Baylor's lobbyist and regents hard at work calling lawmakers
- Thread starter Buck
- Start date
QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 8 2010, 08:39 AM) [snapback]571215[/snapback]
Early reports are their lobbying efforts aren't getting very far.
And that's a damn shame.......
If the lobbying effort doesn't pan out, and I'm not sure it will, the Baylor / Colorado decision will likely come down to A) How much credence the Pac-10 gives to UT's wishes, and B) Does UT prefer more TV viewers (CU), which would likely mean more $$, or being able to exert more control within the conference (Baylor), which might mean they could work a favorable revenue-sharing deal.
Early reports are their lobbying efforts aren't getting very far.
And that's a damn shame.......
If the lobbying effort doesn't pan out, and I'm not sure it will, the Baylor / Colorado decision will likely come down to A) How much credence the Pac-10 gives to UT's wishes, and B) Does UT prefer more TV viewers (CU), which would likely mean more $$, or being able to exert more control within the conference (Baylor), which might mean they could work a favorable revenue-sharing deal.
jack the frog
Full Member
QUOTE(Big Frog II @ Jun 8 2010, 09:20 AM) [snapback]571253[/snapback]
Then we need to make sure Mark Shelton is a one-term representative.
I do not live in the district but I hope this guy is receiving emails from Ft Worth Frogs telling him what they think.....
Then we need to make sure Mark Shelton is a one-term representative.
I do not live in the district but I hope this guy is receiving emails from Ft Worth Frogs telling him what they think.....
gdu
Active Member
QUOTE(Daniel @ Jun 8 2010, 04:13 PM) [snapback]571421[/snapback]
If the lobbying effort doesn't pan out, and I'm not sure it will, the Baylor / Colorado decision will likely come down to A) How much credence the Pac-10 gives to UT's wishes, and B) Does UT prefer more TV viewers (CU), which would likely mean more $$, or being able to exert more control within the conference (Baylor), which might mean they could work a favorable revenue-sharing deal.
control. The tv $ CU brings won't be a whole lot over the deal the PacXX could get with Baylor instead.
If the lobbying effort doesn't pan out, and I'm not sure it will, the Baylor / Colorado decision will likely come down to A) How much credence the Pac-10 gives to UT's wishes, and B) Does UT prefer more TV viewers (CU), which would likely mean more $$, or being able to exert more control within the conference (Baylor), which might mean they could work a favorable revenue-sharing deal.
control. The tv $ CU brings won't be a whole lot over the deal the PacXX could get with Baylor instead.
froginaustin
Active Member
QUOTE(Buck @ Jun 8 2010, 07:47 AM) [snapback]571164[/snapback]
. . .
I don't see California schools lining up with Baylor's right-wing ideology.
The Arizona schools are most definitely right wing, or at least their student bodies are.
In a PAC16, the Az schools are matched with the old B12 South. The Pacific coast schools can march to their own drummer, and each play 1 or maybe 2 crossover games per year against the unwashed. Will the Cali schools care whether or not Baylor has students with majors in Intelligent Design and minors in Bible-thumping?
. . .
I don't see California schools lining up with Baylor's right-wing ideology.
The Arizona schools are most definitely right wing, or at least their student bodies are.
In a PAC16, the Az schools are matched with the old B12 South. The Pacific coast schools can march to their own drummer, and each play 1 or maybe 2 crossover games per year against the unwashed. Will the Cali schools care whether or not Baylor has students with majors in Intelligent Design and minors in Bible-thumping?
QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 8 2010, 11:15 AM) [snapback]571425[/snapback]
control. The tv $ CU brings won't be a whole lot over the deal the PacXX could get with Baylor instead.
Normally, I'd whole-heartedly agree with this, but ASSUMING that UT entertains the Pac-10 invite, it would likely be because of a Nebraska move to the Big-10. If Nebraska leaves, UT could still sit pat in the Big XII with a huge amount of control, but less potential TV revenue for the upcoming contracts. If they choose to forego a restructured Big XII, then there must be some sort of behind-the-scenes balancing act going on between control & TV revenue. That's why I'm not really sure (in this case) that the tried and true logic regarding UT will hold.
control. The tv $ CU brings won't be a whole lot over the deal the PacXX could get with Baylor instead.
Normally, I'd whole-heartedly agree with this, but ASSUMING that UT entertains the Pac-10 invite, it would likely be because of a Nebraska move to the Big-10. If Nebraska leaves, UT could still sit pat in the Big XII with a huge amount of control, but less potential TV revenue for the upcoming contracts. If they choose to forego a restructured Big XII, then there must be some sort of behind-the-scenes balancing act going on between control & TV revenue. That's why I'm not really sure (in this case) that the tried and true logic regarding UT will hold.
gdu
Active Member
QUOTE(Daniel @ Jun 8 2010, 04:27 PM) [snapback]571450[/snapback]
Normally, I'd whole-heartedly agree with this, but ASSUMING that UT entertains the Pac-10 invite, it would likely be because of a Nebraska move to the Big-10. If Nebraska leaves, UT could still sit pat in the Big XII with a huge amount of control, but less potential TV revenue for the upcoming contracts. If they choose to forego a restructured Big XII, then there must be some sort of behind-the-scenes balancing act going on between control & TV revenue. That's why I'm not really sure (in this case) that the tried and true logic regarding UT will hold.
Pac10 renegotiates tv deal after this season. B12 does for Fox, but not ESPN/ABC for awhile. That is the big $ difference.
