The Longhorn Network and We All Claim Victory
by Seth C on Jul 21, 2011 6:16 AM CDT
in Texas Tech Football
Email
PrintSo much has happened since yesterday, when we discussed the idea that Texas A&M was having a Board of Directors meeting to discuss the Big 12. This meeting was supposed to happen today. In any event, things escalated yesterday. To back up a bit, Sports By Brooks transcribed an audio clip from the Longhorn Network Vice President, Dave Brown, who said this last week (and to give credit where credit is due, miketag from IAT12M found the audio first) about airing high school football games:
"We’re going to follow the great [high school] players in the state. Obviously a kid like [unsigned Texas verbal commit] Johnathan Gray. I know people [Longhorn Network subscribers] are going to want to see Johnathan Gray, I can’t wait to see Johnathan Gray.
"Feedback from our audience is they just want to see Johnathan Gray run whether it’s 45-0 or not, they want to see more Johnathan Gray. So we’re going to do our best to accomodate them [Longhorn Network subscribers] and follow the kids who are being recruited by a lot of the Division I schools. Certainly some of the kids Texas has recruited and is recruiting and everyone else the Big 12 is recruiting.
"One other thing, you may see us, I know there’s a kid [unsigned Texas verbal commit] Connor Brewer from Chapparal high school in Arizona. We may try to get on one or two of their games as well so people [Longhorn Network subscribers] can see an incoming quarterback that’ll be part of the scene in Austin."
I mentioned yesterday that although the Longhorn Network VP may not be an employee of the University of Texas, but it was a gray line as to whether or not a person associated with a university could even so much as mention the names of high school players that haven't signed a letter of intent.
Yesterday Texas AD DeLoss Dodds had this to say about the Longhorn Network:
"We do not want to use it as a recruiting advantage. We don't want it tied to Texas," Dodds said. "ESPN knows we don't want to violate any NCAA rules and they don't want to."
Once folks started to put 2 + 2 together, i.e. if you commit to the University of Texas then we'll put your high school game on the Longhorn Network, then folks started to get upset. College Football Talk's John Taylor:
And, if the NCAA decides to continue sitting on its hands when it comes to the UT/ESPN/high school football relationship? The Association needs to never again bring sanctions against any Div. 1-A football program for "recruiting violations". Simply put, if televising potential in-state — and specifically targeted out-of-state — recruits on your own television network is not a violation, how could The Association ever again look any school in the eyes in the future and accuse them of doing something illicit in gaining an advantage in recruiting?
This led to a report from Sporting News' Matt Hayes who said that OU and TAMU may look at moving to the SEC:
A source told Sporting News on Wednesday that both Texas A&M and Oklahoma are so concerned about rival Texas gaining a recruiting advantage with the newly formed Longhorn Network, the two institutions could turn to the SEC if the problems can’t be figured out. The core issue: The Longhorn Network will televise live high school football games in the state of Texas, an obvious recruiting advantage for Texas.
I thought yesterday it would take the NCAA too much time to do anything about the Longhorn Network, but DMN's Chuck Carlton reported yesterday that the Longhorn Network airing high school football games is on old:
Commissioner Dan Beebe announced a temporary compromise Wednesday. Telecasts of high school football games on the Longhorn Network are now on hold, pending decisions by the NCAA and the Big 12 about how to handle school and conference networks. The Big 12 also delayed the possibility of a conference game on the Longhorn Network, announced earlier this month as part of a side deal with Fox.
"It’s not going to happen until and unless the conference can make it happen with benefit to all and detriment to none," Beebe said.
Meanwhile, what are the Big 12's conference brethren saying about the whole deal? Rock M Nation is having fun in a roundtable where they briefly discuss the issue at hand. Beergut IAT12M is claiming that UT needs TAMU and OU more than TAMU and OU need UT. Peter Bean at BON writes that UT should bluff TAMU and OU's threat to move to the SEC and also writes that by making all of this public, resulting in Beebe making a statement yesterday was a well played move by OU and TAMU. CACRM's ccmachine writes that the Sooners and Aggies flexed their muscles.
This is all well and good, but I think the key is, and I think it's what the NCAA is deciding isn't whether or not UT can have the Longhorn Network. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the LHN, or a VP from the LHN, can specifically mention players that are being recruited by UT and can air high school games, which, potentially, could turn into a commit for UT. I still think that the best possible scenario for the other nine universities is to form their own television network that then forces UT fans to purchase the LHN and the Remaining Nine Network. At the very least, it would at the very least create a situation that would force UT fans spend more money to watch their team.
100 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I am with you Seth
It seems that a few of the other Big 12-2 schools have some top notch Athletic Directors and this is supposed to be one of their strengths, our own Kirby included. So, lets get the new Big 12-3 network going (maybe partner with Fox). I bet ut fans would subscribe to see their team and the other Big 12 schools may sacrifice the possible one game they would miss and see who make the most money on a TV network.
ut is "The Evil Empire"
I would think in light of recent events, Fox (and others) would be eager to compete with ESPN and I would be surprised if we didn’t see that. I mean the NCAA is completely unable to maneuver on just about everything, so it isn’t as if it couldn’t be a done deal for several years before the NCAA had anything to say about it.
There seems to be a market for it, and what is the NCAA gonna do? Fire everybody and be an emperor without a kingdom? Yeah… and while you’re at it, put some pants on too…
I think this is the new way of doing things, and everyone else has to innovate, too.
I think we’ll see more media deals very soon – not less.
I do not think setting up a network
Is the answer.
The key issues to me are that tu is likely not going to broadcast a single HS game this year, AND the unintended consequence of them not getting their conference football game. A gift I must credit to the Tech and OSU fans who must have raised enough of a stink to their ADs about having to purchase a channel to watch their own team, that it was brought up in a meeting with Beebe earlier this
week. I think that tu is trying to force the breakup of this conference through this network. I think they may get it too. Either that, or Dodds is a whole lot dumber than I gave him credit for and they did not envision this scenario taking place.
Still completely shocked that they gave up the conference game.
by miketag on Jul 21, 2011 6:35 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
i agree
not sure what the answer would be though….but individual networks wouldn’t work. Not many big 12-2 schools have a following a big as UT.
"A job well done is better than a job well said."
by I bleed Red and Black on Jul 21, 2011 7:51 AM CDT up reply actions
I doubt OU would join the network
They are trying to set up their own network. I imagine the stumbling block is them finding out that their network would be worth a tenth of tu’s and trying to wrap their minds around the difference in revenue.
by miketag on Jul 21, 2011 6:38 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
I think this is why I’m saying that the remaining 9 can have more clout as a whole. OU could try to do this by themselves, but I think it would be tough to get it done. However, the remaining 9 could put together something resembling the Big Ten Network, sans Texas, and I think it would have much more eyes watching and actually be profitable. Again, then Texas fans would have to purchase both networks, which would be fun.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
The way to go
This is definitely the way to go, Seth. UT ignores the rest of the league for their own pocketbook. Time to take advantage of their stupidity. As far as broadcasting highschool games of their highly recruited players, it will never fly with the NCAA.
The other nine don't have to roll over and play dead
If UT is looking at being independent down the road the remaining nine should issue an ultimatum now. Tell UT that either they re-brand the Longhorn Network The Big 12 Network & plan on sharing all revenue equally or they will be expelled from the Big 12. Ut and The UT Network is the cancer killing the Big 12. Cut it out now. And why Beebe isn’t creating a Big 12 Network now is beyond me. Nine schools going head to head with one? I like the conference network’s chances.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
will never happen
tu has a contract with ESPN. Even if they wanted to, they could not share the network with everyone else.
I suggested years ago that all the teams in the state form the “Texas Network.” It could televise every athletic event in the state (I am including juco football, Sul Ross volleyball etc). There would be enough content for a 24/7/365 network. Too bad it could not get worked out. The sip network is going to fail b/c there is not going to be enough content to generate ratings.
