Rivals: Utah gives notice to MWC
- Thread starter InterestedObserver
- Start date
Horned Frog Country
Overachieving Frog Hero
The reality of the situation is that BYU has a much bigger fan following than Utah. It would surprise me if the Utah government would approve of Utah going to BCS conference without BYU going to one as well.
Delmonico
Semi-Omnipotent Being
QUOTE(The Main @ Jun 15 2010, 10:17 AM) [snapback]579579[/snapback]
so i guess larry scott's visit to utah the other day was just a coincedence?
Proabably not - but that was at a time when Scott was looking for a new #16, not a new #12. With 12, they'd need someone who can carry their own weight revenue-wise. Not so much at 16. Utah's not a sure thing to go to the Pac, though it could still happen.
so i guess larry scott's visit to utah the other day was just a coincedence?
Proabably not - but that was at a time when Scott was looking for a new #16, not a new #12. With 12, they'd need someone who can carry their own weight revenue-wise. Not so much at 16. Utah's not a sure thing to go to the Pac, though it could still happen.
Get Your Frogs Up
Full Member
QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 15 2010, 10:11 AM) [snapback]579570[/snapback]
I suspect VERY since they were so queit throughout the process, but I was surprised to read this morning that most think the new B12 tv deal is with FS, not ESPN (though niether makes sense in my mind)
If what is out there can be believed I think ESPN makes sense, but Fox is a little harder to understand to me.
I suspect VERY since they were so queit throughout the process, but I was surprised to read this morning that most think the new B12 tv deal is with FS, not ESPN (though niether makes sense in my mind)
If what is out there can be believed I think ESPN makes sense, but Fox is a little harder to understand to me.
Delmonico
Semi-Omnipotent Being
QUOTE(Get Your Frogs Up @ Jun 15 2010, 10:33 AM) [snapback]579614[/snapback]
If what is out there can be believed I think ESPN makes sense, but Fox is a little harder to understand to me.
Fox makes more sense to me. They own the current contract, its expires next year (the ESPN deal is a secondary one and expires in 2016), and as Chip Brown inadvertently let slip on Galloway yesterday, they felt like they couldn't afford to let that much inventory slip away. So, like ESPN with the ACC, it appears they are willing to overpay to keep what they've got.
If what is out there can be believed I think ESPN makes sense, but Fox is a little harder to understand to me.
Fox makes more sense to me. They own the current contract, its expires next year (the ESPN deal is a secondary one and expires in 2016), and as Chip Brown inadvertently let slip on Galloway yesterday, they felt like they couldn't afford to let that much inventory slip away. So, like ESPN with the ACC, it appears they are willing to overpay to keep what they've got.
Get Your Frogs Up
Full Member
QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 15 2010, 10:35 AM) [snapback]579618[/snapback]
Fox makes more sense to me. They own the current contract, its expires next year (the ESPN deal is a secondary one and expires in 2016), and as Chip Brown inadvertently let slip on Galloway yesterday, they felt like they couldn't afford to let that much inventory slip away. So, like ESPN with the ACC, it appears they are willing to overpay to keep what they've got.
It's all speculation, but I read an article talking about how Fox was likely to be the primary network for the new PAC-16 (since they are already heavily involved in both the PAC 10 and Big 12, and Rupert has a big presence on the west coast), which would have given them college football market dominance in 2 of the 4 primary U.S. time zones and a large chunk of the the central time zone with the Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools. And, this wouldn't just be the ancillary games currently shown on FSN, but the national type games shown on ABC. The article suggested that ESPN paid a premium to prevent Fox from grabbing a large foothold in games of national interst.
To me, Fox would have benefited by letting Texas trim the fat from the Big 12 and move the marketable teams to the PAC-16, whereby Fox could just sign one deal with the PAC-16. If it is Fox, then they just re-upped with the Big 12-2 and paid a premium for one game per year (UT v. OU) that people actually care about in order to continue to show crap games in the midwest that no one cares about (outside of that sparsely populated region). I just don't get that because they would have gotten a lot of the noteworthy PAC 16 games if they would have encouraged the expansion without a significant reduction in inventory of the crappy games they currently show (that inventory would actually improve in quality with the expansion in my opinion).
I know you are on top of this stuff and I have started to tune all of this out and am not paying as close of attention to the articles coming out, so I am just passing along the little I have read and am not trying argue any particular theory or point. If there is something out there definitively talking about this I would be interested in learning about it.
Fox makes more sense to me. They own the current contract, its expires next year (the ESPN deal is a secondary one and expires in 2016), and as Chip Brown inadvertently let slip on Galloway yesterday, they felt like they couldn't afford to let that much inventory slip away. So, like ESPN with the ACC, it appears they are willing to overpay to keep what they've got.
It's all speculation, but I read an article talking about how Fox was likely to be the primary network for the new PAC-16 (since they are already heavily involved in both the PAC 10 and Big 12, and Rupert has a big presence on the west coast), which would have given them college football market dominance in 2 of the 4 primary U.S. time zones and a large chunk of the the central time zone with the Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools. And, this wouldn't just be the ancillary games currently shown on FSN, but the national type games shown on ABC. The article suggested that ESPN paid a premium to prevent Fox from grabbing a large foothold in games of national interst.
To me, Fox would have benefited by letting Texas trim the fat from the Big 12 and move the marketable teams to the PAC-16, whereby Fox could just sign one deal with the PAC-16. If it is Fox, then they just re-upped with the Big 12-2 and paid a premium for one game per year (UT v. OU) that people actually care about in order to continue to show crap games in the midwest that no one cares about (outside of that sparsely populated region). I just don't get that because they would have gotten a lot of the noteworthy PAC 16 games if they would have encouraged the expansion without a significant reduction in inventory of the crappy games they currently show (that inventory would actually improve in quality with the expansion in my opinion).
I know you are on top of this stuff and I have started to tune all of this out and am not paying as close of attention to the articles coming out, so I am just passing along the little I have read and am not trying argue any particular theory or point. If there is something out there definitively talking about this I would be interested in learning about it.
EastCoastFrog
New Member
When I looked at the Flight Tracker link it looked like the Pac-10 commissioner was in SLC for about three hours or more. It was something like 9:30am to 1:06 pm (can't remember exactly). That would give him the same amount of time that he spent with all the Texas and Oklahoma schools.
Doesn't mean that Utah is leaving, but it seems for certain that he had the time to talk with them in person.
Doesn't mean that Utah is leaving, but it seems for certain that he had the time to talk with them in person.