Normally, I'd whole-heartedly agree with this, but ASSUMING that UT entertains the Pac-10 invite, it would likely be because of a Nebraska move to the Big-10. If Nebraska leaves, UT could still sit pat in the Big XII with a huge amount of control, but less potential TV revenue for the upcoming contracts. If they choose to forego a restructured Big XII, then there must be some sort of behind-the-scenes balancing act going on between control & TV revenue. That's why I'm not really sure (in this case) that the tried and true logic regarding UT will hold.
Pac10 renegotiates tv deal after this season. B12 does for Fox, but not ESPN/ABC for awhile. That is the big $ difference.
West Coast Johnny
Full Member
Yea, the Lobbyists and regents I'm sure are hard at work.
But not as hard at work as Ken Starr and his spin doctors. My thoughts are that most of the discussion regarding Baylor to the Pac 10 has been the result of a PR campaign and little else. Remember, Ken Starr is a republican political pitt-bull hack that uses the media to create his own private reality. I can't wait to see the poster of Starr posing in a flight suit underneith a "Pac 10 - Mission Accomplished" banner. He's a political Briles, spin doctor, and has created a fantasy land in the papers where USC will be playing conference games in Waco.
But not as hard at work as Ken Starr and his spin doctors. My thoughts are that most of the discussion regarding Baylor to the Pac 10 has been the result of a PR campaign and little else. Remember, Ken Starr is a republican political pitt-bull hack that uses the media to create his own private reality. I can't wait to see the poster of Starr posing in a flight suit underneith a "Pac 10 - Mission Accomplished" banner. He's a political Briles, spin doctor, and has created a fantasy land in the papers where USC will be playing conference games in Waco.
froginaustin
Active Member
QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 8 2010, 11:38 AM) [snapback]571460[/snapback]
Pac10 renegotiates tv deal after this season. B12 does for Fox, but not ESPN/ABC for awhile. That is the big $ difference.
Might ESPN/ABC renegotiate early, to avoid losing their B12 content to the PAC television partner(s)?
Pac10 renegotiates tv deal after this season. B12 does for Fox, but not ESPN/ABC for awhile. That is the big $ difference.
Might ESPN/ABC renegotiate early, to avoid losing their B12 content to the PAC television partner(s)?
HFrog1999
Member
QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 8 2010, 11:09 AM) [snapback]571417[/snapback]
so this would make us 0 for 2.
I wouldn't say that. We're in a good place right now. I don't have any hurt feelings on not being in the Pac-16 discussion. I would rather strengthen the MWC than have some lobbyists in Austin begging for us to ride UT's coattails. This just hightlights how far ahead of Baylor TCU is. We don't need to beg for special favors from daddy UT like Baylor does.
so this would make us 0 for 2.
I wouldn't say that. We're in a good place right now. I don't have any hurt feelings on not being in the Pac-16 discussion. I would rather strengthen the MWC than have some lobbyists in Austin begging for us to ride UT's coattails. This just hightlights how far ahead of Baylor TCU is. We don't need to beg for special favors from daddy UT like Baylor does.
Delmonico
Semi-Omnipotent Being
QUOTE(froginaustin @ Jun 8 2010, 12:15 PM) [snapback]571513[/snapback]
Might ESPN/ABC renegotiate early, to avoid losing their B12 content to the PAC television partner(s)?
Doubtful - either way ESPN is mostly likely going to have a piece of the action. Heck, without the Big 12 they'd probably be inclined to make a big push to get the whole Pac 16 package.
Might ESPN/ABC renegotiate early, to avoid losing their B12 content to the PAC television partner(s)?
Doubtful - either way ESPN is mostly likely going to have a piece of the action. Heck, without the Big 12 they'd probably be inclined to make a big push to get the whole Pac 16 package.
gdu
Active Member
QUOTE(froginaustin @ Jun 8 2010, 05:15 PM) [snapback]571513[/snapback]
Might ESPN/ABC renegotiate early, to avoid losing their B12 content to the PAC television partner(s)?
Unlikely. They may have to renegotitate with other conferences as is and they have already spent some serious cash on CFB programming.
Might ESPN/ABC renegotiate early, to avoid losing their B12 content to the PAC television partner(s)?
Unlikely. They may have to renegotitate with other conferences as is and they have already spent some serious cash on CFB programming.
gdu
Active Member
QUOTE(HFrog1999 @ Jun 8 2010, 05:17 PM) [snapback]571514[/snapback]
I wouldn't say that. We're in a good place right now. I don't have any hurt feelings on not being in the Pac-16 discussion. I would rather strengthen the MWC than have some lobbyists in Austin begging for us to ride UT's coattails. This just hightlights how far ahead of Baylor TCU is. We don't need to beg for special favors from daddy UT like Baylor does.
So...still 0 for 2...
I wouldn't say that. We're in a good place right now. I don't have any hurt feelings on not being in the Pac-16 discussion. I would rather strengthen the MWC than have some lobbyists in Austin begging for us to ride UT's coattails. This just hightlights how far ahead of Baylor TCU is. We don't need to beg for special favors from daddy UT like Baylor does.
So...still 0 for 2...
angelo's frog
Active Member
QUOTE(Big Frog II @ Jun 8 2010, 09:20 AM) [snapback]571253[/snapback]
Then we need to make sure Mark Shelton is a one-term representative.
Vote for McFroggin!!!
Then we need to make sure Mark Shelton is a one-term representative.
Vote for McFroggin!!!
Latest posts
-
Frogs Advance to Third Straight NCEA Semifinal (GoFrogs - Equestrian)
- Latest: Endless Purple
-
-