California Here I Come
“Howeewood! Howeewood!” – 1941. Oh Kirby, I hope you have friends in the Pac 12. We may need them soon.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
From your lips....
Fuzzy sweater cheerleaders and Road trips west. The great Satan has overreached and this is a cluster$&!@.
"Trust your gut....mine always finds good Mexican food"
-Me
by oldschoolraider on Jul 21, 2011 7:30 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Fuzzy logic
Those fuzzy sweaters just get in the way…..just sayin’
Somebody set me straight.
I thought the B12-2 just signed a new TV contract to have games aired. How is that going to be affected? If OU sets up their own network, will anyone watch the network set up by the rest of the conference? Would UT and OU games appear on both? Is there any way that 9 schools could agree to such a deal? I dioubt it. they could not even agree to share football revenues equally. The network profits and costs would not be any different. i doubt it ever happens. I hope that UT falls flat on their arrogant wallets and gain major recruiting violations out of this. Otherwise their will be chaos across the country as Ohio State, USC, Alabama and others follow suit. Can you imagine 25 new networks?.
the contract that was just signed was for the
2nd tier rights. that means the games that ABC decides not to broadcast. the 3rd tier rights (games that ABC and Fox decide not to broadcast) are what ESPN paid tu $15 million per year for. Those rights belong to each school individually. someone somewhere thinks that the right to tu playing SW Louisiana in September is worth $15 million per year. Like I said, I predict this network will be a financial flop for ESPN.
Dennis Dodd tweet said this at CBS sports
dennisdoddcbs Dennis Dodd
ESPN’s Dave Brown (head of Longhorn Network) may have committed NCAA violation by mentioning two 2012 UT commits on June radio interview.
13 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply
"A job well done is better than a job well said."
by I bleed Red and Black on Jul 21, 2011 7:42 AM CDT reply actions
Not sure...
but it may be a trickle down effect? in my opinion the LHN is just a violation waiting to happen.
"A job well done is better than a job well said."
by I bleed Red and Black on Jul 21, 2011 8:54 AM CDT up reply actions
If it is a violation
it has to be because Dave Brown is associated with the Longhorns in some way, as it certainly wouldn’t be an NCAA violation if I went on the radio and mentioned two 2012 UT commits in an interview.
So the question is: What is Dave Brown’s association with UT? He works for ESPN. The Longhorn Network is owned and operated by ESPN. The business relationship between ESPN and UT is less than clear; I’ve seen it referred to as a “partnership” (though the same articles make it clear that ESPN owns the network) and others have stated that UT simply sold its licensing rights to ESPN, who owned the network.
How can ESPN violate NCAA rules? It is not a member of the NCAA. The NCAA has no sanctioning power over ESPN. Is Dave Brown a UT alum? Booster? Is he affiliated with the school in any manner?
This is all very confusing to me. I can get on public access tomorrow and scream about how every kid should attend Texas Tech, and I’m not sure that would be a violation (as I’m not affiliated with the school, except as an alum). Why would the NCAA have the power to impose limitations on an ESPN affiliated network?
good questions.
it may be exactly like you said, how the NCAA views ESPN. I know over at the A&M board they are saying “booster”. So that might be a possibility. Good questions. Wish I had the answers.
"A job well done is better than a job well said."
by I bleed Red and Black on Jul 21, 2011 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think any direct affiliation is the main criteria.
I believe any unfair advantage is the standard. While Dave Brown can whistle Dixie all day long and technically not suffer any repercussions – UT is directly tied to ESPN in concrete fashion and so this does fall under NCAA scrutiny. Make no mistake – UT has actively chosen to be in that bed and the NCAA shouldn’t care what they call the relationship, they should simply care about what the end result is. I would also suspect that the high school players themselves would, theoretically anyway, be risking their college careers by electing to appear on the longhorn network, much as if they made contact with an agent.
Re:
I believe any unfair advantage is the standard.
What is your factual basis for this? Texas enjoys any number of unfair advantages. Is the appeal to recruits of the City of Austin, at least relative to Lubbock, a recruiting violation? If so, do we fine the Austin City Council? Is T. Boone Pickens violating NCAA rules if he builds OSU a stadium?
UT is directly tied to ESPN in concrete fashion and so this does fall under NCAA scrutiny.
Well that’s really the entire issue, isn’t it? How is “UT… directly tied to ESPN”? Do they share corporate ownership? No. Is ESPN a booster for UT? No, it’s a private for-profit entertainment entity. They have some sort of “partnership” but so what? Texas Tech has a partnership with Under Armor. Did Under Armor (or Texas Tech) violate NCAA rules when it showed Tech fans rushing the field (2008 vs. Texas) in its commercials? Do Texas or Texas Tech violate NCAA rules when they sell their brand or license? How?
UT has actively chosen to be in that bed and the NCAA shouldn’t care what they call the relationship, they should simply care about what the end result is.
So is it just a matter of degree, then? Because ESPN is so big, the NCAA should care because the result will obviously be an unfair advantage for UT, but it wouldn’t be an NCAA violation if UT started the “University of Texas Sports Network” which merely produced gameday broadcasts of Texas sports? (Remember, Texas Tech has its own “sports network” as well, which is explicitly affiliated with Tech Football.)
I would also suspect that the high school players themselves would, theoretically anyway, be risking their college careers by electing to appear on the longhorn network, much as if they made contact with an agent.
High school players appear on television every year without risking their college careers. The Texas High School Football Championship is on TV every year. I don’t think there’s any risk to the students, theoretical or otherwise.
Also, how do High School players “elect to appear on” television? No one asks their permission to televise the games. High School athletes aren’t in a position to negotiate any election to not-appear on television. It’s simply not their decision.
by Skin Patrol on Jul 21, 2011 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Also, how do High School players "elect to appear on" television? No one asks their permission to televise the games. High School athletes aren’t in a position to negotiate any election to not-appear on television. It’s simply not their decision.
One of the major questions though, is will “The NUT” change that? Suppose you’re a coach recruiting a kid and you tell him (behind closed doors, of course) “sign with UT, and we’ll have you on TV for your senior year of High School”. Quotes from the new network’s own VP show this could (if not already was planned to) be a reality. The VP of the network said they may look to broadcast games from a high school IN ARIZONA because a QB UT is recruiting plays there.
If we’re gonna let this crap go, then just start paying the kids outright. Let them make their money and screw any ridiculous notion that the “poorer” schools will be at any greater disadvantage than they already are.
btw, UNLESS we actually get some playoff consisting ONLY of conference champions (ie. ZERO impact from human polls) my bigger concern is a point that was even noted IN AUSTIN today on the radio. ESPN is planning to make MONEY off “The NUT”, their ONLY motivation is to make money. UT alums won’t be as excited to pay of a network if UT is not doing well (ie. in the hunt for the championship), since we KNOW ESPN’s “journalistic integrity” is slim to none, what’s to stop ESPN from talking up UT all year in order to keep them up in the polls (assuming they don’t do laughably bad like last year). How much MORE rank inflation will UT get from ESPN now?
Re:
One of the major questions though, is will "The NUT" change that?
I am not sure because I don’t know what “The NUT” is. Please help.
Quotes from the new network’s own VP show this could (if not already was planned to) be a reality. The VP of the network said they may look to broadcast games from a high school IN ARIZONA because a QB UT is recruiting plays there.
