Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
Author Message
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,161
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 339
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #81
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:42 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 10:32 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-14-2018 11:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't hide my feelings, I've said ESPN is awesome many times. I'm not afraid to criticize them either, as I am with PLUS.

Haters usually have a personal axe to grind. They are often younger, and don't remember the days before ESPN, when maybe there were two college football games on a week.

I’m 41 and my Dad was taking me to Iowa games since the late 70’s. Been to close to 1,000 college athletic events and watched every single game Iowa game growing up with “Mack” McCausland on local tv. I was doing just fine before espn. I’m doing fine without it. You love espn because LSU (SEC SECSEC) is tied in with ESPN for the rest of your life. You claim not be a conference homer ...

Wrong on at least two counts. I am an admitted conference homer - in hoops, the Big East. In football, I follow USF, they get all of my support. LSU? I like them because they are local, so root for them, but nothing like USF.

Beyond that, I've criticized the SEC many times for their deal with ESPN, which I think is way more favorable to ESPN than the SEC. Ditto for the ACC.

ESPN is awesome because I can see a bajillion college football, basketball, NBA, MLB, and other sports than I ever could growing up. To me, that's a massive plus, and well worth whatever share of my cable bill they gobble up.

IMO, the silliest criticism of ESPN comes from supporters of G5 conferences that say it "holds them back" or something. If you really have been following college football since the 1970s, you know damn well that conferences with the makeup of the current AAC and Sun Belt were completely invisible then, and that it's thanks mostly to ESPN that their exposure and visibility has increased enormously since then. Circa 1980, a school like Memphis or Tulsa or ECU could go literally years without ever having a football game on national TV, and now basically all of their games are. That's a ginormous difference in a positive direction.





G5-type conferences have never had it so good, and that's thanks mostly to ESPN.

Actually I’ll give you a conference that was doing well and could point to espn’s Propaganda as hurting them: The WAC. Decent conference with good bowls before espn downgraded them with the “Non-BCS” label in the 90’s. They were getting too good for their own good and got slapped. CUSA 1.0 was a big surprise in college football. ESPN helped destroy them as they were hitting their stride in the early 2000’s.
So there are two examples of “G5-types” who did have it better before ESPN’s shenanigans.

Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.
04-16-2018 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,448
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 578
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #82
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 03:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:42 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 10:32 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I’m 41 and my Dad was taking me to Iowa games since the late 70’s. Been to close to 1,000 college athletic events and watched every single game Iowa game growing up with “Mack” McCausland on local tv. I was doing just fine before espn. I’m doing fine without it. You love espn because LSU (SEC SECSEC) is tied in with ESPN for the rest of your life. You claim not be a conference homer ...

Wrong on at least two counts. I am an admitted conference homer - in hoops, the Big East. In football, I follow USF, they get all of my support. LSU? I like them because they are local, so root for them, but nothing like USF.

Beyond that, I've criticized the SEC many times for their deal with ESPN, which I think is way more favorable to ESPN than the SEC. Ditto for the ACC.

ESPN is awesome because I can see a bajillion college football, basketball, NBA, MLB, and other sports than I ever could growing up. To me, that's a massive plus, and well worth whatever share of my cable bill they gobble up.

IMO, the silliest criticism of ESPN comes from supporters of G5 conferences that say it "holds them back" or something. If you really have been following college football since the 1970s, you know damn well that conferences with the makeup of the current AAC and Sun Belt were completely invisible then, and that it's thanks mostly to ESPN that their exposure and visibility has increased enormously since then. Circa 1980, a school like Memphis or Tulsa or ECU could go literally years without ever having a football game on national TV, and now basically all of their games are. That's a ginormous difference in a positive direction.





G5-type conferences have never had it so good, and that's thanks mostly to ESPN.

Actually I’ll give you a conference that was doing well and could point to espn’s Propaganda as hurting them: The WAC. Decent conference with good bowls before espn downgraded them with the “Non-BCS” label in the 90’s. They were getting too good for their own good and got slapped. CUSA 1.0 was a big surprise in college football. ESPN helped destroy them as they were hitting their stride in the early 2000’s.
So there are two examples of “G5-types” who did have it better before ESPN’s shenanigans.

Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.

WTF? Those are just labels. What matters are the schools.

Take any school, whether in the WAC, MWC, CUSA, now or in 1994, whenever.

