or member institution platform (and no use will be permitted thereafter unless and until the NCAA determines that such use is permissible). In addition, the ADs recommend the Big 12 Board of Directors strongly request the NCAA Board of Directors establish a national moratorium for a minimum of one year in order for the entire NCAA membership to determine whether such use should be permissible under NCAA regulations. The ADs recognize that this issue is complex and involves a detailed analysis of the recruiting model in many areas, including existing NCAA legislation related to the publicity of prospective student-athletes and the rapidly evolving world of technology. This process will take an extended period of analysis. The Conference will continue to monitor the broadcasting of youth athletics content.
In addition, the ADs learned and acknowledged that there may be contractual opportunities that allow more than one football game to be broadcast on institutions' branded networks. That game could be a Conference matchup. In these instances both member institutions and the Conference office must agree to the selection. Such games would result in additional financial and exposure opportunities for the rest of the membership.
All actions by Conference athletics directors are subject to Big 12 Conference Board of Directors approval.
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=205235905
What I take from this:
1- Nice bluff Ags. Well played by Byrne & Loftin. Unlike the rest of us, you had leverage and used it. OU can't head east w/o OSU and UT knows it.
2- Well played Dodds. Raise the warning flags with BOTH HS and league games and get league games agreed to. Classic negotiation tactic- ask for more than you expect to get and end up where you thought you'd be.
3- Tech @ UT will likely be on the LHN with TTU getting well paid for the inconvenience. Chip Brown confirmed the additional game was Tech, and ESPN will gladly pay to get the help with basic carriage fees.
4- TLN will be able to broadcast additional NCAA inventory provided that they work it out favorably with the Big 12.
5- If I am the AD for Texas State, UTSA, UNT, or a CUSA West TX team with games blacked out... I am gonna pick up the phone and try to work out a deal for some additional regional exposure and some cash.
It'll be interested to see what ESPN says about it. Despite Beebe's huffing and puffing I'm not sure they really care about what he says. ESPN is the one that has a financial stake in the LHN. If they feel the only way they can get distribution is by airing high school games I'm not sure there is not a whole lot the Big 12 can do about it. Beebe babbled on about there being a moratorium on high school games about 10 days ago and the LHN and ESPN proceeded to enter into a contract with Brenham a couple days later.
Truth be told, if ESPN feels that they are going to lose out financially by this decision they won't sit idly by and let Dan Beebe dictate the terms on THEIR network. Should be interesting to see how this plays out. It's not over by a long shot.
1- ESPN gave UT some veto power over sensitive programming so UT can reign them in on this IMO
2- I don't think ESPN would pay 15m per yr if they were depending on HS games. Only a fool would think that would be in the clear.
3- RE: the bolded portion above... ESPN was preparing for the possibility of it being allowed rather than having to scramble to get it done, its much easier to sign them up with backout clauses than miss out due to timing if the ruling comes down 1 day before kickoff.
(08-01-2011 07:14 PM)KnightTower Wrote: [ -> ]So is this "A&M to the SEC!" stuff dead now?
No, they live on rumors...SEC, SEC, SEC...
(08-01-2011 07:19 PM)Sammy11 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 07:13 PM)x97 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 05:58 PM)Sammy11 Wrote: [ -> ]As expected IMO.
Did not see this posted so SIAP
Quote:The Big 12 athletics directors met in Dallas and discussed content distributed on existing and future institutional and conference media platforms.
In previous discussions the Big 12 ADs unanimously agreed that no high school content would be distributed, consistent with NCAA rules. Today, the ADs of the Big 12 Conference unanimously agreed to establish a minimum one-year moratorium on the broadcast of any high school content (or any other content involving prospective student-athletes) via any medium branded as a Conference or member institution platform (and no use will be permitted thereafter unless and until the NCAA determines that such use is permissible). In addition, the ADs recommend the Big 12 Board of Directors strongly request the NCAA Board of Directors establish a national moratorium for a minimum of one year in order for the entire NCAA membership to determine whether such use should be permissible under NCAA regulations. The ADs recognize that this issue is complex and involves a detailed analysis of the recruiting model in many areas, including existing NCAA legislation related to the publicity of prospective student-athletes and the rapidly evolving world of technology. This process will take an extended period of analysis. The Conference will continue to monitor the broadcasting of youth athletics content.
In addition, the ADs learned and acknowledged that there may be contractual opportunities that allow more than one football game to be broadcast on institutions' branded networks. That game could be a Conference matchup. In these instances both member institutions and the Conference office must agree to the selection. Such games would result in additional financial and exposure opportunities for the rest of the membership.
All actions by Conference athletics directors are subject to Big 12 Conference Board of Directors approval.
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=205235905
What I take from this:
1- Nice bluff Ags. Well played by Byrne & Loftin. Unlike the rest of us, you had leverage and used it. OU can't head east w/o OSU and UT knows it.
2- Well played Dodds. Raise the warning flags with BOTH HS and league games and get league games agreed to. Classic negotiation tactic- ask for more than you expect to get and end up where you thought you'd be.
3- Tech @ UT will likely be on the LHN with TTU getting well paid for the inconvenience. Chip Brown confirmed the additional game was Tech, and ESPN will gladly pay to get the help with basic carriage fees.
4- TLN will be able to broadcast additional NCAA inventory provided that they work it out favorably with the Big 12.
5- If I am the AD for Texas State, UTSA, UNT, or a CUSA West TX team with games blacked out... I am gonna pick up the phone and try to work out a deal for some additional regional exposure and some cash.