The way I read the quote, it says that LHN will televise games of recruits that UT is interested, for the obvious reason that LHN viewers are UT fans. This is why ESPN televises games involving major CFB programs, because those programs’ fans make up a larger portion of ESPN viewers. Coaches already have the ability to tell athletes that a good reason to attend X school is that X school has more games televised, and that isn’t sanctioned. I am sure, and indeed would hope, that Texas Tech uses this when recruiting JuCo kids or competing (if at all) with FCS or Division II teams. I mean, why would a UT coach need to say such a thing behind closed doors? Why couldn’t he just come out and say “If you sign with Texas, you will probably get on television, because it turns out that ESPN has an affiliate network with enough viewers that it makes financial sense to televise High School football games involving players who have signed with Texas.” That strikes me as pretty standard recruiting practice already, the unique aspect being that they can get on TV without actually being on the team, yet.
If we’re gonna let this crap go, then just start paying the kids outright.
I’m not sure what we’re letting go; I view this as a structural problem with the NCAA, in that it simply doesn’t control ESPN. The NCAA can’t tell you to put your guns down, man.
More importantly, though, what does televising high school games have to do with paying the kids outright? This doesn’t strike me as any further a step towards the professionalization of amateur sports than anything else in the last three years. The outrage over the LHN isn’t about unfair financial benefits passing to HS athletes, but rather about the unfair advantage one school will have over others in recruiting, a disparity that exists today, and will continue to exist LHN or not. I see this matter wholly separate from pay-to-play. Parity in CFB is (or was at least) sought for different reasons than to encourage and protect amateurism.
what’s to stop ESPN from talking up UT all year in order to keep them up in the polls (assuming they don’t do laughably bad like last year). How much MORE rank inflation will UT get from ESPN now?
Well the answer certainly isn’t the NCAA, which has no right to tell ESPN, or Fox, or CBS, or any other news network, what it can or can’t exercise editorial control over who those networks think the best team in the country is, right?
by Skin Patrol on Jul 21, 2011 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions
I am not sure because I don’t know what "The NUT" is. Please help.
ESPNUT = “The NUT”, I forget who coined that here on our own DTN, but I love the moniker and will continue to use it.
Coaches already have the ability to tell athletes that a good reason to attend X school is that X school has more games televised, and that isn’t sanctioned.
Are you honestly saying you can’t see the difference between “sign with us and you’ll be on TV tomorrow” vs. “sign with us and if you crack the starting lineup you may be on TV in a few years”. (granted, I’m SURE they don’t sell it like THAT, but point remains) We’re also talking the difference between sign with the school and YOU, personally (it will ALL be about YOU) will be on TV, vs. you’ll be on a team that plays on TV a lot.
I’m not sure what we’re letting go; I view this as a structural problem with the NCAA, in that it simply doesn’t control ESPN. The NCAA can’t tell you to put your guns down, man.
Answer me one question, ignore everything else if you want, but please answer me this:
Suppose I run a car dealership, I offer a kid a brand new truck if he signs with Texas Tech. I don’t work for Texas Tech, I’m not “controlled” by Texas Tech, but what will happen to that player and Texas Tech once the NCAA finds out what happened?
No, the NCAA can’t do squat TO ME, because they have no “power” over me, but they can slap everyone I was trying to help. Hence, why A&M is (correctly, IMO) calling ESPN now a “booster” for UT.
Well the answer certainly isn’t the NCAA, which has no right to tell ESPN, or Fox, or CBS, or any other news network, what it can or can’t exercise editorial control over who those networks think the best team in the country is, right?
No, but there is a CLEAR conflict of interest for ESPN with has a MATERIAL and MONETARY interest in the success of the UT program. But I freely admit that I’ve been saying for years that the polls are rigged as all hell, I just think this will make things WORSE. (which is why I’ve also said we may as well just go to the MWC right now if we can’t get in some other BCS conference right now)
Re:
ESPNUT = "The NUT", I forget who coined that here on our own DTN, but I love the moniker and will continue to use it.
Gracias, I also like it.
Are you honestly saying you can’t see the difference between "sign with us and you’ll be on TV tomorrow" vs. "sign with us and if you crack the starting lineup you may be on TV in a few years".
I see a literal difference, but not one that meaningfully distinguishes the two, at least in my opinion. In any case, I’m pretty sure that a lot of coaches do promise players that if they sign with this team, they will be on TV (without any qualifiers about cracking the starting lineup). Recruiting is the business of promising dreams to kids. For the most sought after recruits, there’s little room for qualifiers. You promise him the stars and the moon.
What is it you find improper about promising a kid he will be on television tomorrow (a promise the coach can’t make, incidentally) that is different from promising him that he will be on television in a year?
We’re also talking the difference between sign with the school and YOU, personally (it will ALL be about YOU) will be on TV, vs. you’ll be on a team that plays on TV a lot.
Same promise. If YOU sign with us, YOU will be on a team that plays on TV. It just so happens that the promise is true for the player’s high school team as well.
Suppose I run a car dealership, I offer a kid a brand new truck if he signs with Texas Tech. I don’t work for Texas Tech, I’m not "controlled" by Texas Tech, but what will happen to that player and Texas Tech once the NCAA finds out what happened?
That depends, and I’m not intimately familiar with the rules, but what I think happens is: If his parents or a family friend purchase him the car, nothing. If he accepts a gift from a stranger, then the player could lose his eligibility. If he accepts the gift from someone associated with the team, then the team could be penalized. If the team looks the other way after being notified of improper gift giving, then the team could be penalized.
My issue is that LHN offers nothing to the high school student. Even were ESPN a “booster” (which I doubt) it isn’t offering the kid anything! The kid isn’t paid because his high school game is televised.
How is it substantively different from Scout.com’s Texas Tech website interviewing Hiva Lutui?
I guess fundamentally what I’m asking is: Why do you think that ESPN’s decision to purchase licensing rights from a school therefore prohibit them from telling recruits which schools to attend? And why do you think recruits should be prohibited from [whatever it is you are suggesting they get in trouble for doing; “being televised” cannot be the infraction though].
No, the NCAA can’t do squat TO ME, because they have no "power" over me, but they can slap everyone I was trying to help. Hence, why A&M is (correctly, IMO) calling ESPN now a "booster" for UT.
Now that we’re into the meat of the discussion, does anyone actually have the NCAA’s definition of “booster”? Shouldn’t that be the first place we start the discussion? If ESPN isn’t a “booster” then what are we really talking about?
No, but there is a CLEAR conflict of interest for ESPN with has a MATERIAL and MONETARY interest in the success of the UT program.
Conflict of interest with who or what? Their journalistic integrity? Why does the NCAA care about ESPN’s journalistic integrity (or the NY Times for that matter)? If you don’t mean journalistic/ethical conflict of interest, what do you mean here? Do you think this conflicts with ESPN’s duties (if any) to the BCS? If so, why would the NCAA care? Wouldn’t the solution be for the BCS to exclude ESPN employees from participating in BCS voting? (Is the BCS even the kind of entity that cares about “conflicts of interest” considering it lets coaches vote on the result?)
I see a literal difference, but not one that meaningfully distinguishes the two, at least in my opinion. In any case, I’m pretty sure that a lot of coaches do promise players that if they sign with this team, they will be on TV
In today’s world, there is a HUGE difference between NOW and “eventually”. As crazy as it is if you think about it, ask how many people would rather have $10 NOW rather than $100 in a year. (considering many people probably wouldn’t trust you to come back with that $100 in a year) Or how many people would prefer $100 now rather than $10/month for the year.
What is it you find improper about promising a kid he will be on television tomorrow (a promise the coach can’t make, incidentally) that is different from promising him that he will be on television in a year?
There is a WORLD of difference between saying “our team is on TV a lot, sign with us and you’ll be on TV as part of our TEAM” vs. “we have control of TV to put YOUR team on TV”. One is selling the REPUTATION of the school, the other is USING the power of the school.
If he accepts a gift from a stranger, then the player could lose his eligibility. If he accepts the gift from someone associated with the team, then the team could be penalized. If the team looks the other way after being notified of improper gift giving, then the team could be penalized.
My issue is that LHN offers nothing to the high school student. Even were ESPN a "booster" (which I doubt) it isn’t offering the kid anything! The kid isn’t paid because his high school game is televised.