They get much more exposure now, and make more money now, than they did before ESPN.
04-16-2018 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,357
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 546
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #83
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
This is an almost philosophical debate... if half of the schools in a conference get "called up", can we really say that the ones left behind were destroyed? To be sure, tradition and rivalries WERE destroyed - which is important in college football. But does that mean school A shouldn't try to better themselves because doing so might hurt school B? What if both A and B make more money and get more exposure than before, but A gets 5X as much while B gets only 2x? Doesn't that mitigate the damages?
04-16-2018 06:30 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GTFletch Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 835
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location:
Post: #84
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-14-2018 06:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I had discounted that as management prattle. But you might be right here--maybe ESPN is getting high on their own supply, as it were.

I really don't think there's any value added in replacing a locally produced pregame show specific to the Indiana PAcers (or whoever) with an NBA Today produced in Bristol. Yes you save some amount of money, (1 show instead of 22, 23 if you count the hour it fills for ESPN/2/U/News) but I don't think it amounts to much.

Having the ability to put MLB/NBA/NHL games on ESPN/2/U/News is significant, though. That's actually really bad for college sports, now that I'm absorbing the news.

If ESPN can fill timeslots with pro sports, it doesn't need college sports as much.

Thank goodness the college broadcasting model has changed to Conf Networks and that the ACC Network is with ESPN and launching in 2019! For all the ACC network haters... time to eat CROW!!!!!
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2018 06:48 PM by GTFletch.)
04-16-2018 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,161
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 339
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #85
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 06:46 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  
(04-14-2018 06:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I had discounted that as management prattle. But you might be right here--maybe ESPN is getting high on their own supply, as it were.

I really don't think there's any value added in replacing a locally produced pregame show specific to the Indiana PAcers (or whoever) with an NBA Today produced in Bristol. Yes you save some amount of money, (1 show instead of 22, 23 if you count the hour it fills for ESPN/2/U/News) but I don't think it amounts to much.

Having the ability to put MLB/NBA/NHL games on ESPN/2/U/News is significant, though. That's actually really bad for college sports, now that I'm absorbing the news.

If ESPN can fill timeslots with pro sports, it doesn't need college sports as much.

Thank goodness the college broadcasting model has changed to Conf Networks and that the ACC Network is with ESPN and launching in 2019! For all the ACC network haters... time to eat CROW!!!!!

No crow eating until we see what it looks like as far as fan interest. Will it look like the B10 network or the PAC network? I'm guessing something. Good luck.
04-16-2018 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,974
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #86
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:42 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wrong on at least two counts. I am an admitted conference homer - in hoops, the Big East. In football, I follow USF, they get all of my support. LSU? I like them because they are local, so root for them, but nothing like USF.

Beyond that, I've criticized the SEC many times for their deal with ESPN, which I think is way more favorable to ESPN than the SEC. Ditto for the ACC.

ESPN is awesome because I can see a bajillion college football, basketball, NBA, MLB, and other sports than I ever could growing up. To me, that's a massive plus, and well worth whatever share of my cable bill they gobble up.

IMO, the silliest criticism of ESPN comes from supporters of G5 conferences that say it "holds them back" or something. If you really have been following college football since the 1970s, you know damn well that conferences with the makeup of the current AAC and Sun Belt were completely invisible then, and that it's thanks mostly to ESPN that their exposure and visibility has increased enormously since then. Circa 1980, a school like Memphis or Tulsa or ECU could go literally years without ever having a football game on national TV, and now basically all of their games are. That's a ginormous difference in a positive direction.





G5-type conferences have never had it so good, and that's thanks mostly to ESPN.

Actually I’ll give you a conference that was doing well and could point to espn’s Propaganda as hurting them: The WAC. Decent conference with good bowls before espn downgraded them with the “Non-BCS” label in the 90’s. They were getting too good for their own good and got slapped. CUSA 1.0 was a big surprise in college football. ESPN helped destroy them as they were hitting their stride in the early 2000’s.
So there are two examples of “G5-types” who did have it better before ESPN’s shenanigans.

Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.

WTF? Those are just labels. What matters are the schools.

Take any school, whether in the WAC, MWC, CUSA, now or in 1994, whenever.

They get much more exposure now, and make more money now, than they did before ESPN.

Not true.

NCAA TV contract paid out 750k to each team.

SoMiss, Rice, UTEP, NMSU are making less money from TV as what they were in the early 80's. MAC is finally back to the level but of course didn't have national exposure though paid.
04-16-2018 11:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,357
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 546
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #87
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 06:46 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  
(04-14-2018 06:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I had discounted that as management prattle. But you might be right here--maybe ESPN is getting high on their own supply, as it were.

I really don't think there's any value added in replacing a locally produced pregame show specific to the Indiana PAcers (or whoever) with an NBA Today produced in Bristol. Yes you save some amount of money, (1 show instead of 22, 23 if you count the hour it fills for ESPN/2/U/News) but I don't think it amounts to much.

