1. You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Just Heard

Discussion in 'OSU Sports Forum' started by MUCO-13, Oct 4, 2011.

  1. DatTallGuy

    DatTallGuy Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    College Station, Texas
    That is the major problem with the Big 12, and, unfortunately, I don't see it going away. Also, I don't fault them either for wanting their own network.
    NJAggie likes this.
  2. CrazySooner

    CrazySooner Cowboy

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,020
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    What is? that they dont share their tier 3?

    You do know that the SEC doesn't share their tier 3 either, right?

    Neither does the ACC or Big East.
  3. Celldweller7

    A/V Subscriber Celldweller7 Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Messages:
    7,888
    Location:
    A very specific place
    Your theory about the Pac 12 denying OU only because they were packaged goes against the methods of the Pac 12. The Pac has built itself, very purposefully, with travel partners, it doesn't go to odd numbers. That is why they felt forced to add Utah.

    I agree OSU hurt the package in P12 eyes, but it is also true that OU by themselves would not invited unless Scott had an acceptable 14th member in mind as well (clearly OSU was not it).
  4. CrazySooner

    CrazySooner Cowboy

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,020
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Obviously you either completely misread what I said, or completely misunderstood it.

    I said that OU was wanting to go to the PAC with OSU.

    The PAC said not without Texas.

    And since Texas said no to ditching or changing the TLN, then the PAC said NO to OU.

    It wasn't because OU wanted to go alone. It was because the PAC wanted Texas too. And OU and OSU didnt want Texas to go unless they did what the PAC wanted.

    In doing so, the PAC said no to OSU as well, since OSU was wanting to ride the coattails of OU.

    BTW, you do realize that Colorado went without a package deal right? The PAC went to get Utah, after OU, Texas, OSU, etc decided to stay in the Big 12.
  5. Celldweller7

    A/V Subscriber Celldweller7 Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Messages:
    7,888
    Location:
    A very specific place
    The P12 and B1G do. Why are we just stating information without a point?

    Or are you saying the Big 12 needs to model itself after the Big East?

    The problem with the comparison is that no one in the SEC or ACC has attempted to run rouge with their tier 3 rights. They have not attempted to become direct competitors with their conference and competing for programming. None of those schools have entered into a questionable relationship with ESPN that makes one wonder how their isn't a conflict of interest for someone somewhere.

    If UT & ESPN just wanted to show volleyball games, men's basketball against Texas Pan-America, and their weakest OOC home football game, no one would really care. But ESPN has and is already pushing for more.

    When those circumstances arise in the SEC, then they can be compared.
    DatTallGuy likes this.
  6. Celldweller7

    A/V Subscriber Celldweller7 Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Messages:
    7,888
    Location:
    A very specific place
    I never said OU wanted to go alone, you said in a previous post OU could have gone alone. I say the P12 does not accept odd numbers and would not accept OU alone without a partner in mind, they would not settle at 13. That is how I interpret going alone, the conference would be happy with just them.

    The PAC had to have a #14, OSU was not an acceptable #14. It is clear, OSU is only seen as acceptable as a #15 or #16 and only if OU & UT are #13 and #14.

    Colorado went because Scott already had a plan for a #12 if the full Big 12 expansion did not work. There would not have been any Pac 11, Colorado was accepted because Scott had a 12th already planned if 16 didn't work.

    Our communication problem was in large part over the word "package." Whether it is a package the university wants or the conference wants, it is still a package in my interpretation. OU/OSU was a university package, CU/Utah was a conference packaging.
  7. DatTallGuy

    DatTallGuy Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    College Station, Texas
    The very thing you said, and I quoted. UT-ESPN insisting on playing high school anything and conference games. I could care less about sharing tier 3 rights/money. However, there are few (if any) conference football or basketball games deserving of anything less than tier 2.
    Pokeabear and NJAggie like this.
  8. NJAggie

    NJAggie Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,533
    Location:
    Columbia, MD
    Well UT offered aTm the chance to get in when it looked like an expensive toy. They didn't offer them when they found out ESPN was willing to give them a sweetheart deal.
    DatTallGuy likes this.
  9. NJAggie

    NJAggie Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,533
    Location:
    Columbia, MD
    Absolutely let ESPN come in and offer Alabama or Florida the same deal, and see if it's no big deal. Alabama and Florida already make big money off of their tier 3 rights, but they don't have a national broadcaster in bed with them.

    Until ESPN has to choose between the LHN or the Big XII this league will continue to go down.
  10. DatTallGuy

    DatTallGuy Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    College Station, Texas
    Not to mention it was suppose to only show practices and the "other sports" (i.e. soccer, lacrosse, swimming, etc.). While I would love to have a channel that showed the "other sports", it's nothing I would be jealous of another school for having and us not having. It's hard to say if the costs of running such a channel would be worth it.
  11. rolentz

    rolentz Cowboy

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    148
    Location:
    North Texas
    I'm probably gonna get fried for this, but business is business.