So basically you’re saying time on TV (and any “fame” that comes with it) has no inherent value and thus is no violation? I would argue the opposite.
How is it substantively different from Scout.com’s Texas Tech website interviewing Hiva Lutui?
What is the difference between the local news station interviewing an actor in a high school play and NBC giving the same actor a pilot in prime time?
Why do you think that ESPN’s decision to purchase licensing rights from a school therefore prohibit them from telling recruits which schools to attend?
That’s not what is happening. ESPN is setting up a station on the UT campus and will be hiring UT students as interns. They are more connected to the school than simply buying “TV rights”.
“Interns will work for 12 to 14 weeks and assist with a variety of tasks, including cutting highlights for programs, submitting story ideas and running the teleprompter during live broadcasts”
http://dailytexanonline.com/news/2011/02/18/espn-ut-discuss-home-longhorn-network
http://dailytexanonline.com/news/2011/07/11/longhorn-network-announces-internship-opportunity-students
If ESPN isn’t a "booster" then what are we really talking about?
NCAA definition of a “booster”:
A "Booster" is a representative of the institutions athletic interests who is an individual or business that is known by the University to have participated in any of the following:
(Once identified as a booster, an individual or business retains the "Athletics Representative" status forever.)
•Participated in or been a member of an organization promoting University Athletics (ESPN will have a material interest in seeing UT succeed so that people will buy their network, and they will be promoting the university SPECIFICALLY)
•Contributing financially to University Athletics, individual athletic programs or any other athletics or sport-specific booster organizations. (this one is debatable and the one everyone chooses to look at as “they’re a booster of ALL schools” but conference agreements are not to specific SCHOOLS, in the other direction, one can argue ESPN is paying the school generally, not the AD specifically)
•Assisted in the recruitment of prospects. (this becomes a question mark once you broadcast high school games SPECIFICALLY for UT recruits, for reference, online sites tied to a school (like RaiderPower ARE “booster” organizations))
•Provided NCAA permissible benefits to enrolled Student-Athletes or their families. (I admit, not sure what falls under “permissable benefits”)
Re:
In today’s world, there is a HUGE difference between NOW and "eventually". As crazy as it is if you think about it, ask how many people would rather have $10 NOW rather than $100 in a year.
That only means it is more persuasive to tell a kid that they can have instant gratification. It doesn’t mean the inducement is different, only its effectiveness.
There is a WORLD of difference between saying "our team is on TV a lot, sign with us and you’ll be on TV as part of our TEAM" vs. "we have control of TV to put YOUR team on TV". One is selling the REPUTATION of the school, the other is USING the power of the school.
But UT doesn’t have control over the recruit’s team, and can’t put the recruit’s team on television. Anyways, Is a REPUTATION not a thing included in a school’s power? School’s use their reputation to sell themselves to recruit all the time.
So basically you’re saying time on TV (and any "fame" that comes with it) has no inherent value and thus is no violation? I would argue the opposite.
No, I’m saying the recruit can’t get in trouble for “accepting” anything from ESPN because ESPN gave him nothing for the high school football coverage, and didn’t ask if he wanted to receive it. There may well be an inherent value of fame, but it isn’t being offered directly to the kid by anyone. In other words, the recruit has never accepted anything of value from anyone and for that reason is not in violation of NCAA rules.
What is the difference between the local news station interviewing an actor in a high school play and NBC giving the same actor a pilot in prime time?
I’m going to replace “actor” with “athlete” to make this easier, but the answer is it depends. If the local news station pays the player with a truck to interview him about athletics, maybe the kid has violated NCAA rules. If NBC broadcasts the kid’s high school football game on television, interviews him afterwards, but doesn’t pay him anything, there is no NCAA infraction. Gifts are improper whether given by NBC, the local car dealership, or a two-bit agent trying to sell the kid for a taco bell burrito.
If ALL the LHN does is broadcast and interview High School students, then there is no violation. There is simply no question that athletic recruits can go on television, can be interviewed, and indeed can be persuaded by people to attend this or that school. There is no recruiting violation if I walk up to a high school recruit and tell him that I think he should go to Texas Tech. Scout doesn’t violate NCAA rules each time it interviews a player. NBC/ESPN/Fox Sports Southwest doesn’t violate NCAA rules when it broadcasts players. And the players don’t violate NCAA rules when they participate in these things.
That’s not what is happening. ESPN is setting up a station on the UT campus and will be hiring UT students as interns. They are more connected to the school than simply buying "TV rights".
Just so we are clear, do you believe that the reason ESPN and UT are intimately linked such that the NCAA can get involved is because ESPN has set up a station on UT campus and hires UT students as interns? Does that mean UT can avoid infractions by kicking ESPN off its campus and prohibiting its students from working at LHN? Does that seem sensible to you? Is it in the NCAA’s interest to tell UT that its students can’t accept ESPN internships? Is it the NCAA’s prerogative to tell UT, or Texas Tech, how and to whom it can lease its land? These things have nothing to do with athletics.
"Interns will work for 12 to 14 weeks and assist with a variety of tasks, including cutting highlights for programs, submitting story ideas and running the teleprompter during live broadcasts"
Do you have editorial control over DTN because you can email story ideas to Seth? If UT is submitting and writing the stories, that’s an issue. If interns who happen to be students are writing stories, that’s not a problem at all; a UT student is no more the University than a Texas Tech student is the University. If interns are merely submitting stories that’s even one more step removed from editorial control. In other words, what you’re describing seems awfully innocuous.
By the way, why wouldn’t we expect a network called The Longhorn Network to write from a UT slant? That can’t be what we are arguing about, right?
Participated in or been a member of an organization promoting University Athletics (ESPN will have a material interest in seeing UT succeed so that people will buy their network, and they will be promoting the university SPECIFICALLY)
I appreciate you providing the rule; this is very helpful.
I would respond, however, that as soon as you provide the rule, you parenthetically move the goal posts. ESPN has been promoting UT athletics for decades. The LHN isn’t going to change that. Whether ESPN has a “material interest” in UT’s success is likewise irrelevant; it arguably has for a long time anyways, but I don’t see the words “material interest” in NCAA’s definition of “booster.” The rule also makes no mention of whether they are promoting the athletic department specifically (which ESPN has done, countless times, when it advertises UT games).
Contributing financially to University Athletics, individual athletic programs or any other athletics or sport-specific booster organizations. (this one is debatable and the one everyone chooses to look at as "they’re a booster of ALL schools" but conference agreements are not to specific SCHOOLS, in the other direction, one can argue ESPN is paying the school generally, not the AD specifically)
Are licensing agreements between schools and private entities in violation of NCAA rules? If yes, why? If not, what makes the LHN partnership different from Under Armor? Can’t we get around the “contributing” part by pointing out that UT pays ESPN by allowing someone else to profit from the use of its exclusive license? I say this because merely contracting with a private corporation that promotes sports cannot be enough to warrant investigation or censure. We sell our brand too, you know.
Assisted in the recruitment of prospects. (this becomes a question mark once you broadcast high school games SPECIFICALLY for UT recruits, for reference, online sites tied to a school (like RaiderPower ARE "booster" organizations))
Broadcasting a game may help recruiting, but I doubt that it is the same as “Assisted in the recruitment of prospects.” And I don’t think getting on TV and saying “Player X should go to Y school” is a recruiting violation anymore than it is when Seth writes a post encouraging an athlete to attend our school, and that would be true even if Texas Tech and he had some kind of licensing agreement.
If Scout.com is a booster, is Double T Nation? I couldn’t find the backup on any Scout.com site being labeled a booster, do you have a source?
In an effort to cap off the skirmish between you and Heerotex..
..found this sniplet of the rules, enjoy all UT apologist’s your s@#t is in the wind.