It'll be interested to see what ESPN says about it. Despite Beebe's huffing and puffing I'm not sure they really care about what he says. ESPN is the one that has a financial stake in the LHN. If they feel the only way they can get distribution is by airing high school games I'm not sure there is not a whole lot the Big 12 can do about it. Beebe babbled on about there being a moratorium on high school games about 10 days ago and the LHN and ESPN proceeded to enter into a contract with Brenham a couple days later.
Truth be told, if ESPN feels that they are going to lose out financially by this decision they won't sit idly by and let Dan Beebe dictate the terms on THEIR network. Should be interesting to see how this plays out. It's not over by a long shot.
1- ESPN gave UT some veto power over sensitive programming so UT can reign them in on this IMO
2- I don't think ESPN would pay 15m per yr if they were depending on HS games. Only a fool would think that would be in the clear.
3- RE: the bolded portion above... ESPN was preparing for the possibility of it being allowed rather than having to scramble to get it done, its much easier to sign them up with backout clauses than miss out due to timing if the ruling comes down 1 day before kickoff.
Sammy, in response to above:
1. How much "reigning in" power does UT have? I understand if it is documentary on campus or a game or UT athletic event, etc. Can UT dictate what ESPN can in regards to off campus events where UT will not even be referenced? I'm sure there is some veto power for UT. I don't think it is a "blank check" for veto everything, however. If you've got a link to the language of the contract with regards to this I'd like to see it.
2. I agree. I do think, however, they were becoming more dependent on high school games they had anticipated when the contract was signed. The lack of distribution coincided with Dave Brown's high school games comment. Don't think for a minute that the two are unrelated. How dependent had they become and how valuable to they now consider hs games? I have no idea. I guess we'll see when ESPN responds to Beebe's mandate either through words or actions.
3. You are completely assuming what the contract says with Brenham and ESPN's motive. Beebe made the statement and was firm with it. ESPN completely disregarded it. Spin it how you want but that cannot be denied.
I think all this boils down to how valuable a commodity ESPN feels high school games are to the LHN and how important they are to establishing distribution at this point (which is getting rather desperate, I believe, and hence they reason they are using high school games to help their cause). If ESPN backs away without a fight then you can assume they didn't consider it valuable nor necessary to distribution. This may very well be the case and this situation kind of resolves itself for the time being. If ESPN feels their bottom line is going to be hurt they won't back down, however. In that case they'll either A) ignore Beebe's mandate entirely and air high school games anyways...or B) they'll file lawsuit against UT and/or the Big 12 for damages. The latter would turn this into a very ugly situation in a hurry. It would be akin to Disney (of which ESPN is a part) announcing they have plans for the world's tallest coaster at one of their amusement parks. They set plans into motion, build the infrastructure, and then 3 weeks before going live with it are told that they are breaking city ordinances and need to bring it down (and there was no ordinance in place before the announcement and construction). There would be a massive lawsuit coming. This situation (if ESPN considers it serious enough) is not too different.
I guess we'll see. This may very well kind of disappear for the time being if ESPN considers it an unimportant issue. I wouldn't hold my breath for that, however.
(08-01-2011 07:14 PM)KnightTower Wrote: [ -> ]So is this "A&M to the SEC!" stuff dead now?
I doubt it. This was a temporary band aid.
- UT is still making $15,000,000 more a year then A&M, OU, and everyone else from this deal. Not to mention getting more exposure for their other sports. A conference with a network in place or plans to start one might begin to look pretty good to the Sooners and Aggies.
- Texas is now getting a Big 12 Conference game on their network.
- The decision on HS games has only been delayed. If the NCAA says it is ok this will be back.
- There will be rumors about the Big 12's demise until it finally dies or everything is equal in the conference.
- The SEC could still decide they want to expand to renegotiate their contracts and if the Pac 12 and Big Ten networks keep becoming more and more valuable they might want to start one of their own.
- Also there is still the possibility that the Big Ten or Pac 12 strikes first and expands to be the first "super" conference. When they do I'm sure it will be handled a lot more quietly than last summer.
- And what happens if the LHN fails to get picked up by the cable/satellite companies the way ESPN wants?
(08-01-2011 08:03 PM)STLfan Wrote: [ -> ]- The decision on HS games has only been delayed. If the NCAA says it is ok this will be back.
If the NCAA has any area that they still try to actively enforce, its recruiting and handling HS talent. I can garauntee they'll nix it.
This stuff will start prculating again next years
I am still scratching my head as to what ESPN is paying $15 million a year for? Ok so the LHN will have the TTU game, other Texas athletics and none of the cable networks are picking the channel up?
Sooooo who is advertising on this channel? I know ESPN overpaid to keep the Big 12 together but seems like a lot of money for a whole lot of nothing.
Honestly, its probably not gonna be Tech. Too many raiders will call for Hocutt's head if they have to pay LHN to watch the game.
It would be more like an ISU/KU type game whose fans don't care about football/are just happy to still be included.
ESPN grossly overestimated UT's appeal to the average Texan.
As much as it pains me to say, Texans are extremely fair weather when it comes to sports. They will jump on the bandwagon of whoever is winning at the moment and jump to the next one just as quick. The "loyalty" is a mile wide but an inch deep. Thats why Joe Texan may buy a longhorn hat (plus it annoys the heck out of his cousins from Oklahoma and Louisiana) but he won't pay money to watch Texas volleyball and field hockey.