Having the ability to put MLB/NBA/NHL games on ESPN/2/U/News is significant, though. That's actually really bad for college sports, now that I'm absorbing the news.

If ESPN can fill timeslots with pro sports, it doesn't need college sports as much.

Thank goodness the college broadcasting model has changed to Conf Networks and that the ACC Network is with ESPN and launching in 2019! For all the ACC network haters... time to eat CROW!!!!!

Hey, as much as I like to support the ACC and its teams, I'm not counting my crows before they hatch! I do think there are reasons to be optimistic, though.
04-17-2018 01:23 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
domer1978 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,543
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Tennessee
Post: #88
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-17-2018 01:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 06:46 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  
(04-14-2018 06:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I had discounted that as management prattle. But you might be right here--maybe ESPN is getting high on their own supply, as it were.

I really don't think there's any value added in replacing a locally produced pregame show specific to the Indiana PAcers (or whoever) with an NBA Today produced in Bristol. Yes you save some amount of money, (1 show instead of 22, 23 if you count the hour it fills for ESPN/2/U/News) but I don't think it amounts to much.

Having the ability to put MLB/NBA/NHL games on ESPN/2/U/News is significant, though. That's actually really bad for college sports, now that I'm absorbing the news.

If ESPN can fill timeslots with pro sports, it doesn't need college sports as much.

Thank goodness the college broadcasting model has changed to Conf Networks and that the ACC Network is with ESPN and launching in 2019! For all the ACC network haters... time to eat CROW!!!!!

Hey, as much as I like to support the ACC and its teams, I'm not counting my crows before they hatch! I do think there are reasons to be optimistic, though.
We still have no clue how much it will bring in. Best to wait and see and hope for the best.
04-17-2018 06:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,448
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 578
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #89
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 09:02 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 06:46 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  
(04-14-2018 06:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I had discounted that as management prattle. But you might be right here--maybe ESPN is getting high on their own supply, as it were.

I really don't think there's any value added in replacing a locally produced pregame show specific to the Indiana PAcers (or whoever) with an NBA Today produced in Bristol. Yes you save some amount of money, (1 show instead of 22, 23 if you count the hour it fills for ESPN/2/U/News) but I don't think it amounts to much.

Having the ability to put MLB/NBA/NHL games on ESPN/2/U/News is significant, though. That's actually really bad for college sports, now that I'm absorbing the news.

If ESPN can fill timeslots with pro sports, it doesn't need college sports as much.

Thank goodness the college broadcasting model has changed to Conf Networks and that the ACC Network is with ESPN and launching in 2019! For all the ACC network haters... time to eat CROW!!!!!

No crow eating until we see what it looks like as far as fan interest. Will it look like the B10 network or the PAC network? I'm guessing something. Good luck.

Yes, the jury is still out on the commercial performance of the ACCN, we just have to wait and see until the numbers roll in.

One thing that would cause me concern if i was an ACC fan: The expectations seem to be sky-high, e.g., the FSU AD saying that ACCN revenues could be $15m per school.

Remember, the main reason the ACC has social peace these days is because Swofford calmed FSU and Clemson down a few years ago by selling them on the idea that an ACCN could satisfy their money concerns vis-a-vis the B1G and SEC.

If it doesn't, the grumbling could begin again, GOR or not.
04-17-2018 07:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,448
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 578
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #90
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-16-2018 11:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:42 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Actually I’ll give you a conference that was doing well and could point to espn’s Propaganda as hurting them: The WAC. Decent conference with good bowls before espn downgraded them with the “Non-BCS” label in the 90’s. They were getting too good for their own good and got slapped. CUSA 1.0 was a big surprise in college football. ESPN helped destroy them as they were hitting their stride in the early 2000’s.
So there are two examples of “G5-types” who did have it better before ESPN’s shenanigans.

Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.

WTF? Those are just labels. What matters are the schools.

Take any school, whether in the WAC, MWC, CUSA, now or in 1994, whenever.

They get much more exposure now, and make more money now, than they did before ESPN.

Not true.

NCAA TV contract paid out 750k to each team.

SoMiss, Rice, UTEP, NMSU are making less money from TV as what they were in the early 80's. MAC is finally back to the level but of course didn't have national exposure though paid.

I'd be curious as to where you got your numbers from, as my recollection was that back then, schools were paid based on appearance, e.g., if in 1981, the USC vs Oklahoma game was televised, each school got about $750,000 for that appearance. I do know that the NCAA football TV deal for 1981 was about $30m total, so it is hard to see how teams like Southern Miss got $700,000 a year from it.