“1.The entire arrangement is a clear violation of NCAA rules. Begin with Rule 13.02.14:
13.02.14 Representative of Athletics Interests. A "representative of the institution’s athletics interests"
is an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization
who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution’s executive or athletics administration to: (Revised: 2/16/00)
(a) Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization promoting the institution’s intercollegiate
athletics program;
(b) Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that
institution;
© Be assisting or to have been requested (by the athletics department staff) to assist in the recruitment of prospective
student-athletes;
(d) Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their families; or
(e) Have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution’s athletics program.
IOW, ESPN, by dint of this deal, is now officially a "representative of the institution’s athletic interests." This is pretty cut and dried. This means that ESPN is subject to the same rules regarding recruits that any other UTexas booster is. They may not offer any inducements. They must respect all quiet periods. They can barely even talk to these kids. If ESPN violates any of these rules, the kids become ineligible to compete at UTexas, and UTexas becomes liable for penalties should they allow them to compete there.
IOW, if the LHN broadcasts Aledo vs. Stephenville this August, then Johnathan Gray becomes ineligible to play at UTexas. Period.
Rule 13.10.3 adds this on the subject, though its application is not as clear:
13.10.3 Radio/TV Show. A member institution shall not permit a prospective student-athlete or a high school, college preparatory school or two-year college coach to appear, be interviewed or otherwise be involved (in person or via film, audio tape or videotape) on:
(a) A radio or television program conducted by the institution’s coach;
(b) A program in which the institution’s coach is participating; or
© A program for which a member of the institution’s athletics staff has been instrumental in arranging for the appearance of the prospective student-athlete or coach or related program material.
The penalties for these are levied against the institution only, not against the student-athletes, so the kids wouldn’t face suspensions and could presumably transfer without penalty. But UTexas is staring at serious penalties if they continue on this course and the NCAA’s member institutions insist that the rules be enforced. Which they will.”
provided by barrymtn
"do routine things routinely"
by centexraider on Jul 21, 2011 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Re:
I’m flying to Mexico in a few hours, so I won’t be able to give this post the full attention it deserves, and I appreciate you finding the rules. As a preliminary matter:
enjoy all UT apologist’s your s@#t is in the wind.
I don’t know what “your shit is in the wind” is supposed to mean. I think I’ve been here supporting Texas Tech long enough that I wouldn’t be relegated to “UT apologist” status because I sincerely believe that this is a tempest in a teapot.
This is pretty cut and dried.
I disagree.
IOW, if the LHN broadcasts Aledo vs. Stephenville this August, then Johnathan Gray becomes ineligible to play at UTexas. Period.
Even if ESPN and LHN are “boosters,” or “Representatives of Athletic Interests” the rules don’t prohibit people so classified from broadcasting high school football games. You still have to overcome the sticky “inducement” issue, as merely broadcasting high school games is not the kind of “inducement” covered by NCAA rules. I just read the 14 some-odd “extra benefits” that representatives MAY NOT give or do, and broadcasting games isn’t one of them.
13.10.3 Radio/TV Show…
Let’s go through these rules:
a) Texas high school football game broadcasts are not “conducted by” Tommy Tuberville or Mack Brown.
b) Neither Tommy Tuberville nor Mack Brown participate in high school football game broadcasts.
c) No member of Tech or Texas’s athletic staff is “instrumental in arranging” high school football games, or their broadcasts, “for the appearance of” any “prospective student-athlete[s].” That wouldn’t change with the LHN, unless the LHN starts hiring members of Texas’s athletic staff.
by Skin Patrol on Jul 21, 2011 10:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Good Lord Skin.
That’s a lot of typing, but you are comparing a lot of apples to a small handful of oranges.
I sincerely hope you will demonstrate my mistakes.
I enjoy discussing this, particularly with you, and invite you to continue the conversation.
I enjoy the banter as well. You do make good points.
For the time being, my real work needs my brain, such that it is.
Snowball effect
It’s starting to gain momentum again folks. I wouldn’t be too suprised to see a major shakeup coming soon. Beebe had better be in front of this this and I hope our AD is keeping a close eye on what’s happening.
"You've got to find your inner pirate" - Mike Leach
"We started too late" - Neal Brown
Step up Kirby
I lost all respect for Beebe following TU’s Big-12 hostage crisis last year. Beebe and the horns parlayed the situation into a completely unfair advantage.
Kirby needs to call out UT and the Big 12 commissioner on this.
Here’s my irrational opinion; let TU go independent. I would like to see the other 9 schools of what’s left of the Big 12 choke off all partnerships with the horns. No red river shoot-out, no home / home with A&M, no ass whipping at the hands of TTU. Let us pull in Boise State and go after the Arizona schools. This may not make sense logistically but makes me feel better.
Being in front....
The only way I’d be happy for Beebe to be out in front of something that is gaining momentum would be if that something was very large and had a lot of weight. He’s the biggest problem with this little conference we have anyway (aside from tu).
"They challenged us. They said, 'Here, try to run past us, try to run inside us.' And they were better at preventing that than we were throwing and catching it." --Mike Leach
Beebe is effectively working for UT
This quote reinforces that:
“It’s fair to say what he said publicly is why we’re having conversations about this new world and what the parameters are," Beebe said.
I think the goal here was to go ahead and do what they wanted and then it would be to late for everyone. I have no doubt Beebe is advising. Remember he was the one that brought down SMU so he’s very familiar with how the NCAA works and is a great consultant for UT.
Alienation
ut is going to keep alienating everyone in this conference with “their” own network. Obviously, we’ve seen for years the unfounded arrogance ut grads permeate. Now, we’re seeing why – it all stems from the administration. It tells its students that they are more special than anyone, and for whatever reason they act like they graduated from Harvard. That’s why most of them act like they weren’t weened off of momma’s teat until their late 20’s.
Annnyway, I wish they would hurry up and just jump for independence. I’m sick of them playing games with everyone else. I could careless if we play them or not anymore. We need teams committed to this conference in order to for it to work. I hate the idea of joining the Pac-12. I really believe teams should be aligned somewhat to geography. We have nothing at surface that resembles the Pac 12.
I hope the ut network is cuffed by the rules that everyone else is forced to abide by… Nothing worse than spoiled undeserving brats getting what they want…
Everytime the aggies lose an angel gets its wings!!! Follow me on Twitter @chippadip
Tech TV
I live in the mountains of North Carolina and would be happy to purchase a channel to watch Tech games. Is that a possibility?
Duke-Tech Connection
naive
No offense intended Seth, but you’re being naive. Texas wouldn’t give a flip if the rest of the conference forms a network, even if 1 or 2 UT games get put on there. (and, to be frank, assuming ESPN doesn’t also own the “Big12” network, do you think any UT conference games drop below “2nd tier”, unless they’re going on LHN?) The problem (for us) isn’t that UT is making money by the buckets. The problem isn’t that this gives them a ridiculous recruiting advantage. The PROBLEM (for us), is that we’re now stuck without a paddle. WE need to get ahead of this mess because Texas does NOT have any real reason to stand pat beyond the current TV deal. (up for negotiation in 2016) In 4 years, “The NUT” will be firmly entrenched and when the first tier rights (owned by ESPN/ABC) come up WHY would they pay a boatload for the conference when they can just talk to UT about bundling first tier games into “The NUT”? Heck, even if UT isn’t looking to “go independent”, after 4 years they have their network and that WILL be a chip in their negotiations with a new conference (either they keep “The NUT” (assuming NCAA does nothing) or they get a sweetheart deal to join conference and lose their current network).
But either way (UT independent, or UT with network looking for new conference) we’re in a MUCH weaker position now than we were last time. Which is why I’ve been advocating pro-active efforts to find a new home once PAC-16 fell through. Because it’s going to be required anyway in a pretty near future.
