| SYSTEMIC CHANGES |
| End of TV monopoly |
| Recruiting coverage |
| Early NFL Draft entry |
| SYSTEM RULE CHANGES |
| Academic ineligibility |
| CFP |
| Conference championship games |
| GAME RULE CHANGES |
| OT |
| Narrower hashmarks |
| Tearaway jerseys banned |
| GAME PLAY CHANGES |
| Wishbone |
| SEC integration |
| Read option |
I like conference networks (and single-school networks :) ) because they bring more sports to my television.On one hand yes, but I don't know how much of that is due to the conference networks. In fact, had conference networks been there earlier, I think we would have seen less realignment, jockeying for space in the conferences with the best national tv contracts.
I dislike the resulting realignment moves that are made solely for the money-grab at television revenue. That has harmed the sport severely over the last decade.
On one hand yes, but I don't know how much of that is due to the conference networks. In fact, had conference networks been there earlier, I think we would have seen less realignment, jockeying for space in the conferences with the best national tv contracts.The combination of the conference networks and the cable subscriber model drove the B1G's desire for Rutgers and Maryland. And it drove the SEC's desire for Texas A&M and Missouri. In those cases, conference networks are the direct cause of the realignment activity that followed.
Hell, the Big XII may only still exist because of the LHN
The combination of the conference networks and the cable subscriber model drove the B1G's desire for Rutgers and Maryland. And it drove the SEC's desire for Texas A&M and Missouri. In those cases, conference networks are the direct cause of the realignment activity that followed.I think they certainly drove which schools were targeted. But I think had all conferences had networks earlier, you wouldn't have seen the same type of shuffle. The Big Ten and then the SEC got the jump on everyone there.
I think they certainly drove which schools were targeted. But I think had all conferences had networks earlier, you wouldn't have seen the same type of shuffle. The Big Ten and then the SEC got the jump on everyone there.You're speculating, when all we know for certain is what actually happened. I directly blame the conference networks and the money-grubbing conference executives for the choices that have ruined many things I liked about the sport.
On one hand yes, but I don't know how much of that is due to the conference networks. In fact, had conference networks been there earlier, I think we would have seen less realignment, jockeying for space in the conferences with the best national tv contracts.That is for sure speculation. It could also be speculated that the Big 12 would exist as it did in 2010 if it had a full conference network, and no LHN.
Hell, the Big XII may only still exist because of the LHN
TV revenue is TV revenueThe "in-footprint" cable subscriber model changed the calculus significantly. Some of the B1G fans on this very site (and on this very thread) are some of the biggest opponents to what happened with Maryland and Rutgers. My point is obvious, self-evident, substantiated, and vindicated by several long-time B1G fans around here.
regardless of who owns the network
the grabbing of high demand content to drive up revenue was going to happen regardless what network the conference is negotiating with for a new contract
If Nebraska ever tried to get its own network, the presidents would see to it that they were booted from the partnership known as the Big Ten.Nebraska was well on its way to having its own network-- well ahead of Texas-- before the B1G announced expansion and changed everything.
The "in-footprint" cable subscriber model changed the calculus significantly. Some of the B1G fans on this very site (and on this very thread) are some of the biggest opponents to what happened with Maryland and Rutgers. My point is obvious, self-evident, substantiated, and vindicated by several long-time B1G fans around here.I agree the BTN wanted the eastern schools for market share.
Conference networks were directly responsible for many of the very bad things happening in college football in the past decade. Anyone that's going to argue against me on that is... well... delusional, I guess.
I agree the BTN wanted the eastern schools for market share.Without the in-footprint cable subscriber model, Maryland and Rutgers don't move the needle. At all.
What I'm saying is that if the BTN didn't exist, the Big Ten may have added Maryland and Rutgers to sweeten the negotiations with ABC/ESPN or any other network bidding on the content
Without the in-footprint cable subscriber model, Maryland and Rutgers don't move the needle. At all.Don't lump Maryland in with Rutgers. Rutgers was a pure NYC Media Grab.
The only options to sweeten the deal for Tier 1 media partners, would be big names. Nobody turns on a television set to see a B1G team play Rutgers, not even if it's Michigan or Ohio State.
That's why Nebraska was a good add for national marketability. But Maryland and Rutgers were terrible adds that dilute the product and further diminish former regional rivalries. Their sole value was in-footprint cable subscriber pressure on the carriers. Which is absolute crap and a severe blow to the sport of college football.
Nebraska was well on its way to having its own network-- well ahead of Texas-- before the B1G announced expansion and changed everything.Had they been in the Big Ten and well on its way to having its own network, they'd have been looking for a conference. Just sayin'.
Had they been in the Big Ten and well on its way to having its own network, they'd have been looking for a conference. Just sayin'.Obviously, because the B1G already had a conference network at that point.
If Nebraska ever tried to get its own network, the presidents would see to it that they were booted from the partnership known as the Big Ten.and it should be if they did that...
Texas killed the big12LMDGMFSBAO
Texas killed the big12This I don't believe.
This I don't believe.+1, Texas just happened to be the most successful at being greedy.
What killed the Big 12 was all the schools (that could) trying to do what was best for themselves without regard for the others. Be it TV, movement, whatever.
A&M was trying to get to the SEC. Mizzou to the Big Ten. Texas to the Big Ten even before the XII happened.
Had they all put the same energy into the league (partnership) they were in, it might still be what it was. Instead, we have what we have.
Texas killed the big12laughing OL that this simple post was edited
Missou has wanted to bolt since forever and would have no matter what else occurred, but they were replaceable.The biggest problem the Big 12 has is that nobody is replaceable...
laughing OL that this simple post was editedI wrote more, but wanted to be "nice" today. =)
The biggest problem the Big 12 has is that nobody is replaceable...why join a conference that would break up at the snap of Texas' fingers..
...because there's nobody to replace them with.
Nobody is going to leave the SEC or B1G, or PAC, for the B12. The SEC and B1G are huge moneymaking conferences. The PAC needs to figure out its money situation, but it's a stable conference and the AZ schools [the only schools for which it makes any geographic sense absent CO/UT] are not likely to leave the PAC for the B12.
Unless the ACC gets decimated and you have multiple schools looking for a home, nobody in the ACC is going to voluntarily leave the ACC for anything except the B1G or SEC. They're not going to catch the falling knife by trying to revive the B12.
So who is the B12 going to take? CSU? Boise State? Try to find a way to shoehorn BYU in?
Nobody they want is trying to join.
The biggest problem the Big 12 has is that nobody is replaceable...Today, I might agree. In 2010 when the league still had Nebraska, ATM and Colorado in the fold, Missou was replaceable. It would have cost them some points in the St Louis TV market, but maybe you make that up with a strategic pick from outside the P5. That is maybe less a statement about the attraction of the Big 12 than one about the value of Missou, but the end result is the same.
...because there's nobody to replace them with.
Nobody they want is trying to join.
I'll vote for the one that at least sort of helps even the playing field.Don't each of these somewhat accomplish that?