For the issues "on the Big 12 table -- a football title game, possible expansion and creation of a TV network -- Texas remains an influential voice in the room," but school President Greg Fenves and interim AD Mike Perrin are "keeping their opinions close to the vest," according to Chuck Carlton of the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. By this time in the process, people "would have known exactly" where former President Bill Powers and AD DeLoss Dodds "stood." UT officials still view the Longhorn Network "as a huge plus providing exposure to athletics and the campus." Coming up with a Big 12 network model that "can reimburse Texas is probably going to require some heavy lifting" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 5/15). Oklahoma President David Boren said that the school "remains committed to the Big 12" regardless of what happens. He said, "We’re a member of the Big 12. We don’t plan on going anywhere. ... We want to help strengthen this (conference) whatever way" (USA TODAY, 5/14). In Austin, Cedric Golden wrote the LHN "hasn’t been the greatest thing to happen to the Big 12." It "benefits only one school," and "some say it’s the reason the conference lost Texas A&M, Nebraska and Missouri." The LHN is "not as profitable as ESPN envisioned years ago, but it will be an absolute shock" if UT shuts down its "ultimate cash cow for the perceived greater good" (AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, 5/16).
TV TIMEOUT: In Iowa, Bobby La Gesse noted Boren "backtracked this week on expansion talk," and he may "find himself doing the same thing about a Big 12 Network in the future." The debate on if the Big 12 needs a TV network "is interesting, but the reality is it takes a backseat to Big 12 politics, otherwise known as Texas." As with "seemingly everything in college sports, this comes down to the money." As of now, the money to make a Big 12 channel work "isn’t there." If the Big 12 should start its own TV channel is "a more interesting discussion." Starting a TV station in '16 "isn’t the best proposition." The current Big 12 TV deal runs through '25, which is "a long ways off." By then streaming "could be the best option through a provider or directly from the conference." Not being "tethered to a conference TV channel could be advantageous to the Big 12" (AMES TRIBUNE, 5/15). In Utah, Dick Harmon writes the Big 12 and other Power Five conferences "might want to tread lightly when it comes to future TV contracts." The viewing audience and how it pays for sports programming "is evolving at an incredible rate." Younger viewers are "simply saying no to $180 to $200 bills for bundled cable programming." BYUtv was "wise to build its programming model to include streaming devices like Roku and others" (DESERET NEWS, 5/17).
GO STATE: In K.C., Kellis Robinett notes Kansas State AD John Currie "doesn't think a conference network is essential." Every Big 12 game in football and men’s basketball is "currently broadcast on ESPN or Fox channels, and there is value in that exposure." Currie: "The first coach that complains about not having a network is going to be the first person to complain when X percentage of his games are on the network instead of being on ESPN or Fox. K-State has benefited enormously from having all of our games on ESPN and Fox ... instead of having five or six games on a network that not that many people see" (K.C. STAR, 5/17). Iowa State AD Jamie Pollard said, "In order to have a network you have to have a lot of inventory, and in order to have a lot of inventory then you’d have to presumably expand and ... it’s a full circle, you come back to, 'Is expansion in the best long-term interest of the conference?'" In Iowa, Travis Hines notes the Big 12's current position "has also allowed ISU to launch its own TV channel in the state of Iowa, Cyclones.tv, on Mediacom cable systems, as well as online." Pollard: "I would say that’s contributed to our rise in attendance and donations and revenues because we’ve been able to do what we’ve needed to do, which is get exposure in the state of Iowa for those factors. You have to weigh those factors against what’s the long-term best financial interests for the 10 members and the league" (AMES TRIBUNE, 5/17).
MISSED OPPORTUNITY? The Oklahoman's Berry Tramel said of the lack of a Big 12 network, "If you want to blame somebody you can blame Oklahoma. Because [former Big 12 Commissioner] Kevin Weiberg, almost 12 years ago, tried to put a Big 12 network together and he needed nine votes and he only got eight. The four he didn't get were the big boys -- OU, Texas, A&M, Nebraska. ... The Sooners were the ones who said, hey, we want the freedom to do our own network. What those schools didn't realize -- OU, Nebraska and A&M -- what they didn't realize the marketing power of Texas, that ESPN would give them such a bonanza" ("Ballzy Podcast," DALLASNEWS.com, 5/16).
COASTAL LIVING: In Pittsburgh, Craig Meyer wrote to Clemson AD Dan Radakovich and others, there is a "sense of urgency to get an ACC network up and running" (PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 5/15). In Virginia, David Teel wrote daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly updates on a potential dedicated channel for ACC sports "would benefit neither the conference nor television partner ESPN, though they might ease fan angst." The modern media landscape "is beyond fluid, and complex, prolonged negotiations on how best to televise a league at its competitive and demographic peak, and for what price, are best conducted in confidence." Yet for all of ACC Commissioner John Swofford’s "polite camouflaging, the answer seems clear: The ACC and ESPN eventually will team on a new, more lucrative model for presenting the conference’s events." Either that, or Swofford is "among the planet’s worst poker players and managers of expectations" (Hampton Roads DAILY PRESS, 5/16).