I said this yesterday, emphasis mine:
This, I think, would force UT to abandon ship (highly unlikely in my opinion) or go independent, which is probably where this thing is headed, but adding one additional school would be easier, albeit a tough task to replace UT, than trying to find conference homes for the remaining nine institutions.
I don’t think UT cares, but I think their fans might care if they have to buy two additional networks to watch games. They would have to buy the LHN to watch 1, at the most 2, games, and then have to possibly buy another network to watch other games not picked up in Tier 1 or Tier 2, plus the basketball games.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
I disagree
If the games are not A&M or OU (and they won’t be), and MAYBE not us (definitely won’t be us if we’re ranked), then fans won’t care. Longhorn fans will just ignore games with Iowa State, Baylor or either of the Kansas’es. And UT fans don’t watch non-tourney basketball games NOW, why would they care if they get put on a network they’d need to pay for.
Then this seems like there’s no reason to buy the LHN either, which would be fine by me. Again, I think UT thinking that will join the other 9 schools is highly unlikely, so I think we agree there.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
There are already questions on if ESPN will be able to recoup their costs on “The NUT”, so I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re exactly right and people DON’T buy in at the numbers initially expected/hoped for. That said, UT already has their money on it, so they have time to try to slow build it. (There are also questions that SHOULD be asked about what would ESPN do to raise the profile of UT in order to improve the buy-rate on “The NUT”)
or just go to the bars
"A job well done is better than a job well said."
by I bleed Red and Black on Jul 21, 2011 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions
I would care
If I was a UT fan, I would care about the K-State game…when was the last time they beat K-State? 6, 7 years ago?
-Wreck 'Em
btw...
That does bring up an interesting question though. Suppose there is a “third tier” game, who gets priority on that between two networks? Suppose a 3rd tier UT game is “up for grabs” and both “The NUT” and the (currently fictitious) “Big12 Network” want to broadcast it, who would do so? If both, then no impact, if only one, how is the decision made?
Big 12 dysfunctional
I have had little faith in the longterm survival of the Big 12 (in anything resembling its original or current configuration) since last summer. This is a dysfunctional family. While there will always be big dogs and little dogs, the conference and its members should be working toward the common good of all. Instead:
- This conference agrees to unequal revenue sharing.
- UT wants (and thinks it deserves) the benefits of conference membership while retaining the freedom to behave like an independent when it suits them.
- UT announces the launch of their own network which (regardless of its ultimate success or failure) makes clear their position on cooperation with the other members and commitment to the conference. (The notion of the Remaining 9 forming a network – while understandable – comes off as retaliatory and is further evidence of this “family’s” issues.)
- Even after last year’s re-alignment, rumors and reports of certain members leaving persist.
The UT network is not just a Big12 problem.
Even if UT were to go independent, and I’m not so sure they really want to, the issue of showing high school teams is still a problem for the entire NCAA. This coupled with the fact that he NCAA is desperately trying to show that they are still relevant after a decade or so of deteriorating authority leads me to believe that they will take a strong stand on this. (can’t believe I think this, but I do) If that happens, the UT network will simply equal wasted ESPN money.
UT as an independent will find itself on very shaky ground going forward if OU, A&M, OSU, Tech decide they won’t schedule them under those circumstances. Maybe they all won’t have the balls to do that, but they need to threaten UT and do it with a mean streak. In order to remain respected, UT needs to be able to play a respectable schedule. I think he whole country is wary of helping Texas get any bigger at this point and would not be surprised to see a concentrated effort to stifle any power plays they may make. And as scheduling goes in general, it will be hard for Texas to continually get enough top programs to add them to their OOC schedules throughout each season, especially trying to lure them to UT. Most top teams won’t make that much more money by doing so and won’t see the risks as worthwhile. Otherwise, there would be a lot more high caliber OOC games already. Just because UT goes independent doesn’t mean suddenly every other team will change their scheduling philosophy.
Also – I don’t think that the Pac 10 or the Big 10 will let UT in unless they drop the network and share equally in all aspects – and UT doesn’t want any part of the SEC (and it ain’t because them SEC schools is so dumb, neither) – so no, UT isn’t leaving the Big 12 for anywhere else.
Also, as I’ve said before – Beebe does not rep UT, and probably at times despises them as much as anyone, but his job is to keep he Big 12 alive. No Big 12 = failure for Beebe. He probably can’t stand the way UT makes him look, but he has to work with the hands he is dealt in order to preserve the conference. He has already done this at a time when no one thought it was possible. If the Big 12 fails, UT is not going to give Beebe a job. He’ll simply have “Failure” as the most prominent mark on his resume. At present, he has managed to keep his conference together when no one believed it could be done. UT getting what they wanted was a byproduct of the fact that they held all of the cards, plain and simple. I don’t think any other person acting as commissioner could have done any better under the circumstances.
I agree, in particular with your last paragraph. Beebe has to make it work and right now, he’s trying to duct tape as many holes as possible in what appears to be a sinking ship. At some point, the members of the Big 12 have to agree to play nice or they all need to go their separate ways. And last year, I despised Beebe because I think he was, and maybe still is, just doing what UT wants and I hate that the commissioner is catering to UT, but like you state, UT holds the cards and it stinks.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
By the way....
I know that you don’t actively try to create “hits” for the sake of “hits” so I’m not implying that you ever would. At the same time I thinks it is fairly obvious that the best way to wake this crowd up is to bring up either Leach or the LHN! So much dirt to kick around on both.
Hmmmm. I suppose if football season started we might snap to attention for that as well.
Having said that....
I propose that Leach has a nightly show on the LHN…
"Trust your gut....mine always finds good Mexican food"
-Me
by oldschoolraider on Jul 21, 2011 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, realignment talk definitely generates an impassioned response. Sometimes it’s tough writing a post early in the morning and have it make some sense.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
Interesting info
The UIL in the state of Texas is actually part of the UT system….conflict of interest maybe?
"A job well done is better than a job well said."
by I bleed Red and Black on Jul 21, 2011 10:31 AM CDT reply actions
proof, website
says it on the right hand side of the page.
"A job well done is better than a job well said."
by I bleed Red and Black on Jul 21, 2011 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Re:
the issue of showing high school teams is still a problem for the entire NCAA.
But why? Can CBS broadcast high school football games? If Fox can broadcast Texas high school football games, why can’t ESPN? If ESPN can, why can’t its affiliate?
This coupled with the fact that he NCAA is desperately trying to show that they are still relevant after a decade or so of deteriorating authority leads me to believe that they will take a strong stand on this.
But a strong stance on what? I think I’ve read about as much as anyone on what the LHN is proposing to do, but no one has explained why that’s an NCAA issue. Suppose Kirk Herbstreit gets on television tomorrow and says “I think Texas high school athlete X should go to Texas” is that a recruiting violation? By whom? Why can’t ESPN, through the LHN, intentionally direct kids to attend certain high schools? Lee Corso puts on Raider Red’s head in 2008 and that helps us recruit; is it a violation?
Dave Brown at ESPN said the LHN was going to televise games that its assumed fan base would be interested in. ESPN, ABC, Fox, CBS, and every other entertainment entity, ever, does the same thing on a daily basis. The fact that this is going to drive recruits to Texas seems irrelevant; recruits are driven to Texas, to USC, to Florida, etc. because these schools have more fans, and therefore viewers, and therefore more televised games (which happens to be something high school football players are interested in). ESPN makes an editorial decision to put Texas vs. Texas Tech on in a night game in 2008. That is certainly advantageous for those two schools as it increases both our programs respective fan footprint. Is it a violation? Is it something the NCAA is interested in (or even empowered to) do something about?