    Put it this way, you have a opportunity to buy 1,000 shares of stock for $1/each, but you decide to seek a partner to split the cost. So you approach an acquaintance who turns you down, so you end up putting up the entire $1,000. Five years later, that stock is worth $100 a share. Would you give the acquaintance a second chance to acquire half of your holdings at the original $1/per share because they made a miscalculation? I know I wouldn't.

    Like others, I do not blame the Longhorns for having the good fortune to strike gold with their network. The true problem is having enough content for a 24/7 Longhorn network, with the result that ESPN pushing the envelope to fill their programming. And why is the NCAA, who gets involved in virtually everything else, acting fairly passive about this?
  12. TouchdownCowboys

    TouchdownCowboys Cowboy

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,439
    Location:
    In Your Computer
    OU has been in the process of making their own network and to my knowledge has never considered including OSU to make a Bedlam network. A Bedlam network was discussed under the Pac 12 model of regional networks. Any network is essentially Tier III, replays, and fluff as tier I and II are under the league contract.

    ESPN is pushing content and UT just cashes checks and provides access to players and coaches. The last thing UT needs is access to HS recruits. ESPN is the one scrambling to fill space as expected. This is why no one expected any member network to be so valuable when they voted. However, ESPN fears conference networks and it making a monetary stand with the LHN. Mega conference TV networks would be a game changer. Just look at the Pac 12 conference TV deal. The networks are paying too much and still making a killing. Established conference networks could reduce advertising rates, cut out ESPN/FOX, and make even more int he future.
    NJAggie likes this.
  13. DatTallGuy

    DatTallGuy Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    College Station, Texas
    That is not a good analogy. For it to even come close you have to say that someone ends up giving you the 1,000 shares. As NJAggie stated, UT offered when it looked like an expensive toy (i.e. a cute accessory that you are going to have to pay a lot for), but when ESPN agreed to buy that for them they did not want it. That said, I wouldn't want to be a part of the LHN. From what I have gathered from some UT alumni, they have had to sell their soul. I'm not sure I buy it, but they say that it is actually ESPN that is pushing the conference games and high school crap.
  14. Jonkr06

    Jonkr06 Cowboy

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,814
    Location:
    Katy, TX
    Personally I don't think Texas should have to share anything related to the LHN.

    I do, however, think it would be better for the conference as a whole if the LHN was scrapped and everybody's Tier 3 rights went towards a conference network. It's pretty clear that's the future and we will end up being the only conference without one.
  15. rolentz

    rolentz Cowboy

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    148
    Location:
    North Texas
    Maybe so, but the point I am making is you can't expect a second bite at the apple simply because you initially misjudged the costs v. benefits of getting in on the ground floor.

    I honestly don't know where the programming content is going to come from, and that is why the NCAA needs to get much more involved than what they currently are.
  16. NJAggie

    NJAggie Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,533
    Location:
    Columbia, MD
    Oh I agree that from a stand alone business they are dead on. But look at it like this, you are in a partnership in a gas station. You and your partners explore expanding, but decide against it. You ask hey I think I want one of my own if no one objects. They say fine, no problem. So you go out, and cut a sweetheart deal with your distributor to get a cut rate on gas, and put your station in across the road.

    Yes it's all fine and legal, but is it any way to treat your partners?
    DatTallGuy likes this.
  17. NJAggie

    NJAggie Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,533
    Location:
    Columbia, MD
    The NCAA regulates the athletes and the games, they have no say over conferences or TV rights.
  18. TouchdownCowboys

    TouchdownCowboys Cowboy

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,439
    Location:
    In Your Computer
    They lost football TV rights due to OU lawsuit in the seventies. They sued and won over an NCAA contractual limitation on TV appearances. Just goes to show the long term damage associated with assoicating with Sooners :).

    The NCAA does get the March Madness money and they have proved they can't be trusted either.

    This is not business is business. There is a clear legal distinction between public institutions and private companies. Athletic powers get around this by democratically creating conference bylaws that benefit some more than others. Conferences can claim equality, the big boys don't want sharing of gate revenues, luxury suites, booster club fund raising, tier III rights, etc. That is where business has been interjected, which I might add has been GREAT for OSU this past decade. I must admit I would be more than happy to see OSU get all the benefits of the Pac 16. Even if it means five get forgotten. I guess that is why I chose business over academics.
  19. NYC Poke

    A/V Subscriber NYC Poke Sir Dr. Lawyer Esquire, Lord of East Texica

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    24,042
    Actually, it's most like a breach of the duties of loyalty and fair-dealing to the partners. Not illegal, but definitely actionable in civil court. There was no full disclosure about the sweetheart deal or the location.

    And that's what's being left unsaid publicly about all this, because no school wants to go all Ken Starr on UT because it would be unseemly. It wouldn't surprise me if this is not be said, or at least implied, behind closed doors. Think of it as the nuclear option.
  20. NJAggie

    NJAggie Deputy

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,533
    Location:
    Columbia, MD
    I'm not implying it's illegal, I'm pointing out that legal actions can be unethical. You shouldn't have to protect yourself from your partners, but that's the environment UT/NU fostered in the Big XII. NU left, but UT refuses to leave.

Share This Page