As for exposure, consider that during the 1970s, Oklahoma averaged 2 appearances on TV per year, and that is including bowl games, which IIRC they went to a bowl game almost every year. So basically, they were televised once a year. And that's Oklahoma we are talking about.
04-17-2018 07:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,357
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 546
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #91
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-17-2018 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.

WTF? Those are just labels. What matters are the schools.

Take any school, whether in the WAC, MWC, CUSA, now or in 1994, whenever.

They get much more exposure now, and make more money now, than they did before ESPN.

Not true.

NCAA TV contract paid out 750k to each team.

SoMiss, Rice, UTEP, NMSU are making less money from TV as what they were in the early 80's. MAC is finally back to the level but of course didn't have national exposure though paid.

I'd be curious as to where you got your numbers from, as my recollection was that back then, schools were paid based on appearance, e.g., if in 1981, the USC vs Oklahoma game was televised, each school got about $750,000 for that appearance. I do know that the NCAA football TV deal for 1981 was about $30m total, so it is hard to see how teams like Southern Miss got $700,000 a year from it.

As for exposure, consider that during the 1970s, Oklahoma averaged 2 appearances on TV per year, and that is including bowl games, which IIRC they went to a bowl game almost every year. So basically, they were televised once a year. And that's Oklahoma we are talking about.

Twice: OU/Nebraska and the bowl... But yeah.

No way 100 teams got much from a $30M total.

Even if equally divided, that's only $300,000 each - not counting NCAA overhead.
04-17-2018 07:39 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,974
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #92
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
(04-17-2018 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 11:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 04:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:11 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Even if you think ESPN 'propaganda' hurt the WAC and CUSA, the schools in those conferences make more money and get way, way, more exposure thanks to ESPN than they ever did previously.

In 1980, no current WAC or CUSA team was ever heard of in college football circles, or seen either.
Dishonest^^^ Those WAC teams are in the MWC now, and CUSA didn't exist until 1995. You know this.

WTF? Those are just labels. What matters are the schools.

Take any school, whether in the WAC, MWC, CUSA, now or in 1994, whenever.

They get much more exposure now, and make more money now, than they did before ESPN.

Not true.

NCAA TV contract paid out 750k to each team.

SoMiss, Rice, UTEP, NMSU are making less money from TV as what they were in the early 80's. MAC is finally back to the level but of course didn't have national exposure though paid.

I'd be curious as to where you got your numbers from, as my recollection was that back then, schools were paid based on appearance, e.g., if in 1981, the USC vs Oklahoma game was televised, each school got about $750,000 for that appearance. I do know that the NCAA football TV deal for 1981 was about $30m total, so it is hard to see how teams like Southern Miss got $700,000 a year from it.

As for exposure, consider that during the 1970s, Oklahoma averaged 2 appearances on TV per year, and that is including bowl games, which IIRC they went to a bowl game almost every year. So basically, they were televised once a year. And that's Oklahoma we are talking about.

I tried looking in the SI vault but I couldn't find it. It was in one of the early 80's article in reference to a payment Central Michigan received. Its entirely possible the amount (roughly 750k) was a combined distribution from the NCAA.

The CFA by cutting a few conferences loose was able to offer the remainder 1 million per school. CUSA and WAC members were largely part of the CFA so when they struck out to negotiate contracts they used the "salary history" to pick up 1 million per school deals (MWC had to split first before they got the 1 mill deal).

AAC is making a little more today (2 million per school) but the salaries in that conference eat it up easily.
04-17-2018 11:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sctvman Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 621
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 15
I Root For: C of Charleston
Location: Charleston, SC
Post: #93
RE: Disney - FOX deal likely to consummate by "mid-2019"
In 1981, the last year one network had the entire college football package (when ABC had it), USC was shown twice. Oklahoma (a #1-#2 game) was regionalized with a App State-Citadel game and a SWAC game, while USC-UCLA was full national.

Those days were crazy with television. There was one Saturday (October 3) that had 6 ABC regional games at 12 noon. Navy-Yale was the “lead” game at noon. Yes. Yale was the lead game.

Arkansas State-Kansas was picked as one of the regional games. 1980 was the same way. November 8 (the famous Georgia-Florida Lindsey Scott game) was the lead national game, but there were 5 other regional games going on at the same time.

North Carolina-Clemson was carried in the Carolinas. Charleston, a big SEC market even without a team in the league, was unable to see Georgia-Florida.

The most ABC ever showed at one time was 7 games, on 11/10/79. ABC and later CBS was required to show a set of 1-AA, D2 and D3 games to fit a quota before the TV was deregulated.
04-18-2018 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.