I think I’ve cited too many Supreme Court cases over the past week on this website, but I’ll do one more, if only because I wrote my seminar paper on it. There was a time when the NCAA was keenly interested in limiting the exposure any individual team could have on television networks, to encourage parity (and nominally to protect stadium attendance, which is pretty unpersuasive but whatever) and equalize competition. With this in mind the NCAA set up a plan back in 1953 limiting the number of games any team could have televised, and equalized revenues throughout the NCAA (to some extent even including Division II and III teams). Naturally this frustrated major college programs, like Oklahoma and Georgia, who with others formed the College Football Association to lobby for their interests. Their efforts ultimately resulted in a Sherman antitrust act challenge to the NCAA’s limits on the number of televised games, among other things, in NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984). The Supreme Court held that the television restrictions constituted illegal price-fixing and therefore violated the Sherman Act. Televised college football exploded, and along with it even more disparity between the haves and the have-nots. This caused, among other things, even Division I football to fracture into multiple entities, now known as the FBS and FCS (formerly Div I-2AA I think).
Although I think the dissent, authored by College Football Hall of Famer Byron White (and the only member of the Court with first-hand experience in CFB matters, so far as I can tell) and Judge Frank Easterbrook (then working for the Solicitor General’s office) had the sounder reasoning, they lost. The natural result is where we’re at today. The NCAA is limited by Federal antitrust laws in its ability to regulate the manner in which its member schools televise football games. The Longhorn Network would never have been possible without NCAA v. Board of Regents (of Oklahoma, interestingly), nor would the Big 10 Network, Notre Dame’s ill-thought individual association with NBC, or Fox Sports Southwest.
The Supreme Court opened Pandora’s Box and predictably the LHN flew right out. I’m not sure the NCAA is going to be able to do anything about it.
The Difference is "University of Texas Network"
To me that is the major difference in ESPN/ABC/CBS broadcasting High School games. Those entities at least have a semblance of being independent. Anything with a specific University logo or name by nature has ties to a single entity.
E/A/C would broadcast the best team in Region I vs a good team in Region II for instance. Undoubtedly there would be a UT recruit in that game but still the game if the focus. If the NUT broadcast 5th place Abilene Wylie vs last place El Paso Coronado because a QB had not committed yet that would be an unfair advantage.
by RedRaider78 on Jul 21, 2011 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions
Re:
To me that is the major difference in ESPN/ABC/CBS broadcasting High School games. Those entities at least have a semblance of being independent. Anything with a specific University logo or name by nature has ties to a single entity.
I just disagree. I don’t think Tech has “ties” to Under Armor except that we have a partnership with them and sell them the right to use our logo. But either way, what it sounds like you’re saying is that it would be ok if ESPN independently created its own network to seek out, specifically, UT fans, by broadcasting high school sports games of UT recruits, by actively telling recruits to join UT, so long as they never purchased any licensing rights from UT, and so long as they named it something besides “Longhorn”—like maybe The Bevo Network?
If the NUT broadcast 5th place Abilene Wylie vs last place El Paso Coronado because a QB had not committed yet that would be an unfair advantage.
It certainly would be unfair, but so what? ESPN isn’t in the “fair” business, does not exist to promote parity in college athletics, and has no reason to broadcast exclusively “best team” matchups. Indeed, none of the networks do, which is why we have to watch a lot more Michigan or Notre Dame games than we do Boise State, even though Boise State is a much better team than either. UT vs. Rice is not a “best team” matchup, but is televised annually nonetheless.
Television networks do not have to be fair or independent.
To your 1st point – CBS, Fox and even he mothership itself aren’t “The Longhorn Network” acting on behalf of a single university. In regard to the NCAA’s ability to punish for recruiting violations this is a significant difference. While the debate can be had about ESPN’s overall integrity in reporting on UT in the future – in light of it’s also owning LHN – that is a separate issue altogether.
While the case you chose to present addresses the fact that UT can have it’s own network – it doesn’t have any baring on whether or not the NCAA can tell UT not to show high school games. If you have a case that says otherwise, I’m honestly interested in knowing about.
Re:
To your 1st point – CBS, Fox and even he mothership itself aren’t "The Longhorn Network" acting on behalf of a single university.
I think I see where we are talking past each other. I believe there is a difference between acting in a single university’s interests, and acting on its behalf. I think the difference is akin to that between a client and an agent, and between partners. LHN is owned by ESPN. It does not act on UT’s behalf. It acts in a way that benefits UT so that it can get UT viewers, which it thinks will help it generate a profit. It purchased UT’s licensing rights so it could use UT logos and sell itself to viewers as the Longhorn Network but I don’t think it is “acting on behalf of” the University of Texas. It exists to make a profit and thinks it has found a unique market in which to do so.
While the case you chose to present addresses the fact that UT can have it’s own network
I wouldn’t even go that far, as I don’t think NCAA v. Board of Regents prohibits UT from having its own television network. What the NCAA’s antitrust violating rule would have done is prevent ESPN from negotiating individually with Texas for any broadcasts of NCAA events. I think, under those circumstances, a LHN would never have been plausible.
it doesn’t have any baring on whether or not the NCAA can tell UT not to show high school games. If you have a case that says otherwise, I’m honestly interested in knowing about.
I am unaware of such a case. In fact, I’m pretty sure the NCAA can tell UT not to broadcast high school games, and can enforce that through sanctions. The NCAA places all sorts of restrictions on what its member schools can do, and maybe broadcasting high school football is the kind of restriction that would pass antitrust muster.
My point is that the NCAA can’t do anything to prevent ESPN from showing high school games, because ESPN isn’t a member of the NCAA and, in any event, high school football isn’t the NCAA’s prerogative. The NCAA can place limits on who it lets in and how its members behave, but it has no right to tell any non-members whether to broadcast high school games. The NCAA regulates collegiate sports, not high school sports.
We were kind of talking past each other on that.
I guess our primary difference – if I connected the dots correctly – is that I think that the direct relationship between UT and ESPN (the entire basis for the LHN’s existence in this iteration and which is uniquely singular in it’s scope, and coupled with the fact that the content is determined with a great deal of UT’s direction) is enough for the NCAA to be able to hold UT accountable, should ESPN in it’s capacity as the LHN, decide to broadcast high school games.
Re:
(the entire basis for the LHN’s existence in this iteration and which is uniquely singular in it’s scope, and coupled with the fact that the content is determined with a great deal of UT’s direction)
Is that true? My understanding is that LHN is run and operated exclusively by ESPN. What evidence is there that UT gets to do anything, let alone make content directions or determinations?
If UT does not have content control, in what respect is it, or should it, be responsible for what the LHN does? It can’t control ESPN, and has no right to do so.
Pretty thin difference
So the average viewer is not going to notice that ESPN is the legal owner. They will see LHN and that will be that. It is UT whether that is the intention or not. I don’t have a clue who OWNs the Big Ten network but when it showed up on my cable I pretty well figured it would be Big Ten content all the time. While there may be a legal disclaimer somewhere it will not be on the little channel box that says LHN with all UT programming.
Re:
What is the effect of all that? Is UT or ESPN responsible for what the average viewer notices? Can the NCAA sanction a program because of the way average viewers react? Could Tech be sanctioned if DTN readers concluded incorrectly that DTN was affiliated with Texas Tech in a particular way?
I think it all comes back to the nature of the relationship between UT and ESPN. If UT is doing something that the NCAA can sanction, it will be because UT is either a) actively in control over LHN, or b) is responsible for what happens on LHN in virtue of its partnership with ESPN. It won’t be because viewers feel a certain way about it, it won’t be merely because the LHN provides recruiting benefits.
I am skeptical that the partnership alone creates the kind of relationship that makes UT sanctionable for anything and everything the LHN does. Although the scope of the partnership is different from anything we’ve seen, partnerships between private entities and Universities are extremely common.
Question
If the NCAA takes no action regarding LHN’s fairly obvious plan to become a UT recruitment tool, how long will it take A&M and OU to start looking elsewhere? Where will that leave TT? Will we be able to weasel our way into the PAC ____(fill in the blank with appropriate #), when the time comes?
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats."
- H.L. Mencken
anywhere is looking ok with me
I would prefer to get into the PAC or ride the coattails of change and be roped into SEC somehow with OU and ATM (better chance of winning the lottery).
At this point I think I would be ok joining up in the Mountain West with OSU K-State & Kansas. Have a few matchups with Boise State.
I know most of you will hate this idea but since I live in Denver (which is no longer a Big-12-2 state I could still go see Tech play some games. Plus there would be an AQ spot open if the Big 12-2 goes down in flames.
-Wreck 'Em
as much as the MW sounds like a copout
It’s probably our best chance of making a BCS/NC game. That said, we’d have 2 or 3 “exciting” games per year instead of 4/5 in Pac 16 or EVERY game in SEC.
If the LHN is allowed to be a recruiting tool...
… where exactly could OU & A&M go to escape it’s effect? Bolting to another conference doesn’t necessarily change UT’s recruiting advantage at that point. They would only gain the exact same things they could have if they bolted last summer, which they all seemingly decided wasn’t worth it.
If A&M and OU bolt, UT’s fan interest WILL drop, they’ll lose their two “big money” conference games. Granted, neither will be on “The NUT”, but if fan interest wanes, then the buy-rate for the network will drop. As I noted previously, from a monetary standpoint, that means very little, but from a long-term viability standpoint, it means a LOT.
They could schedule anyone they want as an indy
Maybe land and even more interesting schedule nationally. Good news is we could still be in the mix, saw a post where a Texas fan plugged us in with their 4 rivalry games in a projected indy schedule. With Nebraska football fading, Texas benefits more from scheduling BYU or Notre Dame.
"What the hell did you do that for"... Tubs Mom
by raider realist on Jul 21, 2011 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
And don't think they won't still play OU and Aggie as and Indy.
"What the hell did you do that for"... Tubs Mom
by raider realist on Jul 21, 2011 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions
if (and it's a BIG if)
OU and A&M go to the SEC, I could totally see them dropping UT. OU could replace the RRR with a Dallas based game against A&M. (lower initial interest all around, but maintains the recruiting visibility in Texas) And the overall game schedule profile would shoot up due to SEC games. (Florida, ‘Bama, Tenn. etc) I don’t think OU or A&M would feel all the beholden to keeping UT’s SOS up and the fanbases wouldn’t be clamoring for another “tough” game if they’re playing an SEC slate.
Now, that’s not to say it’s impossible that they still play, especially A&M. OU I could see trying to build an Arkansas or A&M rivalry and being forced to schedule OSU, so no reason to slap UT on there too. But A&M would want to keep the traditional rivalry.
While I don’t think UT ever drops out of the top 5 brand names – and as a result OU and A&M don’t really resolve the recruiting issue by bolting – you do make a good point that echoes something I said earlier, which is that OU, A&M, Tech and OSU need to threaten very loudly that they will never play Texas again. I also noted that I don’t think some will have the balls – specifically OU, and likely A&M. Texas would have a very difficult time replacing those guys.
OU doesn't have the motivation to do that
Neither schools are going to seriously consider loosing the RRR , and frankly I don’t see what OU gains from moving to the SEC, Texas calls their bluff and we’re back where we started.
"What the hell did you do that for"... Tubs Mom
by raider realist on Jul 21, 2011 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Texas legislature to the rescue?
During the conference re-alignment crisis last year, I recall reading that the legislature had a very strong interest in keeping the Texas schools together. This is at least part of the reason that Baylor was included in the potential move of several schools to the PAC. Not saying they absolutely call the shots, but they do have strong influence and incentive to ensure that the Texas schools would be well placed in any future re-shuffling.
If you will remember...
the Texas legislature didn’t prevent the breakup of the SWC.
Around here football is bigger than the state of Texas!
by Distant Raider on Jul 21, 2011 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions
No, but Anne Richards & Bob Bullock ensured Tech & Baylor were included
God bless ’em.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
Who would ut play if they went independent?
Assuming all of the big 12-2 refuse to play them ut would have to play lesser schools like UH, UTSA, SMU, UNT. I think they wouldn’t go independent just because it would be to tough for them to fill out a respectable schedule
See above,
OU still plays Texas if they go Indy, A$M too.
"What the hell did you do that for"... Tubs Mom
by raider realist on Jul 21, 2011 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Scheduling issues?
Maybe. If it was a no-brainer, UT would already be independent in my opinion. But, being responsible for your entire schedule has its challenges. They could not be sure that their historical rivalries would continue or that their other former B12 foes would want to continue playing them.
On the flip side, while it may be pleasant to imagine the other B12 teams exhibiting some testicular fortitude and boycotting UT, I suspect the almighty dollar would win out in the end. At the least, I see no reason OU would stop scheduling UT. They have faced each other many more times as non-conference, rather than conference, opponents.
Other sports
I would think that ut’s other sports would find it more difficult to find a competitive conference that would want them if football went indy. ut basketball is only a small draw compared to their football program and with them pissing off the entire big 12-2 i would imagine no one would be to happy with those sports joining whichever conference everyone ends up in.
Well it's a dang good thing I just got season tickets
Won’t have to worry how I’ll be watching at least half of the games.
dang
to much reading for me im out.
Whoever said, 'It's not whether you win or lose that counts,' probably lost.
Well, dog gone it this is what I think !!!
I think…
I think…
Well, dunno, this is more than I can get my arms arounds….Austin, all of it, the university, the legislature, governor’s office, all just needs to evaporate…..
We will convene at Washington-on-the-Brazos in 3 weeks !!
Living large in Texas...Texas forever.
Much ado about noting, don't you think?
No matter if we are in the Big 12-2 (-3 with UT’s NUT) or in another conference, or independent, we still must recruit against UT, A&M, OU, etc. UT will always sign at least double the big-star recruits we even get some interest from, much less sign. So, the will not change, network or not. What we need to do (Tech, that is) is just go out and play over our heads as usual and pull out some wins many never thought we would get. Because Tech has finally gained the attention of a greater number of top players than they ever have, not only in Texas but across the country, playing aboved our heads should not be quite as hard as before, if (BIG IF) those top athletes play as hard as those lower caliber athletes we supposedly signed in the past. Just “Git’er done!”
TTpilk
"Never, never, never give up." Winston Churchill
Big 10 teams pull in $20 million a year from the Big 10 Network
If the Big 12 -3 doen’t step up & create a network of its own none of the schools will be competitive in the brave new world of college football finance.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
Clarification
I don’t mean to insinuate that Ut’s network is nothing, since it is obviously relevant enough to garner great interest here and at other sites, specifically Big-12 schools’ related sites. My point is just that they have led th erecruiting wars in the Big-12 and old SWC for a long time and their network, while certainly providing unequal leverage anew, will not change their position in recruiting, only enhance it….big time. I don’t like it and I hope neither does the NCAA.
TTpilk
"Never, never, never give up." Winston Churchill
To me, the recruiting is merely a point to bitch about, the problem is not (and IMO, has never been) that this will make Texas recruiting hold a significant advantage over us. The PROBLEM (for Texas Tech) is this puts us one step closer to having no chair when the music stops. I FULLY believe that Texas will hop conferences OR go indy (whether because A&M/OU blow up the conference, or because the dollar signs say it works), and when that happens we are now in a weaker position. We need to either make ourselves a big fish in a small pond (like the MWC) so we can pull a TCU, or we need to do everything we can to make ourselves the clear PAC-# choice for the state of Texas. Because otherwise, when Texas figures out what they’re doing, we’re gonna be left to rally Houston, Baylor and UTEP for some shameful wisp of a conference.
And now we have an even 100
If you're talking to Coach Rainman, whatever you do don't bring up the subject of weather.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Double-T Nation
Related FanShots on Double-T Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
